Welcome to The Valve

Valve Links

The Front Page
Statement of Purpose

John Holbo - Editor
Scott Eric Kaufman - Editor
Aaron Bady
Adam Roberts
Amardeep Singh
Andrew Seal
Bill Benzon
Daniel Green
Jonathan Goodwin
Joseph Kugelmass
Lawrence LaRiviere White
Marc Bousquet
Matt Greenfield
Miriam Burstein
Ray Davis
Rohan Maitzen
Sean McCann
Guest Authors

Laura Carroll
Mark Bauerlein
Miriam Jones

Past Valve Book Events

cover of the book Theory's Empire

Event Archive

cover of the book The Literary Wittgenstein

Event Archive

cover of the book Graphs, Maps, Trees

Event Archive

cover of the book How Novels Think

Event Archive

cover of the book The Trouble With Diversity

Event Archive

cover of the book What's Liberal About the Liberal Arts?

Event Archive

cover of the book The Novel of Purpose

Event Archive

The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Happy Trails to You

What’s an Encyclopedia These Days?

Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Intimate Enemies: What’s Opera, Doc?

Alphonso Lingis talks of various things, cameras and photos among them

Feynmann, John von Neumann, and Mental Models

Support Michael Sporn’s Film about Edgar Allen Poe

Philosophy, Ontics or Toothpaste for the Mind

Nazi Rules for Regulating Funk ‘n Freedom

The Early History of Modern Computing: A Brief Chronology

Computing Encounters Being, an Addendum

On the Origin of Objects (towards a philosophy of computation)

Symposium on Graeber’s Debt

The Nightmare of Digital Film Preservation

Richard Petti on Occupy Wall Street: America HAS a Ruling Class

Bill Benzon on Whatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhatwhat?

Nick J. on The Valve - Closed For Renovation

Bill Benzon on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Norma on Encyclopedia Britannica to Shut Down Print Operations

Bill Benzon on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

john balwit on What’s an Object, Metaphysically Speaking?

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on That Shakespeare Thing

William Ray on That Shakespeare Thing

JoseAngel on That Shakespeare Thing

Bill Benzon on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Bill Benzon on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on A Dirty Dozen Sneaking up on the Apocalypse

JoseAngel on Objects and Graeber's Debt

Advanced Search

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom

RSS 1.0 | RSS 2.0 | Atom


Powered by Expression Engine
Logo by John Holbo

Creative Commons Licence
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License.



About Last Night
Academic Splat
Amardeep Singh
Bemsha Swing
Bitch. Ph.D.
Blogging the Renaissance
Butterflies & Wheels
Cahiers de Corey
Category D
Charlotte Street
Cheeky Prof
Chekhov’s Mistress
Chrononautic Log
Cogito, ergo Zoom
Collected Miscellany
Completely Futile
Confessions of an Idiosyncratic Mind
Conversational Reading
Critical Mass
Crooked Timber
Culture Cat
Culture Industry
Early Modern Notes
Easily Distracted
fait accompi
Ferule & Fescue
Ghost in the Wire
Giornale Nuovo
God of the Machine
Golden Rule Jones
Grumpy Old Bookman
Ideas of Imperfection
In Favor of Thinking
In Medias Res
Inside Higher Ed
jane dark’s sugarhigh!
John & Belle Have A Blog
John Crowley
Jonathan Goodwin
Kathryn Cramer
Languor Management
Light Reading
Like Anna Karina’s Sweater
Lime Tree
Limited Inc.
Long Pauses
Long Story, Short Pier
Long Sunday
Making Light
Maud Newton
Michael Berube
Motime Like the Present
Narrow Shore
Neil Gaiman
Old Hag
Open University
Pas au-delà
Planned Obsolescence
Quick Study
Rake’s Progress
Reader of depressing books
Reading Room
Reassigned Time
Reeling and Writhing
Return of the Reluctant
Say Something Wonderful
Shaken & Stirred
Silliman’s Blog
Slaves of Academe
Sorrow at Sills Bend
Sounds & Fury
Stochastic Bookmark
Tenured Radical
the Diaries of Franz Kafka
The Elegant Variation
The Home and the World
The Intersection
The Litblog Co-Op
The Literary Saloon
The Literary Thug
The Little Professor
The Midnight Bell
The Mumpsimus
The Pinocchio Theory
The Reading Experience
The Salt-Box
The Weblog
This Public Address
This Space: The Fire’s Blog
Thoughts, Arguments & Rants
Tingle Alley
University Diaries
Unqualified Offerings
What Now?
William Gibson

Friday, May 29, 2009

What I can (and can’t) say about Jenny Davidson’s Breeding.

Posted by Scott Eric Kaufman on 05/29/09 at 08:34 PM

They say that when you’re writing a dissertation, every cultural artifact you consume because grist in its conceptual mill—and they are correct.  Because when you’re writing a dissertation, everything seems relevant.  So even though I’m courting cliché by saying it, I’m going to say it anyway: everything in Jenny Davidson’s Breeding seems relevant to my research.  Why? 

Because it is

For those who only know me as the guy who does those posts on film and comic pedagogical strategies, behold my credentials.  Why am I talking about myself instead of Jenny’s book?  Because understanding my one quibble with her argument requires you understand something of mine. 

The short—and I mean it—version is that non-Darwinian theories of evolutionary and social development survived in and were desseminated by works of literature irrespective of their status in the scientific community.  You can see why I might consider Jenny’s book (published by Columbia University Press) a prequel to my dissertation (available for download via a database very few people can access).  Given that my dissertation focuses on these debates raged ninety-five years after Jenny’s century ended, I’m not really qualified to speak to—much less certify—the validity of her evidence.  But to address John’s concerns, I can say that every time she recounts a theory or debate I’m familiar with, she does so in a way no charitable reader would find fault with. 

That’s not to say that I always agree with her, if only because she often suggests points I want forcefully asserted.  Her reluctance to do so may merely be rhetorical: in a book that lets primary works speak for themselves, forceful assertion might not seem simply out of place, it could result in the casting of suspicion on the curiously adament claim.  For example, she concludes her discussion on resemblance in Elizabeth Inchbald’s A Simple Story by claiming:

When the old problems [relating to the heredity basis of resemblance] resurface late in the nineteenth century, most scientists are ignorant of the earlier theories: Thomas Huxley is an exception, as are a few others, but Darwin knew little of nothing of the seventeenth- and eighteenth century controversies alluded to here.  Literary texts, though, retained a palimpsest of these arguments, providing one means by which Darwin and others could gain access to the knowledge of earlier generations. (36)

This would be the weak version of an argument whose strong version would look something like this: given that Jenny earlier indicated that Darwin read Inchbald’s A Simple Story alongside Jane Austen’s Sense and Sensibility and Mansfield Park in 1840, why not try and verify whether Darwin recognized the palimpsest as such and took something from it?  Because a quick search of his notebooks reveals there might be something to it.

In 1840, Darwin was writing “Old & Useless notes about the moral sense & some metaphysical points.” It contains notes on books like Louis-Aimé Martin’s De l’éducation des mères de famille (1837) like “I suspect conscience, an heredetary [sic] compound passion, like avarice” (601), which in essence means Darwin was investigating whether greedy children resembled their greedy mothers.  It stands to reason that Austen might have something to say about that. 

But I would say that.  Eighty percent of my dissertation involves sussing out just those sorts of connections: the lines of argumentation—some acknolwedged, most not due to the arguer being unaware of their continued influence on his or her thought—that persist, despite scientific progress, largely on account of their presence in popular literary culture.  In short, my complaint is that Jenny didn’t write the book I would have written, which as complaints go is fairly universal.  But to return to John’s qualm, the fact that the claim she suggested might bear fruit seems like it will indicates that our trust in her is not misplaced.  Whether this is because the discipline has done it job—rewarded a scholar whose knowledge of the field is such that her suppositions are more likely to bear out than not—I can’t say. 


Well, the short answer is that academic publishers routinely demand that scholars cut down their footnotes and supporting evidence, to bring down the expense of producing all those pages of tiny, unreadable print.  (Though frankly, those are the most useful portions of most academic books)

The more reflective answer would hold that as long as you and I are finding the generalizations valid (and I have), then the evidence is sufficient for its purpose.  I haven’t found an instance where I felt that a context or a work was being caricatured or misrepresented in some way, so I think she’s doing very well with a book of this scope.  The job of testing and extending those parameters will really come when others attempt to use her book for their own research.

By dave mazella on 05/30/09 at 12:30 PM | Permanent link to this comment

Add a comment:



Remember my personal information

Notify me of follow-up comments?

Please enter the word you see in the image below: