http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/ Out of the crooked timber of humanity, no straight thing was ever made Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:07:34 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35007 Michael Harold Tue, 20 Jul 2004 18:41:46 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35007 Having read both the article and the comments, I feel I deserve a cookie. The MLA critic doeth protest too much, methinks. Forget about politics for a moment. A lot of wonderful things have come out of English departments and English professors: transformational grammars (have had a huge impact on the scientific and computing communities), "Herzog" (a book about, if not by, a liberal arts professor that actually made money), and millions of hours of English grammar and composition classes (the interlingua of global capitalism itself, whatever that means). Having read both the article and the comments, I feel I deserve a cookie. The MLA critic doeth protest too much, methinks. Forget about politics for a moment. A lot of wonderful things have come out of English departments and English professors: transformational grammars (have had a huge impact on the scientific and computing communities), “Herzog” (a book about, if not by, a liberal arts professor that actually made money), and millions of hours of English grammar and composition classes (the interlingua of global capitalism itself, whatever that means).

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35006 Norman Levitt Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:10:18 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35006 The trouble with G. Lewis-Kraus's piece on the MLA is its shallow knowledge of recent history--since the mid-80's, say. Lewis-Kraus echoes the now-frequently-heard plea that the practitioners of esoteric literary theory and its offshoots constitute a hermetic community of initiates whose effusions are solely of interest to that community. Therefore, they have no real political effect. Consequently, that community ought to be immune from outside political pressure and interference, particularly when it comes from the political right. This view founders, however, on the fact that the "apolitical" stance of its proponents is a rather recent adaptation to an inimical political and intellectual climate. The same folks who now take this position only a few years ago proudly embraced the mission of bringing political wisdom to the masses and were unashamed to describe their teaching as a species of ideological evangelism. One might note, for instance, the defenders of Paul de Mann, at the time the posthumous scandal broke forth, were by and large strongly identified with certain brands of left-activism, and clearly viewed de Mann's theoretical hijinks not as an abstractly-worthy intellectual exercise divorced from political concerns, but rather as a very useful tool for delegitimizing capitalism, racism, the patriarchy, heteronormativity. and so forth. That the issue is now couched in terms of a supposedly insular and apolitical deconstructionist theory reflects little more than the fact that many of these same people are now running scared. But this does not mean that their basic political views or their sense of themselves as catalysts of political and social change has really changed. Note as well that the alarm is raised about"politicization" only when the pressure is from the presumed Right. About political pressure from the Left--the derisive term "PC" is hardly obsolete--little is said. A number of the scholars Lewis-Kraus cites for their rather sanctimonious praise of an academy insulated from crass politics have frequently been on the warpath against fellow-professors whose views or methods are deemed politically retrograde. The long clamor against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is one example. Another, briefer, episode, which I mention since Judith Butler was prominently involved, was the campaign against "Left conservatism," by which was meant left-wing political activism that disdains to be guided by postmodern rodomontade. Political posturing of the kind with which the MLA has frequently been charged may be a relatively unimportant matter--but that is because it has been laughably ineffectual in the real world, not because its practitioners have restricted their ambitions to impressing a tiny collegial in-group. Of course, it should go without saying that universities as a whole are in dire need of protection from the doctrinal bullying and outright rascality of the Bush-era Right. Scientists have come to recognize this even more than humanists. But this fact doesn't get the MLA Left-establishment off the hook for its arrogance, its sharp elbows, and its intolerance of those who don't hop aboard its wheezy bandwagon. Even accepting the honesty of the now-fashionable contention that literary studies and the like should be insulated from political programs and dicta, it is hardly clear that the postmodern extravaganza that has dominated the humanities, volume-wise, at least, in the last decade or so, should be the chief tenant of this ivory tower. The high-flyers of postmodernism, including a few that Lewis-Kraus praised along with those he damned, are nowhere near as bright as they think they are. The trouble with G. Lewis-Kraus’s piece on the MLA is its shallow knowledge of recent history—since the mid-80’s, say. Lewis-Kraus echoes the now-frequently-heard plea that the practitioners of esoteric literary theory and its offshoots constitute a hermetic community of initiates whose effusions are solely of interest to that community. Therefore, they have no real political effect. Consequently, that community ought to be immune from outside political pressure and interference, particularly when it comes from the political right. This view founders, however, on the fact that the “apolitical” stance of its proponents is a rather recent adaptation to an inimical political and intellectual climate. The same folks who now take this position only a few years ago proudly embraced the mission of bringing political wisdom to the masses and were unashamed to describe their teaching as a species of ideological evangelism. One might note, for instance, the defenders of Paul de Mann, at the time the posthumous scandal broke forth, were by and large strongly identified with certain brands of left-activism, and clearly viewed de Mann’s theoretical hijinks not as an abstractly-worthy intellectual exercise divorced from political concerns, but rather as a very useful tool for delegitimizing capitalism, racism, the patriarchy, heteronormativity. and so forth. That the issue is now couched in terms of a supposedly insular and apolitical deconstructionist theory reflects little more than the fact that many of these same people are now running scared. But this does not mean that their basic political views or their sense of themselves as catalysts of political and social change has really changed. Note as well that the alarm is raised about”politicization” only when the pressure is from the presumed Right. About political pressure from the Left—the derisive term “PC” is hardly obsolete—little is said. A number of the scholars Lewis-Kraus cites for their rather sanctimonious praise of an academy insulated from crass politics have frequently been on the warpath against fellow-professors whose views or methods are deemed politically retrograde. The long clamor against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is one example. Another, briefer, episode, which I mention since Judith Butler was prominently involved, was the campaign against “Left conservatism,” by which was meant left-wing political activism that disdains to be guided by postmodern rodomontade. Political posturing of the kind with which the MLA has frequently been charged may be a relatively unimportant matter—but that is because it has been laughably ineffectual in the real world, not because its practitioners have restricted their ambitions to impressing a tiny collegial in-group. Of course, it should go without saying that universities as a whole are in dire need of protection from the doctrinal bullying and outright rascality of the Bush-era Right. Scientists have come to recognize this even more than humanists. But this fact doesn’t get the MLA Left-establishment off the hook for its arrogance, its sharp elbows, and its intolerance of those who don’t hop aboard its wheezy bandwagon. Even accepting the honesty of the now-fashionable contention that literary studies and the like should be insulated from political programs and dicta, it is hardly clear that the postmodern extravaganza that has dominated the humanities, volume-wise, at least, in the last decade or so, should be the chief tenant of this ivory tower. The high-flyers of postmodernism, including a few that Lewis-Kraus praised along with those he damned, are nowhere near as bright as they think they are.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35005 Norman Levitt Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:08:28 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35005 The trouble with G. Lewis-Kraus's piece on the MLA is its shallow knowledge of recent history--since the mid-80's, say. Lewis-Kraus echoes the now-frequently-heard plea that the practitioners of esoteric literary theory and its offshoots constitute a hermetic community of initiates whose effusions are solely of interest to that community. Therefore, they have no real political effect. Consequently, that community ought to be immune from outside political pressure and interference, particularly when it comes from the political right. This view founders, however, on the fact that the "apolitical" stance of its proponents is a rather recent adaptation to an inimical political and intellectual climate. The same folks who now take this position only a few years ago proudly embraced the mission of bringing political wisdom to the masses and were unashamed to describe their teaching as a species of ideological evangelism. One might note, for instance, the defenders of Paul de Mann, at the time the posthumous scandal broke forth, were by and large strongly identified with certain brands of left-activism, and clearly viewed de Mann's theoretical hijinks not as an abstractly-worthy intellectual exercise divorced from political concerns, but rather as a very useful tool for delegitimizing capitalism, racism, the patriarchy, heteronormativity. and so forth. That the issue is now couched in terms of a supposedly insular and apolitical deconstructionist theory reflects little more than the fact that many of these same people are now running scared. But this does not mean that their basic political views or their sense of themselves as catalysts of political and social change has really changed. Note as well that the alarm is raised about"politicization" only when the pressure is from the presumed Right. About political pressure from the Left--the derisive term "PC" is hardly obsolete--little is said. A number of the scholars Lewis-Kraus cites for their rather sanctimonious praise of an academy insulated from crass politics have frequently been on the warpath against fellow-professors whose views or methods are deemed politically retrograde. The long clamor against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is one example. Another, briefer, episode, which I mention since Judith Butler was prominently involved, was the campaign against "Left conservatism," by which was meant left-wing political activism that disdains to be guided by postmodern rodomontade. Political posturing of the kind with which the MLA has frequently been charged may be a relatively unimportant matter--but that is because it has been laughably ineffectual in the real world, not because its practitioners have restricted their ambitions to impressing a tiny collegial in-group. Of course, it should go without saying that universities as a whole are in dire need of protection from the doctrinal bullying and outright rascality of the Bush-era Right. Scientists have come to recognize this even more than humanists. But this fact doesn't get the MLA Left-establishment off the hook for its arrogance, its sharp elbows, and its intolerance of those who don't hop aboard its wheezy bandwagon. Even accepting the honesty of the now-fashionable contention that literary studies and the like should be insulated from political programs and dicta, it is hardly clear that the postmodern extravaganza that has dominated the humanities, volume-wise, at least, in the last decade or so, should be the chief tenant of this ivory tower. The high-flyers of postmodernism, including a few that Lewis-Kraus praised along with those he damned, are nowhere near as bright as they think they are. The trouble with G. Lewis-Kraus’s piece on the MLA is its shallow knowledge of recent history—since the mid-80’s, say. Lewis-Kraus echoes the now-frequently-heard plea that the practitioners of esoteric literary theory and its offshoots constitute a hermetic community of initiates whose effusions are solely of interest to that community. Therefore, they have no real political effect. Consequently, that community ought to be immune from outside political pressure and interference, particularly when it comes from the political right. This view founders, however, on the fact that the “apolitical” stance of its proponents is a rather recent adaptation to an inimical political and intellectual climate. The same folks who now take this position only a few years ago proudly embraced the mission of bringing political wisdom to the masses and were unashamed to describe their teaching as a species of ideological evangelism. One might note, for instance, the defenders of Paul de Mann, at the time the posthumous scandal broke forth, were by and large strongly identified with certain brands of left-activism, and clearly viewed de Mann’s theoretical hijinks not as an abstractly-worthy intellectual exercise divorced from political concerns, but rather as a very useful tool for delegitimizing capitalism, racism, the patriarchy, heteronormativity. and so forth. That the issue is now couched in terms of a supposedly insular and apolitical deconstructionist theory reflects little more than the fact that many of these same people are now running scared. But this does not mean that their basic political views or their sense of themselves as catalysts of political and social change has really changed. Note as well that the alarm is raised about”politicization” only when the pressure is from the presumed Right. About political pressure from the Left—the derisive term “PC” is hardly obsolete—little is said. A number of the scholars Lewis-Kraus cites for their rather sanctimonious praise of an academy insulated from crass politics have frequently been on the warpath against fellow-professors whose views or methods are deemed politically retrograde. The long clamor against sociobiology and evolutionary psychology is one example. Another, briefer, episode, which I mention since Judith Butler was prominently involved, was the campaign against “Left conservatism,” by which was meant left-wing political activism that disdains to be guided by postmodern rodomontade. Political posturing of the kind with which the MLA has frequently been charged may be a relatively unimportant matter—but that is because it has been laughably ineffectual in the real world, not because its practitioners have restricted their ambitions to impressing a tiny collegial in-group. Of course, it should go without saying that universities as a whole are in dire need of protection from the doctrinal bullying and outright rascality of the Bush-era Right. Scientists have come to recognize this even more than humanists. But this fact doesn’t get the MLA Left-establishment off the hook for its arrogance, its sharp elbows, and its intolerance of those who don’t hop aboard its wheezy bandwagon. Even accepting the honesty of the now-fashionable contention that literary studies and the like should be insulated from political programs and dicta, it is hardly clear that the postmodern extravaganza that has dominated the humanities, volume-wise, at least, in the last decade or so, should be the chief tenant of this ivory tower. The high-flyers of postmodernism, including a few that Lewis-Kraus praised along with those he damned, are nowhere near as bright as they think they are.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35004 b. s. monkey Thu, 15 Jul 2004 19:02:45 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35004 "Ah, but then we’re talking about academics, and so fatuous and self-inflated are standards of the territory." don't be so mean. chun can't help it. “Ah, but then we’re talking about academics, and so fatuous and self-inflated are standards of the territory.” don’t be so mean. chun can’t help it.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35003 Chris Thu, 15 Jul 2004 18:54:10 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35003 "I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of novels, for instance, than with someone who had read a lot of car manuals." Is this to say that the reader of car manuals does not have to make moral decisions, or has no comprehension of the various issues to be weighed in making moral determinations? If yes, then this is a fatuous, and disturbingly self-inflated view point. Ah, but then we're talking about academics, and so fatuous and self-inflated are standards of the territory. “I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of novels, for instance, than with someone who had read a lot of car manuals.” Is this to say that the reader of car manuals does not have to make moral decisions, or has no comprehension of the various issues to be weighed in making moral determinations? If yes, then this is a fatuous, and disturbingly self-inflated view point. Ah, but then we’re talking about academics, and so fatuous and self-inflated are standards of the territory.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35002 bob mcmanus Thu, 15 Jul 2004 14:17:26 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35002 "Kafka had as much grasp on morality as Rawls" Well, Rawl being a political philosopher aside, no. Rigorous argument, peer review, an exhaustive knowledge of the history of the field and current work, the ability to express very abstract ideas cogently....moral philosophy and litcrit may or may not be sciences but they try to approach the standards of science. There are wisdom and morality, which we can get from Kafka and Sophocles. They do provide evidence and argument, and are to a degree peer-reviewed. But they do not believe they are doing philosophy. How about this: Barry Bonds does baseball;Roger Ansell describes baseball; and Bill James analyses baseball. Ghandi;Sophocles;Moore (Don't tell Chun I am here) “Kafka had as much grasp on morality as Rawls” Well, Rawl being a political philosopher aside, no. Rigorous argument, peer review, an exhaustive knowledge of the history of the field and current work, the ability to express very abstract ideas cogently….moral philosophy and litcrit may or may not be sciences but they try to approach the standards of science. There are wisdom and morality, which we can get from Kafka and Sophocles. They do provide evidence and argument, and are to a degree peer-reviewed. But they do not believe they are doing philosophy. How about this: Barry Bonds does baseball;Roger Ansell describes baseball; and Bill James analyses baseball. Ghandi;Sophocles;Moore (Don’t tell Chun I am here)

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35001 Adam Kotsko Thu, 15 Jul 2004 02:53:16 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35001 schwa, talking to someone who had read a lot of moral philosophy wasn't one of the options: do you choose the novel-reader or the car-manual-reader? Or did you just change the subject because you don't want to admit that someone who spends all of her time reading literature might <i>actually have spent more time thinking about moral issues</i> than the average person and thus would be more informed and thus would have opinions that are more worthy of consideration? I tend to think that, say, Kafka had as much grasp on morality as Rawls. schwa, talking to someone who had read a lot of moral philosophy wasn’t one of the options: do you choose the novel-reader or the car-manual-reader? Or did you just change the subject because you don’t want to admit that someone who spends all of her time reading literature might actually have spent more time thinking about moral issues than the average person and thus would be more informed and thus would have opinions that are more worthy of consideration? I tend to think that, say, Kafka had as much grasp on morality as Rawls.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-35000 Zizka Wed, 14 Jul 2004 21:07:38 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-35000 What Andy said, in spades. What passes for moral philosophy these days seems sorely lacking. Schwa's Ford Madox Ford reference is obnoxious, and his idea that the world of thought consists of expert specialists of various kinds is wildly wrong. Furthermore, the name "Coventry Patmore" is even more ridiculous than Ford's (true name Hueffer, btw), and Coventry himself was sort of stupid, unlike Ford. Ya have to be careful about these things. The circle-the-wagons mentality here is distressing indeed. What Andy said, in spades. What passes for moral philosophy these days seems sorely lacking. Schwa’s Ford Madox Ford reference is obnoxious, and his idea that the world of thought consists of expert specialists of various kinds is wildly wrong. Furthermore, the name “Coventry Patmore” is even more ridiculous than Ford’s (true name Hueffer, btw), and Coventry himself was sort of stupid, unlike Ford. Ya have to be careful about these things. The circle-the-wagons mentality here is distressing indeed.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-34999 Andy Wed, 14 Jul 2004 17:44:42 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-34999 Schwa's notion of "expertise" in moral philosophy should be compared with the trolley-car parody that Novalis brought up in the comments to the Fafblog post above this one. http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm The idea that Kant had a deeper understanding of moral issues than did Sophocles or Proust is purely risible. Give me the novel-reader any day. Schwa’s notion of “expertise” in moral philosophy should be compared with the trolley-car parody that Novalis brought up in the comments to the Fafblog post above this one. http://www.mindspring.com/~mfpatton/Tissues.htm The idea that Kant had a deeper understanding of moral issues than did Sophocles or Proust is purely risible. Give me the novel-reader any day.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-34998 Steve Wed, 14 Jul 2004 13:27:09 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-34998 I'd be happy to TALK morality with MLA members. But that doesn't mean they are better at actually being moral. To paraphrase WFBuckley: I'd rather be governed by the first 1000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty at Harvard. I’d be happy to TALK morality with MLA members. But that doesn’t mean they are better at actually being moral. To paraphrase WFBuckley: I’d rather be governed by the first 1000 names in the Boston phone book than the faculty at Harvard.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-34997 mc Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:41:02 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-34997 Why would a plumber's opinion on politics _not_ be relevant? Don't plumbers vote too? Why would a plumber’s opinion on politics not be relevant? Don’t plumbers vote too?

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-34996 schwa Wed, 14 Jul 2004 07:34:13 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-34996 <i>I'd rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of novels, for instance, than with someone who had read a lot of car manuals.</i> <i>I'd</i> rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of moral philosophy. Anyone else is an amateur, and that's completely fine, so long as their amateur status is acknowledged and we don't pretend that an undergrad degree and five years of monomania over, say, the early novels of Ford Madox Ford, <i>ipso facto</i> makes you any more intelligent than a smart plumber. God knows if there's one thing academia has no shortage of it's people who are the World's Greatest Experts on one subject but couldn't find the arse of any other with both hands and a map. I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of novels, for instance, than with someone who had read a lot of car manuals. I’d rather talk about morality with someone who had read a ton of moral philosophy. Anyone else is an amateur, and that’s completely fine, so long as their amateur status is acknowledged and we don’t pretend that an undergrad degree and five years of monomania over, say, the early novels of Ford Madox Ford, ipso facto makes you any more intelligent than a smart plumber. God knows if there’s one thing academia has no shortage of it’s people who are the World’s Greatest Experts on one subject but couldn’t find the arse of any other with both hands and a map.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-34995 belle Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:50:39 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-34995 chris: the numbers are x/y where x=the number of courses taught the first semester, and y=the number taught during the second. I don't know how people talk about the courseloads at schools with trimesters, come to think of it; I guess 3/3/3 or something. chris: the numbers are x/y where x=the number of courses taught the first semester, and y=the number taught during the second. I don’t know how people talk about the courseloads at schools with trimesters, come to think of it; I guess 3/3/3 or something.

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-34994 mg Wed, 14 Jul 2004 06:46:33 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-34994 <i> The term 2/3 I can manage, being .666 recurring, but all the others seem to be 1.0.</i> That's just appearance. They're all actually .999 recurring. Hope that helps. :) (I always figured that's the number of courses taught first/second semester, but I'm an undergrad, so I'm not sure) The term 2/3 I can manage, being .666 recurring, but all the others seem to be 1.0. That’s just appearance. They’re all actually .999 recurring. Hope that helps. :) (I always figured that’s the number of courses taught first/second semester, but I’m an undergrad, so I’m not sure)

]]> http://crookedtimber.org/2004/07/13/what-for-are-english-professors/comment-page-1/#comment-34993 chris borthwick Wed, 14 Jul 2004 05:43:36 +0000 http://crookedtimber.org/wp/?p=1867#comment-34993 While we're on the topic of incomprehensible professional jargon, can somebody tell me what the difference is between 2/2,3/3, 4/4, and 5/5? The term 2/3 I can manage, being .666 recurring, but all the others seem to be 1.0. So it's not a ratio; it can't be days on T or R, because it couldn't then sum to more than 7; it is surely deeply untransparent. While we’re on the topic of incomprehensible professional jargon, can somebody tell me what the difference is between 2/2,3/3, 4/4, and 5/5? The term 2/3 I can manage, being .666 recurring, but all the others seem to be 1.0. So it’s not a ratio; it can’t be days on T or R, because it couldn’t then sum to more than 7; it is surely deeply untransparent.

]]>