Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

RE: [mythsoc] Mythopoeic Lit. Criticism Manual

Expand Messages
  • bowring
    (I am having trouble with my email, so I am not sure if this email originally got sent out. Here it is, perhaps for the second time--if so, apologies to
    Message 1 of 13 , Aug 7, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      (I am having trouble with my email, so I am not sure if this email originally
      got sent out. Here it is, perhaps for the second time--if so, apologies to
      everyone.)

      >JH: Kevin, this is precisely the kind of anecdote that leads me to
      >questions about the philosophy of language currently in vogue in academic
      >circles. Of course, to motivate your theory professor into committing an
      >act of humiliation on another person demonstrates that perhaps he is unable
      >to live according to his own theories about the relevance of truth in
      >literary matters. It seems to me, but remember that I am not a literary
      >critic, only a layperson, if he really believes his position, then it would
      >not matter to him one way or 'tother whether you would ask questions,
      >comply, or be silent. His very act of humiliating students who asked
      >questions destroys his position. He cannot escape from questions about
      >validity, intelligibility, or truth. Or so it seems to me. Am I on track?
      >Or do I suffer from the same malady that you and other questioning students
      >suffer?

      I think you may underestimate the degree of unacknowledged--perhaps
      deliberately so--irrationality or even anti-rationality at play in these
      "language games". Very often, perhaps more often than not, there are
      "political" agendas at work. Another anecdote: We had been reading some
      article or other by Foucault in
      which, in good Nietzschean fashion, he had reduced reason to power. I got into
      an argument with another student, who happened to be a rather ardent feminist,
      who thought that Foucault's position was useful in undermining the
      "phallocentricity" of reason. So I asked her whether there wasn't something
      reasonable about her claims--moral claims as well as political--about the
      equality of women. If it is really only a question of power and who holds it,
      the distinction between her position and that of, as I said at the time,
      David Duke's was simply reducible to that of "whoever holds the means of power
      determines what is right." She adamantly agreed: reasonableness and morality,
      etc., were not at issue; obtaining the power necessary to enforce your
      position was.

      Is this a position that one can hold consistently and coherently? I don't
      think so.
      Is it one that can be held insistently and in the face of any possible
      evidence to the contrary? I am afraid it can.
      Indeed, whatever evidence there may be to the contrary can with surprizing
      ease be read out of court in accordance with whatever ideological structure
      one adheres to.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.