Life among the Bhabhatistas: a Memoir in the Key of Clatter, for Dry Bones and Cello

Brad Delong complains of the noise my dry bones make when they clatter.  Then he sprints below decks and stands, in the boiler room, at the contact point, before the mast.  (I'm relieved his metaphor's metaphorical: I would pity the crew quartered in the boiler room.)  He says:

Over at The Valve, they are talking about the book Theory's Empire--and thus about the damage done by "Critical Theory" and its spawn on the American humanities over the past generation. But most of it is all too... theoretical. What work can you do with statements like...

...and then he quotes, among other things, the second half of the fourth paragraph of my contribution as an example of the bloodlessness of the Valve's critique of Theory.  Now, DeLong is sharp on matters economic, but if his reading of my essay's typical of his analysis of all matters outside economics, then I applaud his decision to stick to his strengths.  On what grounds, if not logical, would he have literary critics confront the excesses of more Theoretically-minded critics?  My essay, as you know, fingers the decline of rigorous thought as the motive force behind the rise of Theory in the humanities.  And I argue my point, if you please, rigorously.

But rigor and logic are bloodless, whereas invective is sanguifluous.  In Timothy and Sean's posts, the streets run crimson as the life runs from the things which late were Theories.   Those posts excel where mine fail: they make sweeping arguments designed to appeal to those who are already convinced of Theory's vacuity.  In other words, they have the rhetorical flair which appeals to someone who, like DeLong, dismisses Theory as so much blather.  And some of it is.  However, no one who practices one or another of the regnant Theories will read Timothy or Sean's posts and reevaluate their life's work.  They will recognize, in both, the hostility that they and theirs have (admittedly) earned.  But it still reads hostile, and it's still likely to be ignored.  Consider an example:

Sean and Timothy are Generals in the War Against Theory.  All available intelligence points to a battalion of Bhabhatistas hiding in the Deconstructed Zone.  On the eve of battle, General McCann delivers a rousing condemnation of the Bhabhatistas.  General Burke follows suit.  The troops, intoxicated by the rhetoric, grab their gear and prepare for the assault.

Sounds about right to me.  But what would happen if Covert Operative McCann delivered that same condemnation to Bhabhatistas he bunks with?  How long before the life begins running from the rapidly de-sanguinating body of poor C.O. McCann?  Not long at all.  So C.O. McCann, knowing his intentions and his audience, would probably choose to encourage defection by other means. 

"We have the logic," he mouths to a bunk-mate.

"But, the Bhabha said..."

"Forget about the Bhabha!" he whispers with a vehemence belying volume.  "The Bhabha lied.  Logic is real..."

"...The Logic is The Real?"

"No," McCann mumbles.  "Logic is real.  As in 'it exists.'"

"Oh, I see, I see.  It 'exists.'"

"Not 'it "exists."'  C'mon on now!"  Then patiently.  "Look at me.  See?  No fingers.  It.  Ex.  Ists.  It.  Ex.  Iists.  It.  Ex.  Ists."

"The Real?"

"No!"  Then hushed: "Not 'The Real'!  Logic.  Lo-gic."

"Is the Logic like candy?"

"Yes.  It is.  Exactly like candy.  So you'll defect?"

"I suppose.  But wait!  You said 'the Bhabha lied'!"

"That's right.  I said 'the Bhabha lied.'  Now get some sleep.  We have a lot to talk about in the morning."

From that point forward, C.O. McCann would tell him how the Bhabha denied the logic, but how his Che--the Derrida--did not.  He would tell him about the logic and put to lie the lies of The Real.  And that's pretty much what Covert Op. Y.T. did in his contribution. 

Comments

[Timothy Burke]

Kiss me, Hardy...

[Adam Kotsko]

I think this counts as the second time I've been singled out and misunderstood by Brad DeLong! (That is, I'm the first example of how the anti-theory event is too theoretical, but I'm on the "pro-theory" side, roughly.)

[Brad DeLong]

I guess I'm naive to suppose that one should actually show an example or two of how one uses theory to read a book (or how others misuse theory to misread a book)...

:-)

[Brad DeLong]

Re: "...someone who, like DeLong, dismisses Theory as so much blather..."

I would like to point out that my main point was that I found the work of Michel Foucault to be extraordinarily *useful* to me--as long, that is, as I was able to use his concepts as my tools rather than worshipping them as my masters.

[Amardeep]

The line between in-house and external criticisms is probably real.

Taking all this stuff deadly seriously is something one feels called to do as a professional academic. But it might not make for great 'blogging'.

Another reason for the widely dispersed structure of our debate is that our source text, Theory's Empire, is so full of wide-ranging arguments on such a large array of thinkers -- you have to be familiar with everyone from Plato to Eve Sedgwick-- that it's difficult (or simply mistaken) to diagnose our problems unidimensionally. In literary studies, neat stories about the thralldom of Foucault in 1982 are only a tiny component of the story. Before that you would have to talk about Northrop Frye's intoxication with Blake, I.A. Richards' worship of T.S. Eliot, or for that matter, the legacy of theological hermeneutics in the field as a whole. French theory didn't wholly transform Anglo-American literary studies, but rather preyed on certain existing patterns of thought (the vulnerability to "influence") and radically inhabited them.

To loosely invoke Hillis Miller ("The Critic as Host"), it's a bit of a question of whether the host (Anglo-American lit crit) or the parasite (french theory) dominates. In answering it, blood may be drawn, but it's quite possible it will be our own blood!

[Ray Davis]

Wait -- are you really saying that _Theory's Empire_ is the Great American Novel?

[Matt]

I agree with DeLong (no, really!) More precision and examples are needed; this debate has been beaten to death for ten+ years already, and will never escape the meta without more precise interventions. You know, the kind where people actually are forced to read something CLOSELY, and pay attention to the text. Which was, incidentally, not unrelated to Adam's point about reading the whole thing.

So thank you, Brad, for just repeating one of Adam's points. That said, good luck applying the idealistic methodology and pop-faith of economic theory to literary studies.