Well, Who Would Conservatives Have Us Footnote?

[This inflammatory baby originally appeared on The Valve.  But you're welcome to comment and/or link to it here.]

Laura Ventura, a law student from Indiana, picked up the then-latest issue of Critical Inquiry and read Anne H. Stevens and Jay Williams’ article The Footnote, in Theory.  She was horrified:

For those who doubt the far leftward tilt of college campuses, one needs to look no further than an article published in the University of Chicago’s Critical Inquiry to dispel such doubts. An article by Anne H. Stevens and Jay Williams titled “The Footnote, in Theory” chronicled Critical Inquiry’s most frequently cited theorists throughout its existence.

The number one cited theorist by the magazine was none other than Jacques Derrida, “the father of deconstruction.” Exactly what deconstruction means is hard to say because even Derrida himself could not give a definition. In a nutshell, deconstruction is a method for discrediting historical theorists such as Aristotle and Plato for the sole purpose of promoting Derrida’s own beliefs.

Her deep familiarity with Derrida’s oeuvre notwithstanding, I question Accuracy in Academia’s decision to publish such a laughably ignorant article.  Maybe a friend should’ve told her that anti-Derridean polemics account for half of Derrida’s appearances in CI.  Proof?  Of course I have proof.  Responsible scholars—future lawyers, even—read the works they criticize, lest they risk writing the equivalent of this:

For those who doubt the anti-Americanist tilt of college campuses, one needs to look no further than an article published in the German Studies Association’s German Studies Review to dispel such doubts. An article by Anne H. Fritzsche and Jay Ametsbichler titled “Die Fußnote, in der Theorie” chronicled German Studies Review’s most frequently cited theorists throughout its existence.

The number one cited theorist by the magazine was none other than some German Guy, “the father of some German school of thought.” Exactly what some German school of thought means is hard to say because even that German Guy himself could not give a definition. In a nutshell, some German school of thought is a method for discrediting historical theorists such as Aristotle and Plato for the sole purpose of promoting some German Guy’s own beliefs.

Before you protest how unfair my parody is, consider what Ventura follows that with:

Notably absent from the list is C. S. Lewis. It is a fair assumption that he was most likely left off the list because of his strong Christian beliefs and influences. This factor certainly sets him apart from number two on the list, Sigmund Freud, who did not have any religious convictions. Realistically, the fact the Lewis was a Christian most likely sets him apart from all the “theorists” on the list.

I’m so blinded by the fact that C.S. Lewis rarely appears in CI because he’s a Christian, I can’t see her argument to refute it. “Realistically,” it is such “a fair assumption” I can do nothing but accept its accuracy.  Sure, sure, the actual reason Lewis “was most likely left off the list” was that he wasn’t cited often enough to warrant placement on it.  But c’mon now, we’re being “realistic” here, and the obvious reason for his omission is that his 4,837 citations in CI paled in comparison to his overt espousal of Christian doctrine. (Anyway, we all know the tricks the left plays with numbers.  To them, math is but another masculinist discourse, &c.) After she’s proven that it’s probably fair to guess that Lewis was most likely left off due to his Christian beliefs, she addresses two other notable theorists absent from the list:

Thomas Jefferson and Mark Twain.

Before you think no one could read that without ruining a keyboard (or two, depending on how much coffee you’ve yet to swallow) Candace de Russy seconds Ventura’s outrage:

Those absent from the list?  Such theorists as Thomas Jefferson, Mark Twain, and C.S. Lewis.

And people accuse John of using “theory"/"theorist" in the slippery sense?  I love Mr. Clemens as much as the next 19^th Century Americanist, but the man was a novelist.  He wrote the things theorists theorize about, not the things they produce.  (Not that there aren’t exceptions, mind you.)  Where to begin?  Maybe it’s better I don’t. 

Alexander Riley did, however, only to be spanked by the executive director of Accuracy in Academia, Malcolm Kline.  In 896 words—in fairness, only half of them are his—Kline said things. Some stuff, too.  Like, in response to Riley’s question

What precisely, one hastens to ask, in Derrida’s work have they honed in on, in their painstakingly expert reading, as evidence for this?

He said:

Ironically, Riley devotes more than 1,000 words to an attack on Dr. de Russy’s 99-word and Miss Ventura’s 364-word post.

Read the article.  That is his response to Riley’s question.  Again, I’m at a loss where to begin.  A pedantic statement about the unironic nature of the allegedly ironic question?  A note that the explanation as to why the sky is blue would be lengthier than the statement “the sky is green”?  Would pointing out that the response is a total non sequitur suffice? 

I’m tempted to write that any engagement with people as intellectually irresponsible as Ventura, de Russy, and Kline ought to be avoided.  Their commitment to empiricism, accuracy, and in Kline’s case, common sense, is as strong as is absolutely necessary to make the point they want to make when they want to make it. 

ADDENDUM: While I question the company he’s keeping, I can’t help but applaud [the approach of] former Valve contributor Mark Bauerlein’s contribution to this kerfuffle.  His assessment’s harsh [but unlike that of Ventura, Kline and de Russy, informed, i.e. incorrect but] not unfair.  Of course, were it not for “scholarly” interventions by the likes of Ventura, de Russy and Kline, many devotees would’ve [and have] moved on to other things long ago.  [Revised to to make what I said bear some relation to what I meant to.]

Comments

[Jessica]

That is... wow. Just wow.

The only thing David Horowitz, C. S. Lewis, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, Plato and Aristotle (the people Laura Ventura either cites or wishes people would cite) have in common is that they all wrote some stuff. You've got one political polemicist, two novelists who wrote a few non-novel texts, one former President, and two ancient philosophers. I think this goes quite a bit beyond the accepted boundaries of the interdisciplinary.

As for the rest, well, vigorous nodding in agreement with you will suffice.

[Alex Leibowitz]

"You've got one political polemicist, two novelists who wrote a few non-novel texts, one former President, and two ancient philosophers..."

I'm still trying to figure out, from the above list, who was who. I know that the former president is either Plato or Mark Twain, but I'm not sure whether C.S. Lewis was the ancient philosopher and Aristotle the novelist, or the other way around. And I think at least one of the above figures was actually a statistic...

[Timothy Burke]

I'm sorry, but why applaud Mark's "contribution"? Yes, certainly the point on "discipleship" is a fine one to make, and has much to recommend it. But I'm getting pretty sick of Mark making fine points while surrounded by people making scandalously incoherent or incoherent ones.

It's like sitting at a dinner full of people vomiting on the tablecloth while using a telescope to observe that the man in the apartment down the street is wiping his lips on his sleeve. The observation's true, it's worth making, but what about all the vomitus puddling around your own feet?

The thing that frustrates me is that when the discussion starts, he'll invariably say, "Oh, well of course those are not very good points that those people are making", but at some juncture, a fair-minded critic has to say that sort of thing without being prompted. Especially a critic who is trying to make a point about slavish discipleship and the loss of independently-minded criticism. Biting the hand that feeds you on occasion is in the job description for the independently-minded.

[CR]

Timothy,

I happened today upon the old thread in which I criiticized the valve in light of its funding source, way back when, and in which you criticized me for doing so.

You said things like:

If Holbo, Singh and the other Valve contributors (or the ALSC) want to explore a new mode of writing about literature and culture and there are right-wing commissars who mistakingly perceive that mode as an endorsement of their own agenda and throw money at them, I don’t think that’s intrinsically a problem.

It's here: http://www.crookedtimber.org/2005/04/11/political-romanticism/

Do you think that Mark's situation at NRO has any similarity to the Valve's vis a vis the ALSC and its funders? Does the obligation to bite hands extend in this direction, toward funders? Or is that a leap too far?

I'm actually asking, not baiting you here.

(By the way, the on-line journal that published Ventura et al is funded, via a whole bunch of shells/intermediaries, by the Scaife foundation, as well as, it seems ExxonMobil and some others...)

[Timothy Burke]

CR, I suppose it does becomea problem when the money that's being thrown at you becomes a constraint on what you say. I don't see that as something that's happened at the Valve, do you? But in Mark's case, I think the question becomes whether he's come to believe that the intellectual sins of declared "conservatives" are somehow less worthy of note or concern, or whether he's concerned about not screwing up a gig. I really don't think it should be difficult, if he wants to bounce off a discussion like the CI article that kicked this off, to say, "Listen, I'm mostly concerned about the problem of 'discipleship', but as long as I'm at it, being conservative doesn't mean you have to be intellectually sloppy."

People collaborating on a blog (or writing together for a periodical) are not required to avoid criticism of each other.

[Nate]

Scott,
Defending Derrida? What's next, proffering Freud at undergraduates? Shameful. Please try to be stay pigeonholed or the Committee will be forced to come round your place to collect your membership card and rough up your houseplants.
Yours,
Nate

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Timothy, "applaud" was probably too strong a word there, but after having read all the other posts, I found Mark's an utter relief. Not having to scold someone for being bat-shit insane may've altered my perception. As I noted in the comments on the Valve, what I valued about Mark's contribution was that it was informed and arguable, albeit incorrect.

CR, well, one difference between NRO and the Valve is that Mark once contributed to the latter, but now contributes to the former. I think that says something about the politics behind the ALSC support. More to the point, the little pressure that's been put upon us by the ALSC has been 100% ineffectual. Some ALSC members were distressed that we didn't spend more time talking about Homer and Shakespeare, that we weren't the rear-guard culture warriors they wanted us to be. What did it change? Nothing. Not a thing. I mean, do you think my posts there contain some consistent agenda? Consider this protracted defense of Derrida: do you think that's what they wanted, initially? Pace Nate, the instant the Committee complains, I'm out of there.

[Rich Puchalsky]

As I've said before, there's nothing inherently wrong with examining someone's funding sources. As I've also said before, the idea that The Valve has some kind of crypto-anti-humanities function a la Tech Central Station is silly. Some people clearly *want* the site to, for purposes of their own self-definition, but that's just posturing. I mean, Berube criticizes Horowitz, who actually works against academia, and who fights back with his tie-in to the Republican slime machine. Going after Holbo, in contrast, presents the great benefit of being safe.

[CR]

Timothy,

I think I agree with what you are saying. But, I suppose, it is not just a question of feeling restrained in what you say, but also, you gets the loudspeaker in the first place. Now, with blogs, this is a difficult question - how important is the funding / imprimatur of the ALSC to the Valve? Not very, I suppose. But for these hacks that Scott cited - I can't imagine that we'd be reading them without the instutional support behind them.

Let me be clear: it's not as big of a deal when we're talking about blogs versus, says, fully-funded talking heads waiting for CNN appearances, let alone print venues themselves, radio, tv. But it must matter to a certain degree - or else why take the money, why attach the logo to your site.

And the more full the marketplace of blogged ideas, the more this sort of thing might matter.

Scott -

Pace Nate, the instant the Committee complains, I'm out of there.

Scott, I'm confused. Has the "committee" compained or not? Your post says two things at once: that you've survived the criticisms of the body that feeds you and that the minute they criticize, you're gone. Which is it?

Rich - obviously not a "crypto-anti-humanities function." Humanities isn't the word, of course. But un-crypto anti-theory, and all that that means, definitely. And you and I disagree about all that that means.

[Rich Puchalsky]

Un-crypto anti-theory? Judging from the posts, it's not like The Valve makes posters sign up to be anti-theory. Most of the posters simply seem uninterested in theory. The idea of The Valve being monolithically anti-theory, as opposed to John being mostly anti-Theory and Sean and Scott being anti-certain types of Theory, is one of those reifications of varying people's views into sides that I always object to, because it's so tiresome.

But even more fundamentally, I just don't see the functionality in what you seem to think that The Valve must be doing. All they do is write; they have no associated political operation. At a certain level, you just have to say, well, they get to write whatever they want -- that's part of academia. If people want to argue against Theory, you can't stop them, and incidental Web-support money can't really help them. The concern over who gets the loudspeaker is meaningless; we're writing on blogs. Of course you'd be reading hacks even without support, if you're willing to read blogs.

[CR]

Maybe, maybe, maybe Rich. All maybe. I'm not arguing that, like, Karl Rove clicks through to the Valve to check the status of the counter-revolution each night.

I guess it's just a bit disturbing to me that one side of the culture war and its correlated brushfire in the literature departments has the support of Powerful Folks with Money and one side doesn't. I know it doesn't mean a ton now - but it does bother me. And should bother anyone who is of the left or even at least interested in a level playing field for the exchange of ideas. You can keep saying over and over again that it doesn't matter. And maybe it doesn't. But nasties are voting with their wallet - and other folks are voting with their open hands.

Academia is a bit different, of course, but I've seen how this works also from within the world of political-cultural comment / journalistic writing. My wife is what you might call a left "comment" writer - freelance - and it's a terrible job. Has written for the Nation and similar venues. Hard to get work, the work doesn't pay, when printed it's not marketed properly to attract the right kind of attention. It has always seemed clear that if she were of the opposite political affiliation, there would be an entire network waiting for someone like her to provide space to write, some sort of stipendiary income (fellowships, think tanks, etc), professional leg-up support, pr, etc.

In terms of supporting yourself, perpetuating yourself in the business of writing, seriously, who would you rather be: the editor of some campus right wing rag or the left equivalent?

So, yes, I'm sensitive about the intrusion of rightwing dollars into the intellectual sphere. In part because, with a few tiny exceptions, there's no left counterpart.

And before you say, Rich, that theory doesn't map on to leftism - fine, fine, whatever - it remains clear that Scaife is never going to endow me to thread away on benjamin. Whereas an "anti-theory" site, that's their cup of tea.

(I'm simply not going to argue with you whether the Valve is anti-theory, Rich. it just plain is, with many exceptions, yes, but the guiding ethos from the first and through today was in exactly this direction... if you're going to take it in this direction, don't bother - I won't respond).

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

I'm tired and in more than a little bit of pain, but I do think the following oughta be added to this discussion:

I wasn't one of the originial contributors to the Valve. I was asked to join three or four months after the fact, after John had linked to the "How">http://acephalous.typepad.com/acephalous/how_to_open_an_academic_essay/index.html">How to Open an Academic Essay" posts. Which is only to say that from the get-go, John knew he was drafting someone from Irvine, whose feelings towards "theory"/"Theory" were likely to be conflicted ... and whose only "anti-theory" sentiments had targeted against psychoanalysis, not "theory"/"Theory." Granted, I've always believed that something called Theory exists, but that's because my office's been located for the past five years in a building with the word Theory ostentatiously emblazoned on all its cardinal parapets. Yes, I think it exists; and yes, I think those who self-identify with it embrace a conventional and identifiable sloppiness ... but to say that that automagically entails a "plain" anti-theory agenda, well, that's simply insane.

I hate to yank this trump card from the deck, but of everyone who plays this game, I'm almost 100 perccent certain that I'm the only one who's worked closely with the people I trumpet and dismiss. That may seem insignificant--and, in the case of Zizek, who I chauffeured around for a couple of days and sat in on the mini-seminars he gave--that's an entirely fair assessment. But I refuse to accept the "plain" narrative you propose here. I've wrestled with "theory"/"Theory" since the moment I set foot in California. To claim that anything I'd put my name to dismisses the venture entirely puts to lie the past seven years of my life, and as much as I hate putting my foot down, in this case, I will:

I'm not a plain anything. I'm a someone who's struggled through a something, and despite your not liking where that struggle landed me, I'm not going to deny that it shaped me or claim it unimportant. Sure, I'd like to help others avoid the grievous mistakes I've made, but that's a matter of avoiding particular dead-ends, not denying whole-cloth anyone whose name's been associated with any endeavor theoretical.

Anyhohw, you've said you won't bother to respond to responses of this sort, but I hope you'll change your mind and respond to this one. I think there's some disconnect here, because there's no reason for you to have written this:

Scott, I'm confused. Has the "committee" compained or not? Your post says two things at once: that you've survived the criticisms of the body that feeds you and that the minute they criticize, you're gone. Which is it?

As I said, their complaints were "100% ineffectual." I didn't even hear of them until months later. The second they start to dictate what I can or can't write, I'm gone. There's no conflict there. As soon as their impotence turns to teeth, I'm out of there. In the meantime, if I can discuss the issues I think are important in whatever manner I please, I'm going to take advantage of the opportunity. Sure, there are limits to my pragmatism; like, say, if the ALSC declared unanimous support for the current Israeli offensive ... but to this point, they've not 1) spoken to me directly in any way, shape or form or 2) declared anything about anything I've thought differently of. I mean, the biggest conflict to date has been over their study of the remedial courses in colleges and universities, and I'm not about to hop on board the "high school prepares people for college" train, esp. since I attended the third-worst high school in the 49th worst secondary education program in the country.

[CR]

Thanks for the clarification on the ALSC interference point, Scott. Duely noted.

On the "plain" point. I used "plain" in the sense of "clear to see" - not that the valve's anti-theoretical stance is "plain" as in run-of-the-mill, mechanical... Which was clear from the syntax of the sentence in which I used it, I think.

But please, please could you stop deploying the argument ex I took a seminar with Derrida approach? And you do it all the time. Or the variation argument ex my advisor. You did this when we talked about Benjamin last - how dare you say I don't respect Benjamin! My advisor loves Benjamin!

Teh lame. It adds nothing. And as a former close observer of another institution as or even more greatly endowed with stellar euro-theorists than Irvine (New School in New York) and its grad students, I have seen that 9 out of 10 this proximity breeds a false confidence that one knows what the fuck one is talking about, grounded in the fact that one has in fact fetched Derrida a coffee from the cafeteria.

I do think you know what you're talking about, often, just for the record. It's just that this sort of argument makes it sound as if you don't.

[Scott Eric Kaufman]

Sorry about misreading that "plain" there. As for the argument ex I took a seminar with move, well, I think it's a sound one, because it demonstrates that, if nothing else, my inner grade-grubber made sure I took X or Y seriously for at least a little while. Plus, we all know it's true that you can't take seminars from certain people without seriously engaging in one mode of thought or another.

Also, I never employ it to prove I know what the fuck I'm talking about, only to demonstrate that I've taken it seriously. Rarely, if ever, do I have any clue what I'm talking about. But don't you try to diminish the importance of my struggles!

[Nate]

Scott,
I haven't read the comments here very closely so I'm not sure I follow the thing about The Valve and its funding, but just so it's clear, my "Committee" comment was a joke with zero intended underlying attack, sparked by your defending Derrida (you being sometimes characterized as anti-theory such that you're anti-Derrida). It's a better joke among activist Marxists, where it's "Central Committee" and one is offered an opportunity to avoid ire by the writing of an auto-critique.
Best wishes,
Nate