Academic Writing In Public Arena [book Review]

NOTES

1. Recendy, I have chosen Women, Images and Realities: A Multicultural Anthology by Kessleman, McNair, and Schniedewind, although there are many excellent introductions to women's studies/gender studies books. 2. Fall 2002,1 scheduled die readings concerning 9/11, its aftermath and peace during the weeks surrounding that date. In the subsequent semester I moved The Fifth Sacred Thing lea^ding to later in the syllabus and found it just as successful. I have used the text twice in the past, am using it this semester and plan on continuing to use it. 3. The Starhawk assignment focused

JUST BEING DIITICULT7 ACADEMIC WRITING IN THE PUBUC ARENA Ed. Jonathan Culler and Kevin Lamb. Stanford University Press, 2003.

BY KEVIN A. MORRISON The 1990s were challenging years for the humanities. At the beginning of the decade, a cadre of senior literature professors established the Association of Literary Scholars and Critics, declaring its mission to "uphold broad conceptions of literature, rather than narrow, highly politicized ones often encountered today." Quickly launching its own annual conference and journal, the ALSC sought to establish at the outset a difficult balancing act: providing a space for an older generation trained in New Criticism whose interests ranged from an analysis of "Goethe's love of the Greeks" to a "dose reading of the full Spanish tide of Don Quixote," while also appealing to graduate students who might be NUMBER 75 • RADICAL TEACHER

on the following questions: Do you think Starhawk's imagined peaceful response to war is plausible, might work? Why or why not? Do you agree with Maya's point on page 164, "The ends don't justify the means ... The means shape the ends. You become what you do"? Why or why not and how does that impact your ideas about US policy toward Iraq and the "war on terrorism"? 4. The excerpted story line follows one family, bringing coherence to die selection: 16-19, 102-104, 160-164,231-246,270-279,282290,308-316,330-341, 342-353, 374-381, and 410-484. 5. In valuing life, students and I meant truly valuing the lives of all

people, not just the "unborn." Creating a society where lives are all meaningful and all people have the necessary "things" for selfdetermination, such as healthy food, comfortable shelter, meaningful work and love. 6. "In FY 2002 86 percent of new active duty recruits were 18 through 24 years of age compared to 38 percent of comparable civilians. The mean age of new active duty recruits was nearly 20 Almost half (49 percent) of the active duty enlisted force was 1724 years old, in contrast to about 15 percent of the civilian labor force." Executive Summary of Population Representation in Military Services, 2002.

interested in praaicing a kind of "theoretically informed formalism" (Kachka 1999). At the end of the 1990s, University of Chicago law professor Martha Nussbaum published a scathing critique of Judith Buder's work on gender. Arguing that the sole test for a theory's value should lie in its expression of practical political commitments, like those of Andrea Dworkin or Catharine MacKinnon, Nussbaum concluded that Buder's seemingly untethered theories collude "with evil" (Nussbaum 3). They also, according to Nussbaum, did not amount to much when "stated clearly and succincdy"; Butler's prose, she argues, "'bullies the reader into granting that, since one cannot figure out what is going on, there must be something significant going on"' (qtd. in Leo 16). Linking the founding members of the Association of Literary Scholars and Critics to a professor of law, other than the latter's occasional foray into the study of literature, is a common concern with what they perceive to be the utter opacity of much academic

writing. This concern has not been limited to academic circles. Instead, the media popularized such concerns when the academic journal Philosophy and Literature began issuing "prizes" to intellectuals who had written, according to its website, "the most stylisdcally lamentable passages...in scholarly books and articles" each year. The thirteen contributors to fust Being Difficult? Academic Writing in the Public Arena respond to these chaises by taking up the theoretical and philosophical issues involved in academic writing. As Jonathan Culler and Kevin Lamb point out in their introduction, the disparate essays share a common concern in that they are "less about proving innocence than contesdng the terms of the allegations, exposing to interrogation the history, convendons, and assumptions underlying the designation 'bad writing' and its almost inarguable efficacy." Just Being Difficult? thus places the issue of linguistic transparency in a wider context by considering the relationships among difficult writing, radical teaching and thought, and gender and race. 35

The development in the 1960s of what we now refer to as "theory"— with, as the editors note, "its odd cachet of both political radicalism and intellectual abstraction"—rendered literary studies more specialized. Theory, as Gregg Lambert has pointed out, provided humanities scholars with a technical vocabulary at a time when higher education was dominated by scientific study and invention. Indeed, the ascendancy of the hard sciences following the conclusion of the ___ World world War war II 11 rendered rendereddie tneliberiiDer- ^ . ,

Instead, critics of jargon perceive it to be a barrier to a kind of universal right to humanistic knowledge. "Humanists should not have a technical language," Chow writes in summarizing the antitheory position, "because the humanities are not about anything technical; they are about general human things." If the humanities are a cultural heritage enshrining universal human truths to which all should have equal access, then, so this line of think.

al arts less relevant. The advent Literary

j t ^

1

Study's pOOrfy

because they are "'doing theory.'" They are simply poorly written. When critics of literary study, both within and outside the academy, cede the argument over grammar, taking theorists at their word that what they write qualifies as difficult rather than bad, they advance a somewhat contradictory charge: theorists may very well be doing important work but, because their ideas are articulated in a specialized manner, they are inherendy elitist __ and not in keeping with the spirit of the humanities as a cultural heritage. Indeed, those arguing for linguistic transparency often insist that they do not object to the content of what is said but how it is said. To place emphasis on the means by which ideas are expressed is, however, to link rather than uncouple content and its expression. To claim that certain modes of expression are more correct than others is to circumscribe other ways of knowing "truth" beyond those configured notions that particular modes of expression are used to convey. In other words, as Jonathan Culler observes, complaints about obscurity and unintelligibility are "generally complaints about a philosophical mode: a mode of thought one finds uncongenial, concerns of which one doesn't see the pertinence, so that the writing seems poindess and pretentious in its flaunting of specialized language." Hence the frequent appeal by some scholars for a return to the study of literature itself, which is seen as more democratic, than the study of theories about literature. Such appeals, of course, are hardly new. They have recurred in various historical moments in the last 150 years—in the humanist desire to save literature fiom philological and historical literary scholarship that characterized the early years of the English discipline; in the turn to New Criticism, with its emphasis on direct contact with texts, against contextualization, as a response to the positivistic literary history that preceded it; in the current pleas to turn away from contemporary theory and back toward the text itself One of the essential differences, however, between the earlier pleas for a

/, inadequately researched, and sloppily tvritten articles are not bad because they are '"doing theory."' They are simply poorly written.

of theory, whether celebrated or mourned, had the "practical effect of making the knowledge of literature...more of an object of expertise—a correlative of scientific specialization—than a discipline based on subjective and aesthetic form of judgment" (Lambert 28-9). Those who insist on clarity and transparency as the norm in humanistic discourse question the legitimacy of increasing specialization. Such a position is premised on a view of the humanities as a cultural heritage transmitted fi-om generation to generation. This assumption manifests itself both in the appeals to "literature itself," against various forms of commentary about literature, and in the demands for the transparent communication of ideas. As Rey Chow points out, "Disciplines built on opaque, impenetrable languages that are admittedly incomprehensible to the layperson, but that are based in science and technology (such as medicine, computer technology, engineering, and biochemical research), or in law, seem not to have this continual stigma attached to their obviously specialized linguistic usages." Indeed, the insistence that specialized language does not belong in the humanities—summed up in the derisive comment by the editor of Philosophy and Literature that one bad

writing finalist was acting "'as though' he were a physicist when he is 'just an English professor'"—demonstrates that more is at stake in debates over academic writing than simple considerations of grammar and style. Disputation over "jargon," then, is never about specialized language alone. 36

ing goes, specialized language is antithetical to literary study; it is, therefore, incumbent on the literary critic to be comprehensible to the general populace. The modes of intellectual abstraction that theorists have adopted and the complicated syntax they employ in their writings have led to various interrelated and at times contradictory charges, including intellectual vacuity, elitism, and collusion with repressive forces. The first charge—that theorists "write obscurely in order to sound profound when in fact they have nothing to say"—is grounded primarily in critiques of grammar and style. Critics of theoretically infiected prose tend to highlight run-on sentences and subject-verb disagreements as if theorists had a monopoly on bad grammar. Many of the contributors to just Being Difficult^ point out the fallacy of conflating critical theory (or what the contributors generally refer to as difficult writing) v«th stylistic and grammatical deficiency (or bad writing). That is not to say that the two never overlap. As Margaret Ferguson, Michael Warner, and Peter Brooks point out in their respective essays, literary study, like most disciplines, has its share of poorly conceived, inadequately researched, and sloppily written articles. But these are not bad, as Brooks points out.

RADICAL TEACHER • NUMBER 75

return to literature and the arguments Spivak, in her somewhat digressive against theory today is that critical interview with Stuart Murray in fust theory makes socially, culturally, and Being Difficult?, helps to illustrate diis politically interventionist claims. point. In a recent work, Spivak coined Those who reject theory, the contrib- the neologism geo-graphy. She notes utors to the volume assert, do not sim- that she was "ridiculed" by someone ply fear that it leads to the devaluation "absolutely unsympathetic to the fact of a text's aesthetic properties. that...I was asking the reader...to Antitheorists often imagine the loss of understand that I was talking about the disciplinary cohesion. David Palumbo- fact that when we look at a map, we Liu in his essay righdy calls attention are looking at stuff that has been—litto the sense of "spiritual loss, a loss of erally!—^written, written on, an imagkindred community" on the part of ined surface of the earth. My argument many in the humanities. They fear that was about the disappearance of the various discursive communities orga- aboriginal." nized according to political interest The ridicule heaped on Spivak may have replaced a general and democratic have to do with the perception of bad community of professional discourse; grammar or needless obscurity. But theorists are seen not only as spoiling behind these complaints there is often the purity of English studies through a charge of political ineffectiveness. the importation of critical vocabularies Difficult writing, as Nussbaum charges suitable to other disciplines (e.g., phi- of Buder's work, is politically irresponlosophy, film) but as analyzing litera- sible because under the guise of ture within particular social, political, "claim[ing] to be furthering justice or ideological contexts (e.g., multicul- through their work they take on obligturalism, sex, gender) separate from lit- ations that go beyond their own proerature itself fession." Because theorists do not write The commitment on the part of the- in a way that is immediately accessible orists to focusing on the political and to everyone, they are perceived to be ideological aspects of literature has part of a cultural elite or an academic emerged coeval with an increase in the star system. number of literary critics from the As Judith Butler has noted, howevranks of the traditionally excluded. er, it is highly significant that those John McCumber points out that the assumptions behind ^•^"~~~^~"^~~^^—^——

contend that if specialized language is revealed to be nothing more than pretentious jargon, then the elitist ideas that challenge commonsensical notions can be shown to be invalid. When grammatical, stylistic, and conceptual difficulty "is seen as elitist, inimical to the ideal of democracy," Culler and Lamb write, "a disinclination to try to understand anything complicated can readily cloak itself in self-righteousness." This tendency toward self-righteousness (though it is important to add, as the contributors do not, that selfrighteousness manifests itself on both sides of the debate), intertwined with anti-intellectualism, manifests itself not only in the refusals to work through abstract ideas and syntactically-challenging prose but also in the charge that theorists collude with the repressive forces they claim to critique by emphasizing philosophical refiection at the expense of practical political commitments. Either theorists are, in Rey Chow's words, "portrayed by antitheory moralists more or less as enemies of the people, whose sufferings they appear not to be attempting to resolve" or their work is represented, as Michael Warner observes, as "a hollow substitute for political engage^ ^ ment, no matter how radical the claims." clarity and transparency are CommOfl SenSe is often simtlv a Such criticism, however, inadequate to "the experiences . . /-. .,. .» i does not engage with the premise of the materiality of of women and minorities'— ^xtenston of prevailing ideology. language. Antitheorists see those, as he terrns them, To defamiUarize commonsense language solely as a mode of newly speaking bodies of the . , communication. "Language thirdpoliticization millennium"—for whom aSSUmptlOnS IS, at timeS, tO the of literary exists," Chow observes in studies has been an enabling glossing this view, "only in force. In recent yyears, Michael order to be a conduit, whose b and others have called atten- scholars who are singled out as writers function is to transmit information tion to the ways in which race, gender, of unintelligible prose have been lim- about the world, its events, and its and age factor into debates on theory: ited to "scholars on the left whose problems but never to convey anyracially mixed junior scholars, and work focuses on topics like sexuality, thing about language itself." increasingly women, working on topics race, nationalism, and the workings Poststructuralist theory, however, informed by critical theory come up of capitalism" (Butler 15). Charges of attempts to challenge commonsense against older, primarily white males, cultural elitism against scholars on the assumptions about language and who were never subjected to the pub- left are successful because they tend to "make apparent the role of language in lishing expectations that currently play on American anti-intellectual- relaying, producing, and structuring dominate the academy (see B^rub^). ism. Antitheorists claim that jargon everyday phenomena understood as There are, of course, any number of produces an aura of authority—non- reality." Consequendy, theory may at variations to this schema. The point is sense masquerading as thought— times distort and deform language— that what may appear as a simple whereby scholars appear to have radi- in, for example, Spivak's neologism request for clarity has social implica- cal insights into such issues as gender, geo-^aphy— "to render discernible the tions. An example provided by Gayatri race, or sexuality. Thus, antitheorists contours of language itself."

an

distort and deform language.

NUMBER 75 • RADICAL TEACHER

37

WORKS CrTED In an op-ed piece in The New York CLOSING THE BOOK ON Times after it was reported that she was , . (1998). The Employment of HOMEWORK: ENHANCING PUBUC EDUCATION AND a recipient of one of Philosophy and English: Theory, fobs, and the FREEING FAMILY TIME Literature's bad writing awards, Judith Euture. New York: New York Buder writes, "No doubt, scholars in University Press. By John Buell. Temple University Press, the humanities should be able to clarify Buder, J. (1999). "A 'Bad Writer' Bites 2004. how their work informs and illumiBack," New York Times 20 March. nates everyday life. Equally, however, Garber, M. (2001). Academic Instincts. BY SUTTON R . such scholars are obliged to question New Jersey: Princeton University STOKES common sense, interrogate its tacit prePress. sumptions and provoke new ways of looking at a familiar world." As she Kachka, B. (1999). "On Closer Reading". Salon.com. www.salon. Dogs, eat your hearts out: if John Buell points out, what passes for common com/books/it/1999/11/ 17/litgets his way, there won't be any more sense in one era becomes utterly unachomework to snack on. Professor, joiuconference. ceptable in another—the ownership of nalist and homework reform advocate, slaves or the denial of women's right to Lambert, G. (2001). Report to the vote are only two such examples. Academy (Re: The New Conflict of Buell first sprang to semi-national Common sense is often simply an the Eaculties). Aurora, CO: Davies attendon when his 2000 book The End ofHomework: How Homework Disrupts extension of prevailing ideology that Group Publishers. Eamilies, Overburdens Children, and can only be undermined or destabi- Nussbaum, M (1999). "Mardia C. Limits Learning drew attendon during lized through linguistic defamiliarizaNussbaum and Her Critics: An a controversy over a New Jersey school don. Since language plays a significant Exchange" New Republic\o\. 220, district's decision to limit the amount role in making our world, to defamilIssue 16, April 19, pages 43-55. of homework teachers can assign. The iarize conunonsense assumpdons is, at — . qtd. in John Leo (1999). "Tower wordy subtitle of that book neatly dmes, to distort and deform language of Pomobabble." U. S. News & summarizes Buell's basic orientation itself as a means of challenging the WorU Report 15 March, p. 16. toward (or, really, against) homework, thought that lies behind linguistic as reiterated in his current expression. book. While fust Being Difficult: This is not to say that is promoted as a book whose Closing the Book on contributors will both Homework is a mere rehash, "inform and deepen" an however: the arguments ongoing discussion, the conhave been expanded and tributors themselves largely Speakers & Resources on Political Economics refmed, and some interestconvey the sense that they a project of the Union for Radical Political Economics ing new angles developed really do not believe a debate and explored. One chapter, is taking place—though for example, examines the many go through the rhetorparallels and connections ical moves as if it were. For between the growing call We can provide a speaker for the most part, the essays are for more and harder homea political or educational event, dense, raiding from analyses work, and trends in the coror someone to discuss economic of Hume's wridng style to porate workplace and the questions informally with members the theories of key members world of global capitalism. of the Frankfurt School. of your community organization, The heart of the book This is, of course, perfecdy union or political group, or in your remains Buell's cogent and suitable—and entirely welclassroom. Our members speak and clear anaiysis of the probcome, even thrilling—for an write about a wide range of domestic and international lems with homework At its audience that already agrees issues, including war and the job-loss "recovery." root, Buell's argtmient goes with the polidcal imperadve Contact us and we will find someone who is right for something like this: time of difficult, challenging you! We can also provide reading suggestions for high that students spend at prose and the grounding of school and college students. home on pages of worksuch writing in a philosophisheets and spelling drills is Economy Connection: (201) 792-7459 cal tradition. But if this is [email protected] • www.urpe.org/ec-home.html time that, by definition, the audience, then we are no cannot be spent in imaginalonger talking about an URPE National Office, Gordon Hall, Room 207 tive play, social activities, exchange of ideas about lanU of Mass., 418 North Pleasant SL, Amherst, MA 010024735 reading for the child's own tel: (413) 577-0806 • fax: (413) 577-0261 gu£^e and the extent of its [email protected] • www.urpe.org pleasure, or any of a dozen role in shaping the world in other categories of vital forwhich we live.

Econoiny Connection

Has the economy been mystifying you lately?

38

RADICAL TEACHER • NUMBER 75