Comment Rebuttal (Score 0, Flamebait) 600
Disclaimer: I am a technologist, not a literary academic; I married into the latter field.
You know how annoying it is when a non-techie gains insight into some aspect of technology and goes wild with their newfound knowledge, believing it has granted them an understanding of the entire field?
That's exactly what Mr. Morningstar has done.
To put it another way, he has been building dinosaurs. He looks at the pieces he's got, assumes they comprise the whole, and assembles them based on his interpretation of their function. Except he doesn't know anything about dinosaur bones, or about dinosaurs, for that matter.
The assertion that you can deconstruct anything into anything else is the remedial argument of one who doesn't understand deconstruction or its place within the greater field of literary and artistic criticism. He uses elementary logic and supposition to build his argument, while ignoring the actual facts of the field.
First and foremost: neither postmodernism nor deconstruction are the field of literary criticism, nor are they the field of academic humanities. They are tools of criticism that have evolved and taken shape as the community has broken with the methods and ideas of the past.
Deconstruction was the first of the literary theories, having been influenced by the deconstructive methods of Freud's psychoanalysis. It in no way promotes or validates Freud's psychology but, just as modern psychology, has borrowed much from Freud's methods. Deconstruction has since been demoted from a theory to a tool as I understand it. And just as Occam's Razor is very useful where appropriate, it is hardly descriptive of the field as a whole.
Which is why the field continues to progress. It keeps deconstruction as one of an array of tools for applying the various literary theories which now abound. Before deconstruction, all literary criticism was, "get in the author's head and figure out what he/she was thinking," performed in ivory-tower isolation. That is the mode of criticism that rests on being clever rather than being right. And this type of criticism still exists, this type of scholar has not been eliminated from the field, but is part of an aging minority.
And it's easy to see why. We cannot get inside an author's head, nor assert to have done so. The only way to defend such an approach is through ivory-tower isolation and exclusion--a detriment to constructive dialogue.
Furthermore, it is fundamental to our contemporary view of art that we can gain more and varied insights than its creators intend. First, because it reflects aspects of the artist's thinking that are the result of social and historical influences that are better understood in hindsight. Second, we interpret everything through our own experience and biases, which determines on a very fundamental level how we experience a given text.
Postmodernism, modernism, feminism (which is not the same as political feminism, but is more aptly framed as "women's studies"), gay/lesbian studies, racial studies, etc. These are the fruits of twentieth century progress. The old order ignored--no, categorically rejected context--historical, social, personal, etc. Rejected the significance of race, gender, belief: everything but the words on the page.
Literary theory incorporates all of these into it's processes. It is not about being right *or* being clever. It is about delving into the work itself and seeing what of value may be found. Scholars search for insight into the works, the times and events surrounding them, and ourselves and our time. The very use of the word "text" as something distinct from "work" is indicative of this shift. We study the text, among other things, in order to study the work.
This has resulted in the field, previously dominated by white men of letters, to become much more inclusive. And more importantly, it makes the work of the field much more accessible to those outside it. More significantly, the fruits of these changes have influenced our cultural consciousness, entering our social and political discourse in ways that we don't directly notice, being outside the academy.
These are the advances of the twentieth century. The failings Mr. Morningstar heaps at the feet of today's literary community are the failings of past generations, beyond which we have moved as a result of the very community he disparages.
Mr. Morningstar talks about erecting walls and ignoring or discrediting new literary theories and approaches. (And does so in the very attempt to discredit those theories and build a sanctuary for his own failings.) In fact, the literary community is at times very sharply marked by debate over the various theories. So much so, that the literary canon itself is often brought under scrutiny. (e.g., Why are early feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of Mary Shelley, conspicuously absent?) This is a field that is engaged in a process of re-evaluation far more than many, many others, including our own.
Contrary to the author's assertion, these are not methods of immunization against failure; they have propelled literary criticism beyond the inept, self-absorbed criticism of the past: ironically the only sort of criticism this author offers.
Has deconstruction cause the field of literary criticism to regress? To claim so reveals how ignorant the author is to the actual field and theory of literary criticism. It is a claim that allowing fundamental change within a field is a negative thing.
It would be like claiming that the theory of free software is a detriment to the field of technology because it allows anyone to give away software that does anything, whether or not it does it right or well.
By introducing new paradigms into old processes, we build value in the community. Sure we don't need twenty different window managers or a dozen shells, but aren't we better for having them?
Mr. Morningstar's article is naive and reactionary. Reactionary to his own inability to understand either the complexities or the subtleties of literary criticism. He admits to not understanding literary criticism prior to writing the article, and he clearly learned nothing in the writing of it. He has reverted to a classical rhetorical defense: attack what you do not understand.
Worse, his article is false and misleading. It attempts to devalue a field of study on the basis of its tools and practical methodologies, which he presents incorrectly as his premise.
He is, in fact, utilizing the very rhetoric and devices that we decry when used to attack our field, making the same mistakes he claims to be able to identify in a field of which he is largely ignorant.
I hope the ten years (article dated 5-July-1993) have brought more quality to our field that this represents.
You know how annoying it is when a non-techie gains insight into some aspect of technology and goes wild with their newfound knowledge, believing it has granted them an understanding of the entire field?
That's exactly what Mr. Morningstar has done.
To put it another way, he has been building dinosaurs. He looks at the pieces he's got, assumes they comprise the whole, and assembles them based on his interpretation of their function. Except he doesn't know anything about dinosaur bones, or about dinosaurs, for that matter.
The assertion that you can deconstruct anything into anything else is the remedial argument of one who doesn't understand deconstruction or its place within the greater field of literary and artistic criticism. He uses elementary logic and supposition to build his argument, while ignoring the actual facts of the field.
First and foremost: neither postmodernism nor deconstruction are the field of literary criticism, nor are they the field of academic humanities. They are tools of criticism that have evolved and taken shape as the community has broken with the methods and ideas of the past.
Deconstruction was the first of the literary theories, having been influenced by the deconstructive methods of Freud's psychoanalysis. It in no way promotes or validates Freud's psychology but, just as modern psychology, has borrowed much from Freud's methods. Deconstruction has since been demoted from a theory to a tool as I understand it. And just as Occam's Razor is very useful where appropriate, it is hardly descriptive of the field as a whole.
Which is why the field continues to progress. It keeps deconstruction as one of an array of tools for applying the various literary theories which now abound. Before deconstruction, all literary criticism was, "get in the author's head and figure out what he/she was thinking," performed in ivory-tower isolation. That is the mode of criticism that rests on being clever rather than being right. And this type of criticism still exists, this type of scholar has not been eliminated from the field, but is part of an aging minority.
And it's easy to see why. We cannot get inside an author's head, nor assert to have done so. The only way to defend such an approach is through ivory-tower isolation and exclusion--a detriment to constructive dialogue.
Furthermore, it is fundamental to our contemporary view of art that we can gain more and varied insights than its creators intend. First, because it reflects aspects of the artist's thinking that are the result of social and historical influences that are better understood in hindsight. Second, we interpret everything through our own experience and biases, which determines on a very fundamental level how we experience a given text.
Postmodernism, modernism, feminism (which is not the same as political feminism, but is more aptly framed as "women's studies"), gay/lesbian studies, racial studies, etc. These are the fruits of twentieth century progress. The old order ignored--no, categorically rejected context--historical, social, personal, etc. Rejected the significance of race, gender, belief: everything but the words on the page.
Literary theory incorporates all of these into it's processes. It is not about being right *or* being clever. It is about delving into the work itself and seeing what of value may be found. Scholars search for insight into the works, the times and events surrounding them, and ourselves and our time. The very use of the word "text" as something distinct from "work" is indicative of this shift. We study the text, among other things, in order to study the work.
This has resulted in the field, previously dominated by white men of letters, to become much more inclusive. And more importantly, it makes the work of the field much more accessible to those outside it. More significantly, the fruits of these changes have influenced our cultural consciousness, entering our social and political discourse in ways that we don't directly notice, being outside the academy.
These are the advances of the twentieth century. The failings Mr. Morningstar heaps at the feet of today's literary community are the failings of past generations, beyond which we have moved as a result of the very community he disparages.
Mr. Morningstar talks about erecting walls and ignoring or discrediting new literary theories and approaches. (And does so in the very attempt to discredit those theories and build a sanctuary for his own failings.) In fact, the literary community is at times very sharply marked by debate over the various theories. So much so, that the literary canon itself is often brought under scrutiny. (e.g., Why are early feminists like Mary Wollstonecraft, the mother of Mary Shelley, conspicuously absent?) This is a field that is engaged in a process of re-evaluation far more than many, many others, including our own.
Contrary to the author's assertion, these are not methods of immunization against failure; they have propelled literary criticism beyond the inept, self-absorbed criticism of the past: ironically the only sort of criticism this author offers.
Has deconstruction cause the field of literary criticism to regress? To claim so reveals how ignorant the author is to the actual field and theory of literary criticism. It is a claim that allowing fundamental change within a field is a negative thing.
It would be like claiming that the theory of free software is a detriment to the field of technology because it allows anyone to give away software that does anything, whether or not it does it right or well.
By introducing new paradigms into old processes, we build value in the community. Sure we don't need twenty different window managers or a dozen shells, but aren't we better for having them?
Mr. Morningstar's article is naive and reactionary. Reactionary to his own inability to understand either the complexities or the subtleties of literary criticism. He admits to not understanding literary criticism prior to writing the article, and he clearly learned nothing in the writing of it. He has reverted to a classical rhetorical defense: attack what you do not understand.
Worse, his article is false and misleading. It attempts to devalue a field of study on the basis of its tools and practical methodologies, which he presents incorrectly as his premise.
He is, in fact, utilizing the very rhetoric and devices that we decry when used to attack our field, making the same mistakes he claims to be able to identify in a field of which he is largely ignorant.
I hope the ten years (article dated 5-July-1993) have brought more quality to our field that this represents.
