Judith Butler
October 17, 2004 9:37 AM Subscribe
Who says theory is dead? Judith Butler's latest book, Precarious Life: The Power of Mourning and Violence, is a collection of essays on politics and violence after September 11. The essay on anti-semitism and Israel appeared in the London Review of Books.
Um... way to support that staatement with arguments and facts.
John Stewart's confrontation with the Crossfire guys shows that theory and its lessons are more important and relevant than ever. (This essay looks good.)
posted by josh at 10:42 AM on October 17, 2004
John Stewart's confrontation with the Crossfire guys shows that theory and its lessons are more important and relevant than ever. (This essay looks good.)
posted by josh at 10:42 AM on October 17, 2004
Nice if somewhat dense essay untill I get to the part in which she says that Israel occupies or continues to occupy etc etc--fact: Israel gained that land during a war. The Jordanian govt and the Egypt gov said it did not want it back (they didn't want to care for the Palestinians)...so that land is under Israeli control the way any land taken in war is till such time as a peace teaty is worked out. This has not yet taken place.
posted by Postroad at 11:01 AM on October 17, 2004
posted by Postroad at 11:01 AM on October 17, 2004
Good lord, Postroad, give it up already. Even Sharon recognizes that the land is under military occupation. The positions of Egypt and Jordan are irrelevant to the fact that the land belongs to the Palestinians, and certainly provide no excuse or rational pretext for Israel's ongoing attempts to illegally annex it.
I'm assuming homunculus didn't want this thread the develop into an I/P debate, but I can't let nonsense such as that offered by Postroad go uncorrected.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:27 AM on October 17, 2004
I'm assuming homunculus didn't want this thread the develop into an I/P debate, but I can't let nonsense such as that offered by Postroad go uncorrected.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:27 AM on October 17, 2004
And by the way, Postroad, Jordan and Egypt have signed peace treaties with Israel.
posted by Ty Webb at 11:50 AM on October 17, 2004
posted by Ty Webb at 11:50 AM on October 17, 2004
John Stewart's confrontation with the Crossfire guys shows that theory and its lessons are more important and relevant than ever.
Um... way to support that statement with arguments and facts.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:02 PM on October 17, 2004
Um... way to support that statement with arguments and facts.
posted by eustacescrubb at 12:02 PM on October 17, 2004
Hey, at least I cited an example!
'Theory' is in that Jon Stewart interview when he says, for instance, to the guys on Crossfire, 'you are part of their strategies.' One of the things theory did and is still doing is show that everything is part of a strategy--and that you have to know about it and think about how you are part of a bigger system, about how your rhetoric can be just as manipulative and meaningless as the other guys, and just as manipulated too. People who watch something like Crossfire uncritically, to whom it never occurs that the whole thing is, in Stewart's words, "theater," need to learn what theory taught us to think nearly forty years ago. Lots of people still dont' know it.
That's a big lesson of theory, and a good one. It's certainly not "unhelpful."
posted by josh at 2:32 PM on October 17, 2004
'Theory' is in that Jon Stewart interview when he says, for instance, to the guys on Crossfire, 'you are part of their strategies.' One of the things theory did and is still doing is show that everything is part of a strategy--and that you have to know about it and think about how you are part of a bigger system, about how your rhetoric can be just as manipulative and meaningless as the other guys, and just as manipulated too. People who watch something like Crossfire uncritically, to whom it never occurs that the whole thing is, in Stewart's words, "theater," need to learn what theory taught us to think nearly forty years ago. Lots of people still dont' know it.
That's a big lesson of theory, and a good one. It's certainly not "unhelpful."
posted by josh at 2:32 PM on October 17, 2004
I'm a grad student, and sometimes I feel like I should be reading at least a little of this stuff, but like languagehat, I am totally lost in the sheer messy knot of words that is the theoretical writing style. I don't actually like long words (that's why I study common people who liked lewd ballads, and not philosophers) - and I find much of the theorectical writing impossible to decipher.
But at the same time, I'm not convinced that it is all "generally unhelpful". When people explain theory to me verbally (and in nice short sentances), I find some of it very interesting. Some is more applicable than others, and all depends on what you would like to study. I find most post-modern trends not very useful when it comes to understanding demographic trends of the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, but much more useful when thinking about social status and identity in the same period. I would like to read more Foucault on the way that historical investigation differs from other humanities (I have read a snippet where he compared it to archeology) - and I think a new focus on the nature of texts and how they were created has been very fruitful, since they are the source of history, though it should not obscure the people who wrote them.
In shorter words - it's all about balance, and everything should be taken with a grain, or a dash of salt. But maybe with that salt, it tastes good.
posted by jb at 2:49 PM on October 17, 2004
But at the same time, I'm not convinced that it is all "generally unhelpful". When people explain theory to me verbally (and in nice short sentances), I find some of it very interesting. Some is more applicable than others, and all depends on what you would like to study. I find most post-modern trends not very useful when it comes to understanding demographic trends of the sixteenth to seventeenth centuries, but much more useful when thinking about social status and identity in the same period. I would like to read more Foucault on the way that historical investigation differs from other humanities (I have read a snippet where he compared it to archeology) - and I think a new focus on the nature of texts and how they were created has been very fruitful, since they are the source of history, though it should not obscure the people who wrote them.
In shorter words - it's all about balance, and everything should be taken with a grain, or a dash of salt. But maybe with that salt, it tastes good.
posted by jb at 2:49 PM on October 17, 2004
josh - good point about the strategies. I think one of the best things that has happened in my field, due to critical theory, has been a much more careful look at rhetoric, and how it's being used.
A really good book I read last year was John Arnold's Inquisition and Power - it's a complicated book, but some of his most important points were that when heretics (in this case Cathars) were being interviewed, there is more than a simply interrogation going on. For one, they are being interrogated, and sometimes tortured - who knows butthat they are saying only what they expect their interrogators want? Yet so much of what we think Cathars believed are based on that testimony.
posted by jb at 2:55 PM on October 17, 2004
A really good book I read last year was John Arnold's Inquisition and Power - it's a complicated book, but some of his most important points were that when heretics (in this case Cathars) were being interviewed, there is more than a simply interrogation going on. For one, they are being interrogated, and sometimes tortured - who knows butthat they are saying only what they expect their interrogators want? Yet so much of what we think Cathars believed are based on that testimony.
posted by jb at 2:55 PM on October 17, 2004
It seems to me that, when most people say 'theory,' they mean 'Derrida.' If you haven't read Derrida's 1966 lecture "Structure, Sign, and Play in the Discourse of the Human Sciences," it's a good place to start, because it is not only the founding moment of deconstruction in America, but also really easy to understand and clearly argued. And if you read that, plus, say "What Is An Author?" along with Barthes' "Mythologies," which is really readable, you have yourself a nice introduction to literary theory that is easy to understand. And the recent Guardian obit for Derrida is actually a really informative and informed overview of his work and his ideas. There's a ton more theory, but if theory=deconstruction, then it's a good introduction.
The truth is--and this has really only dawned on me in the last year or so--that what we call 'critical consciousness'--what you learn in any college or university program on the arts or on history or politics, or what you ought to learn, is based really heavily on 'theory.' And theory starts with Plato and continues onward--it is any kind of thinking or writing or discussion that challenges 'common sense' notions. It is hard to read--especially the Derrida/Jakobsen/Paul de Man moment of it--but it's good and, surprisingly, you already know a lot of it and think it's true--or at least that's my experience. And, of course, if you haven't read it seriously, you should, and definitely you need to before you can have an opinion about it. My experience has always been that encountering the work itself is illuminating: it is smarter, more subtle, and more important and relevant than you may have thought.
Speaking of--I am going to read this chapter, hopefully soon!
posted by josh at 4:09 PM on October 17, 2004
The truth is--and this has really only dawned on me in the last year or so--that what we call 'critical consciousness'--what you learn in any college or university program on the arts or on history or politics, or what you ought to learn, is based really heavily on 'theory.' And theory starts with Plato and continues onward--it is any kind of thinking or writing or discussion that challenges 'common sense' notions. It is hard to read--especially the Derrida/Jakobsen/Paul de Man moment of it--but it's good and, surprisingly, you already know a lot of it and think it's true--or at least that's my experience. And, of course, if you haven't read it seriously, you should, and definitely you need to before you can have an opinion about it. My experience has always been that encountering the work itself is illuminating: it is smarter, more subtle, and more important and relevant than you may have thought.
Speaking of--I am going to read this chapter, hopefully soon!
posted by josh at 4:09 PM on October 17, 2004
It may be that Summers has something else in mind; namely, that the criticism will be exploited by those who want to see not only the destruction of Israel but the degradation or devaluation of Jewish people in general. There is always that risk, but to claim that such criticism of Israel can be taken only as criticism of Jews is to attribute to that particular interpretation the power to monopolise the field of reception. -Butler
When the reality behind the Infatada is in fact the destruction of Israel and its population, then the risk is too overwhelming for those who do not wish ill the Jewish population of Israel not "to attribute such criticism the particular interpretation the power to monopolise the field of reception."
And Josh, Butler ain't Derrida by any means.
posted by semmi at 4:45 PM on October 17, 2004
When the reality behind the Infatada is in fact the destruction of Israel and its population, then the risk is too overwhelming for those who do not wish ill the Jewish population of Israel not "to attribute such criticism the particular interpretation the power to monopolise the field of reception."
And Josh, Butler ain't Derrida by any means.
posted by semmi at 4:45 PM on October 17, 2004
semmi,
Even if the reality behind the intifada were the destruction of Israel, which it is not, your argument, which seems to be that anti-semitism should be assumed just to be on the safe side, still wouldn't be valid.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:09 PM on October 17, 2004
Even if the reality behind the intifada were the destruction of Israel, which it is not, your argument, which seems to be that anti-semitism should be assumed just to be on the safe side, still wouldn't be valid.
posted by Ty Webb at 5:09 PM on October 17, 2004
semni--no need to pick a fight! Where did I say that "Butler = Derrida"? I was responding to the general claim that theory is "unhelpful."
posted by josh at 5:57 PM on October 17, 2004
posted by josh at 5:57 PM on October 17, 2004
josh - Do you know how Foucault fits into all this? I ask because he is very important in history, and seems to be thrown in with the "theory" people - but maybe the only connection is that he is French and intellectual. Are there streams of "theory" other than literary theory?
posted by jb at 6:58 PM on October 17, 2004
posted by jb at 6:58 PM on October 17, 2004
Theory can be thought of as a bus full of philosophers colliding with a car of art historians, a car of literary analysts, a car half full of historians and half full of sociologists, and a car of linguists. It's big, messy, loud, bloody, disheartening, and really hard to look away from.
It's a difficult term, often (but certainly not always) interchangeable with critical theory, which is usually associated with the Frankfurt schools (including Adorno, Habemas, Horkheimer, et al) of sociology. It is also very much connected to contemporary continental philosophy, most notably Derrida, Foucault, Butler, Deleuze, et al. Theory is very much an interdisciplinary phenomenon that attempts to use theoretical discourse to work with the messy stuff of life. In many ways, it was a philosophical movement away from analytic philosophy (most importantly metaphysics), which seemed of questionable use-value.
As for theory being dead, I think that's a bit grandiose. But it is getting kinda old, and needs to justify it's own existence these days. I have a tendency to think that Butler is one of the people doing just that. Thanks, homunculus, for the article. Fascinating read, and timely. In many ways I identify as Jewish, but find the lack of discourse (particularly from the Jewish community) on Israel to be incredibly disheartening. I mean, there's the old saw that wherever there are two Jews, there are three opinions. :) The bloody occupation, in my mind, is inherently Anti-Jewish, if we follow the ethical values set down by tradition in the last few thousand years. Also, if no one is talking about what alternatives are, this violent confrontation could continue in perpetuity. I would imagine that very few wish for that (or hope, at least).
posted by nonreflectiveobject at 9:18 PM on October 17, 2004
It's a difficult term, often (but certainly not always) interchangeable with critical theory, which is usually associated with the Frankfurt schools (including Adorno, Habemas, Horkheimer, et al) of sociology. It is also very much connected to contemporary continental philosophy, most notably Derrida, Foucault, Butler, Deleuze, et al. Theory is very much an interdisciplinary phenomenon that attempts to use theoretical discourse to work with the messy stuff of life. In many ways, it was a philosophical movement away from analytic philosophy (most importantly metaphysics), which seemed of questionable use-value.
As for theory being dead, I think that's a bit grandiose. But it is getting kinda old, and needs to justify it's own existence these days. I have a tendency to think that Butler is one of the people doing just that. Thanks, homunculus, for the article. Fascinating read, and timely. In many ways I identify as Jewish, but find the lack of discourse (particularly from the Jewish community) on Israel to be incredibly disheartening. I mean, there's the old saw that wherever there are two Jews, there are three opinions. :) The bloody occupation, in my mind, is inherently Anti-Jewish, if we follow the ethical values set down by tradition in the last few thousand years. Also, if no one is talking about what alternatives are, this violent confrontation could continue in perpetuity. I would imagine that very few wish for that (or hope, at least).
posted by nonreflectiveobject at 9:18 PM on October 17, 2004
Parsing her prose is a nightmare but I think Butler is well worth the effort. Gender Trouble is a fantastic book, as is
Bodies That Matter. Looking forward to reading this article and book.
posted by boredomjockey at 12:20 AM on October 18, 2004
Bodies That Matter. Looking forward to reading this article and book.
posted by boredomjockey at 12:20 AM on October 18, 2004
jb: I've never really understood why Derrida and Foucault are so often grouped together. It's true that they can both be described, loosely, as 'post-structuralist', in that they share a common concern with language and structures of meaning. They believe that we are enmeshed in webs of language and meaning, whether we realise it or not; and that we cannot free ourselves from those webs, or stand outside the world (or the text, or history, or whatever the object of our investigation may be) and view it from the standpoint of a detached observer. But in other respects they are very different (and each had some very harsh things to say about the other, though their initial antagonism eventually grew into a sort of wary respect).
Among other things, Foucault had a deep love of archival research. There's a marvellous passage in one of his lectures, where he speaks with great affection of 'people who love libraries, documents, references, dusty manuscripts, texts that have never been read, books which, no sooner printed, were closed and then slept on the shelves and were only taken down centuries later' -- and then speaks of himself as a member of 'the great, tender and warm freemasonry of useless erudition'. He was extremely well-read, and his books are based on a very wide range of historical sources, which makes him (to me, anyway) much more congenial as a role-model for historians.
All this is simply to urge you to explore Foucault's work, and not to be deterred by the popular image of him as a practitioner of dense and difficult Theory. Derrida is always difficult, though often rewarding; but Foucault is a much more accessible thinker, who writes with a clarity and precision which makes his work a joy to read. He is one of my great intellectual heroes -- though some historians regard him as the Antichrist, so I have learned to be discreet in expressing my admiration for him.
posted by verstegan at 3:54 AM on October 18, 2004
Among other things, Foucault had a deep love of archival research. There's a marvellous passage in one of his lectures, where he speaks with great affection of 'people who love libraries, documents, references, dusty manuscripts, texts that have never been read, books which, no sooner printed, were closed and then slept on the shelves and were only taken down centuries later' -- and then speaks of himself as a member of 'the great, tender and warm freemasonry of useless erudition'. He was extremely well-read, and his books are based on a very wide range of historical sources, which makes him (to me, anyway) much more congenial as a role-model for historians.
All this is simply to urge you to explore Foucault's work, and not to be deterred by the popular image of him as a practitioner of dense and difficult Theory. Derrida is always difficult, though often rewarding; but Foucault is a much more accessible thinker, who writes with a clarity and precision which makes his work a joy to read. He is one of my great intellectual heroes -- though some historians regard him as the Antichrist, so I have learned to be discreet in expressing my admiration for him.
posted by verstegan at 3:54 AM on October 18, 2004
verstegan - thank you. That fits with what little I know of Foucault. I have read very good history building on his work, which has made me more interested in looking into his, though still very intimidated. Do you have any suggestions for a place to start?
If I may pick your brain a little more - how do you see the work of a literary theorist like Derrida relating to historical study?
-----------------------------
On the more general subject of theory, I was wondering about the sometimes vitrolic reaction that some academics have against it. I think some of it may be fear - they don't understand it, and feel like their ways of thinking may be under attack. They are, in some places. But I wonder whether part of the image problem is the sometimes glaringly poor use of theory to shore up less than brilliant research/thinking. Most of the good work I have read that draws on these ideas is very subtle about it. They use theory, rather than simply parrot it; it's about the ideas, not the buzzwords.
posted by jb at 7:57 PM on October 18, 2004
If I may pick your brain a little more - how do you see the work of a literary theorist like Derrida relating to historical study?
-----------------------------
On the more general subject of theory, I was wondering about the sometimes vitrolic reaction that some academics have against it. I think some of it may be fear - they don't understand it, and feel like their ways of thinking may be under attack. They are, in some places. But I wonder whether part of the image problem is the sometimes glaringly poor use of theory to shore up less than brilliant research/thinking. Most of the good work I have read that draws on these ideas is very subtle about it. They use theory, rather than simply parrot it; it's about the ideas, not the buzzwords.
posted by jb at 7:57 PM on October 18, 2004
jb: the best way into Foucault is via The Foucault Reader, edited by Paul Rabinow. You might also want to look at David Cannadine (ed.), What is History Now? (2002) and follow the references to Foucault in the index.
Derrida .. an interesting question, which deserves a much more extended answer than I can give it here. I don't know that Derrida has had much direct influence on historians, but I think his discussion of the relationship between speech and writing (where he insists that it is wrong to think of speech as primary and writing as secondary) may have had an indirect effect on the way that historians approach written and printed sources. In studying printed ballads, for example, there is now less emphasis on getting 'behind' the printed text to reconstruct the ballad as originally sung, and more emphasis on print culture as influential in its own right. Ditto for sermons, or parliamentary speeches, or court records. There is less emphasis on getting to the spoken voice behind the text; more emphasis on the text itself and the way it is constructed and interpreted.
Derrida also emphasises 'intertextuality', i.e. it is impossible to say precisely where one text ends and another begins. This has certainly affected the study of intellectual history, which is no longer seen in terms of a conversation between the great figures of the past. To talk about the influence of one writer on another -- the influence of Hobbes on Locke, say -- now seems simplistic, partly because it seems to treat ideas as if they were neatly-wrapped parcels which could be passed from hand to hand, and the whole point of intertextuality is that ideas (and texts) don't work like that.
I can't imagine that Derrida would be much help to someone writing a thesis on (say) early Sardinian trade routes. It is only if you find that questions about the meaning and interpretation of texts are becoming central to your work, that you might need to read him. In any case, I completely agree with you that the best historians tend to keep their theory hidden behind the scenes, as it were.
posted by verstegan at 2:27 PM on October 21, 2004
Derrida .. an interesting question, which deserves a much more extended answer than I can give it here. I don't know that Derrida has had much direct influence on historians, but I think his discussion of the relationship between speech and writing (where he insists that it is wrong to think of speech as primary and writing as secondary) may have had an indirect effect on the way that historians approach written and printed sources. In studying printed ballads, for example, there is now less emphasis on getting 'behind' the printed text to reconstruct the ballad as originally sung, and more emphasis on print culture as influential in its own right. Ditto for sermons, or parliamentary speeches, or court records. There is less emphasis on getting to the spoken voice behind the text; more emphasis on the text itself and the way it is constructed and interpreted.
Derrida also emphasises 'intertextuality', i.e. it is impossible to say precisely where one text ends and another begins. This has certainly affected the study of intellectual history, which is no longer seen in terms of a conversation between the great figures of the past. To talk about the influence of one writer on another -- the influence of Hobbes on Locke, say -- now seems simplistic, partly because it seems to treat ideas as if they were neatly-wrapped parcels which could be passed from hand to hand, and the whole point of intertextuality is that ideas (and texts) don't work like that.
I can't imagine that Derrida would be much help to someone writing a thesis on (say) early Sardinian trade routes. It is only if you find that questions about the meaning and interpretation of texts are becoming central to your work, that you might need to read him. In any case, I completely agree with you that the best historians tend to keep their theory hidden behind the scenes, as it were.
posted by verstegan at 2:27 PM on October 21, 2004
« Older This is what happens when you give people civil... | The (Non) Issues Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Me?
Dead? No. Generally unhelpful? Yes.
posted by eustacescrubb at 10:30 AM on October 17, 2004