> Brian Siano wrote:
>
>> Empowering? Frankly, literary theory strikes me as one of the most
>> _crippling_ things ever devised. I've rarely seen anyone with a
>> background in literary theory acquire power, or even demonstrate an
>> ability to deliver power to those who need it most.
>
> Well, maybe you need to meet people who practice critical thinking. Some
> of the students I have mentored have gone on to run their own non-profit
> agencies in Harlem and other parts of New York City, as well as being
> doctors and lawyers. In fact very few have gone on to work in academia.
> Why do you categorize critical thinking skills (what you call literary
> theory) as being limited to academia? Since almost everything is a text
> capable of deconstruction, these skills come in handy in whatever walk of
> life you find yourself in.
I'd have to remind you that there is a distinction between "critical thinking," as a general concept, and literary criticism. The former is something we use in our daily lives, and is exercised with logic, reason, common sense, and recourse to the facts. The latter is a specialized field of analysis, with little real-world application beyond the analysis of texts, and rests mainly on the novelty of the insights of its practitioners.
You've cited that kids under your mentorship have gone on to be doctors and lawyers. That's great. But I doubt that they became doctors and lawyers through their readings of Derrida or Lacan. They became doctors and lawyers because they cultivated their skills, went for and received extensive training, and acquired a working and extensive knowledge of the working world. Yes, their ability to think critically was crucial, and important, and I wouldn't doubt that your mentoring was just as important. But any training they got from literary criticism was marginal, at best.
>> Look at it as a matter of social control. In any large population,
>> you're going to have people who are both marginally more intelligent
>> than most, and who may develop a resentment for existing power
>> structures. What do we do with such meddlesome people? We can't train
>> them to do anything that might actually _affect_ the world.
>
> Of course we can train them to do things to affect the world. And one of
> the tools we give them is the ability to think critically and deconstruct
> texts. What is unempowering about teaching young people to not accept
> received wisdom and think for themselves? Isn't that one of the first
> steps?
You're attempting to equate two different things-- namely, the "ability to think critically" and "the ability to deconstruct texts." The former is, as I said, an important skill open to all. The latter is, sadly, a highly specialized form of literary theory.
Look at it this way. Humans have managed to understand power, freedom, and justice, and have done so for _centuries_ before Derrida put pen to paper. They haven't needed deconstructon to think critically.
>> So, we develop a curriculum which appeals to their sense of themselves
>> as Smart People, but which fails to give them any training that might
>> make them powerful or dangerous.
>
> The ability to deconstruct the lies of the white hetersosexual male elite
> in America is very dangerous. The proof is that critical thinking
> practices and deconstruction come under attack so often -- they challenge
> the hegemony.
And the jargon begins to creep in-- the near-mechanical reference to "whiteheterosexualmaleelite," for example. (If you've ever spoken to a Larouchite, you'll notice the same mechanical tone when they invoke "dope- smoking liberals" or "the unwitting disciples of David Hume.") Has anyone noticed that the amazing insights offered by deconstruction, or "critical theory," seem to produce genuinely _awful_ writers, who can't seem to reach anyone outside of those already schooled in their speciality? Look at the heritage of powerful, influential, radical writers: Izzy Stone, George Seldes, Thomas Paine. Why was their approach insufficient, until the advent of critical theory?
>> We encourage them to cultivate a critical stance, but only about matters
>> which are trivial and ephemeral-- stuff they can study without too much
>> effort, without a lot of fact-checking or memorization, and without any
>> applications to the Real World which might undermine their theories.
>
> As far as I can tell texts are part of the Real World. In fact a lot of
> critical thinking goes on on this list. Look at the analyses of what is
> going on in Cancun. That is a text being deconstructed on this list
> using the tools of critical thinking. I do not think that texts that
> promote racialist agendas are ephemera, but allow that some might
> disagree.
This is another aspect of literary theory that must drive any intelligent person to distraction. It's the continual re-defining, or un-defining, of terms to suit the discussion. Instead of discussing "current events" or "the news," now we're discussing "texts." The word "deconstruct" is used synonymously with "thinking critically" or "analyzing." (It isn't. Derrida's term refers to a specialized for of literary analysis-- even those who claim to use his methods fail to understand them.)
>> The nice thing about this curriculum is that it actually _does_ train
>> these people to be useful. Those who follow this particular path will
>> content themselves with the ego-boosting thought that they "see through"
>> lies and mythologies.
>
> Well, what I like about critical theory is that it is a practice that
> allows me to empower young people who then can pass that empowerment on
> to others and their community.
I really think you ought to teach them about more tangible issues-- like economics (how to handle money, how it's distributed in society, how to earn it), science (how the physical world works, how we can shape it to our own ends, how to design an experiment,), law (what their rights are, theories of justice, what to do if arrested, how to take corporations to court), and engineering (how machines work, how to effect repairs around the house, materials science, how large projects 'work,'). Start lobbing Lacan at them, and you're just wasting their time.