[lbo-talk] Original sources

[Dissenting Wren]

Yes, there has been a bit category mistake in some of the responses to Joanna's 
use of the term "original sources".  The debate about whether there is any such 
thing as an original source, or whether all texts are part of a dense network of 
intertextuality with no text having originary status may be interesting, and, 
for what it's worth, I think Carrol is right when it comes to that debate.  But 
Joanna's use of the term "original source" is related not to the question of 
whether an ur-text is available, but to the notion of a "primary source" in 
historiography.  There is nothing about a source itself that makes it primary or 
secondary.  A source becomes primary or secondary in relation to the question 
posed by the investigator.  So, for example, The Wealth of Nations would be a 
secondary source on the question of whether or not the Methuen Treaty was good 
or bad for England.  Smith has very pronounced, and historically very 
influential, views on this subject.  Those views even help determine what counts 
as evidence in the debate.  But The Wealth of Nations does not, in and of 
itself, have direct evidentiary bearing on the question.  The Wealth of Nations 
is, however, a primary source when it comes to a number of questions: whether 
Smith's views on moral sentiments changed over time, to what degree the French 
physiocrats influenced English political economists, and any number of others. 

 In many colleges and universities, students learn about Smith and others 
through textbooks that summarize their views, rather than reading the primary 
sources that give direct evidence of their views.  And, in that sense, it's 
completely unproblematic to refer to these texts as "original sources", in the 
sense that they are the texts to which the secondary texts point the reader.

Now, you might want to argue that reading these "original sources" is a waste of 
time.  Perhaps you think the secondary texts do an adequate job of summarizing 
these works, and that the extra effort that goes into reading the works 
themselves isn't worth the effort (that is, greater rewards would be earned if 
the effort was expended elsewhere).  Or perhaps you think that these texts are 
part of the pre-history of a scientific discipline, so that, just as one would 
not read Lavoisier to understand chemistry, one would not read Smith to 
understand economics.  Or perhaps you think that any discipline where "the 
history of this discipline's thought" is part of the curriculum is, ipso facto, 
not scientific and therefore not worth your time - and so you would decide to 
study, say, physics rather than economics.  I don't agree with any of these 
arguments, but they are at least responses to what Joanna was saying.  But the 
"there's no such thing as an original text" question is completely beside the 
point.

----- Original Message ----
From: Wojtek S <wsoko52 at gmail.com>
To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
Sent: Thu, May 12, 2011 11:47:46 AM
Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Original sources

cb: "The situation of the professorate, especially in the US where
publishing "original" writing is necessary to avoid "perishing", has a
dynamic by which professors have to promote their own writing about
classic or major writings.    It is untenable to just have students
read famous books and teach them. Over the years the derivative
literary critical works accumulate, and the past ones must be endorsed
by the present professors as a basis for endorsement of their own
writings. Can't blame the professors. They are driven by economic
self-interest and need . Don't cha think ?"

[WS:} You are absolutely right.  The cult of the original was created
by the certain mode of production of intellectual commodity and
intellectual property rights.  Back in the middle ages, scholars and
writers did not subscribe to the same principles - they borrowed from
other writers rather freely.

But having said this, I do not think this addresses what Joanna had in
in mind, at least as I see it.  Looking at documents created in a
particular social-historical milieu can give you a lot of information
about that milieu that will otherwise be lost in translation.  It is
kind of like meeting someone in person, and communicating with him/her
via the internet.

Wojtek
___________________________________
http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk