Date: Thu, 22 Jan 1998 01:15:44 -0500 (EST)
From: Howard Hastings <hhasting-AT-osf1.gmu.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC: A theory about theory [was Anyone get Gass?]


On Wed, 21 Jan 1998, Patsloane wrote:

> > > So I think the issue here IS whether facts are theory free or not.  I
> >  > think Pat thinks they are.  If I am mistaken I hope she will demonstrate
> >  > this and not presume that I am just "not looking" at what she is saying.
> >  
> I've repeatedly denied the view you're attributing to me (please refer to
> prior correspondence, as I'm tired of repeating myself.).  So I have to ask
> myself at this point why you seem to have this selective deafness, or what
> purpose it serves in your theorizing.

So you are presuming that I am not looking?
> 
> The best hypothesis I can come up with has to do with your underlying
> strategy.  It always seems to proceed to a showing (or theory) that someone or
> eveyone other than yourself is "an old-fashioned [fill in the blank]."

I have been arguing for George's conception of the relation between
theory and "facts." I have also argued that Reg misunderstood George
because I think that they are actually in agreement, once the terminology
is cleared up.   And I have been relying at points on Marx,
Heidegger, and Foucault. How is this showing everyone other
than myself is old fashioned?

Let me offer another hypothesis.  I question the assumption that the
relation between knower and known can be reduced to seeing.  When people
argue from assumptions of self-evident evidence, I question their
arguments.  

Also, I tend to situate individual arguments with respect to traditions
and institutions in which they operate.

Also, When I do argue, I do not describe people's behavior in terms of
mental and moral flaws.  I offer no hypothesis of anyone's beliefs or
arguments in which concepts of "stupidity" or "pride" or "envy" play an
explanatory role.

Check this against "the data"--all posts I have written on this list and
the two others we share.

  I
> recall your once referring to yourself as one of the cutting-edge graduate
> students, which rounds out the picture by showing your theory about yourself
> or about your own tactical position. 

You must be refering here to my post of dec. 26, (21:38:21; EST), in which
I write regarding the "other" list:

    Though very much in tune with a market for dissatisfaction with
    the new, the list is nevertheless hardly cutting edge--from the
    viewpoint of a graduate student interested in the relation between
    culture and power.

What I am refering to here is a tendency on that list of one moderator to
hold up  examples of "bad writing" or lapsing standards as if these were
self evident, to be followed by posts from some other list members
agreeing with the moderator's taste and lamenting the current fall into
barbarism. Those who behave in this fashion employ a scheme of
classification which does not itself become an object of reflection.

I am interested in the history of such schemes, how they get taught in
our institutions, how reflexive critique is deflected from them.  
I am interested in the changing history of the self-evident, how it
gets used to support now one aesthetic-political agenda, now another.

So I describe a list as "hardly cutting edge." I do not describe myself as
a "cutting edge graduate student" here, nor anywhere else.  Also, I
qualify my statement, pointing out that my judgement is with reference
to a certain frame of reference.
> 
> Certainly what you're seeing and hearing gets adapted to this "cutting-edge
> versus old-fashioned" dialectic, exactly as you predicted would be the case.
> In the literature (depending on the theorist), it's also called the dialectic
> of trendiness, or the "I am cool cool cool and you are dorky" theory.

Why not demonstrate this with direct reference to arguments I have made?
Quote them, show the pattern you claim to discern.  

  My questions.
> 
> A) Why is it good to be cutting edge?
> 
> B) Why is it bad to be old-fashioned?
> 
> Please don't tell me this ought to be self-evident.  Remember that it's only
> self-evident to you,  or to a person who shares your theoretical inclinations,
> your way of arranging the data so to speak.  

I have argued that there is no immaculate perception of data, not that it
is good to be cutting edge, but I would still like to answer your
questions.

  A) There is no "cutting edge" in general.  One can speak of
     a "cutting edge" only from within a specific frame of reference which  
     in a particular social context at a particular historical
     moment posits questions to be answered, problems to be solved.
     Within such a framework, if one can distinguish between what repeats
     what is already known, and what adds to what is known or
     recasts the framework itself in more effective ways, one
     can distinguish a "cutting edge."   

     There are other frames of reference in which the distinction between
     cutting edge and old fashioned does not exist.  It does not in most
     traditional societies. Guns are more effective than bows and arrows.
     In Europe, where a non-traditional society emerged with the rise
     of capitalism, guns replaced bows and arrows, and new gun technology
     has continually replaced old. Those who use "oldfashioned" guns
     lose battles when the meet those with "cutting edge" gun technology.
     Guns were introduced into Japan in
     17th century, but they did not replace bows and arrows, and actually
     fell into disuse by the mid 18th century. 

  B) There is no "old-fashioned" in general.  Scholarly viewpoints and/or 
     methods are  "old-fashioned" only within some specific frame of reference
     like the above mentioned.  Within such a frame of reference, one is
     "old fashioned" when one adopts views or methods which only repeat
     what is already known.
> 
> Also, were you born cutting-edge? If so, when and how did you first become
> aware of this inherent inclination? If you feel it is an acquired trait rather
> than inborn or genetic, when did you first become aware of a need or wish to
> become cutting edge? How did you go about, so to speak, sharpening yourself
> for the role? Thank you for your anticipated cooperation, as I've not
> previously had the opportunity to interrogate a cutting edge person.





     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---