Jeff Goldstein is a very rare breed - he’s smart as a whip, funny (so long as when you say “funny” your definition is expansive enough to encompass surgical dissection of dilatory doltishness, reductio ad absurdum of unreflective cant and the body functions of dancing armadillos - which I don’t know about you, but that stuff kills me). He’s also both a gifted academic and an unapologetic knight-errant of classical liberalism. This makes him a conservative in today’s world. Which presents rather a problem for some on the other side of the political fence.
They cannot abide him. Because you are permitted to be witty and Jewish and smart and academic and even - say it: popular - but it is impossible to be all of those things, or really, any of them in combination, and also be a conservative. It simply isn’t done. It. Cannot. Be.
And yet, appallingly, it is. Which is a source of constant effrontery to those who are all too easily affronted.
He blogs with a decided point of view - even, one might add - a certain tone. Generally polite to those who are polite to him, he is nonetheless willing to tweak the self-righteous and beard the pompous. He isn’t afraid, in other words, to either pick a fight, join one, or accept an invitation to the field of intellectual battle.
This gets him in trouble at times with fools, whom, alas, he does not always suffer gladly. Some of those - you know, the ones who care so much more than you do, gentle reader, uncaring bassid that you are - express their concern through kindly observing that Jeff is a stay-at-home dad, because hey: How masculine is that? To raise a kid and all. While your wife pursues a career.
If you think that this is rather a strange line of attack for those who ostensibly advance the cause of feminism and non-traditional gender roles, it’s worth also pointing out that others of his critics note that he has admitted to taking prescription meds for panic attacks. Because nothing is funnier to those who care so very much than someone else’s misery. And some very few attempt to question not just his intelligence, or his sanity, or his lifestyle choices, but also his academic bona fides: Jeff, having finished his dissertation but not his foreign language requirement, left the academy to raise his son before completing his doctoral degree.
Which is dangerous ground to challenge on, as it turns out. Recently a certain “thersites” took it upon himself to tell his somewhat restricted crowd of readership how he would someday, in the hazy and uncertain future, and once suitably dutched up by daiquiris, demolish Jeff’s notes on intentionalism as it pertains to authorial intent. For his readers’ delectation. This thersites being himself a distinguished academic of sorts. Apparently.
Now it is not my intent at this juncture to share all that I have learned in the last cuppla on the topic of intentionalism. Suffice it to say that my understanding of the subject - no doubt grievously flawed - is that when you utter a sentence gentle reader, craft a line of prose or attempt, in fact, to communicate in any way at all, the receiver of this communication is required to privilege your intention more than his desired interpretation. He cannot, in other words, read more into your words than you yourself had intended and still attribute them to you. Put another way, if he does interpret your communication without reference to your intent, he has committed a newly generative act of communication that must be assigned to him, and interpreted subsequently by his intent. You meant to say what you meant to say, and not what someone else would have liked for you to have said.
Which is a notion one would have thought to be quite straightforward. But that of course would mean that one were not a member of the academy, accustomed to developing highly stylized theories that don’t describe much of the way that the world actually works. Because hey, publish or perish, and not everyone gets away with using someone else’s work or just making stuff up.
Well, long story short (too late!) thersites’ offer to demolish Jeff’s work was gratefully accepted by the latter, and before too long - having admitted that 1) he hadn’t actually read the notes in question, 2) he didn’t actually have any experience in the field of knowledge and 3) his substantive points having been quickly reduced to ashes and dust, the level of his debate quickly devolved to “because you’re an idiot,” who “also eats paste.” And that was before he was revealed to be a community college instructor, which hey: nothing wrong with that, and it beats teaching shop. Not that there’s anything wrong with teaching shop. Which was about the same time he and his were revealed to be rather notorious trolls, most especially to Ann Althouse. Which occurred immediately prior to him stamping off in a humiliated huff, having shut down first his blog comments and then finally his blog, but not before flinging fade-away accusations he declined to further substantiate.
Which can’t have been what he thought was going to happen, back in the days of daiquiris and delectation.
But which is the way things often seem to go for Jeff’s critics, or at least for the few of them who don’t actually start there. Because he makes them so mad. So very foot-stomping mad. And because he’s smart, and funny and a very difficult person to debate on substance, they come off as pinched shrews and inarticulate haters. Who have, and this may be the worst of it: No sense of humor.
I mean, c’mon: Dancing armadillos?
What’s to hate?
–
More - much more - on intentionalism and daiquiris here and here. Second link is for serious lit crit types. Or those who just like to watch.
And Ace thinks he knows why Jeff gets no love from some on the left.
14 responses so far ↓
1
craig mclaughlin
// Jun 2, 2006 at 4:48 pm
Go over to iowahawk and read his Orwellian tribute to the internet awesomeness that is Goldstein. You will laugh. Or else. (my only complaint about Jeff: he has somehow come away with the silly notion that Kris Kristofferson can act.)
2
badanov
// Jun 3, 2006 at 2:57 am
If I stare at Goldstein’s text long enough I can see a duckie and a bunny.
3
badbob
// Jun 3, 2006 at 5:10 am
The dude can not only handle it. When he gets hit with a bb gun he fires back with a howitzer.
What art a bassid? Is related to a “jassid” (something I know) or is it possibly short for “Bassid hound”?
B2
4
Ima Fake
// Jun 3, 2006 at 7:20 am
Before you get too wrapped up in theory, you should read Tristes tropiques, the autobiography by Claude L?ɬ©vi Strauss. His idea of Structuralism is highly useful in analyzing language, culture, and society, but, the man was not a wimpy intellectual. He was much more of a boozing, brawling naval officer type thinker that the effete homosexuals one thinks of when theory comes up.
At the end of his life he was struggling with ideas an engineer would like. He thought that the Platonic notions of the ideal line and circle might have been driven by the rods and cones of the eye. He thought that the polarity in society; right vs left, good vs. evil, etc., might be due to the polarity of the electrical currents in the body. Yes, the ?¢‚Ǩ?ìwe are all programs?¢‚Ǩ¬ù meme is spreading, but Claude was thinking about it in 1962. Tristes tropiques is a good deployment read, it touches on philosophy, but the story is exciting. You have to like a man who could out think Derrida and out drink Hemmingway.
5 Eric // Jun 3, 2006 at 7:48 am
I read that Intentionalism discussion this week with great interest. My double major in college was actually English, and though we studied a great deal of literary theory, Intentionalism was barely covered. The problem with it is that when interpreting a text we almost never have access to the author. Without that access, it is impossible to know his/her “intent” when creating a text; all you have to go on is your own interpretation. This assumption is the foundation of every major branch of literary theory.
6
badbob
// Jun 3, 2006 at 1:11 pm
Levi Strauss. Not the jeans dude.
A Frenchman of Jewish heritage who escaped from the Nazi’s standing by to pillage Gaul. To where? Why the “New School” in New York. Where he then went on to formulate in theories “in peace”…
Excerpt on his structural theories: “are identified in his rejection of history and humanism, in his refusal to see Western civilization as privileged and unique, in his emphasis on form over content and in his insistence that the savage mind is equal to the civilized mind. Levi-Strauss appeals to the deepest feelings among the alienated intellectuals of our society.” Ah- alienated intellectuals.
Sounds like the precursor to the follow on theory of Victimology to moi. Of course, I only had Anthro 101.
Back to the cave.
B2
7
Ima Fake
// Jun 4, 2006 at 7:35 am
B2,
I guess in a discussion of theroy, one can argue about meaning.
Levi-Strauss was a brilliant and original thinker. If you have served in the military, you can observe for yourself how the structure of command is replicated in other organizations. You can spot the XO on a ship with ease, finding him in other structures is easy once you know how to look. Structuralism, like the other tools of theory, is a tool to help you understand the world. ?¢‚Ǩ?ìHe?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a french asshole,?¢‚Ǩ¬ù you imply, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìI reject structuralism.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù Louis Paul Cailletet is equally french, yet when you want to measure vertical distance with respect to sea level the Altimeter comes in pretty darn handy.
The power of Levi Strauss?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s thinking should be experienced directly and not in the watered down fifth-hand translation cribbed off the internet. Aspects of his work appeals to engineers, much of his work assumes that the machinery of the body determines how we behave. His idea that the savage mind is equal to the civilized mind, is easy to understand and probably true. A rough analogy would be to hardware and software. The input devices and CPU are the same for a aboriginal as they are for the flaneur strolling the sidewalks of La Jolla.
So, before you decide, pick up the man?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s work, read what he says, then grapple with the ideas. Before you call the man a coward, a dead man I might add, figure out what he did in the context of his time. At the start of WWII he enlisted in the Army. Sure, you can respond with jokes about the french, but the act of a man in enlisting in the army when his country has been attacked is honorable. During the occupation, he fled. I think it is indefensible to call a Jew running from the Nazis a coward. He was a freaking Jew, and they were Nazis. We sat out the war until Pearl Harbor, so don?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢t take the moral high ground.
The last point is the first point, Tristes tropiques, the autobiography, is a great read.
8
Jeff G
// Jun 4, 2006 at 9:27 am
This is simply another echo of Fish’s “every decoding is another encoding,” or of Pierce’s notion of unlimited semiosis — neither of which trouble intentionalism, which simply directs us to try to determine, as best we can, the author’s intent if it is our desire to intepret.
And I would note that simply because we don’t have access to an author doesn’t mean we cannot try to understand the meaning of the signs s/he left behind — nor does the fact that we will probably never be able to do so perfectly (such is the nature of linguistic remove) does not mean we can, therefore, pretend that it is valid not to try.
The idea behind interpretation is to get our de-coding as close to the oringal encoding as is possible. And is simply not true that “all you have to go on is your own interpretation.” The author leaves behind signs, which you then try to reconstruct using things like context, historical situatedness, convention, biography, structural consistencies or inconsistencies within the text, marginalia, etc. So while that final interpretation is most certainly “yours” in the sense that it is your paraphrasing, the very fact that you have agreed to attempt to reconstruct originary meaning marks your reading as intentionalist.
Which is not to say we can’t do other things with texts; rather, it is to say that those other things are not “interpretation” of a speech act unless they appeal to the signs left us by the originator of the utterance.
9
badbob
// Jun 4, 2006 at 5:31 pm
Imaflake:
?¢‚Ǩ?ìHe?¢‚Ǩ‚Ñ¢s a french asshole,?¢‚Ǩ¬ù you imply, ?¢‚Ǩ?ìI reject structuralism.?¢‚Ǩ¬ù
Say what? I’m implied no such thing. I was simply pointing out he enjoyed the fruits of American liberty before setting out to complete his life work. France has a longer history than the the Franco-German, WWI and WWII. I am grateful for Charlemagne, Laffeyette and even Victorinox and Monsiuer Cailletet, among thousands of other French leaders, thinkers, inventors and historical leaders. They were key players in creating western civ.
re- “Aspects of his work appeals to engineers”
It’s not taught in engineering school but I’m sure you would endorse it to be…
re- “Sure, you can respond with jokes about the french…”
I don’t see what that has to do with intentionalism…plus I try to be as spontaneous as possible with my French jokes. None here, see?
re- “to call a Jew running from the Nazis a coward.”
I imply no such thing. You attempt to marginalize and attack my rejection of his ideas and yours. I would say that he was most un-cowardly, even smart for coming to New York.
re- “His idea that the savage mind is equal to the civilized mind, is easy to understand and probably true..”
Again. I reject it as “probably not true”. You called it a theory. Why is this theory not generally accepted? I actually spent a while reading about his theories and work. Thank you for that, but I ain’t buying it. Anyways, I do understand YOUR intent.
B2
10
lex
// Jun 4, 2006 at 6:38 pm
Imafake, without choosing sides, it does seem to me that you have read rather more into B2’s offhand comment than he meant to say - perhaps you were making an ironic sally on the counter-argument to intentionalism?
At any rate, while I personally appreciate your recommendations, and will look into Levi Strauss’ work when I can string a moment or two together, I abjure you to take no offense where none is intended. There are plenty of other places where that sort of thing goes on. We’ve the rare advantage here of being an oasis of civility, for the better part.
I like it that way, myself.
11
Ima Fake
// Jun 5, 2006 at 4:27 am
BB,
A nerve was struck. I studied Theory in law school and thought much of it was crap. Levi-Strauss I liked, both for what he said, and in the autobiography, for who he was. Of all the French Philosophers, he was the only one I’d want to sit and have a beer with. So, I’m fond of him.
Couple my fondness with an ignorant ability to discern intent, and I took the New York comment as a slur on his honor. The conduct of France and the French in WWII is an issue. Collaboration with the Nazis is an issue which still roils the French. Claude was a leftist intellectual, yet what he did was put down his pencil and enlist. He stayed in the army until they got their ass kicked. When he found out that the Nazis were shipping off jews to the east, with the help of his collaborationist countrymen, ran like hell to New York.
So, I am sorry.
Ima
P.S. Gravity is just a theory too.
12 Eric // Jun 5, 2006 at 9:48 am
Jeff G -
I think you make a good point here, and getting one’s “de-coding as close to the oringal encoding” is a laudable goal. Where I see a problem is when two decoders disagree over the original encoding. Say for example, that you and I read _The Tempest_ by Shakespeare. I might argue that the Shakespeare’s intent was to create anti-colonialist propaganda and you might disagree. Is that a useful or meaninful discussion to have, since the answer is unknowable?
Certainly it is important to take an author’s historical context and biography as well as other structural and thematic clues into consideration during our interpretation. However, once created, a text stands on its own, seperated from its author’s intentions.
13
Ima Fake
// Jun 5, 2006 at 4:24 pm
Ah, The Tempest, rollicking Navy play. Shakespear’s ode to SLOC control.
Full fathom five thy father lies;
Of his bones are coral made;
Those are pearls that were his eyes;
Nothing of him that does fade,
But doth suffer a sea-change
Into something rich and strange.
Sea-nymphs hourly ring his knell:
Ding-dong,
Hark! Now I hear them ?¢‚Ǩ‚Äú Ding-dong, bell.
14 Neptunus Lex » Staring into the abyss // Jul 7, 2006 at 9:32 am
[...] Jeff Goldstein, whose virtues I have praised before, has had a little trouble over at his place with an ?ɬºber-troll. It’s the kind of thing you could make a B-grade horror thriller about: University of Arizona college psych prof goes nuts - no kidding nuts - over someone she’s never met, and with whom she disagrees politically. Threatens the blogger’s kid, when it’s all said and done. [...]
Leave a Comment