|
I think the Sokal thing is the point where I begin to side with the critical theorists, to be honest. It was right to draw attention to a level of fraudulance within the humanities but feel it was a bit disengenuous in failing to look at why that should be the case. Academics are pressured into writing essays just to keep their jobs. I know a number of them that churn one out every semester just for that reason. Sokal would've been fairer in my opinion if he'd looked at the issues that cause the problems, rather than just attack those trying to keep their jobs.
My other problem is that while he's right in suggesting that academics in the humanities show little real understanding of science, his own criticism of critical theory hardly convinced me that he was particularly knowledgable about that, either. And to pick on Baudrillard is like picking on the slow kid at school, everyone knows he's an idiot - the dignified thing is to just let him be.
Benjamin is amazing, but very hard to really get a grip on - making him similar in that sense to Barthes. I'm a massive fan of both but would struggle to tell anyone what they're actually going on about half the time. I think where the academy goes wrong with both is in treating them as theorists when they were really creative writers in their own right. Everyone uses Barthes' 'Death of the Author' probably because it's his most straightforward and accessible essay, despite the fact that it's also his least interesting. The same with Benjamin's 'Mechanical Reproduction' essay. Meanwhile Barthes' 'Pleasure of the Text' and Benjamins 'Arcades project' are rightly treated as brilliant but utterly unteachable.
Bottom line for me though in terms of the academy misusing an author is Joseph Conrad. One the greatest writers of the English language and all university departments seem interested in is what Heart of Darkness has to say about colonialism. Which is like being confronted with a naked Nigella Lawson and being asked to concentrate solely on her kneecaps!
|