SHAKSPER 2001: Re: Authorial Intention

From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@ws.bowiestate.edu)
Date: 03/30/01 

The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 12.0725  Friday, 30 March 2001

[1]     From:   Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
        Date:   Saturday, 24 Mar 2001 11:37:00 -0800
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[2]     From:   Manuela Rossini <Manuela.Rossini@unibas.ch>
        Date:   Saturday, 24 Mar 2001 22:45:50 +0100
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[3]     From:   Edward Pixley <pixleyee@snyoneva.cc.oneonta.edu>
        Date:   Monday, 26 Mar 2001 09:56:46 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[4]     From:   Mike Jensen <mjensen@mayfieldpub.com>
        Date:   Monday, 26 Mar 2001 09:05:03 -0800
        Subj:   SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

[5]     From:   Clifford Stetner <cstetner@worldnet.att.net>
        Date:   Monday, 26 Mar 2001 19:18:45 -0500
        Subj:   Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention


[1]-----------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Sean Lawrence <seanlawrence@writeme.com>
Date:           Saturday, 24 Mar 2001 11:37:00 -0800
Subject: 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

Terence asks,  "Is there any Shakespearean critic whose writings are
theory-free?"

Again, this depends on how we define "theory".  If it's a school of
thought, then of course it's possible to be 'theory-free', in the same
way that one doesn't have to be Hegelian or Buddhist.  On the other
hand, if it's just to think at some level of abstraction, the way out
would be simple naivety.  I'm sure that there are examples of both.

More importantly, the strength of 'theory' as the current fashion of the
western academy derives from identifying itself with thought as such.
If everything prior to the 1970s was 'theory' anyway, why would the
materialists have to come along and rescue Shakespeare studies from its
naivety?  Unless, of course, only some theories count as 'theory'.

Cheers,
Seán.

[2]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Manuela Rossini <Manuela.Rossini@unibas.ch>
Date:           Saturday, 24 Mar 2001 22:45:50 +0100
Subject: 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

T. Hawkes asks a rhetorical question:

>Is there any Shakespearean critic whose writings are theory-free?

Thank you, Terry - I thought you'd never jump in.

Critics who'd insist that their work is "theory-free" (clean?) are, in
fact, propagating what for me is the worst theory, namely COMMON SENSE,
the non-violent means of hegemonial ruling. Apparently innocent stories
often contain powerful assumptions about the world and human beings
which guarantee the maintenance of inequality, hierarchies and
oppressions of all sorts. Shakespeare, in particular, has been used to
reinforce stereotypes.  This is why I more than welcome
theoretically-informed "alternative Shakespeares" which relate texts to
social practices and contexts, and which also show what is at stake and
whose interests are served when this or that meaning is promoted. This
is why I don't agree with Karen Peterson-Kranz that "one need not
necessarily declare an alliance to a particular theoretical stance". We
do - in order to become accountable. As academics/intellectuals (not
really the same!) we have the responsibility to intervene in issues of
human rights and should, therefore, not indulge in knowledge production
for its own sake but use theories which explain the mechanisms of
oppression in order, to quote from POLITICAL SHAKESPEARE, to help
transform "a social order which exploits people on grounds of race,
gender and class" (sexual preference, age, and religion, we may add).

At the same time, I am also alarmed at the kind of financial politics of
some universities and departments described by K.Peterson-Kranz
(fortunately it is not the one practised in the institute I am
affiliated to), although to be funded or not funded is not always a
matter of having or not having theory (of any kind).

Radically yours,
Manuela Rossini

[3]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Edward Pixley <pixleyee@snyoneva.cc.oneonta.edu>
Date:           Monday, 26 Mar 2001 09:56:46 -0500
Subject: 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

> Is there any Shakespearean critic whose writings are theory-free?
>
> T. Hawkes

Or any critic at all, for that matter?  Even the statement, "I don't
know anything about art, but I know what I like," has theoretical
underpinnings about the nature and function of art and the relationship
of art to the perceiver, however naive and ill-informed the proponent's
theory may be.  It seems to me that serious critics simply have informed
understandings of their theoretical foundations and/or biases so that
the theories can work to enhance their judgments rather than cause them
to atrophy.

Ed Pixley

[4]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Mike Jensen <mjensen@mayfieldpub.com>
Date:           Monday, 26 Mar 2001 09:05:03 -0800
Subject: Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

T. Hawkes, I suspect rhetorically, asks,

> Is there any Shakespearean critic whose writings are theory-free?

At the very least there are degrees.  Professor Hawkes' work proudly
embraces theory.  Compare that to the illuminating work of someone like
Alan Dessen.  His study of the stage directions in all the plays of
early modern England can certainly be accused of having several
theoretical underpinnings, for example, the assumption that such a study
is worthwhile, but it can hardly be called working in "theory" in the
same way that Professor Hawkes does with his bold cultural materialism.

I think it is useful to distinguish between "theory" and the assumptions
underpinning study.  Those addicted to "theory" like to accuse everyone
of using a theory, even if they don't know it.  Using a theory is not
the same thing as using "theory."

Mike Jensen

[5]-------------------------------------------------------------
From:           Clifford Stetner <cstetner@worldnet.att.net>
Date:           Monday, 26 Mar 2001 19:18:45 -0500
Subject: 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention
Comment:        Re: SHK 12.0700 Re: Authorial Intention

>should "theory" PERHAPS, as a tool or knowledge-producing device or
whatever,
> be classified as part of "scholarship" rather than as part of the
> interpretive/"critical" enterprise?  Or perhaps have its own category so
> that if one chooses to *interpret* literary texts, one need not
> necessarily declare an allegiance to a particular theoretical stance?

You see?  This is just the kind of question that literary theory
addresses. It's one of those paradoxes or tropes or whatever.

> Clifford Stetner's comment, several days ago, that as a PhD student at
> the dissertation level, yes, "theory" was necessary, saddened me.

I think Takashi Kozuka put it better than I did (see his points one and
two).

>  One reason for that was his remark that theory was the study of meaning(I
> don't have the post in front of me so I may be misquoting; sorry!).
> Didn't this used to be known as semiotics?  When did the study of
> meaning become the property of theory?

When theory began to address the question of semiotics after Saussure
and Kristeva.  Semoticians are not excluded therefore from studying
linguistic meaning, nor are literary theorists constrained to study
semiotic theory, but students of literature are most certainly
constrained to studying language and meaning.

> In some places
> it exists so powerfully that financial support goes preferentially to
> those candidates who embrace whatever flavor-of-the-month theoretical
> approach is then favored by influential faculty members.

I must absolve my university from the charge of coercion.  I chose
theory as one of the three fields, with medieval lit and Shakespeare,
covered in my oral exam.  I can certainly absolve them of the charge of
financial support.

Clifford

_______________________________________________________________
S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, editor@bowiestate.edu
The S H A K S P E R Webpage <http://ws.bowiestate.edu>


about SHAKSPER | current postings | submitted papers | browse SHAKSPER | search SHAKSPER
  
Copyright © 2002, Hardy M. Cook, design by Eric Luhrs. All rights reserved.