![]() |
||||||
|
SHAKSPER 2007: A Question
From: Hardy M. Cook (editor@shaksper.net) Date: 01/29/07
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0067 Monday, 29 January 2007 From: Joseph Egert <quixote46@hotmail.com> Date: Friday, 26 Jan 2007 19:29:05 +0000 Subject: 18.0038 A Question Comment: RE: SHK 18.0038 A Question John Cox writes: >Those who are suspicious of this enterprise can help the discussion >by acknowledging presentism's first point: that we indeed cannot >entirely shed our own identity when trying to understand the past. After consuming a Greenblatt concoction, I always walk away feeling sated and fully nourished. How different is wading through many a jargonaut's constipated prose, in what passes for critical theory-its governing principle a truism, its logic confused, its reasoning circular, its semantics muddled, requiring their own demystification. As creatures in the present, we are the perfect issue of our past, in fact and not just in theory. We are constantly being reminded we look upon our forebears across the swirling mists of time with the eyes of the present. Somewhere Brutus explains, "the eye sees not itself but by reflection." The issue is one of focus. Presentists argue we view the eyes of the Other not as a window but as a mirror reflecting our own eyes staring back at us in infinite regress. Hamlet and Othello learn the tragic effect of such self-regarding focus in mistaking their own want of faith for that of the innocent Other, be she Ophelia or Desdemona. Should we not aspire to look at her true face beyond the eyes? Hugh Grady yearns for an "oppositional" discourse to discredit capitalism and storm its ramparts. Terence Hawkes longs for studies to function as "agents of radical change." Is truth their lodestar value? "Facts, after all, do not speak for themselves. Nor do texts"(Hawkes). Of course, they do; only we hear them in translation. Despite the tepid hedging by Profs. Hawkes and Grady, the temptation for budding Stalinists of all stripes to manufacture the past for driving their agendas into an Orwellian abyss will become irresistible. 'Twas ever thus, but why encourage them? Their apologists invariably descend to maligning Horatios on the bridge like Orwell, that "guilt-racked imperialist", that "copper's nark"-all of which may be true, but willfully and knowingly beside the point. Religious traditionalists and self-styled "postmodernist" ideologues are currently joined in unholy alliance to undermine or "deconstruct" Enlightenment values, or their distorted version of same. Listen to NT Wright, Anglican bishop of Durham: "We postmoderns may chafe in our slavery to the Enlightenment, but the way to freedom is to challenge the slavemaster." Again: "it should come as a relief not to have to aim at an impossible objectivity..." And again, with reservations: "it is part of the task of the church today to accept the postmodern critique of modernity." Wright concludes: "I believe postmodernity is to be welcomed...it deconstructs, in particular, the dangerous ideology of 'progress'". Esteemed colleagues, whose side are we on? Hugh Grady and Terence Hawkes, how many fingers? Re-guards from an Enlightenment thrall, Joe Egert For further illumination, please consult the finely honed arguments of David Lindley and RDH Wells among others in earlier go-rounds on SHAKSPER. Also follow the link to Graham Good's 1996 "The Hegemony of Theory." Enjoy! http://www.greggsimpson.com/Hegemony.htm _______________________________________________________________ S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List Hardy M. Cook, editor@shaksper.net The S H A K S P E R Web Site <http://www.shaksper.net> DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the editor assumes no responsibility for them.
|
|
|||||