If you are interested in literary criticism and have wondered what all the “theory” fuss was about way back when, try Stanley Fish’s latest in the NYT. If I ruled the world, everyone would read and comprehend the following passage. (Which, I concede, probably makes more sense if you read the whole piece.)
No normative conclusion — this is bad, this must be overthrown — can legitimately be drawn from the fact that something is discovered to be socially constructed; for by the logic of deconstructive thought everything is; which doesn’t mean that a social construction cannot be criticized, only that it cannot be criticized for being one.
Criticizing something because it is socially constructed (and thus making the political turn) is what Judith Butler and Joan Scott are in danger of doing when they explain that deconstruction “is not strictly speaking a position, but rather a critical interrogation of the exclusionary operations by which ‘positions’ are established.” But those “exclusionary operations” could be held culpable only if they were out of the ordinary, if waiting around the next corner of analysis was a position that was genuinely inclusive.
Yes. Exactly. Thank you.
Also, I want to share with you the happy news that “Daily caffeine ‘protects brain.’
Coffee may cut the risk of dementia by blocking the damage cholesterol can inflict on the body, research suggests.
Mmm, think I’ll go make another cup!
Also, if the early arrival of Easter did not give you time to reflect on the possibilities of Peeps dioramas, and if you have a somewhat twisted sense of humor, enjoy the Peep Show.