tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post115699997350882951..comments2024-03-18T22:21:33.261-07:00Comments on The Debate Link: Doing Justice RightDavid Schraubhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1157054215796680532006-08-31T12:56:00.000-07:002006-08-31T12:56:00.000-07:00Thanks for the clarification, Professor. I underst...Thanks for the clarification, Professor. I understand the argument behind the value of struggling with difficultly-written text--although I'm not 100% sure that I buy it. I think it varies from person whether or not it increases or decreases learning effectiveness.<BR/><BR/>I think that philosophy professors have a special obligation to be clear when breaking new ground because we expect non-philosophers to behave morally. That is, I can reasonably expect my Physics-major friend to do his best to behave in a non-patriarchal, non-sexist manner--and if Butler thinks she has some of the prescriptions for moving in that direction, then she needs to make sure that he understands what his obligations are. Ignorance of the law becomes a valid excuse when all the laws might as well be written in Aramaic as far as the general population is concerned. We don't want that, so we should want new philosophy to be accessible.<BR/><BR/>By contrast, we do not expect lay people to have to do anything with cutting-edge theoretical physics--it would <I>not</I> be reasonable to ask poly-sci major me to build a particle accelerator. Philosophy imposes demands on non-philosophers to a far greater degree than to most other disciplines, so it has a corresponding obligation to be accessible to these non-philosophers.<BR/><BR/>You are half-correct on CRT. I do think that the narrative format they use is stellar in rendering outsider voices intelligble to others (which, by itself, seems to show that writers can make marginalized perspective clear and engaging if they show some creativity in breaking ossified borders of "serious" and "non-serious" speech. Butler, especially, should be able to grasp this). However, the particular book I was referring to was Delgado & Stefancic's "Critical Race Theory: An Introduction," which is not written in a narrative form. Furthermore, I think some of the best works in the field are hybrid-narratives--they incorporate storytelling, but mixed in with traditional scholarship (Delgado's "Legal Storytelling for Oppositionists and Others" would be a good example of this paradigm). Many times, this type of writing also exemplifies the type of casual yet respectable discourse I aspire to. Charles Lawrence III's "Forbidden Conversations" article, for example, is only a true "narrative" in small parts, but it maintains a easy and conversational style throughout. I think writers such as he provide a good model for other outsider fields in their work.David Schraubhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04946653376744012423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7321349.post-1157050152445055982006-08-31T11:49:00.000-07:002006-08-31T11:49:00.000-07:00Thanks, I'm flattered. One clarification: I did no...Thanks, I'm flattered. <BR/>One clarification: I did not say that Butler's topics were difficult (although, of course, they are). I said her <I>writing</I> in the passage under discussion was difficult. The exercise of struggling with difficult writing has a value for the reader independent of the reader's reception of the author's intent. A translation (or, in law school, a commercial outline) may tell me what the original "said" but it won't help me learn to read it.<BR/><BR/>Why do you think that, because Butler is "breaking new ground," she has an obligation to insure that readers "without four advanced degrees" can keep up with her? You would not make that demand of a cutting-edge theoretical physicist, would you? Is there a reason why humanities scholarship must always be within the reach of the nonspecialist?<BR/><BR/>Your example of CRT as an area of clear writing is interesting. Many of the most exciting Critical Race theorists in law (Derrick Bell, Patricia Williams, Gerald Lopez and Richard Delgado, for example) turn to narrative strategies to circumvent the racism structuring the dominant (academic) culture. They achieve clarity and power in their writing, in part, by ignoring restrictive disciplinary conventions. I'll bet the book that changed your mind came out of this alternative rhetorical movement, which has come to characterize CRT.KChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05179368473383373302noreply@blogger.com