(No part of this re/inter/view discussion may be published elsewhere without written permission from victor j. vitanza and the individual posters.) --Full Copyright notice is at the end of each file.
|
|
The PreText Conversations held a Re/In/View with Jane Gallop, beginning January, 1998. The subject of conversation is/was Jane's Feminist Accused of Sexual Harrassment (Duke UP, 1997). |
From Michel Serres, _The Parasite_. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins UP, 1982. 15-16. I read Serres book in '82. It is the basis for the PRETEXT list, which is an extension of the print journal _PRE/TEXT: A Journal of Rhetorical Theory_ (began 1980) and of the e-journal _PRE/TEXT: Electra(Lite)_ (began 1997). The book also is the basis for my concern of "the excluded third" (in this present case, the students). v ========= Satyrs' Meals_____Host/Guest Everyone knows that satyrs have the tail and two legs of a goat. And being a goat, even half a goat, even the rear end, is really something. These dangerous beings live in forests, where they accompany Pan, the son of Hermes, the god of panic, the mother of all, the prince of fear and of wholes. Wild, they live in their lairs. Having followed the procession of Dionysos or having been on the lookout for nymphs, they go home, ragged, to eat a good dinner with their wives and children on the mossy rocks. They're seldom seen like that, solid citizens, the way La Fontaine shows them, a family picture, all around the dinner table. Satyrs too wind up thinking about eating. No rugs, no shelter, no Persian carpet-here we are back in the fields. Can fear come to corrupt a wild den? It is raining; a passer-by comes in. Here is the interrupted meal once more. Stopped for only a moment, since the traveller is asked to join the diners. His host does not have to ask him twice. He accepts the invitation and sits down in front of his bowl. The host is the satyr, dining at home; he is the donor. He calls to the passer-by, saying to him, be our guest. The guest is the stranger, the interrupter, the one who receives the soup, agrees to the meal. The host, the guest: the same word; he gives and receives, offers and accepts, invites and is invited, master and passer-by. The traveller, the homebody, the fixed and the moveable, client and hostler, here and there-city and country, for example. He is the object as well, for in the exchange of the word we cannot see where the exchange of the thing is. An invariable term through the transfer of the gift. It might be dangerous not to decide who is the host and who is the guest, who gives and who receives, who is the parasite and who is the _table d'hote_, who has the gift and who has the loss, and where hostility begins within hospitality. Who hasn't trembled with fear in a shady hotel? Shady, obscure, badly lit. We like to know where we step. Again the same word, host and guest, active and passive, full of outrage and of generosity, of hatred and good-will. A word which hints at the inviter and the invited, the person warming himself by the fire and the one frozen from the cold rain, heat and cold. The guest cools the soup and warms his hands; the host invites the traveller and sends him on his way, asks him in, asks him to sit down and eat and then asks him to leave, sends him away: don't sleep here, he says. The host, the guest, breathes twice, speaks twice, speaks with forked tongue, as it were. I don't know who the passer-by is or who the satyr is. Both are the host, the guest. And from one mouth they breathe and say yes and no. The traveller, moreover, interrupts the meal of his host; the satyr, moreover, interrupts the meal of his guest. Who cooled the soup, who spoke, but who didn't eat. The two rats here look alike. I would not be at all surprised if the passer-by's overcoat hid his tail and his goat's legs. Excluded even before he parasited the satyr. But the excluded one, just a while ago, was making his way through the countryside; the passer-by goes out again in the rain that, as far as we know, never stops, beating incessantly on the roof of the host and guest. That noise too interrupted a process: a trip. And from this noise comes the story. Hosts and parasites are always in the process of passing by, being sent away, touring around, walking alone. They exchange places in a space soon to be defined. There are some black spots in language. The field of the host is one such dark puddle. In the logic of exchange, or really instead of it, it manages to hide who the receiver is and who the sender is, which one wants war and which one wants peace and offers asylum. In the satyr's den, the host interrupts the guest and vice versa, and this is another black theorem. Or the non-zero sum of two things with opposite signs but the same value. We saw this shadow a short while back: we don't know what belongs to the system, what makes it up, and what is against the system, interrupting and endangering it. Whether the diagram of the rats is generative or corrupting. --michel serres
Jane wrote: "I'd hate to have the sort of textual analysis that is for me a source of pleasure & knowledge be defamed by association w/ this lynch mob." Victor responded to this comment as follows: We (the list) are a "lynch mob"! ... As you [Jane] probably know ... there are over 300 people subscribed to the list. Probably 15-20 (a mixture of males and females) have posted to you. Let me suggest ...that there are a lot of other people on the list ...who might very well be inclined to agree with your theses in your book and agree with "your" estimation of how you have been treated. But if you constantly undercut your ethos with such statements that this is a lynch mob as well as making other statements ... you're going to lose them!P> Putting aside Victor's rather transparent reasons for writing this, I would like to point out a (similarly obvious) flaw in his reasoning. Victor begins by presuming--well, asserting, really--an equation between the "lynch mob" and "the list." Although probably 15-20 people have posted to the list, Victor claims that Jane means to include some 300 list lurkers in the "lynch mob" (although some of these lurkers might even be pro-Jane!!) The context of Jane's comment (and, for that matter, common sense) suggests that the "lynch mob" refers to the majority of those 15-20 people who have set the highy unproductive tone of the list "discussion" thus far. What reason does Victor have for thinking that Jane means to call ALL 300+ list members "lynchers"? In an earlier post Victor made a similar argumentative leap, when he presumed (asserted) that since Jane likes to write clearly, she must be advocating "Clarity" with a capital "C" (that is, with all of the outmoded, bad baggage the capital "C" implies). When Victor tries to score points with such tortured, dishonest reasoning, he demonstrates a remarkably poor style of reading and arguing. My question for Victor is: what was your basis for thinking that Jane was referring to all 300+ list members, and not just to the handful of list members she feels have been actively hostile to her on the list, when she refers to a "lynch mob"? Gary Weissman
At 01:34 PM 2/7/98 -0600, VV wrote: So d, my questions about Jane being honest and direct about the students and how she 'framed' them or 'cut them out' of the book, made them speechless, put them in a place where perhaps they cannot reconstitute themselves, still stands. And if it is not answered here, that's fine; for it will continue to stand until it gets answered. That which is repressed always returns. As a case in point, recall Dana's post, a blast from the past and from far away, yet still so close, Japan. Dana's post can be read in many different ways, given our various interests. Victor: This continued line of inquiry is starting to confound me, mainly because of a certain set of assumptions behind it. Namely, that Jane is able to (should, in a Kantian sense) "give the students a voice", so to speak, and has refused to, has "framed" them, "cut them out" due to some moral flaw which manifests as a disregard for their pain. It would appear that other external elements are at work in such editorial decisions. Personally, I'd like it if some of the people at Duke UP were also on the list so they could say something about how and why they decided to market/edit the book the way they did, given the state of academic publishing. In fact, my introduction to FASH was through a parousal of the Duke Spring 97 catalog, which, in case you haven't seen it, features the book on the front cover. At one point, you raised a query about the "terms of slience" in FASH (vv>johanna, 2-4-98). Seems to me we can't really have much of a discussion along these lines without her editors, to name only one element. Which brings up another question for you, as one of her current "editors": ______Why the repeated attempts at framing the discussion in these terms, "candor", "pain", "ethos", whatever? For the past week&1/2, you have been accusing Jane of unethical behavior and/or irresponsible pedagogy while couching the ax you're grinding behind Rorty and Scarry. I'm asking not so much as to accuse you of being an irresponsible editor, but because I feel I may have something to learn about the editing process from your answer. To state it another way, who is the audience for whom you are editing, and why are you requiring Jane's candor about certain things and not others? I want to tie this question to what you asked regarding FASH's "terms of silence". What do you think the terms are? lbj
It is enormously important that everybody be absolutely candid on e-mail lists, especially the ones dedicated to rhetorics. I propose we get ourselves in shape for the moral demands of this here electronic medium by re-enacting the scene in Dostoyevsky's "Idiot" where each person describes the most reprehensible deed they have committed in their life. This also cannot but impart a new blossoming to such beloved causes as pedagogy, eros, feminism, the inclusion of the excluded, and the exclusion of the included. \LF
Jane, Some questions, as "lynch mob"-less as I can make them (and if you feel they still are, could you please explain in what ways?): 1. When Steve says in "Re: jg>jp" (and echoes again in "Re: jg>lizzy: Dissecting the frog") that he feels "bad that you feel you've been abused in this discussion," and you respond in "jg>steve:medium" with, "Not that I expect sympathy from you," are you saying don't believe him? 2. Why do you feel his calling to your attention the "extreme disruption of power and control nearly inherent in electronic forms like this one" is said, in your words, "in the annoying mode of celebrating it for taking away my power, something I'm just not gonna appreciate"? 3. Is there ever an instance when your power is "taken away" that is not annoying? Or since that might imply a lack of choice, is there ever an instance when you give up your power that is not annoying? 4. When you say in your book about having sex with your professors that you "wanted to see them naked, to see them like other men....so as to feel my own power in relation to them" (42), did you feel you were taking away their power or seducing them, shall we say, to "give it up"? 5. Since you claim your "sexual harassment case" was not a "classic case" since you would "have had to be a man" ("jg>vv:authorizing questions and defining"), would you have felt as powerful having seduced a female professor, seeing her naked, like other women? Would it have been a "classic" seduction or a "fringe" case and in what ways? 6. While you use the words "power," "powerful," and "empowering" six times in the three pages in which you discuss your having "fucked [your] professors" (42) or the seductions of their professors by other "likewise feminist academicians" (43), you do not use any of these three words once in your five page discussion of your students having had sex with you as a professor. Being a Freudian, as you claimed to Todd (& T.R.) in "jane>mth,tr:eros & transference," what do you believe this might be symptomatic of (sorry to dangle you, but "of what" sounded too formal given the list's chatty tone)? And relatedly (since you relate them in your book) when you say, "My desire gave me drive and energy; being an object of desire made me feel admired and wanted, worthy and lovable" (50), are you saying desiring was a powerful experience, but being desired was not? Or let's cut to the chase for Licky's, I mean, Lizzy's sake (Objection! Sustained! I withdraw that remark), Why do you not use "power" or being "powerful" or "empowering" in your descriptions of having sex with your students? 7. In your response to Collin, which I cite in order to get as close to your version of what you believe you were saying in your book and, thus, not leave out 70%, as you claim has been done in your response to Diane ("jg>ddd:on clarity (fwd)"), you said you were "not writing as a power feminist to an audience of victim feminists," but as "a pro-sex feminist to an audience of other pro-sex feminists," saying, "sisters wake up....[U]nder the guise of the fight against sexual harassment, an anti-sex, MacKinnonite, victim feminism has managed to pass itself off as feminism tout court" ("Re:generation gaps"). Could you elaborate, then, on what the differences between a power feminist and a pro-sex feminist are? Are you saying the two Janes in your book are Power Feminist Jane and Pro-Sex Feminist Jane? Given your description in your response to Collin, it would seem you are equating Victim Feminism with Anti-Sex Feminism, so does your distinction between Power Feminism and Pro-Sex Feminism mean that Power Feminism can sometimes also be Anti-Sex? If so, in what ways is its Anti-Sex stance different from Victim Feminism's? And if not, are Power Feminism and Pro-Sex Feminism in fact the same? I sincerely do not mean to stump you, but merely ask that you clarify, in the spirit of the "close reading" that you advocate, as best you can these questions for me in this particular disruptive moment and hope that you find me admirable and worthy enough to do so. Dana
LBJ, thanks for your note and I see Why you might be "confound[ed]", if in fact you mean the word. We are speaking at cross-purposes, which is the major heuristic on this list as is typical of many e-lists. Now, let me see if I can specify for you precisely what I am talking about in relation to the two students. (BTW, the post about the students' being excluded goes back to my second post and the third, which was lengthy because Jane wanted some exposition and a context for what I was referring to. When I refined the question concerning the students, however, she found the post too long and angry and either did not understand what I was referring to or saw it as problematic and wanted politically to avoid it, which I can understand. And accept.) * I am not at all talking about Jane ("in a Kantian sense" or as far as that goes in a Nietzschean sense) "giv[ing the students a voice." Or that she even "should." Though she is intertwining several voices in her text (as Derrida often does by 'throwing' voices as a ventriloquist does) and though she is experimenting with a form of discourse that will allow her to redescribe the issue(s) of sex and pedagogy, it would be a travesty of the worst form for her experimentally to attempt to construct a voice for Dana and the other student. Wisely, Jane does not attempt the students' voices. Narcissically, how could she possibly allow for another's voice? When I refer to cutting the students out, I am not referring to editorial decisions. I am talking about Jane's strategy, which I will refer to in more detail below. You say, "I'd like it if some of the people at Duke UP were also on the list so that they could say something about how and why they decided to market/edit the book the way they did...." This might be interesting but it does not address my particular concern in terms of Jane's strategy. I did get the Spring '97 catalog and did see what was on the cover, so I know well what you are referring to. For your information, I did ask Jane for a contact person at Duke UP and she provided one. I contacted the press, telling them that I would appreciate the e-mail address of the person whose name Jane provided. A couple days later the person contacted me herself, and I wrote back in detail about what we were going to do and what it would entail and I made serveral requests but was ignored. I wrote back a second time, but there was no response. I just figured ... people are busy. *The issue that I raised concerns primarily Jane's decision to establish a "limit case"--and avoid the "classic" case of sexual harassment, which only a man can commit!--that would allow her to think some thoughts that perhaps others had not been able to express, some thoughts that would allow us to rethink the whole issue of sex and pedagogy and perhaps harassment. While as experimentation this might be worthwhile, it does have its problems. Upon second rereading I noticed that while the limit case certainly empowers Jane to speculate at several levels, it simultaneously disempowered the students at pretty much most, if not all, levels to enter Jane's conversation with herself. Why? The students' charges against her disappear under the limit case. (Of course, the book is not the only place to enter the discussion, but repeatedly Jane insists that we stick with her book. Which of course--"irresponsible" as I/we are--we do not have to respect.) Having originally said all this before Dana responded (and now she has responded with her second post), I can now say that I am satisfied that at least Dana is having her opportunity here in this, if not other, conversations concerning Jane's book. What is ethical for me is to provide a common ground for speakers. What is ethical for me as an editor is to give people opportunities to express what cannot get expressed elsewhere because it might be too problematic or too unorthodox or might cause problems for those who hold power. What is now ethical for me to say--irrepressibly ethical--to Dana is that 'you do not need Jane's recognition of you on this list, you do not need her answers to your questions to be a Questioner about how you fit into this scenario. Your posts show a wonderful and gentle power of their own! Bravo!'
*In your question, LBJ, "___Why the repeated attempts at framing the
discussion..., while couching the ax your hiding...?", you ask me,
"Victor, are you an irresponsible editor?", and you say that you do not
want "to accuse" me of that charge because you want "to learn about the
editing process from [my] answer." Well, LBJ, If you think that I am an irresponsible editor (or list owner), then fine. I have no interest in being the conventional moderator, with a conventional ethos; my approach to being a moderator is clearly stated on the Info sheet for this list. And for the most part is performed in every re/inter/view in the archives. I have no interest in mincing or greasing my statements with charges such as "I am not asking so much as to accuse you of being an irresponsible editor, but...." Why not be straight forward and state?: I am accusing you of being an irresponsible editor. If you were to do this, I could respect the statement and then address it with the respect that it would deserve. I like to take risks just as Jane does. I have taken them all my life. I would not know how to live if I did not. When this is all over, I might very well challenge Jane to a wrestling match a la Andy Kaufmann. To be held at the next MLA. Yes, I like to take risks. Sometimes when we walk the tight rope, we fall because of the spirit of gravity, but someone picks us up and dusts us off because they know we "make danger [our] vocation; there is nothing contemptible in that" (TSZ, 1.8). If your question is solely in response to my thinking about Duke UP's publication of the book, let me say that I can understand why Duke published the book. There are a variety of reasons: It's a sexy hybrid of a real-fantasy, it's quasi-confessional, it's tabloid, it's a valuable book given its various perspectives on Jane, its author is well known and the book will sell, etc. If you are asking me if I would publish the book, I would say yes, BUT I would offer contracts to the students as well giving them opportunities to put forth their views on all this. And I would muster all my resources to help them get their views across. Let's face it: They do not have the access to resources that Jane has. They have not been able to make their career based on "their" story. But ;-) I think that the situation will be changing very soon. (I am not suggesting that I am publishing anything. The student(s) need a major press and perhaps an offer is forthcoming.) And let's not forget that our providing this venue and joining in on it has helped not only Jane (in the long run) but also Dana et al. (in the long run). Or at least I would place hope in that thought. *But as I said LBJ--and I will continue to be very straight forward with you--I think that Jane's pedagogy mixed with sex as she has described it in terms of her history (1971+) is highly problematic, highly naive and nostalgic, and yes ... Unethical. And yes, I think it is narcissistic. These things ... I have concluded thus far from rereading the book and from our discussions. They were arrived at proleptically. But LBJ, there is really nothing unorthodox in my assessment of Jane's book. I've done some reality checking since arriving at this conclusion and searched out for reviews and letters concerning the book. What I found is pretty much the same, though of course there are other views, as we would hope. Enuf!! but I can give always some more if you so wish. v
|
(Copyright. 1998. PRE/TEXT. Victor J. Vitanza and the posters to Pretext Re/In/View. All rights reserved. Anyone should feel free, however, to link to this page for educational purposes, but do not publish otherwise in part or whole without prior written consent from copyright holders. You may also establish a link to this or any REINVW discussion.)
To Part 1, Gallop Reinvw
To Part 2, Gallop Reinvw
To Part 3, Gallop Reinvw
To Part 4, Gallop Reinvw.
To Part 5, Gallop Reinvw.
To Part 6, Gallop Reinvw.
To Part 7, Gallop Reinvw.
To Part 9, Gallop Reinvw.
To REINVW Archives
To PRETEXT HP