7/28/2019 Bakhtin and the Politics of Criticism

1/4

Bakhtin and the Politics of CriticismAuthor(s): Ken Hirschkop, David Shepherd and Gary Saul MorsonReviewed work(s):Source: PMLA, Vol. 109, No. 1 (Jan., 1994), pp. 116-118Published by: Modern Language AssociationStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/463015 .

Accessed: 28/10/2012 13:07

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of

content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms

of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Language Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to PMLA.

http://www.jstor.org

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mlahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/463015?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/stable/463015?origin=JSTOR-pdfhttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mla

7/28/2019 Bakhtin and the Politics of Criticism

2/4

F o r u m

PMLA invitesmembersof the as-sociation to submit letters, typedanddouble-spaced,commentingonarticles in previous issues or onmatters of general scholarly orcriticalinterest. Theeditorreservesthe right to reject or edit Forumcontributionsandofferstheauthorsdiscussedanopportunity o replytothe letters published. Thejournalomits titles beforepersons' names,discourages ootnotes, and regretsthat it cannotconsiderany letter ofmore than 1,000 words. Lettersshould be addressed to PMLAFo-rum, Modern Language Associa-tion, 10 Astor Place, New York,NY 10003-6981.

Bakhtin and the Politics of CriticismTo the Editor:

Of late Gary Saul Morson has set himself an ambitious task: to replaythe Russian revolution, but with himself in the role of Russian liberal,standing Kerensky-like against the moder-day equivalent of the Bolshevikparty, the literary-criticalestablishment. His introduction to the Russiancluster (107 [1992]:226-31) presentsthe "politicization of currentcriticism"as a repeat of Marxist errors against which he and other Slavists have beenimmunized by "the Soviet and Eastern European experience."In a letter toa Russian colleague recentlypublishedin Moscow he allows the parallelwiththe "gruesome facts of Soviet history" a little more scope (227): "Of course,here in America, these people control only the universities.They can't arrestme; their power is limited" ("Perepiskaiz dvukh mirov" [Correspondencebetween Two Worlds], Bakhtinskii sbornik, II [The Bakhtin Collection 2],ed. D. Kujundzic and V. Makhlin, Moscow, 1991, 31-43; 38; our trans.). Itis as well that the stake in this farcelike repetition of history is not the fateof a nation but the interpretation of the works of Mikhail Bakhtin, whomMorson wishes to claim for the ersatz Russian liberalism(what he has calledelsewhere the "counter-tradition") he imagines himself representing.Thisbeguiling vision should not go unchallenged, lest non-Slavists be tempted toaccept Morson's account of the relevant intellectual history.Readers of his introduction will have noted that, for all the grand claimshe makes for a liberal, individualistic Slavic theoretical tradition, Morsonoffers little in the way of historical evidence to connect Bakhtin to such atradition. This is no accident, for the Russian context of which Morsonmakes so much is largelya projectionof his own brandof cold-warliberalismback onto an earliertime. In seeking to presentBakhtin as part of a Russiantradition that values "the initiative of individuals" against all claims madeon the basis of abstractions (class, party, etc.), Morson takes Bakhtin'scriticismof "theoreticism" as an endorsement of what is effectivelya rathervulgar brand of Anglo-Saxon empiricism (Introduction 228). However,Bakhtin's conceptions of the individual and of the role and meaning ofconsciousness are derived from neo-Kantian, phenomenological, and relig-ious sources, none of which have much to do with Morson's preoccupationsand all of which are theoretical (i.e., abstract, just as Bakhtin's critique oftheoreticism is) with a vengeance.

116

7/28/2019 Bakhtin and the Politics of Criticism

3/4

Forum

To have to refer to Bakhtin's actual intellectualsources,however,would complicate Morson's polemi-cal and, it needs to be said, politically driven case. For"theoreticism" Morson would have us read "Marx-ism," so that Bakhtin's critique of the former cancome out sounding like an advertisement for "Ameri-can progressive ideals" (227). Unfortunately, the cri-tique of theoreticism staged in Bakhtin's early essay"Towards a Philosophy of the Deed" is for the mostpart a critique of certain strands of neo-Kantianismby recourse to theoretical motifs drawn from phe-nomenology, philosophy of life, and neo-Kantianismitself; "historicalmaterialism"is criticized on a coupleof occasions, but then so are a number of othertraditions (indeed, at one point Bakhtin claims that"economic materialism"offers an accurate analysis ofthe depraved condition of European society). To ex-amine this work as social philosophy with any serious-ness would lead to conclusions quite different fromMorson's. To take the most obvious example, Bakh-tin's prizing of individual self-determination in neo-Kantian terms leads him to explicit condemnation ofliberal political economy and its real-world correlate-social systems that reify, materialize,or "biologize"the human by depending on self-interest as a motor ofsocial action. He sustains this position throughout hiscareer; t is difficultto make sense of his absolutizationof the claims of consciousness without referenceto it.For sure this is not Marxism; it is closer to theneo-Kantian socialism espoused by the likes of Her-mann Cohen or the communitarian vision associatedwith Martin Buber. One has to distort the entirephilosophical structure of Bakhtin's work, however,to turn it into an endorsement of the "'normal' or'civilized"'characterof "WesternEuropeanor Ameri-can social systems" (Morson, Introduction 227).If anyone is bending the humanities to the ends ofpolitical calculation, it is Morson. His "prosaic" Ba-khtin is a political creaturein disguise, having little todo with the complexities of social and philosophicaldebate in Russia. But then his vision, outlined in theletter referredto above, of an America under the swayof "'hegemonic' literature departments" is scarcelymore convincing (Introduction 227). For Morson, asa result of these departments' dominance,

theworld s divided nto twoopposing amps. n one livethegoodpeople:women,homosexuals,nd,ofcourse, henon-Western orld-nonwhites andall those who speakout against he Westin generalandthe United States nparticular.The West, men, whites,and heterosexuals-theseare nowthetruesourceof evil in theworld.There-fore,theworstthing n theworld s, of course,a sexuallynormalwhiteAmericanmale who believes n bourgeois

democracy.You can guessthat I am endowedwith allthesebadqualities, nd,mostscandalously,do not evenconsider t necessary o repentor justify myselfbefore"correct"ublicopinion. ("Perepiska"8;ourtrans.)Nobody need look to the United States for evidenceof this sharp and uncompromising divide betweendissident intellectuals and domineering conformists,for it is drawn from quite another source: a vision ofthe Soviet Union, which Morson thinks has somehowfound a second life in, of all places, America itself. Butwasn't the American social system proof against justsuch repression?What went wrong?Nothing, really. Morson simply has an ax to grind,and he has chosen Bakhtin as his whetstone. If the

role he seeks is that of noble dissident, he is welcometo it. If his aim is intellectual debate, something elseis called for.KEN HIRSCHKOPUniversityof SouthamptonDAVID SHEPHERDUniversityof Manchester

Reply:Criticizing my PMLA introduction, Ken Hirschkopand David Shepherdwrite:One has to distortthe entirephilosophical tructure fBakhtin'swork,however,o turn t into an endorsementof the "'normal'or 'civilized"'characterof "WesternEuropean r American ocialsystems."...

The sentence in my introduction from which thequoted phrases are drawn appears before I evendiscuss Bakhtin. The sentence has nothing to do withwhat Bakhtin thought or would have endorsed.Rather, it marks the differencebetweenmany Russianintellectualsof today and theirAmericancounterpartsby noting that

[w]ithoutrony,reform-minded ussianscall each steptowardWesternEuropeanor American ocialsystemsamove towarda "normal"r "civilized"ociety.The difference between my statement and their mis-leading rendition of it is rather typical of their letteras a whole.It is not true that "[f]or 'theoreticism' Morsonwould have us read 'Marxism,' so that Bakhtin'scritique of the former can come out sounding like anadvertisement for 'American progressive ideals.' ..."

117

7/28/2019 Bakhtin and the Politics of Criticism

4/4

Forumorum

As Caryl Emerson and I have explained at length,theoretism(our preferredtranslation of the word) asBakhtin coined the term applies to many doctrinesthat think away the "eventness" of events and see themessy particularities of experience as capturable atleast in principle by a system of rules or laws. ForBakhtin, structuralism, Russian formalism, andFreudianism, as well as the Marxism he knew andlived under, were all examples of theoretism. As forour "effectively" saying-that is, our not saying-that Bakhtin endorsed "Anglo-Saxon empiricism":surelyHirschkop and Shepherdare awareof attemptsin many culturesand philosophical traditionsto arguethe irreducibilityof the particular to the general. Totake a Russian example,Tolstoy explodes system aftersystem in War and Peace. And while Hirschkop andShepherdinsist on German sources, they overlook thistheme in Goethe-hardly an Anglo-Saxon empiricist-to whom Bakhtin devoted a study.Nowhere do I (or does Emerson) say that Bakhtinwas an American liberal. We do say that in contrastto the picture of him common among a number ofBritish and American commentators, Bakhtin wouldnot have considered himself a Marxist and was,indeed, hostile to Marxism. (In my PMLA introduc-tion, I quote two of his withering comments on it.)And I have argued that in his antipathy to theoretismhe belongs to a tradition of Russian writers andthinkers-some of whom were active liberals-whosaw the danger of Marxism, of utopianism, and of thepenchant for abstract social systematizing commonamong the prerevolutionaryRussian intelligentsia.What I found most startling in a first reading ofHirschkop and Shepherd's etter, apart from its ratherhectoring tone, was the ambitious range of motives,tasks, visions, endorsements, and axes to grind thatthey project onto me. As my opening example illus-trates, they conflate the ideas and viewpoints I havestated as my own with those I have ascribed to others.They fantasize a range of opinions and projects forme. They use quotation marks in such a way as tosuggest they are quoting my personal point of viewwhen in fact they are quoting my descriptionof others'viewpoints. And they adopt alternately outraged andsneering tones when referring to some of the mostcommonplace of historical and political judgments.(Dislike of Stalinist tyranny becomes for them cold-war hysteria.) It is their representation of my viewsthat deserves their term "farcelike."The authors flail around at everything in sightwithout ever seriously addressing the major conten-tions in my introduction to the Russian cluster,whichare these:

As Caryl Emerson and I have explained at length,theoretism(our preferredtranslation of the word) asBakhtin coined the term applies to many doctrinesthat think away the "eventness" of events and see themessy particularities of experience as capturable atleast in principle by a system of rules or laws. ForBakhtin, structuralism, Russian formalism, andFreudianism, as well as the Marxism he knew andlived under, were all examples of theoretism. As forour "effectively" saying-that is, our not saying-that Bakhtin endorsed "Anglo-Saxon empiricism":surelyHirschkop and Shepherdare awareof attemptsin many culturesand philosophical traditionsto arguethe irreducibilityof the particular to the general. Totake a Russian example,Tolstoy explodes system aftersystem in War and Peace. And while Hirschkop andShepherdinsist on German sources, they overlook thistheme in Goethe-hardly an Anglo-Saxon empiricist-to whom Bakhtin devoted a study.Nowhere do I (or does Emerson) say that Bakhtinwas an American liberal. We do say that in contrastto the picture of him common among a number ofBritish and American commentators, Bakhtin wouldnot have considered himself a Marxist and was,indeed, hostile to Marxism. (In my PMLA introduc-tion, I quote two of his withering comments on it.)And I have argued that in his antipathy to theoretismhe belongs to a tradition of Russian writers andthinkers-some of whom were active liberals-whosaw the danger of Marxism, of utopianism, and of thepenchant for abstract social systematizing commonamong the prerevolutionaryRussian intelligentsia.What I found most startling in a first reading ofHirschkop and Shepherd's etter, apart from its ratherhectoring tone, was the ambitious range of motives,tasks, visions, endorsements, and axes to grind thatthey project onto me. As my opening example illus-trates, they conflate the ideas and viewpoints I havestated as my own with those I have ascribed to others.They fantasize a range of opinions and projects forme. They use quotation marks in such a way as tosuggest they are quoting my personal point of viewwhen in fact they are quoting my descriptionof others'viewpoints. And they adopt alternately outraged andsneering tones when referring to some of the mostcommonplace of historical and political judgments.(Dislike of Stalinist tyranny becomes for them cold-war hysteria.) It is their representation of my viewsthat deserves their term "farcelike."The authors flail around at everything in sightwithout ever seriously addressing the major conten-tions in my introduction to the Russian cluster,whichare these:

(1) Most American Slavists are rather alienatedfrom the predominant trends in academic literarytheory.(2) Most American Slavists are acutely aware of thepitfalls of political reductionism because of their fa-miliarity with Soviet cultural history. For instance,arguments that literary value is entirely relative tosocial needs or to political power and attempts toreduceall aesthetic categories "ultimately"to politicalones are neither new nor attractive to most AmericanSlavists. (Do these two scholars from British univer-sities think I mischaracterizeAmerican Slavistics?)

(3) This familiarity with Soviet history also leadsmost American Slavists to be suspicious of Marxists'claims to be the champions of social progress.(4) Most Slavists and Russians diverge widely fromthe largerAmericantheoreticalworld in their view ofBakhtin and in the use they make of his terms and

concepts. This is not to deny that there are also widedivergenceson this subjectwithin the first group, butthe intragroup controversies often differ from theintergroup conflicts.

My introduction to the Russian cluster appears tohave presentedHirschkop and Shepherda convenientpretext for launching an attack, although their realgrievances seem to lie with the views of Bakhtin andliterary theory that I have expressed in books andarticles over the years. In a short reply, I can hardlycorrect all the misrepresentationsin their letter, but ifreaders would like to know what I did say aboutBakhtin, I refer them first to the book I wrote withCaryl Emerson, Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of aProsaics (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990); to our intro-duction to RethinkingBakhtin. Extensions and Chal-lenges, which contains a detailed summary ofBakhtin's essay "Toward a Philosophy of the Act"(Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1989); and, amongmy recent articles, to "Bakhtin, Genres, and Tempo-rality" (New Literary History 22 [1991]: 1071-92)and "ProsaicBakhtin" (CommonKnowledge2 [1993]:35-74).

GARYSAUL MORSONNorthwesternUniversity

Intentions, Foundationalism, SymmetryTo the Editor:

Although I agree with many of the substantivepoints in BarbaraHodgdon's Forum reply to LucienGoldschmidt, Robert F. Fleissner, and Thomas A.

(1) Most American Slavists are rather alienatedfrom the predominant trends in academic literarytheory.(2) Most American Slavists are acutely aware of thepitfalls of political reductionism because of their fa-miliarity with Soviet cultural history. For instance,arguments that literary value is entirely relative tosocial needs or to political power and attempts toreduceall aesthetic categories "ultimately"to politicalones are neither new nor attractive to most AmericanSlavists. (Do these two scholars from British univer-sities think I mischaracterizeAmerican Slavistics?)

(3) This familiarity with Soviet history also leadsmost American Slavists to be suspicious of Marxists'claims to be the champions of social progress.(4) Most Slavists and Russians diverge widely fromthe largerAmericantheoreticalworld in their view ofBakhtin and in the use they make of his terms and

concepts. This is not to deny that there are also widedivergenceson this subjectwithin the first group, butthe intragroup controversies often differ from theintergroup conflicts.

My introduction to the Russian cluster appears tohave presentedHirschkop and Shepherda convenientpretext for launching an attack, although their realgrievances seem to lie with the views of Bakhtin andliterary theory that I have expressed in books andarticles over the years. In a short reply, I can hardlycorrect all the misrepresentationsin their letter, but ifreaders would like to know what I did say aboutBakhtin, I refer them first to the book I wrote withCaryl Emerson, Mikhail Bakhtin: Creation of aProsaics (Stanford: Stanford UP, 1990); to our intro-duction to RethinkingBakhtin. Extensions and Chal-lenges, which contains a detailed summary ofBakhtin's essay "Toward a Philosophy of the Act"(Evanston: Northwestern UP, 1989); and, amongmy recent articles, to "Bakhtin, Genres, and Tempo-rality" (New Literary History 22 [1991]: 1071-92)and "ProsaicBakhtin" (CommonKnowledge2 [1993]:35-74).

GARYSAUL MORSONNorthwesternUniversity

Intentions, Foundationalism, SymmetryTo the Editor:

Although I agree with many of the substantivepoints in BarbaraHodgdon's Forum reply to LucienGoldschmidt, Robert F. Fleissner, and Thomas A.

11818