Thu Jan 23 08:28:58 1997
From owner-tc-list Thu Jan 23 08:28:58 1997
Return-Path:
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
id IAA08038; Thu, 23 Jan 1997 08:28:21 -0500
From: "Professor L.W. Hurtado"
Organization: Divinity Faculty
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 13:23:34 +000
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
Subject: Re: Post-modern textual criticism
Priority: normal
References: <29D34A5AD7@div.ed.ac.uk>
In-reply-to:
X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Windows (v2.50)
Message-ID: <2D89302D07@div.ed.ac.uk>
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 4814
Bart Ehrman writes to/of me:
> Well, maybe "unreconstructed modernist" sounds like a dirty epithet
> that you simply don't want to embrace. Because based on what does seem to
> be your assumptions about the hegemony of "correct" understandings of the
> "original" meanings of "texts," that somehow we can have access to (if we
> just work hard enough at it and apply the right methods), I'd judge that
> postmodernist discourse has created only a negative and reactive response,
> rather than a rethinking and reformulation of any of your basic
> epistemological positions. I.e., your approach to texts is clearly
> modernist, and it doesn't appear to be a modernism affected by anything
> resembling poststructuralist theory. If that's not an unreconstructed
> modernism, then I'll eat my Fish.
>
> :-) Bart
Well, I must grant that I didn't have to wait for Fish etc. to
criticize enlightenment/"modernist" approaches to knowledge to see
the problems involved--so in that sense at least I guess I haven't
been all that re-shaped as to problematics of "modernism" by this
particular theoretical wave. But I do sincerely grant that
"poststructuralist/postmodernist" theoreticians have pointed to real
difficulties in interpretation, real logical issues invovled for all
of us, and that we can thus learn--even if we do not become
disciples.
I utterly reject the term "hegemony" to describe my approach. I
do not advocate any group controlling anything; I do not advocate
some particular view being considered binding by any force other than
its power to gain assent through powers of reasoning-persuasion.
This term "hegemony" has become an epithet of no meaning any more,
rather like "fascist" was in my grad student days--meaning merely
anyone I want to label as not falling into line with me & my drinking
buddies. Can we lay off such useless kidney punches, Bart?
I do advocate the reasonableness of the idea that scholars in a
particular body of inquiry *can* attempt to evaluate the comparitive
validity and adequacy of theories, interpretations etc., and
can/should attempt to do so by attempting to develop and use bases
other than mere social coercion. I do think that in TC and other
subjects these bases include legitimately the idea of an author or
artist or copyist or group (as the case may be) and that it is these
others whom we can attempt to engage via what they say/have said,
written, constructed, etc. And I hold that we can try to develop
means of assessing interpretations as to how well they help us engage
these others via the texts or other relevant items being interpreted.
How can I help but react with some considerable negativity to some
forms of postmodernist theory if I find the positions illogical in
some vital ways, and the aims anti-human and inimical to the
nourishment of humane learning? But not all aspects or examples of
"postmodernist" advocacy seem to me so, and even misguided ideas can
clarify our own thinking.
I do not hold, and have not stated here, that we can gain access to
some single "correct" and hegemonically-enforced interpretation "if
we just work hard and apply the right methods". I have advocated the
view that it is not unreasonable to use the notions of "correct" and
"incorrect" as theoretical concepts, and that we should/can try to
develop appropriate means of seeking to do *justice* to the subject
matters we study (and those who produced the subject matter we
study), while granting freely that any attempt must also be
critically examined on the assumption that it is corrigible and,
the effort difficult, the more where there is distance twixt us and
the item being studied (such as linguistic, cultural, social, gender
etc. distances). Indeed, I do *not* harbor the notion that by trying
very hard we can arrive at a final statement of things "wie es
eigentlich gewesen ist": When have I said otherwise?
SO, Bart. If we are to continue this discussion, here or (lest we
tax overmuch the patience of others) elsewhere, let us attempt to
understand each other carefully, and resist distorting what each
other is saying. You don't like my reaction to some forms of modern
theory--fair enough. But try to understand what I'm saying, and
listen when I tell you that your characterizations seem to me
distorting rhetoric rather than accurate reflections. (And I hope we
know each other well enough for you to know, Bart, that my direct
manner of expression here in *no* way indicates any personal
hostility. I say this here for the benefit of other readers on whom
this missive is inflicted.)
Larry Hurtado
L. W. Hurtado
University of Edinburgh,
New College
Mound Place
Edinburgh, Scotland EH1 2LX
Phone: 0131-650-8920
Fax: 0131-650-6579
E-mail: L.Hurtado@ed.ac.uk
Back