tj
Greg wrote:
>
>Here's a good quote from Fish that I'll end with:
>
>"[M]eanings will be neither subjective nor objective, at least in
>the terms assumed by those who argue within the traditional
>framework [FIsh is talking about M.H. Abrams and E.D. Hirsch in
>this instance --g]: they will not be objective because they will
>always be the product of a point of view rather than having been
>simply 'read off'; and they will not be subjective because that
>point of view will always be social or institutional. Or by the
>same reading one could say that they are *both* subjective and
>objective: they are subjective because they inhere in a
>particular point of view and are therefore not universal; and
>they are objective because the point of view that delivers them
>is public and conventional rather than individual and unique.
> To put the matter in either way is to see how unhelpful the
>terms 'subjective' and 'objective' are. Rather than facilitating
>inquiry, they close it down, by deciding in advance what shape
>inquiry can possibly take. Specifically, they assume, without
>being aware that it is an assumption and therefore open to
>challenge, the very distinction I have been putting into
>question, the distinction between interpreters and the objects
>they interpret. That distinction in turn assumes that
>interpreters and their objects are two different kinds of
>acontextual entities, and within these twin assumptions teh issue
>can only be one of control: will texts be allowed to constrain
>their own interpretation or will irresponsible interpreters be
>allowed to obscure and overwhelm texts. . . .But if selves are
>constituted by the ways of thinking and seeing that inhere in
>social organizations, and if these constituted selves in turn
>constitute texts according to these same ways, then there can be
>no adversary relationship between text and self because they are
>the necessarily related products of the same cognitive abilities.
>A text cannot be overwhelmed by an irresponsible reader and one
>need not worry about protecting the purity of a text from a
>reader's idiosyncrasies. It is only the distinction between
>subject and object that give rise to these urgencies, and once
>the distinction is blurred they simply fall away."
>
>Whew. I didn't mean to quote that much when I started typing,
>but I seemed to need to keep going to make sure the point was
>clear. Part of the problem here is that I've read the text
>several times and you (apparently, to the best of my knowledge)
>have not. I kind of feel like I'm trying to teach a class when
>no one has done the assigned reading. :) With that in mind, I'm
>going to stop trying to "teach" Fish to you all; if someone has
>read or wants to read the book (_Is There a Text in This Class?_,
>Stanley Fish, Harvard University Press, 1980, ISBN 0-674-46727-4)
>I would love to discuss it off-list, but I am neither willing nor
>very qualified to continue "lecturing" on Fish, at least not
>without my "audience" being more familiar with the text than they
>are :) If I keep this up, I'll wind up quoting the whole damn
>book. :)
>
>I *really* recommend the book, though. I think Fish inserts a
>lot of sense into the often nonsensical deconstructionist
>criticism. If these posts have at all challenged or interested
>you, *read the book*.
>
>:) Class dismissed. :)
>
>
>--
>Greg Ritter
>gritter@vcu.edu
>ritter@urvax.urich.edu
>http://www.urich.edu/~ritter
>
>