Crurrcar INTBTLECTUALS

oN'W'nrrmc

editedby

GaryA. Olson
and
Lynn Worsham

SrareUNrvnnsrry
or NEwYom Pness

Jm3
 Introduction
\
lStuart_Hqtl/writesabout the "deadly seriousness"of intellectual
a ork: o'It is a deadly serious matter. I come back to the critical
jistinction between intellectual work and academic work: they
*'.'erlap,they abut with one another,they feed off one another,the
::neprovidesyou with the meansto do the other.But they arenot the
lame thing" (286). The distinction betweenintellectual work and
academicwork is an important one for those of us working in the
academy.Simply stated,the distinction is this: academicwork is
lnherently conservative inasmuch as it seefs,=1ffii
and interestsof a disci-
riineo nand, tofulfillthei
:111SS10n I
:isslycn potentially
revoluti , forit aims
:c cntloue. c even institutions,
:rofessionsthat rationalizeexploitation,inequalify, mJusuce.
I tsot
*ifferen y so.
{r we havegivenit here,wlrileintellectualwork can
l*seits politicalvisionuni b"ro*.@
It is within this context of the tension between academicand
:*tellectual work that critical intellectualsmust toil everyday.Most
'* ork in the academy-academic and intellectual-is produced
'.1:oughwriting,sowe areall 'lry{lqfq" "?.t.least
in .?.S}pglggrql
Writing-the production of
-en!q,i{qg1jg_rlgf,9"ptofo J[gy-9.
 CRrucel IwtBLtBcrueLs oN

books,articles,reviews,andothersuch centralto
ourcollectivework.Yet, anygivenscholar'srelationshipto writing
is auniquelypersonalone.CriticalIntellectualson Writingexam-
ineshow twenty-seven of the world's mosteminentscholarscon-
ceivetheir ownrelationshipwith writing andwith thework ofbeing
a criticalintellectual.Forovera decade,JAC-ajournaldevotedto
the studyof rhetoric,discourse,andtheoreticalscholarship-has
conductedextensivescholarlyinterviewswith intemationallyre-
nownedscholarsfromawidearrayofintellectual disciplines.While
theseinterviewsconcemedthe entireextentof eachinterviewee's
body of scholarship,eachsessionbeganwith a seriesof questions
aboutthescholar'srelationshipto writing. CriticalIntellectualson
Writingis a collectionof excerptsfrom theseinterviews,specifi-
callyfocusingonwriting,writing habitsandthework of thecritical
intellectual.Here,twenty-seven thinkersdiscusswhethertheycon-
siderthemselvesto be writers,what their specificwriting habits
are,how writing relatesto intellectualwork, andthe politics of
intellectualwork.
As mightbeexpected, a groupof thinkersasdiverseastheones
herewill havea range of reflections andjudgmentsaboutwriting,
andeachindividualwill haveparticularconcerns centralto hisorher
work. JudithButb$,for e,4,aqg1%lvggies.that the}p_surgg in anti-
intellectualism in todav's4cademywillhaveanegajiyqa{rdmaterial
effecton how irt"ll"qto4lyq$_g"tq.@g_Shehasstruggledall her
#

life againstthe notion that intellectualsshouldstrive in their schol-

arshipto be "transparent"or'oclear"becauseshebelievessuchan
ideal servesto shut down thought. She contendsthat rigorous
intellectualwork is necessarily extremelyhardlabor.Becominga
criticalintellectual involves' ine hardon difficultIt texts-" and
rt entai
mentfromwhatis mostfamiliar."It is preciselybecause intellectual
worTlssotlemanding, sopainful,thatmanyacademics simplyavoid
it. Perhapsthe very pain of intellectualwork is one causeof the
currentincreaseof anti-intellectualism in the academy. For Butler,
suchanti-intellectualism is in part strucfitral,in that peoplein the
humanitiesareno longercertainthattheyarecentralto theacademy;
I
I
\
' :hey are derided by people outsideof the humanities,and they are
,:nableto articulatehow their scholarshipcanhave concreteeffects
=oth in the lives of their studentsand in the world in general.This
anxiety often has disturbing consequences:"Those intellectuals
rvhospeakin a rari fi edway arebeing scapegoated,arebeingpurged,
are being denouncedprecisely becausethey represent a certain
anxiety about everyone'seffect-that is, what effect arc any of us
having, and what effect can we have?" @
intellectualswho havea senseofsocial
ls. andto communicatein
not mean that we

Butleris fascinated
bv theconnectionbetweendifficult
languageand the opening up of new ways of understandingthe
lvorld. Sheexplainsthat having beenformally trainedin continental
philosophy meant that she spent a considerableamount of time
reading Hegel and Heidegger,and in both philosophersthe diffi-
culty of the language was in some ways indispensable to the
philosophical views they were expressing. As a young college
student,Butler was especiallyinfluencedby Heidegger'slanguage,
"his neologisms and his coinages." In Heidegger she found a
"profound effort" to call into question"ordinary languageand the
ways inwhichwe structurethe world on itsbasis, an analysisofthe
kinds of occlusionsor concealmentsthat take place when we take
ordinary languageto be atrue indicator of reaiity asit is andasit must
be." Thus, in her formative yearsas an intellectual, shewas '.very
much seduced"bythe notion that "some newnessof the world was
going to be openedup throughmessingwith grammarasit hasbeen
received." Such linguistic experimentation is, in Butler's view,
important to critical thinking and to discovering new ways of
conceivingthe world. For Butler, bgigg a cli4c4 ilfllej:lqa] nle?ls
constantlvjnteno gtlli$g_l$ggl
sa!.lrggql,asp_umpji.9s*sssri$uelly
into ouestion.not 3gg,esgg{iy" 1g-_{:,lygf_Xt-lh w@t !s__-!.siag
-*1F--;:-*."::
eapi"*-hgY-tsgP-.lttisb
assume new meanings in new contexts. Such a stance means
ffiils tb'-1fre"i?i1fi6;iifi6itaf inatriueitioningwithoutclosing
 10( CRnrcel INteLLecruem oN WRnruc

it down too quickly." That is, true critical thinking-is alwayl

: "anxietyaccompanies something
thewitnessing of newpossibilities.,,
Givenher faith inthe generativecapacityof linguisticexperi-
mentation,Butler is dismayedby the increasedcalls for scholarly
work to br "ur"m*i!1r,,'!o uppgulto ..W
':qp of an
"altquovii*pJ"d@ems meis thattrtr
relationto ordinarygrammarhasbeenlost in this call for "*i*i- radical
accessibility.It's not thatI'm in favor of difficulty for difficulty's
sake;it's that I think thereis a rot in ordinaryiurrguug"and in
receivedgrammarthat constrainsour thinking.;,Butier points
out
that accessiblemeaning,common sense,and the public sphere
are
ffi."ir" ffinffiing thatwffiLit the
sameliiFistic world.TG6ds it curiousinaeeatt atanyoiewould
makdsEfi-aapeal's
atthebeginningofthe twenty-firstcentury,given
our "postmodern condition," given what we now know
about
langlage thanks to poststructuratist thinkers, and given the fact
that
we live at a time when there's "enormous conflict at the level
of
language."In fact, shecommentsthat it is our social responsibility
to accept the fact that "there is no common language anymore."
This fact, saysButler, is "one ofthe most profounJpedagogrcar
problemsof our time, if not oneof the mostprofoundpotiticat
problemsof our time."
other scholarsshareButler'sconcernabouttheincreased anti_
intellectualism in theacademyandtheattemptto erasecertainkinds
of intellectualwork in the nameof clariiy and certainty.Jean-
FrangoisLyotard,for example,conceives of himselfnotasawriter :-
but asa philosopher(because he mustnecessarilyalwaysbe con-
sciousof "meaning"when he writes), but he nonethelesssees
writing (in theexpanded contemporarysenseof theterm)ascentral
to
true writing attemptto resist"the
which culturalobjectsarecommodities,"to resist..thesimpleand
naiveexchangeability of thingsin our world.', His concepionof
writing standsin contradistinctionto the traditional notion of
 /
Genv A. OmoN ANDLYNNWonsneu ll-

'r.'
writing as an activitywhoseobjectiveis to "master"a subjict, to
:. possessit, to pin it down. It is preciselythis preoccupation
with
masterysaysLyotard,that hasimpelledphilosophyasa modeof
discourseinto "extremecrisis." The compulsionto masterby
erectinghuge systemsof answers,the searchfor a "constituting
ordet''that givesmeaningto the world, makesthe philosophera
"secretaccomplice"of the phallocrat.This is why he doesnot
perceivehis own writing to be "academic";-ag?9emic discgu{se
entailswhatLacancalled"the discourseot&e ngg$S4"andLyotard
is not aboutto sethimselfup as arnaster,just a "perpetualstudent."
Instead,gld iqlgg$edlgintellectual work is "perpetualdisplace-
menrorqu'srrons jql&r@*@r--r,
questionsalwaysalreadycarrywithin themtheir own answers,are
alwaysinterested,it is the act itself of questioning,of remaining
open,that is mostusefulto Lyotard.And so, an "answer"is only
interestingin so far asit offers a nev/question.
Thus, for example,phi
gender_E useful
to end dgbate;suchquestionsnecessarilyhave no
answers.In fact,Lyotardbelievesthat our approachto questionsof
gendershouldbeidenticalto howheconceives theactofwriting-
asquestionsposedwithout attemptsto answeror master:'Maybe
that's the best homagewe can give to the genderquestion-'to
write."' Thus,attemptsto associate masculinitywith aggressive-
nessandfemininitywith passivityare"very very stupid."A more
interestingissueis therelative"importancegiventothebodyassuch
bybothsexes."Philosophical-thatis,male-discoursehastended
to repressandexternalizea "bodily way of thinking," to be suspi-
ciousofthosewhoacknowledge emotionsandbodilystates,whereas
womenare"more sensitive"to thesefactors,accordingto Lyotard.
What is needed,he suggestshereandelsewhere,is to move away
from a discourseofmasteryandabstractcognitiontowarda way of
beingthat recognizesaffect,thebody,andopenness-a posturehe
definesas"feminine." Hence,Lyotardperceivesa strongrelation-
ship"between"theabilitytowrite in tftissenseandwhatIcould call
'femininity' becausethere is a sort of opennessto something
12 CRnrcel INret-r.ecruer.soN WnrrIt.lc

unknownwithoutanyprojecttomasterit." ForLyotard,theopqop{te
of a discourse of masteryis "passivit%"the"abilityto waifior. not
to look at,butto wait for-forwhat, precisely,wedonltknow."Tliis
- -_
veryretusal ot the temptationto gtasp,to masteris for Lyotard ,.real
femininity."
A former Marxist who devoted fifteen years of his life to
grassroots socialist activism, Lyotard claims to have taken up

theusualsenseof "anotherpolicyor anotherpolitics,"is notaviable

alternativeto the "system"becauseorganizedresistance, though
sometimes necessary for checksandbalances, eventuallybecomes
absorbed into thesystem.True.rgslslanqc.lvhethqr in socialreform
ot *orh., kirrdof,,ufot-,
is much like the to "write," in the way that
word.Thus,intellectua@ is
deadlyserious.
Many of the scholarsrepresented in this collectionalso see
writing as a way to resist,as a form of political activism.Gloria
Anzaldrtaattemptsto connecther writing to the "real-life, bodily
experiences" ofvictims ofvarioustlpes ofoppression;herintellec-
tual work is an attemptto give voice to the silenced.Similarly,
ChantalMouffe seesintellectualsasthosewhoprovidea language
for othersto useto analyze,express,andtransformtheir relationsof
subordination andoppression, andshefeelsacertainurgencyabout
this deadlyseriouswork becausecritical intellectuals-especially
giventhebacklashfromthepoliticalright-are facinga"big deficit"
of kansformative discourse:"There's a real lack of imasination on
th.Jqiql o{ yt.y -o"J
lefirt.Hi
vocabu will make ible a radicaldemocratiC
lfasa of counterterrorist who
deffffi? an "extremist writing" in an attempt to re-createthe
academyas "a shelteringplace of unconditionalhospitalityfor
dissidenceand insurrection,refutationandun-domesticatable ex-
plosionsof thought."Ronell'sextremistwriting is reminiscentof
 Ga.nvA. Ot"soNaNo Lvl{w WoRsH.e,u 13

toc
Donna s writ " intellectualwork thatis "reso-
lutelv committed to the aooaratuso
of its own insisting on a kind of double move, a
tt mgo powers,
meanings."HenryGirouxcreditswriting with helpingdefinehim-
selfnot asan academicbut asa criticalintellectual,someonewho
through writing has had the opportunity to exert influence in
importantpublicdialogues.MichaelEric Dysonalsodiscusses the
roleof thepublic intellectual,claimingthatwriting hasalwaysbeen
an importantpart of AfricanAmericanculture(despiteits equally
strongoral tradition), andinsistingthat writing continueto be seen
asa centralprojectofthat culture.
Theseand the manyothercritical intellectualsrepresented in
thiscollectiontogetherprovide a livel5 provocative,andinsightful
view of the role of writing in contemporarycritical work. For the
first time,twenty-seven ofthe world's greatestcriticalintellectuals
appearinthe pagesof onevolumeto weighin ontheimportanceof
a singletopic.CriticalIntellectualson Writingsewesasaunique
and significant forum for these scholarsto expoundon their
intellectualwork.

Works Cited

Hall, Stuart."Cultural Studiesandits TheoreticalLegacies."Cul-

tural Studies.Ed.LawrenceGrossberg, CaryNelson,andPaula
A. Treichler.New York: Routledge,1992.2i7-86.