E d i to r s ’ Introduction
Recomposing t he Critical/Lib eral/
Arts
J . A l l a n Mi t ch e l l a , J ulie Orlemanski b and Myra Seaman c
a
Department of English, University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada.
Department of English, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL.
c
Department of English, College of Charleston, Charleston, SC.
b
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies (2015) 6, 361–374.
doi:10.1057/pmed.2015.33
Experiments in thinking, the artful transmission of knowledge and scholarly play
have a critical dimension that often goes unrecognized. Alternative modes of
understanding render norms visible and make conventions sidesteppable. Inventive practices show the contingency of what has been established and adumbrate
how it might be different. These were some of the convictions behind Critical/
Liberal/Arts, a pair of symposia sponsored and organized by the BABEL Working
Group in 2013 and held, respectively, at the University of California, Irvine and
at The Graduate Center, City University of New York.1 The two day-long events
included scholars, artists and activists and sought to foment scenes of thinking
and being together not centered on a single milieu, one form of apprenticeship, or
exclusive criteria of validity. The wager of the symposia was this: even as the
‘hermeneutics of suspicion’ has fallen under suspicion and many react against
‘symptomatic criticism’ and ‘paranoid reading,’ critique has not outlived its
usefulness. Indeed, alternatives to entrenched critical habits might extend and
intensify the power of critical inquiry. We invited presentations that brought
together practices divided by recent polemics: the critical arts of resistance,
protest, questioning and self-reflexivity, and the ludic disciplines of creation,
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960 postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
www.palgrave-journals.com/pmed/
1 A full list of
participants and
the titles of their
presentations
appears as an
appendix to this
introduction, and
the website
archiving the
symposia can be
found at
babelsymposia
2013.org/.
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
Mitchell et al
collaboration, celebration and play. Presenters were encouraged to see criticism in
terms of making, doing and imagining – perhaps to discover creation and critique
inhering in one another, or wending apart, or crossing one another again and
again like a pair of knives being whetted or like the faces of a Mobius strip. This
volume gathers many of the ideas and objects shared in the course of Critical/
Liberal/Arts and pursues further inquiries sparked by those conversations. Eleven
of the twenty-one original presentations have been reimagined for publication.
The conversation began when the three of us who organized the symposia (and
who serve as editors for the present volume) expressed both excitement about and
unease with the state of literary studies. There were wars and rumors of war
against adversarial ‘critique,’ a general turning away from the ‘negative’ stance of
the critic whose ‘persona’ was accused of defensiveness, displeasure, mistrust and
desire for mastery. In accounts of the alleged ‘post-critical’ state of the field,
description claimed ascendance over interpretation and intervention; ‘making’
surged ahead of explanation and explication; surfaces, rather than symptoms,
seemed to answer the needs of the day. Meanwhile new critical methods,
collaborations and forms of public engagement were appearing, despite the
so-called crisis in the humanities. Even a passing glance at higher education
turned up projects that transcended traditional rubrics and refused to remain in
their respective scholarly domains, but rather crossed out of academia and
continued on to other planes of social practice. These projects represented serious
commitments to tinkering, mapping, constructing, organizing, blogging, protesting, ornamenting, fantasizing, healing, documenting, inventing, occupying,
wandering and more. They also embodied reflexive tactics for surviving, and
flourishing, in the conditions of marketization and precarity that characterize
twenty-first-century universities and life more generally. From the perspective of
both theory and practice, then, it seemed to us that the moment was at hand to
reflect anew on what we do when we study literary and cultural phenomena,
when we engage the past, and when we teach, read, write and think. Now was
our chance to redefine those relationships, to experiment with various ways
forward and test the stakes.
But the frameworks available for the conversation felt limiting. The prevailing
polemics tended to reinforce and naturalize divisions that were neither necessary
nor salutary, and sometimes reproduced the antagonisms they were criticizing.
They failed to describe many of the critical legacies and companionable acts that
made us want to be literary scholars in the first place, and they disregarded the
extraordinary projects currently underway inside and outside academia, projects
that cut across the conventional distinctions within knowledge production:
distance and involvement, criticism and aestheticism, sensation and reflection,
detachment and attachment, interrogation and incorporation, control and loss of
control before the objects of our study. We thought: we need critique not in
opposition to creation, immersion and affirmation, but in concert with them.
So Critical/Liberal/Arts took a different tack. Over two days, and in the
362
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
Recomposing the Critical/Liberal/Arts
conversations preceding and following those two days, we sought to stage
unconventional encounters and to generate local states of disequilibrium in the
circulation of laboring, thinking bodies, and in the flows of information, resources,
chit-chat and debate. Delivered by speakers from various positions in academia’s
hierarchy and from outside the university, the presentations would include exhibition, performance, demonstration, institution-founding, film screening and guided
meditation. They would involve expressive modes quite different from the usual sort
of analytic thinking we associate with critique, but would be critical interventions
even so – indeed, they would be radical rethinkings.
So we asked: What different faces might critique have today? What does it feel
like? What does it do? What does it mean to be ‘uncritical’ or ‘anti-critical’? How
do we engage in criticism and invention against the actuarial interests of the
corporate university? Can we ‘afford’ to nurture speculative creation, or pure
science, in the so-called age of austerity? Do delight, rapture or the drift of
daydreams have a role in criticism? Is there value in maintaining what separates
the injunctions to critique and to create? How and to what ends might our
practices cross-pollinate the sciences and the fine arts? Or politics and aesthetics?
Or the future and the past? The symposia’s participants both enacted and
reflected on such entanglements, offering new models of critical invention under
the rubric Critical/Liberal/Arts.
A rt a nd the Liberal Arts
The title shared by this special issue and the two symposia seeks to constitute a field
of play, a framework in which definitions might be ventured, tactics tried out
against others and new games invented. Critical/Liberal/Arts sets three terms in
dynamic and recombinatory relation; it wonders how art, the liberal arts, and the
arts of criticism and critique might sit together. The slashes separating the terms
may seem to cast ‘critical’ and ‘liberal’ as alternatives, but our hope is rather that
the oblique strokes conjure a different set of relations – as if to mark ratios or
fluctuations rather than stable divisions, on the assumption that nothing about the
words should be taken for granted. The ambiguity of our defining terms is one
reason to continue to subject them to continual debate and play and, yes, critique.
During the Middle Ages, the epistemological category of ars could refer to
knowledge of a practical kind, as opposed to scientia, or more theoretical
knowledge. Perfect Aristotelian scientia was to be based on first principles and
advanced by logical deduction; it was ‘speculative’ in its concern with establishing truths, rather than achieving a certain outcome. Ars, by contrast, was
knowledge oriented toward worldly ends, not quite systematic, inductive rather
than deductive. This is one sense of the ‘arts’ in the title: the plural, unpurified
arts of knowledge, fueled by desires in and for the world. Yet, to take another
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
363
Mitchell et al
lesson from medieval epistemology: in medieval Latin usage, ars and scientia (or
disciplina) were often deployed interchangeably, just as the boundaries between
what we consider secure knowledge and contingent apprehension are shifting
and unstable. As ever, what is distinguished theoretically often falls back into
indistinction, again enmeshed.
In Critical/Liberal/Arts, one might also see an apparition of the seemingly
ineluctable ‘conflict of the faculties’ that stretches from the ancients to the
moderns. The liberal arts, after all, were partly a creation of medieval universities
whose early purpose was to organize diverse faculties and professional pursuits
within new institutional structures. The trivium of grammar, rhetoric, and logic
and the quadrivium of arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy systematized
academic knowledge and provided battle lines for a significant number of
intellectual and institutional skirmishes. It was also a synthetic framework,
combining what look to us like quite different ‘verbal’ and ‘quantitative’
disciplines. Yet these artes liberales stood together to the exclusion of the artes
mechanicae, like architecture, warfare, tailoring and metallurgy, held by
medieval thinkers to be more ‘servile’ or ‘vulgar’ branches of practical learning.
Alternative forms of knowledge transmission such as apprenticeships and guilds
were consequently left out of universities. These and other conflicts of the
faculties are easy enough to generalize, extending to the agonistic relationship of
poetry and philosophy (Plato), secular literature and sacred doctrine (from the
Patristics down to medieval Papal policy), onward to Immanuel Kant’s rival
‘faculties,’ C.P. Snow’s ‘two cultures’ and the contemporary management
structures of universities and the ‘information economy’ more broadly.
We might note that, in each case, the divisions between kinds of knowledge tend
to be normative, not simply descriptive, and to set off some branch of learning as
higher, more autonomous, more rational or closer to the truth than others. The
medieval artes liberales are instructive for seeming so capacious and crossdisciplinary, but they were also defensive and territorial in their self-separation
from commercial and manual pursuits. The ‘liberal/arts’ of our title points to
these histories of learning’s division and institutionalization and to the ongoing
negotiation of those conflicts. Critical/Liberal/Arts recognizes the palpable
realities of learning’s taxonomies – of differential funding structures, varying
levels of status and opportunity and access, and the relative ease or difficulty of
working across boundaries. In light of these conditions, the symposia and this
volume have sought, at least locally and provisionally, to give occasion for works
that realize alternative architectures of learning and living together.
In the United States today, a ‘liberal arts degree’ connotes an attainment at
some remove from pre-professional or vocational training, one originally justified
as the background proper for citizens of a democratic society. The defense of
learning for its own sake, at a distance from its instrumentalization, is an old one.
To medievalists, it calls to mind, say, John of Salisbury (d.1180) claiming that the
arts need to be defended against entrepreneurial types who reject the trivium in
364
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
Recomposing the Critical/Liberal/Arts
favor of professional training in the pursuit of personal wealth. Controversies
over the value of otium and negotium are perennial and suggest that ‘crisis’ over
the place of the humanities in relation to daily business may be inevitable.
Intellectual autonomy will always be hard-won because scholarship (from Latin
schola, deriving from the Greek for leisure as well as learning) can exist only
within networks of material and social co-dependency. Speculative freedom, or
the project of learning for the sake of learning, is a collective achievement (even if
not equally accessible to all). The ambient imperative to justify what we do was in
evidence throughout Critical/Liberal/Arts. This need seemed to derive, at least in
part, from the managerial push for assessment and outcomes – and the fact that
value in contemporary higher education is most frequently identified with
economic value, monetization. Our title gestures toward this problematic as well:
unmoored from ‘arts,’ ‘liberal’ slides toward the neoliberalism of laissez-faire
capitalism and market-driven choice. The ‘neoliberal university’ is one that feels
saturated by the structures of for-profit corporations. The imperative that we
justify ourselves also drifts like a miasma from the recent pejoration of the term
‘liberal’ by conservative ideologues, who seek to curtail academics’ freedoms of
expression when those views differ sharply from their own. Yet the task of
explaining anew the value of the humanities and the criteria of their excellence is
not merely defensive or reactive. Fundamental openness to different formulations
of knowledge sustains the liberal arts: as Stefan Collini writes, ‘no starting-point
is beyond re-consideration, because no assumptions (about how societies change
or people act or how meanings mean) are beyond challenge, because no
vocabulary has an exclusive monopoly’ (Collini, 2012, 66).
Most participants and audience members at the symposia have been deeply
involved in the humanities and fine arts, whether inside or outside of universities.
We have every reason to want to preserve the liberal arts in their non-instrumentalized, speculative, experimental and playful modes, as an infrastructure of initiation
into learning’s rigors and joys. Yet, following Jeffrey J. Williams in his important
essay ‘History as a Challenge to the Idea of the University,’ we believe we need more
than an academic ‘politics of nostalgia,’ idealizing the university of the past as a
‘refugium or humanistic enclave.’ Williams calls for us to ‘imagine new possibilities,’
rather than resort to a false sentimentality – and it is just this forward-looking
imagination that Critical/Liberal/Arts has sought to be a part of (Williams, 2005, 69).
Indeed, several of the contributors tracked new paths through or beyond the
bureaucracy of the contemporary university – as in Gaelan Gilbert’s discussion of
alternative ‘outstitutions’ and forms of ‘mendicancy,’ in Henry Turner’s ‘Society
for the Arts of Corporation’ with its cultivation of membership, legal documentation and institutional governance free from any interest but incorporation itself,
and in Ammiel Alcalay’s role in founding the deeply collaborative book series
Lost & Found: The CUNY Poetics Document Initiative.
The final word of the title also stands alone: arts in the sense of fine arts, objects
of beauty, what we gaze at in museums and galleries and watch in theaters, what
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
365
Mitchell et al
works on us through sensory means and affects us as sensuous creatures. Critical/
Liberal/Arts sought to showcase the mutuality of making and understanding,
creating and criticizing. The program of the two symposia included a screening of
Thom Andersen’s 16 mm short film ‘Get Out of the Car,’ in which the filmmaker
challenges some of the assumptions of his own earlier film about Los Angeles;
a poem by Eleanor Johnson generated from a chance encounter with a book by
the French naturalist Jean Rostand; a reading by medievalist / novelist Bruce
Holsinger of his historical fiction, which vibrated with the rhythms of both
Middle English and hardboiled noir and was the product as much of his scholarly
expertise as his creative imagination; a comic slideshow extravaganza by the
Hollow Earth Society (Ethan Gould and Wythe Marschall), or what they called a
‘pedagogical management strategy bootcamp’; and the presentation of a collaborative art project by Marina Zurkow and Una Chaudhuri that used aesthetic
provocations to reorient us affectively toward climate change. One preoccupation
was in discovering in things the potential to jog the mind, as in the flotsam and
jetsam Jamie Skye Bianco found awash on Dead Horse Bay and the Rockaway
Peninsula. Throughout these events we were presented with inventive means of
training attention on matters (a toad, garbage, Swiss cheese, geometrical figures,
the typo) that too easily slide into the background. There was a welcoming of the
aleatory, abjected and wasted into our field of concern, something theorized in
Eirik Steinhoff’s account of poetry as ‘a means for cultivating and activating the
presence of chance, on behalf ... of our ongoing improbable happinesses.’ Even
inadvertency and ruination, as dramatized in Dadaism and the film The Five
Obstructions (discussed by Aaron Kunin), could be constructive and impose
creative obligations. Vectors of lyrical, emotional, and aesthetic force also moved
through seemingly more conventional modes of presentation, as in Colby
Gordon’s gorgeous evocations of fecund decay in Antony and Cleopatra and
Bianco’s coordination of densely citational prose with images and video. These
many manifestations of art and artfulness raised a second-order series of
reflections, about how aesthetic and affective elements, fiction and sentiment,
beauty and audiovisual mediation fit within knowledge. This is part of the
unsettledness of Critical/Liberal/Arts: Does yoking together art and critical
inquiry undo what is distinctive to each? Our wager is that no, it does not – but
the combination of what is aesthetic, emotional and ideational does create the
need to renegotiate the forms of our understanding.
Many moments in the flow of the symposia realized the alchemical mixture of
method-seeking, provocation, conjecture and yielding that the previous paragraphs seek to describe. One of the most vivid took place near the end of the day’s
events at the Graduate Center, CUNY. Marina Zurkow and Una Chaudhuri were
presenting aspects of their collaborative art project Dear Climate, and they asked
the assembled audience to close our eyes and join them in a ‘guided meditation.’
A bell rang, and two voices began to resonate on the sound-system, along with
a background of ambient sound, drawing us through the entire ecosystem of
366
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
Recomposing the Critical/Liberal/Arts
LaGuardia airport: ‘May all feral cats be happy and free. May all squirrels be
happy and free. May all coffee, bagel, magazine, and gadget concession workers
be happy and free ...’ At the end of a long day of following claims and assimilating
ideas, the simplicity of these blessings was a cognitive relief, but also an unsettling
one. Was this a parody of New Age mysticism? A satire of the ecological and
materialist perspectives shared by some in the room? Or was it earnest, piously
calling for the happiness and freedom of (among others) bacteria, particulate
matter, Department of Homeland Security officers and jet fuselage? The room
filled with a weird, uncertain calm as the roughly seven-minute recording played
out. The experience was nearly exactly the opposite of what we associate with
critical knowledge in its narrow definition, as something that is secular,
argumentative, something that tests propositions and reframes phenomena and
incites questioning alertness in those who follow its claims. By contrast, the
peculiar meditation asked for acquiescence and release. It seemed religious, at
least vaguely so. Its mode was not indicative or declarative, but jussive: may it be
that all these entities are happy and free. The meditation acted upon us through
sound and mood. It was in the aftermath of thinking about it, in comparing it to
other presentations and our assumptions of what knowledge should be, of how
we should talk about something as serious as climate change – it was in these
subsequent discussions that the critical aspects of the meditation stood out in high
relief, as did the alternative possibilities it opened onto.2
Critique and t he Critical Arts
2 The guided
meditation can be
listened to online;
see ‘Laguardia’ at
www.dearclimate.
net/#/podcast.
As some of the examples already suggest, we are taking ‘critique’ to refer to
heterogeneous practices of explanation, of analysis and of better accounting of
this world in order to pursue alternative versions of it. This is to think of criticism
as the creative practice of futurition. ‘Critique is not satisfied with what is given,
and wants to try something else. To make something else,’ remarks Critical/
Liberal/Arts participant Aaron Kunin. ‘Critique is generative.’ Ours may sound
like an overly ecumenical account of critique that sacrifices in conceptual clarity
what it gains in inclusiveness. But in fact ‘critical’ is an enormously slippery and
capacious term even within present-day debates. ‘Critical’ is the adjectival form of
both ‘criticism’ and ‘critique,’ and both of these nouns have complex histories of
usage. When ‘critique’ entered the English language in the first half of the
eighteenth century, the two nouns were largely interchangeable: a critique was a
review, an essay in criticism, on a literary or artistic work (OED). ‘Criticism,’
from the time of its English origins in the early seventeenth century, has referred
to acts of evaluation, ‘especially,’ as the Oxford English Dictionary notes, ‘the
passing of unfavourable judgement; fault-finding, censure.’ A negative inflection
continues into the present, in the everyday, colloquial meanings of ‘criticize’ or
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
367
Mitchell et al
‘critical’ as a form of carping: Don’t be so critical. Yet together with some kind of
modifier, ‘criticism’ and ‘critic’ – as in ‘art criticism,’ ‘New Criticism,’ ‘film critic,’
‘food critic’ – denote the coordinate exercise of taste, expertise, and discernment
in a more neutral register, keyed to both appreciation and discrimination. The
academy has not historically had a monopoly on such critical arts: journalists,
amateurs, connoisseurs, intellectuals of all stripes, men (and women) about town,
all might cast a critical eye on aesthetic and commodity productions.
‘Critique’ also has specialized and contested philosophical senses deriving from
the three critiques of Immanuel Kant (d.1804) devoted to the human capacities
to experience, act and judge. The Kantian legacy has been challenged by the
likes of Whitehead, Deleuze and Badiou, among others who have wished to
return to what can be characterized as pre-critical metaphysics. In this tradition
Quentin Meillassoux’s After Finitude repudiates the Kantian ‘correlate’ of
mind and matter (that is, ‘the idea according to which we only ever have access
to the correlation between thinking and being, and never to either term
considered apart from the other’; Meillassoux, 2008, 5), in turn catalyzing
movements such as speculative realism and object oriented ontology, which
attempt to open paths to the world outside human-centered experience, action
and judgment. Political ecology and so-called new materialisms have also
arisen partly to occupy new spaces for speculation about things in themselves.
The Marxist tradition of Kulturkritik has also been crucial to ‘anti-critical’
polemics; this tradition focuses attention on material conditions of labor and
consumption in relation to class inequality. Broadly Marxist and leftist critique
proceeds from the premise that aesthetic and cultural productions should be
analyzed within economic, social and historical frameworks. The notion of
ideology has been and remains motivating (as formulated by Marx and Engels,
Antonio Gramsci and Louis Althusser, among others), but so is the critical
agency of art itself, and that recognition has provoked various responses to
material culture and materiality as such. The relative freedom of art from
economic determinism was influentially elaborated by thinkers associated with
the Frankfurt School, like Theodor Adorno and Walter Benjamin. The body of
thinking known as political ecology maintains a similar position about critical
agency and relative freedom – but about not only music and sculpture but also
asbestos, dolphin pods and airport architecture. Recent rejections of Kulturkritik as a model for literary and cultural studies have tended to follow the lead
of influential accounts like Paul Ricoeur’s Freud and Philosophy and Foucault’s
‘What Is an Author?,’ insofar as these could be taken to cast Marx, Freud and
Nietzsche as a kind of dour triumvirate of modern critical thought (Ricoeur,
[1965] 1970; Foucault, [1969] 1998). To reject ideology seems also to have
entailed rejecting psychoanalysis and genealogy. Ricoeur famously calls the
trio the ‘masters’ of the ‘school of suspicion,’ who have in common ‘the
decision to look upon the whole of consciousness primarily as “false” consciousness’ (Ricoeur, [1965] 1970, 32, 33). Rejections of critique seem to have taken
368
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
Recomposing the Critical/Liberal/Arts
Ricoeur at his word and accepted his synthetic and provocative characterization
as sufficient.
Yet importantly, Ricoeur identifies these thinkers’ suspicion as a ‘moment’
within the foundation of something new: ‘All three clear the horizon for a
more authentic word, for a new reign of Truth, not only by means of a
“destructive” critique, but by the invention of an art of interpreting’ (Ricoeur,
[1965] 1970, 33). This ‘art of interpreting’ is not something merely extrinsic or
imposed; rather, it seeks to respond to the formative processes – of transformation and deformation and in-formation – through which the world assumes
shape. In Ricoeur’s words, ‘all three attempted, in different ways, to make
their “conscious” methods of deciphering coincide with the “unconscious”
work of ciphering’ (Ricoeur, [1965] 1970, 34, italics in original). The use of
scare-quotes around ‘conscious’ and ‘unconscious’ suggests that these are
provisional terms, indicating not the interpreter’s perennial mastery, but the
negotiated difference between two positions, two moments in time and two
processes. Yet in some recent repudiations of critique, not only have the
‘masters of suspicion’ all been collapsed together, but they have also been
assimilated to the quotidian usage of ‘critical’ as simply censorious. Rita
Felski, for instance, declares that ‘Critique is negative,’ always marked by
‘adversarial force’ (Felski, 2012, italics original). She calls the attempts by
some to distance critique from negative evaluation ‘a tad disingenuous.’
The project of, say, denaturalizing received opinions reminds us – as Felski
has it – of a scene of scolding: ‘The nay-saying critic all too easily calls to mind
the Victorian patriarch, the thin-lipped schoolmarm, the glaring policeman’
(Felski, 2012). Here there is little interest in the positive projects in which
critical thought, as Ricoeur demonstrates, plays an important part. Critique is
instead artificially isolated from the invention of new arts of responsiveness.
But what Felski declares disingenuous is what Critical/Liberal/Arts has set
about to pursue – namely, the disaggregation of the numerous intellectual and
attitudinal aspects of critique, making room for individual projects to pick their
way through a variegated critical landscape. And in fact, several of the presentations at the symposia took up the task of this very decoupling, of separating
critique’s possibilities from attitudes of mastery or derogation. Brantley Bryant
advocated an antidote at the Irvine symposium: his talk explored the critical
power inhering in qualities literally pathologized by modern academia. Bryant
took up the phenomenon of ‘impostor syndrome’ as it was established in an
influential 1978 article in the journal Psychotherapy. Resisting the article’s
diagnostic lens, Bryant urged us instead to embrace ‘that tugging, nagging feeling
of being fraudulently unqualified’ – of being an impostor. Working from the
article’s analysis of several academic women ‘suffering’ from impostor syndrome,
he highlighted three symptoms shared by those diagnosed: ritualistic effort,
a sense of inauthenticity, and misdirected charisma. In Bryant’s alternative account,
these qualities come instead to constitute a ‘trivium of liberal impostor arts’:
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
369
Mitchell et al
3 We are intrigued
by the possibilities
of many of the
new methods
being tested in
and around this
debate: Moretti’s
‘distant reading’
(Moretti, 2005,
2013), Latour’s
‘compositionism’
(Latour, 2010),
Sedgwick’s
‘reparative
reading’
(Sedgwick, 1997),
Love’s ‘close but
not deep’ reading
(Love, 2010) and
Joy’s ‘weird
reading’ (Joy,
2013).
4 For the text of
Bady’s talk, see
Bady (2013).
‘The grammar of ritual, the logic of silence and the rhetoric of caring charm.’
Such arts, in Bryant’s trivium, are not obstacles to efficient learning but rather
conduits to social and intellectual discovery. Impostor syndrome thus reformulated
makes criticism coincide with compassion and self-doubt, and in so doing ‘actively
opposes the assumption of authority.’ To be ‘critical,’ in this sense, is not
necessarily to assume one particular attitude or affective comportment. Determining in advance how critique ‘feels,’ as many have done, delimits it too quickly.
Instead, the ‘critical arts’ allow for various styles and strategies: furious or
affirmative, certain or hesitant, cold or warm.
A diversity of postures is vital to critique, particularly to its ability to better
account for this world in order to pursue alternative versions of it. Yet recent debates
have gained momentum through the simplifying gesture of lumping and splitting.
This maneuver first lumps together a mass of characteristics, attitudes, practices and
intellectual legacies; the criteria are vague, but a smattering of examples is enough to
conjure the whole lot. Then, it rejects the entirety. Such schematizing of the field can
be witnessed in the debates following the special issue of Representations on
‘The Way We Read Now,’ edited by Stephen Best and Sharon Marcus (2009).
The editors’ introductory essay worked by polarizing ‘surface reading’ and ‘symptomatic reading,’ and subsequent conversations assimilated more terms to the scheme –
like critique, the hermeneutics of suspicion and paranoid reading (on the one hand),
and reparative reading, description and reading ‘with the grain’ (on the other). In the
end, what is lumped together and rejected doesn’t sound like a critical practice that
anyone actually claims as her own. In contrast, Critical/Liberal/Arts has preferred to
keep the critical field open. Acts of lumping and splitting, generalization and contrast
are fine creative acts in their own right, perhaps essential as a kind of motivating
polemic – but we, as organizers and editors, were not going to carry out these
particular acts of distinction in advance. Instead, competing accounts might play
across one another in the dense thicket of the critical arts in the present, crowded
with multiple traditions and practices. The upshot of Critical/Liberal/Art’s many
recombinations and resonances is that they mimic this thicket, where scenes of
hybrid usage, contamination, cross-pollination, and redefinition abound.3
Indeed, conflict and negative affect should play important roles in the critical
arts, albeit not automatic ones. Aaron Bady’s presentation at the UC Irvine
symposium on the ‘social life of disobedience’ made this point acutely.4 Bady had
set out to think ‘about “critique” as disobedience – or disobedience as “critique” ’
(Bady, 2013). Yet as he mined the Enlightenment legacies of critical thought, the
historically attested separation of critique from disobedience became clear. Citing
the conclusion of Kant’s famous essay ‘What is Enlightenment?’ with its
approving quotation of Frederick II’s edict ‘Argue all you want, but obey,’ Bady
continued:
argument, as mental freedom, does not imply or compel freedom to disobey.
It might compel the reverse, to counsel power on how to govern better at the
370
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
Recomposing the Critical/Liberal/Arts
cost of acquiescing to being governed. To critique can be to obey: by
applying only where obedience is not required, this kind of free speech is just
the flipside of power, a kind of supplementary and enabling excess. (Bady,
2013)
We want to emphasize again with Bady that to critique is not necessarily to obey
or to disobey. These are separate categories of action, with their own legacies and
consequences. Bady set his analysis in dialogue with a recent event, the day in
November 2011 when Occupy Cal protesters disobeyed an order to disperse and
were beaten by UC Berkeley campus police. In addition to the central group of
protesters, he also considered the crowds that arrived on the scene: ‘Sproul Plaza
just kept filling with students, many, many thousands’ (Bady, 2013). Most of
these thousands were not ‘activists’ per se; they may not have seen themselves as
participating in a project of critique or protest. But they too disobeyed the order
to disperse, and, as Bady remarked, ‘To say that disobedience was communicative
is an understatement’ (Bady, 2013). Bady’s talk marked both the diversity within
critical practice – it may be obedient or disobedient – and the limits of ‘critique’ –
not all disobedience is critique. There are other effective tactics, other affects and
behaviors and emergent social practices, with which critique might do well to
seek alliance in the circumstances of the present.
Questions linger after the experiment of Critical/Liberal/Arts. When are
creative acts critical enough? How might one appeal to allies who seem bound
by restrictive notions of critique? When is interference more important than
engagement? How can one parasitically, or symbiotically, inhabit bureaucracy
and administrative demands for outcomes? And so on. But our confidence
remains in the benefits of developing more rather than fewer species of Critical/
Liberal/Arts. It is in speaking in between concepts, improvising divisions of labor,
scattering claims to authority, and experimenting with alternative modes of
scholarship, activism and art-making that we find the enjoyment and the hope
that grounds our resistance to constraint and crisis. Hospitable conditions for
work inside and outside the academy depend on our holding adjacent practices
together. We thank our contributors for composing these convivial interchanges
that portend livable collective futures.
A b o ut th e A u th o r s
J. Allan Mitchell is Associate Professor of English at the University of Victoria in
Canada. He teaches in the Medieval Studies Program and the Interdisciplinary
Program in Cultural, Social and Political Thought. He is the author of Becoming
Human: The Matter of the Medieval Child (University of Minnesota Press, 2014)
and Ethics and Eventfulness in Middle English Literature (Palgrave Macmillan,
2009) (E-mail: amitch@uvic.ca).
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
371
Mitchell et al
Julie Orlemanski is Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the
University of Chicago. Her work has appeared in Exemplaria, postmedieval and
JMEMS, and in the collections Voice and Voicelessness in Medieval Europe,
Robert Thornton and His Books, A Handbook of Middle English Studies and
Reading Skin in Medieval Literature and Culture. She is completing a book
manuscript entitled ‘Symptomatic Subjects: Bodies, Signs, and Narratives in Late
Medieval England,’ and her new project concerns literary and rhetorical practices
of person-making in the Middle Ages (E-mail: julieorlemanski@chicago.edu).
Myra Seaman is Professor of English at the College of Charleston. She has
published work in Pedagogy, JMEMS, The History of British Women’s Writing,
to 1500, Vol. 1 (Palgrave Macmillan, 2012) and Dark Chaucer: An Assortment
(punctum books, 2012) – the last of these a collection she also co-edited, along
with Burn After Reading, Vol. 1: Miniature Manifestoes for a Post/medieval
Studies (punctum books, 2014), and Fragments Toward a History of a Vanishing
Humanism (forthcoming from Ohio State University Press). She is a founding
editor of postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies and co-founder of
the BABEL Working Group. Her book project ‘Objects of Affection: The Book
and the Household in Late Medieval England’ is nearly complete (E-mail:
seamanm@cofc.edu).
Re fe re nc es
Bady, A. 2013. Bartleby in the University of California: The Social Life of Disobedience.
The New Inquiry, 3 May. http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/bartleby-in-theuniversity-of-california-the-social-life-of-disobedience/.
Best, S. and S. Marcus. 2009. The Way We Read Now. Special Issue of Representations
108(1): 1–21.
Collini, S. 2012. What Are Universities For? London: Penguin.
Felski, R. 2012. Critique and the Hermeneutics of Suspicion. M/C Journal 15(1). http://
journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/article/viewArticle/431.
Foucault, M. [1969] 1998. What is an Author? In Aesthetics, Mind and Epistemology,
ed. J.D. Faubion, trans. R. Hurley et al., 205–222. New York: The New Press.
Joy, E. 2013. Weird Reading. Speculations 4(4): 28–34.
Latour, B. 2010. An Attempt at a ‘Compositionist Manifesto’. New Literary History 41(3):
471–490.
Love, H. 2010. Close but Not Deep: Literary Ethics and the Descriptive Turn. New Literary
History 41: 371–391.
Meillassoux, Q. 2008. After Finitude: An Essay on the Necessity of Contingency, trans. R.
Brassier. London and New York: Continuum.
Moretti, F. 2005. Graphs, Maps, Trees: Abstract Models for Literary History. London:
Verso.
Moretti, F. 2013. Distant Reading. London: Verso.
372
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
Recomposing the Critical/Liberal/Arts
Ricoeur, P. [1965] 1970. Freud and Philosophy: An Essay on Interpretation. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Sedgwick, E.K. 1997. Paranoid Reading and Reparative Reading; or, You’re So Paranoid,
You Probably Think This Essay Is About You. In Touching Feeling, 123–151. Durham,
NC: Duke University Press.
Williams, J.J. 2005. History as a Challenge to the Idea of the University. JAC: A Journal of
Rhetoric, Theory and Politics 25(1): 55–74.
A pp en di x
C r i t i c a l / L i b e r a l / A r t s U C Ir v i n e (1 9 A p r i l 2 0 1 3 )
Aranye Fradenburg (University of California, Santa Barbara): “Your Brain on
Liberal Arts”
Aaron Bady (University of California, Berkeley): “Representing Disobedience in
the University of California”
Bruce Smith (University of Southern California): “The Politics of Sense Experience in Early Modern England”
Aaron Kunin (Pomona College): “Thinking Against”
Gaelan Gilbert (University of Victoria): “Martianus Capella and Saint Benedict:
Encyclopaedic Satire and Philological Community at the Edge of Empire”
Brantley Bryant (Sonoma State University): “The Liberal Arts of Impostor
Syndrome”
Thom Andersen (California Institute for the Arts): Get Out of the Car (2010)
Rebecca Davis (University of California, Irvine): “Childish Things: Charity and
the Liberal Arts”
Colby Gordon (University of California, Irvine): “Shakespearean Futurism”
David Shepard (University of California, Los Angeles): “Data for New Critical
Computers: The Fiction of the Digital Humanities”
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374
373
Mitchell et al
Critical/Liberal/Arts t he graduate c enter, CUNY
( 2 7 Se p t e m b e r 2 01 3 )
Henry Turner (Rutgers University): “Universitas: On Corporate Personhood as a
Critical Liberal Art, with Special Reference to Hamlet and to You”
The Hollow Earth Society [Ethan Gould and Wythe Marschall]: “Beyond U:
The Organism That Therefore the Academy Is”
Eleanor Johnson (Columbia University): “Toad Poetry: A Call for a
New Critical Vernacular”
Ammiel Alcalay (The Graduate Center, CUNY): “From the Cairo Genizah to
Diane di Prima’s Garage: Lost & Found and the Pedagogy of Transmission”
Bruce Holsinger (University of Virginia): “Making with Gower”
Allen W. Strouse (The Graduate Center, CUNY): “Sir Orpheus as Poet, King, and
Historian: Towards a Poetics of Literary History”
Jamie “Skye” Bianco (New York University): “Q3C: Queer, Creative, Critical
Compositionism (or, Tooling Affection from Allure)”
Eirik Steinhoff (The Evergreen State College): “Making nothing happen, or, The
figure of default: placebo, sabotage, poetry”
Michael Witmore (The Folger Library): “Fuzzy Structuralism”
Marina Zurkow (Tisch School of the Arts) and Una Chaudhuri (New York
University): “Unthinking Survivalism: Inner Climate Change”
374
© 2015 Macmillan Publishers Ltd. 2040-5960
postmedieval: a journal of medieval cultural studies
Vol. 6, 4, 361–374