I am being completely serious. You must read this fantastic article. It tells the story of Jon Rosenblatt, a 27-year-old English graduate
student who “deconstructed the take-out menu of a local Mexican restaurant ‘out
of sheer force of habit.’” Here are some of the best bits where theorists we’ve
studied are used:
- “I told him he was worrying me and recommended a good psychiatrist. Bad move, because that prompted him to launch into a whole discussion of Foucault's 'Male Gaze' as it applies to mother/child pair-bonding in Lacanian psychoanalysis.”
- "I just wanted to order some food from Burrito Bandito. Next thing I know, I'm analyzing the menu's content as a text, or 'text,' subjecting it to a rigorous critical reevaluation informed by Derrida, De Man, etc., as a construct, or 'construct,' made up of multi-varied and, in fact, often self-contradictory messages, or 'meanings,' derived from the cultural signifiers evoked by the menu, or 'menu,' and the resultant assumptions within not only the mind of the menu's 'authors' and 'readers,' but also within the larger context of our current postmodern media environment."
The article is (obviously) a satirical look at the
employment of postmodern theory. It seems to critique the over-usage of theory
in public texts; can we use critical lenses to critique something as
commonplace as a take-out menu?
The analysis he conducts is good. In fact, it is quite compelling. But I feel like upon looking at public texts, we have to assess the appropriateness of our analysis. What does this sort of assessment look like? Is there a limitation to what can and can’t be analyzed? Or, is the better question what should and shouldn’t be analyzed?
The analysis he conducts is good. In fact, it is quite compelling. But I feel like upon looking at public texts, we have to assess the appropriateness of our analysis. What does this sort of assessment look like? Is there a limitation to what can and can’t be analyzed? Or, is the better question what should and shouldn’t be analyzed?
It's the tension between critical analytics and day-to-day functioning, I think. While recognizing and criticizing the structures we exist in is important (so we don't become agent-less automatons without realizing it), there's also the practicality of just getting around. Looking at a menu and realizing the deconstructionist reality of its language is interesting (and hilarious), but it would be crippling if that analytic lens was applied to everything (I'm thinking street signs, everyday conversations, etc.)
ReplyDeleteI don't think things shouldn't be analyzed. I do think there has to be some kind of a balance, because criticism can so easily lead to cynicism, and, like poets, a lot of theorists are very unhappy people. But can you draw a line between your academics and your life? I don't know about that one.
My major issue w/ the article is that Rosenblatt says he "deconstructed" the menu. Both Derrida and de Man say that language is always/already deconstructed. Rosenblatt basically found linguistic/cultural formations in the menu which deconstruct themselves.
ReplyDeleteHa. I love the picture of Rosenblatt in the article. I agree with Dana that there must be a balance between analysis and functioning day-to-day. It's important to be aware of the society around us, analyzing the major decisions and institutions so we are not mindless consumers of everything. But we must consider that many of the theorists we have studied committed suicide, which doesn't bode well.
ReplyDeleteThis has been one of my biggest questions about theoretical critiques too; at what point does it stop? The world is always going to be susceptible to analysis, no matter how self-critical/reflective it becomes.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, at some point it is probably helpful to apply critical reflection to the project of critical analysis itself; perhaps our friend Vizenor would have a few jokes to make at the expense of grad school students for whom obsessive analysis makes dining impossible (or really, any of us who too often fall on the over-analyzing side of the balance). Though they are important, outside the academic world such pursuits might sometimes look pretty overblown and even ridiculous.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt's definitely hard to draw that line. That's partly why I like our wiffleball games so much because it's an opportunity to just enjoy time with people and stuff.
ReplyDeleteThough of course we have to think about where our wiffleball bats and balls come from and the power structures involved in their production.
Oh no....