There's an interesting problem we seem to run into when studying Paul de Man and for some with Michel Foucault. Both theorists were brilliant but had some shady secrets it seems. I don't think we care as much about Foucault's shenanigans now as people did in the 80s, but Paul de Man's antisemitism is still problematic. For a long time people didn't teach Paul de Man because of his comments on Jews and the European canon.
Even if the comments are false I think this still raises a good question. If a theorist has brilliant contributions literary criticism, but is an awful person should we continue to teach them? I suppose this is only a 20th century problem too because it's not like we're going to stop teaching Plato, Aristotle, or even Freud anytime soon. But should Paul de Man cease to be a part of the literary theory canon due to his shady comments about Jews in the 40s?
No comments:
Post a Comment