Table Of ContentCopyright©2001byMarjorieGarber
PublishedbyPrincetonUniversityPress,41WilliamStreet,
Princeton,NewJersey
IntheUnitedKingdom:PrincetonUniversityPress,
3MarketPlace,Woodstock,OxfordshireOX201SY
ErichLessing/ArtResource,NY
ReprintedwiththepermissionofSimon&SchusterBooksfor
YoungReaders,animprintofSimon&SchusterChildren’s
PublishingDivision,fromAliceinWonderlandbyLewisCarroll,
illustratedbySirJohnTenniell(Macmillan,NY,1963)
©TheNewYorkerCollection2000RozChastfromcartoonbank.com.
AllRightsReserved.
Copyright,1999,Danziger.Distributedbythe
LosAngelesTimesSyndicate.Reprintedwithpermission.
ALLRIGHTSRESERVED
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Garber,MarjorieB.
AcademicInstincts/MarjorieGarber.
p. cm.
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
ISBN0-691-04970-X
1.Humanities—StudyandTeaching(Higher)2.Literature—
Studyandteaching(Higher)3.Universitiesandcolleges—Curricula.
4.Academicwriting.5.Humanities—Philosophy.6.Learning
andscholarship.I.Title.
AZ182.G372001
001.3′071′1—dc21 00-056510
ThisbookhasbeencomposedinNewBaskervilleTypeface
Thepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirements
ofANSI/NISOZ39.48-1992(R1997)(PermanenceofPaper)
www.pup.princeton.edu
PrintedintheUnitedStatesofAmerica
1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2
For my graduate students,
past and present
This page intentionally left blank
CONTENTS
Preface · ix
1
HE MATEUR ROFESSIONAL AND THE
T A P
ROFESSIONAL MATEUR 3
P A ·
2
ISCIPLINE NVY 53
D E ·
3
ERMS OF RT 97
T A ·
149
Notes ·
181
Index ·
This page intentionally left blank
PREFACE
NCOMBINING
I themost“disciplined” andthemost“undisci-
plined”offorces,thetitleAcademicInstinctsismeanttosound
like a contradiction in terms. But this is a book about the
energiesthatkeepscholarlydisciplinesfrombecominginert
and settled. It is about the instincts not of individuals but of
fields—what might be called the disciplinary libido. In each
chapter, I consider the ways in which a field differentiates
itself from, but also desires to become, its nearest neighbor,
whetherattheedgesoftheacademy(theprofessionalwants
to be an amateur and vice versa), among the disciplines
(eachonecovetsitsneighbor’sinsights),orwithinthedisci-
plines (each one attempts to create a new language specific
to its objects, but longs for a universal language understood
by all). The chapters that follow thus address the current
world of scholarship in the humanities in three different
modes:throughpersons(“TheAmateurProfessionalandthe
ProfessionalAmateur”),institutions(“DisciplineEnvy”),and
language (“Terms of Art”).
I suggest that various attacks against the academic profes-
sion and various feuds within it—the disparagement of
amateursbyprofessionalsandprofessionalsbyamateurs,the
desire to keep the disciplines pure, the accusation that aca-
demic writing is, unlike the language of the real world, jar-
x PREFACE
gon-riddenandincomprehensible—needtobereconceived.
My fundamental argument has two strands. One is to show
thatthesefeudsarenotstable.“Amateur,”forexample,func-
tions as a term of praise during one period or if it comes
from one direction, and as a term of abuse during another
orifitspringsfromadifferentsource.Whatistakentocon-
taminate different disciplines varies as the prestige (and in-
tellectual accomplishments) of other disciplines change.
Terms that are “jargon” today will be everyday language to-
morrow. The other strand of my argument is to show that
many of the contrasts around which these disputes revolve
do not signify real opposites, but rather depend upon one
another for their strength and effectiveness. In each case, I
willmaintainthatthetermsofpraiseorabusehaveadouble
nature, and that it is important to acknowledge that dou-
bleness. The doubleness, in other words, is in many ways
moreimportantthanthepositiveornegativejudgmentsthe
termsconveyatanyonetime.Thepointisnottochoosethe
right inflection for each term but to show how intellectual
life arises out of their changing relationship to each other.
Ishouldsaysomethinghereaboutwhatthisbookisnot.It
is not a developmental history of the disciplines or of the
professionofteachingEnglishorthehumanities.Thatwork
has been powerfully and effectively undertaken by scholars
likeGeraldGraff,JohnGuilloryandW.BlissCarnochan.This
bookisnotthestoryoftheencounterofthehumanitieswith
the world of science and social science, the world of “fact.”
Thatkindofwork,too,hasbeenwelldone,byPeterGalison
and Mary Poovey among others. And this book is not the
latestsalvointheso-called“culturewars,”aformulationthat
PREFACE xi
was always more hype or buzz than pedagogical reality. I ad-
dress these questions not to take a side in the polemic, nor
to position myself above it, but to explore the ways in which
thesecontroversiesareessentialto thenatureofintellectual
life. The things deplored or defended in discussions of the
humanities cannot be either eliminated or endorsed, be-
cause the discussion itself is what gives humanistic thought
its vitality.
Scholars, despite what their critics say or what they them-
selves may claim, are basically conservative creatures (in the
widest sense of that misused term), whose engagement with
ideas and with students has been very much the same since
the time ofthose renegade pedagogues, Platoand Aristotle.
Despite the presence of Diogenes and of two delighted
golden retrievers on the cover, there are no cynics in these
pages, and relatively few, all things considered, in academic
life. Teaching and writing at a college or university is a job
for optimists and for idealists, whatever discursive or critical
mode we may use in trying to shape ideas and the world.
So this book is not a history. It is an analysis, an interven-
tion, and a credo. Although in the pages below I will make
some pointed observations about the evocation of “love” in
the teaching of the humanities, it would be fair to call this a
love letter. A letter, sometimes critical, sometimes affection-
ate,always—Ihope—passionate,addressedtoalifelongpart-
ner and companion, the profession of literary study.
This page intentionally left blank
