Make a Donation

Consider making a donation to support SHAKSPER.

Subscribe to Our Feeds

Current Postings RSS

Announcements RSS

Home :: Archive :: 2007 :: February ::
A Question
The Shakespeare Conference: SHK 18.0081  Thursday, 1 February 2007

From: 		John Drakakis <
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
Date: 		Tuesday, 30 Jan 2007 13:04:04 -0000
Subject: 18.0067 A Question
Comment: 	RE: SHK 18.0067 A Question

It seems to me that the confusion lies primarily with Joe Egert. He 
styles himself as a reactionary devotee of the Enlightenment, but I 
wonder if this is the same Enlightenment that produced, among others, 
Karl Marx?  Or does he have another kind of Enlightenment in mind?

I'm also a little alarmed at his deployment of metaphor: he 'consumes' a 
'Greenblatt concoction' and feels 'sated and fully nourished'.  Now is 
this the same Greenblatt who admitted that he was unable to talk with 
the dead because what he heard was the sound of his own voice?  And is 
this the same Greenblatt who, in Marvailous Possessions charted the 
degree to which early colonists of America projected their own meanings 
onto the cultural practices and behaviour of those they sought to 
colonise? And is this the same Greenblatt whose interest in Foucault 
(among others)provides a political framework for the analysis of 'power'?

Egert seems to have constructed a caricature of the position that he 
then proceeds to critique.  It's a common practice among those who seem 
to have very little patience with the task of real radical enquiry. The 
'history' to which he seems to be referring is not (as the eminently 
consumable Greenblatt will tell him, if he stops for a moment to think 
about what he is chewing) is not some kind of inert 'factual' material, 
but one half of a dialogue whose conditions of possibility (sorry about 
the Derridean formulation here . . . not to theoretical, I hope!) a 
radical enquiry seeks to uncover. Egert seems to have got his Heidegger 
and his Marx tangled up, and as a consequence he misrepresents the very 
position he seeks to challenge. Perhaps he can tell us why he thinks 
'history' in the formulation that he chooses is so important, and what 
(in passing) he thinks a 'fact' is, how it's constituted, and how it 
might be separated from the process of valuation).

Then we'll see who's the ideologue!

Yours presently,
John Drakakis

S H A K S P E R: The Global Shakespeare Discussion List
Hardy M. Cook, 
 This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it
The S H A K S P E R Web Site <>

DISCLAIMER: Although SHAKSPER is a moderated discussion list, the 
opinions expressed on it are the sole property of the poster, and the 
editor assumes no responsibility for them.

©2011 Hardy Cook. All rights reserved.