Should We Teach Camille Paglia?

In April 1995, a discussion took place on WMST-L about whether to teach/use
the work of Camille Paglia.  At times, it branched into a discussion of
sexual equality and sexual difference.   All these threads are contained
in the following three-part file.  For additional WMST-L files now available 
on the Web, see the WMST-L File List.

PAGE 1 OF 3

 
Hi there,
 
I was just wondering whether it is still not PC (or a statement of
a negative academic IQ, as someone told me) to use _Sexual Personae_ as
an approach to texts about women.  I'm thinking about embarking ona
project on the female figures in _Beowulf_, and all of this "miasmic
swamp" theory would fit in so nicely.  But, as I said, I do not want to
send out the essay to several publishers, only to have it returned 1000
times because I would be taking Paglia seriously?
 
What is the general opinion on that?
If it's something of common interest, please post it to the list; if joan
decides it isn't, then please mail to:  shstreuber  @  ucdavis.edu
 
Thanks ever so much on your input!     Sonja

 
sonja recently asked about the opinion 'out here' on ms. paglia--
 
[quote from sonja omitted]
 
i find your question really disturbing sonja---(while i'm no great fan of
Paglia)
 
however if you have been struck by her reading and would use it except that
you're scared of the pc police (something that you are summoning by your
question) you are in fact acquiescing to a kind of (self)censorship - my
question is why?
 
just quoting paglia doesn't necc. mean you buy her whole sale---
reading Gayatri Spivak on using marx, derrida, foucault, despite serious
contestations with their ideas might provide us with a model on how to
'use' other theorists we may not fully agree with.(see her texts--Outside
in the Teaching Machine/The Postcolonial Critic)
 
nuzhat

 
Still thinking about a question from last week, viz, "What's wrong
with Paglia?" and something to the effect of "Is it still a sin
against 'PC' to use her work?"
 
I think the answer MUST be this:
 
If you are thinking about using <x>'s work, no matter WHO <x> is,
subject it to the best critical analysis you can.  Ask yourself:  Is
the data reliable?  Are the arguments good?  Does the work exhibit
coherence, integrity, internal characteristics which make it stand up
to challenge and critique?  Are the sources reliable? Are the premises
true?  Does it offer a better explanation of some phenomenon than
other available explanations offer?
 
If, in your best educated, scholarly judgement, the work is a valuable
one, BY ALL MEANS USE IT, and to Hell with what "others" think.  Some
of the most courageous women in the history of the planet have stood
nearly alone in their convictions, in the face of public opinion which
deemed them "wrong" or "ignorant" or "childlike" or "crazy."
 
I, personally, in my judgement, don't think Paglia's work will stand
up to close, careful intellectual scrutiny and evaluation.  But if you
DO think it does, for God(dess)'s sake, *say so*!  Feminist scholars,
like all scholars, have a responsibility to put forth those views of
which we genuinely are convinced, in our best educated professional
judgement.  It is a sad day for ANY field when scholars within it are
reduced to appealing only to those data and arguments which *other
people* already accept.
----------- Ruth Ginzberg (rginzberg  @  eagle.wesleyan.edu) ------------

 
I agree with what other posts have said re. using an author if you think
that they are academically useful. However, there seems to be another issue
in the original post; one which relates to an issue discussed at a
conference I attended this weekend (Gender Perspectives on Household Issues,
University of Reading, UK).
 
Are we confident that the people reviewing our papers for the journals we
submit them to are competent to do so? What was meant by this was that given
the interdisciplinary nature of much feminist work, are the reviewers
sufficiently aware of the material we are using. This is particularly
important when submitting articles to "mainstream" journals or ones in a
particular discipline (as opposed to e.g. Women's Studies journals).
 
The other worrying possibility is one raised by Kirsti Yllo in her
contribution to Sollie and Leslies book Gender, Families and Close
Relationships, where she says that in the past she has had articles refused
publication in feminist journals because she uses quantitative methods.
 
As women academics who write articles (for publication), review articles for
journals, and edit journals we should consider the implications of the
original post. Do we apply the standards of good scholarly work to the
articles we review? Or do we begin from a position that some authors (like
Paglia) don't meet those standards and skim over arguments that they do (in
some respects.
 
In all of this we must also remember that the original post did not accept
Paglia's work completely but said it gave a useful perspective on something
she was working on (Sorry, I've forgotten the details). When we review
articles do we consider that some authors may have ideas worth pursuing
even if their work as a whole doesn't meet the scholarly standards we
expect?
 
It is becoming increasingly futile to write things which won't be published
but it is also naive to think that some of us are not now and will not be
among those making the decisions others of us worry about.
 
Jo VanEvery
Dept. of Sociology and Social Anthropology
Keele University
Keele, Staffs
ST5 5BG
 
soa00  @  cc.keele.ac.uk

 
I think it is important to teach Camille Paglia for two reasons.  One is that
if her ideas are getting serious attention in the mainstream media, our stu-
dents are bound to wonder why we are ignoring them, and to dismiss her out
of hand only makes her more intriguing.
 
Secondly, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. She may be self-promoting
and theoretically wacked-out, but she may have some valuable insights that
she expresses particularly well.
 
I think it is always important to discuss a spectrum of ideas if for no
other reason than to teach students how to weigh the relative importance
of things.
 
This is not an example from women's history, but from my own field.
I teach Latin American history.  In my survey course, my students read
Fidel Castro's _History Will Absolve Me_ and I also show them a film
by a number of Cuban exiles called _Improper Conduct_. My purpose in
taking this approach is to show them what is appealing about Castro--
why people followed him and helped make the revolution, and at the same
time, by using the film, to show some of the abuses of civil liberties
by the Castro regime.  I lead them through a discussion of what Castro's
biases are and ofthose who published his book, as well as the viewpoints of
the exiles.  My students end up feeling that they have gotten a thorough look
at Castro that is fair--at least as fair as I can be; that I respect their
viewpoints and that I am not trying to shove my ideology down their throats.
Generally, they come away not knowing what my personal  point of view is.
I try as much as possible to get them to understand that these matters are very
complex, and if anything, that too many ideologues try to oversimplify for
the sake of pushing their own points of view.
 
Do they know that I consider myself a radical historian? Yes.  But by the
time they get out of my class, their understanding of history is, I hope,
richer and more textured than when they started.
 
Rosie
 
.......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros             e-mail: pegueros  @  uriacc.uri.edu
Department of History           telephone: (401) 792-4092
217C Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817         "Women hold up half the sky."

 
I'm new to this list, so forgive me if I'm getting in on the tag end of a
conversation. I do not teach Camille Paglia for the same reasons that I
don't teach Rush Limbaugh in my freshman composition courses--they already
get so much exposure in mainstream magazines (I once saw an article by
Paglia in the National Enquirer), on TV, and on the radio that I don't feel
I have a responsibility to use them in my classes. My experience has been
that it's very tempting for students to adopt these voices in order to
critique other writers they read in the class--in other words, this kind of
writer encourages them to become "ditto-heads" rather than teaching them to
be independent thinkers. There is so much diversity within feminism--why use
Paglia to limit the paradigms of the discussion?
 
Stephanie Bower
UCLA
snv  @  netcom.com

 
>I do not teach Camille Paglia for the same reasons that I don't teach
>Rush Limbaugh in my freshman composition courses--they already get so
>much exposure in mainstream magazines
 
Hmmm, good point.  I also don't teach Gloria Steinam or Robert Fulgum
(?sp? - "Everything I Need To Know I Learned In Kindergarten") for
similar reasons.
 
But then I have taught Martin Luther King Jr. and Katherine MacKinnon,
who also get (or got) plenty of media exposure.  I'm not sure this is
quite the distinction I use.  But it is something like that.
 
For me, I think it has more to do with the quality of the
argument/evidence that the person presents (as well as its relevance
to the topic of the course, naturally).  I think that *most* (but not
all) people who become hot media items are expert at producing aroused
emotions (most often fear, anger and/or shock these days, it seems,
especially in middle class white folks) -- with small sound bytes --
and with suggestion and innuendo rather than with evidence and
persuasive reasoning.
 
But this is not what I want to attend to in my classes.  I want
students to read and attend to more sustained and complex patterns of
reasoning and evidence than what one typically sees on TV, radio or
popular magazines.
----------- Ruth Ginzberg (rginzberg  @  eagle.wesleyan.edu) ------------

 
RE: Popular figures and media over-exposure.
 
I wouldn't overestimate what students are exposed to in terms of the media.
WE might consider them overexposed, but many students never read a magazine
or a newspaper and only rarely watch any serious television. Taking a course
in women's studies might sensitive them to the presence of certain issues in
media, but if all they've ever heard about Camille Paglia is what they pick
up from a momentary exposure in the press, they might be led to believe that
she is someone to be taken seriously.
 
.......................................................................
Rosa Maria Pegueros             e-mail: pegueros  @  uriacc.uri.edu
Department of History           telephone: (401) 792-4092
217C Washburn Hall
University of Rhode Island
Kingston, RI 02881-0817         "Women hold up half the sky."

 
>From: Stephanie Bower <snv  @  NETCOM.COM>
 
>I do not teach Camille Paglia for the same reasons that I
don't teach Rush Limbaugh in my freshman composition courses--they already
get so much exposure in mainstream magazines (I once saw an article by
Paglia in the National Enquirer), on TV, and on the radio that I don't
feel I have a responsibility to use them in my classes. My experience
has been that it's very tempting for students to adopt these voices
in order to critique other writers they read in the class--in other
words, this kind of writer encourages them to become "ditto-heads"
rather than teaching them to be independent thinkers. <
 
***********
It seems to me that it could be useful to "teach Rush Limbaugh" et al.
in a Frosh Comp course (or courses).  Not as "model writers" but as the
contrary -- writers who use faulty logic and make unsubstantiated claims.
This is important to do so _precisely because_ students are exposed to
them in the "mainstream" media.  We need to teach them HOW to find the
holes in the logic of these folks.  In order for students not to become
"ditto heads" they need to be able to analyze the claims Limbaugh et
al. make.
 
Georgia NeSmith
gnesmith  @  acspr1.acs.brockport.edu

 
This is one of the larger issues I am grappling with as I set up my
course on the history of women's rights and feminism in the U.S.  I
do want to give both sides of issues to my students so I will be
including information on opposition to the 19th-century "woman rights"
movement and to woman suffrage.  Since I will be taking the course into
the late 20th century I do feel obligated to include the "antis" there,
especially Schlafly and the Eagle Forum.  When I get into explaining the
diversities of feminism I will likewise feel obligated to introduce the
students to women like Paglia and Sommers who not only claim to be
feminists, but also seem to claim to be the "right" kind of feminist.
These are complicated issues and I have to admit that I would be pretty
frustrated to have a lot of students coming out of the class believing
that Paglia and Sommers are wonderful feminists, but if they have reached
such a decision by using critical thinking, then I have done all I can do.
Have women anywhere at any time totally agreed on what feminism is?
 
Theresa Kaminski
Dept. of History
University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point

 
>This is one of the larger issues I am grappling with as I set up my
>course on the history of women's rights and feminism in the U.S.  I
>do want to give both sides of issues to my students so I will be
>including information on opposition to the 19th-century "woman rights"
>movement and to woman suffrage.
 
Susan Faludi has a great piece on "post-feminists" like Paglia, Katie Roiphe
etc. in the current issue of Ms. She analyzes the cultural context that has
allowed these voices to emerge (to dominate?) in discussions of feminist
issues, and she points out the inconsistencies in their arguments (for
example, she undermines their self-positioning as lonely voices in the
wilderness by exposing the large amounts of funding they receive from
conservative foundations. Kinda like Newt Gingrich or Bob Dole positioning
themselves as a political "outsiders.") Anyway, I think this kind of
contextualization is very important for students to see these writers in
perspective. It might be useful to address why these writers get so much
attention. What interests do they serve?
 
Stephanie Bower
UCLA
snv  @  netcom.com

 
If at all possible, check out Sut Jhally's latest video, "Date Rape
Backlash."  It's hosted by Callie Khouri (of _Thelma & Louise_ fame) and
has interviews with Susan Douglas, Susan Faludi, bell hooks and Katha
Pollitt.  It's a great media analysis of Roiphe's book, "post-feminism"
and the conservative pundits.  I showed it in my Intro. to Women's
Studies course and got a good reaction.
 
[In a later message, Kelly Mayhew provided the following information about
the film:
 
A Media Education Foundation production; written and produced by Sut
Jhally; 60 minutes; toll-free order line:  1-800-659-6882; further
information: 413-586-4170
 
Universities, colleges:  $195
Non-profit groups:  $125
 
Foundation for Media Education
26 Center St.
Northampton, MA  01060 ]
 
Kelly Mayhew
Women's Studies/American Culture Studies
Bowling Green State Univ.
kellysm  @  bgnet.bgsu.edu

 
>  if all they've ever heard about Camille Paglia is what they pick
> up from a momentary exposure in the press, they might be led to believe
that
> she is someone to be taken seriously.
 
Conversely, I find myself inclined to think of Catherine MacKinnon as
something of a lunatic (a horrible confession, I know)....and when I do find
myself having these thoughts, I sit down with her scholarship and rediscover
that she is a genius.  I disagree with a lot of what she says, but she cannot
be dismissed the way the mainstream media attempts to dismiss her...
          ---Elizabeth Moreno

 
Have you seen the piece by Patrice McDermott in the most recent issue of
SIGNS?  "On Cultural Authority:  Women's Studies, Feminist Politics, and the
Popular Press.  It contains an excellent review of the discourse and
political implications of Sommers et al.
 
 Theresa Kaminski <tkaminsk  @  WORF.UWSP.EDU> wrote:
 
This is one of the larger issues I am grappling with as I set up my
course on the history of women's rights and feminism in the U.S.
....When I get into explaining the
diversities of feminism I will likewise feel obligated to introduce the
students to women like Paglia and Sommers who not only claim to be
feminists, but also seem to claim to be the "right" kind of feminist.

 
It seems to me that one should teach Paglia in Women Studies classes
precisely BECAUSE she is controversial.  Having heard my share of odd
statements regarding feminism ("you can't be a feminist if you are
married," "you can't be a feminist if you wear nylons," "you can't be a
feminist if you are a Republican," etc.) I found her point that media
feminists (the people she calls the "so-called feminists") were
closed-minded to be quite well taken.  It seems to me that people
who insist that she cannot be taken seriously are proving her point.
 After all, she has excellent academic credentials, and she is
certainly entitled to her opinions.  Isn't she?  Isn't the academy
supposed to be where one is exposed to many ideas, and taught to think
critically and form opinions?

 
On Mon, 17 Apr 1995, Virginia Elwood wrote:
 
> It seems to me that one should teach Paglia in Women Studies classes > >
After all, she has excellent academic credentials, and she is > certainly
entitled to her opinions.  Isn't she?  Isn't the academy > supposed to be
where one is exposed to many ideas, and taught to think > critically and
form opinions? >
 
Actually, yes, which is why I do not teach Paglia. And no, I do not think
she is "entitled" to her opinions if they are not fact-based, and if those
non-fact based opinions harm other women.  There is a mistaken belief
among us, often including myself, that any opinion is valid.  This isn't
really so.  This belief perpetuates much violence against women, much
violence against men of color, much hatred and nationalism, and permits
Congress to cut funding to teenage mothers and dependent children. When
the facts are known, then our opinions are valid and worth hearing.  As a
member of academe, I don't think having "excellent academic credentials"
means all that much really.  I have met some very poorly educated souls
from many fine old institutions.  You can lead a horse to the education
trough, but you cannot force her to learn.  Many of my own students think
what I am saying is "just opinion" like all the other opinion they
encounter, and don't pay attention at all.  Sometimes they are right, but
often my opinions are fact-based--and discounted all the same. Given
Paglia's positions, she probably sat at the back of the class and threw
spitwads.
 
I don't teach Paglia, but mainly because I can't talk about her and keep a
straight face.  Her errors in judgment are terribly funny except they are
causing so much damage.  So, for that reason also, I do not teach Rush
Limbo (sic)--another hilarious soul.  My students don't need to have
anymore reasons to listen to such swill, even if I teach them how to
listen to it.  I teach them argument, I teach them literature, and I
attempt to teach them research and analytical skills.  These skills will
help them navigate the polluted media waters without my guidance. I do not
need to serve them the most opinionated of the aggressors and make them
read them!  I serve up to them instead, an academic tasting of the people
who do real research and whose work is often neglected in favor of hype.
 
*********************************
*Theresa                        *    Out flew the web, and floated wide,
*                               *    The mirror crack'd from side to side,
*                               *    "The curse has come upon me!" cried
*email: ttheresa  @  wsunix.wsu.edu *    The Lady of Shalott.
*********************************