This essay argues that the critically neglected work of the American mid-twentieth-century writer Jane Bowles is a rare attempt at realism in modern fiction that takes as its metaphysical premise the reality referred to in Spinoza’s pronouncement, “By reality and perfection I understand the same.” Bowles’ innately allegorical fiction is an effort to reveal the perfect reality of the world by prophetically creating the future rather than mimetically preserving the present and recovering the past, expressing a world that is existentially (...) founded rather than representationally endured. The realism of perfection her prophetic creations strive to apprehend serves as a necessary reproof of the all too actual world reflected in merely mimetic fiction. (shrink)

In the beginning was an aborted word. The first example of a woman’s literary criticism in Western tradition, or more accurately the first miscarriage of a woman’s criticism, occurs early in the Odyssey. High in her room above the hall of suitors, Penelope can hear a famous minstrel sing that most painful of stories, the Greek homecoming from Troy—significantly, the matter of the Odyssey itself. That is no song for a woman. She comes down the stairs to protest. “Phêmios, other (...) spells you know, high deeds of gods and heroes, as the poets tell them; let these men hear some other, while they sit silent and drink their wine. But sing no more this bitter tale that wears my heart away. It opens in me again the wound of longing For one incomparable, ever in my mind— His fame all Hellas knows, and midland Argos.”It seems a reasonable request. But her words meet an immediate brutal rebuff from an unexpected source: her own son Telemachus. “Mother, why do you grudge our own dear minstrel Joy of song, wherever his thought may lead? Poets are not to blame, but Zeuswho gives what fate he pleases to adventurous men.Here is no reason for reproof: to singthe news of the Danaans! Men like besta song that rings like morning on the ear.But you must nerve yourself and try to listen.Odysseus was not the only one at Troynever to know the day of his homecoming.Others, how many others, lost their lives!”9Men like to hear the news; women must learn not to take songs so personally! And Penelope gives in. Marveling at the wisdom of her son, she goes back to her room and cries herself to sleep.Telemachus’ words do not seem very much to the point. Penelope had not asked Phêmios to stop singing, after all, or to sing something fit for women; she only asked him to choose some other adventure. And to reproach her for not considering that others besides Odysseus had failed to come home seems irrelevant as well as cruel. The fact that others feel pain is hardly a reason for her not to feel it. Penelope cannot bear even to name her husband, but Telemachus seems to take pleasure in saying “Odysseus.” By proclaiming his own indifference to pain, he argues just like a man. And that, of course, is the point. The scene has been contrived exactly to show his new maturity. He proves himself no longer a boy in the time-honored fashion, by rejecting any tenderness of heart and by putting down a woman. Henceforth he will be equal to the suitors. Lawrence Lipking is Chester D. Tripp Professor of Humanities at Northwestern University and director of the program in comparative literature and theory. He is the author of The Ordering of the Arts in Eighteenth-Century England and The Life of the Poet, which won the Christian Gauss Award of Phi Beta Kappa in 1982. His previous contributions to Critical Inquiry are “The Marginal Glass” and “Arguing with Shelly” . The present essay was originally given as a lecture at the School of Criticism and Theory in the summer of 1982. It is part of a book, Abandoned Women and Poetic Tradition, which is to appear in 1984. (shrink)

Der kürzlich verstorbene US-amerikanische Soziologe Robert K. Merton war der prominenteste und einflußreichste Anomie-Theoretiker nach Emile Durkheim. Seine Typologie der Arten individueller Anpassung an anomische gesellschaftliche Situationen bietet heute noch eine wertvolle Grundlage zur Analyse von Gesellschaften. Dieser Beitrag konzentriert sich auf einen dieser Anpassungstypen, den Ritualismus, der Merton zufolge beinhaltet, daß einerseits die kulturellen Ziele, allen voran das des wirtschaftlichen Wohlstands, heruntergeschraubt oder aufgegeben und andererseits die institutionellen Normen zur Erreichung dieser Ziele beinahe zwanghaft befolgt werden. Diese Definition überdenkend (...) versucht der vorliegende Beitrag herauszuarbeiten, daß innerhalb des Systems der Anpassungsformen das Herunterschrauben der kulturellen Ziele nicht das Hauptcharakteristikum ritualistischen, sondern konformen Verhaltens darstellt. Ritualisten haben den Prozeß des Herunterschraubens vielmehr bereits beendet, indem sie jegliche kulturellen Ziele aufgegeben haben, bis auf den einen Wert an sich, nämlich die institutionellen Regeln einzuhalten.Ritualistische Anpassung ist aus Merton`s Sicht für die Soziologie abweichenden Verhaltens, ganz zu schweigen von den Kriminalwissenschaften, nicht von Interesse. Im Gegensatz zu dieser Einschätzung versucht dieser Artikel die verschiedenen soziologischen und sogar kriminologischen Implikationen ritualistischen Verhaltens darzustellen, mit dem Ergebnis, daß Ritualismus sehr wohl ein soziales Problem darstellt. Der Ritualist unterwirft sich nicht nur selbst den institutionellen Normen, sondern fühlt sich auch dazu berufen, andere ständig an die Einhaltung der Regeln zu gemahnen und sie zu überwachen. Deshalb gibt es viele typisch ritualistische Formen abweichenden Verhaltens, wie Denunziation, erzieherischer Tadel oder Mobbing, die sogar in kriminelles Verhalten wie falsche Verdächtigung, Nötigung oder Beleidigung kulminieren können.Am schillerndsten ist die Rolle des Ritualisten in der Kriminalpolitik, nicht zuletzt heute in der Bundesrepublik. Repression jeglicher Art ist seine Antwort auf Regelverstöße und die Kriminalpolitik macht zunehmend Zugeständnisse an ritualistische Forderungen nach härterer und schnellerer Bestrafung oder umfassender Überwachung des öffentlichen Raumes. Ritualisten dominieren den sozialen Diskurs und die allgemeine Wahrnehmung von Kriminalität nicht nur, weil sie wichtige Nutzer und damit Zielgruppe gewisser Massenmedien sind und gerne Leserbriefe schreiben. Sie sind so dominant, weil ihre Art der Anpassung bei zunehmender wirtschaftlicher Krise die Konformität der Wirtschaftswunderzeit zurückgedrängt hat und heute die am weitesten verbreitete in der deutschen Gesellschaft ist. Daher ist auch die schon seit Jahrzehnten zu beobachtende Verschiebung der theoretischen Strafzweckbegründung hin zur Positiven Generalprävention alles andere als ein Zufall. The recently deceased US-sociologist Robert K. Merton has been the most prominent and influential anomie theorist since Emile Durkheim. His typology of modes of adaptation to anomic social situations still constitutes a valuable basis for analyzing society. This contribution focuses on one of these types of adaptation, ritualism, which according to Merton, involves the scaling down or abandoning of the cultural goals, above all economic wealth, on the one hand and to abide almost compulsively by institutional norms to attain these goals on the other. In reconsidering this definition, this contribution attempts to elaborate that within the system of adaptive modes scaling down does not describe the main characteristic of ritualistic behaviour, but first of all characterizes conformity. Ritualists, on the contrary, have already completed the process of scaling down by finally abandoning any cultural goal except the one end-in-itself, that is to comply with the institutional rules.Ritualistic adaptation, in Merton`s view, is of no interest to the sociology of deviant behaviour, not to mention criminal sciences. In contrast to this evaluation this contribution tries to delineate the various sociological and even criminological implications of ritualistic behaviour, leading to the conclusion that Ritualism does indeed present a social problem. The ritualist does not only surrender himself to the institutional means but feels competent to constantly reminding others of abiding by the institutional norms and supervising them. Hence there are many typically ritualistic forms of deviant behaviour like denunciation, disciplinary reproof or mobbing that may even culminate in criminal behaviour like false suspicion, duress or insult.Most ambiguous is the ritualist`s part in criminal policy, not at least in contemporary Germany. Repression of any kind is his answer to breaches of the rules and criminal policy more and more concedes to ritualistic demands for more severe and rapid punishment or extensive supervision of public facilities. Ritualists dominate the social discourse and general perception of criminality, not only because they are important users and therefore the target group of certain mass media, and like to write letters to the editor. They do dominate because in times of increasing economic crisis their mode of adaptation has forced back the conformity of the German economic miracle era and is now the most common one in contemporary German society. Thus, the shift in the theoretical justification of punishment towards a theory of positive general prevention, noticeable for decades, is anything but accidental. (shrink)

Theorists have spent considerable time discussing the concept of responsibility. Their discussions, however, have generally focused on the question of who counts as responsible, and for what. But as Gary Watson has noted, “Responsibility is a triadic relationship: an individual (or group) is responsible to others for something” (Watson Agency and answerability: selected essays, 2004 , p. 7). Thus, theorizing about responsibility ought to involve theorizing not just about the actor and her conduct, but also about those the actor is (...) responsible to—and specifically about how these people hold the actor responsible for her conduct. In this paper, I give a topology of the terrain of holding others responsible. Over the course of the paper I disambiguate two very broad senses of holding responsible—regarding another as a responsible agent and holding another responsible for a particular piece of conduct. Next, I argue that the latter sense of holding responsible is a genus with two species—what I will call “holding responsible as deep moral appraisal” and “holding responsible as accountability.” Appreciating these distinctions, I argue, sheds considerable light on a number of questions concerning the scope and nature of our practices of holding others responsible. Finally, illuminating these distinct senses of holding responsible and highlighting their features reveals an awkwardness in the most carefully explicated and influential account of holding responsible, namely R. Jay Wallace’s account in Responsibility and the Moral Sentiments. (shrink)

Aristotle thought we are by nature political animals, but the state-of-nature tradition sees political society not as natural but as an artifice. For this tradition, political society can usefully be conceived as emerging from a pre-political state of nature by the exercise of innate normative powers. Those powers, together with the rest of our native normative endowment, both make possible the construction of the state, and place sharp limits on the state's just powers and prerogatives. A state-of-nature theory has three (...) components. One is an account of the native normative endowment, or “NNE.” Two is an account of how the state is constructed using the tools included in the NNE. Three is an account of the state's resulting normative endowment, which includes a (purported) moral power to impose duties of obedience. State-of-nature theories disagree about the NNE. For Locke, it included a “natural executive right” to punish wrongdoing. Recent social scientific findings suggest a quite different NNE. Contrary to Locke, people do not behave in experimental settings as one would predict if they possessed a “natural executive right” to punish wrongdoing. Moral reproof is subject to standing norms. These norms limit the range of eligible reprovers. The social science can support two claims. One, is that the NNE is (as Aristotle held) already political. The other is that political authority can be re-conceived as a matter of standing—that is, as the state's unique moral permission coercively to enforce moral norms, rather than as a moral power to impose freestanding duties of obedience. (shrink)

We have a desire to discover and create order, and our constitution, including our rational faculties, indicates that we are predisposed for such productivity. This affinity for order and the establishment of order is fundamental to humans and naturally also leaves its mark on the medical discipline. When this profession is made subject to criticism, frequently in terms of well-used reproofs such as reductionism, reification and de-humanisation, this systematising productivity is invariably involved in some way or other. It is, however, (...) problematic that we rarely delve deeper and ask what order means, or reflect on its underlying, omnipresent and self-evident role. In order to approach this challenge, we initially and briefly place order in a conceptual and historical context. In what follows, we examine order explicitly, i.e. made an object of study, by taking a closer look at extensive multidisciplinary efforts to uncover the secrets of all its facets. Here we also try to identify some systems of order in medical science, including methodological and procedural order, which are indispensable as well as a source of problems. In the sections that follow, order is not defined as an explicit object of study, but comes to light in some exploratory and philosophising projects based on physics, mathematics and phenomenology. Each of these lets order and that which is ordered emerge in ways that may also shed light on opportunities and paradoxes in the medical domain. Key themes here include the Gordian knot of psyche – soma, the order of disorder and the patient as Other. (shrink)

Une forme d'art comprend-elle le critère de son acceptation ou de son rejet par la société dans laquelle elle prend forme? Le public auquel une oeuvre d'art s'adresse possède-t-il la compétence de faire l'exploration qu'elle lui propose? La Lettre à d'Alembert sur les spectacles de Rousseau et la Conférence de Schiller : « Was kann eine gute stehende Schaubùhne eigentlich wirken ? » donnent chacune réponse à ces deux questions par la caractérisation d'une manière de sentir et d'agir propre aux (...) protagonistes du domaine esthétique. Je propose d'examiner si les principes sur lesquels l'un appuie sa condamnation de la représentation théâtrale, l'autre son apologie de l'efficace de la scène, ont leur source et leur valeur dans l'expérience du plaisir du théâtre.Does a kind of art hold in itself the criterion of its acceptance or of its reject by the society in which it takes shape ? Is the public to whom a work of art is aimed enabled to make the exploration it suggests to him ? The Lettre à d'Alembert sur les spectacles by Rousseau and the lecture of Schiller: "Was kann eine gute stehende Schaubùhne eigentlich wirken?" give each one answer to both questions by the caractérisation of a way of feeling and working proper to aesthetic protagonists. I suggest to examine if the principles on which lay the reproof of the theatrical representation by Rousseau and the justification of the stage's efficacious by Schiller stem from and are worth according to the experience of theatrical enjoyment. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:'kvieuJs SELECTED· LETTERS KATHARINE TAIT Carn Voel Porthcurno,- Cornwall TRI9 6LN, England Nicholas Griffin. The Selected Letters ofBertrand Russel~ Vol. I: The Private Years, I884-I9I4. London: Allen Lane the Penguin PreSs, 1992. Pp. xxi, 553.£25.00; C$47.99; US$35·00. Nicholas Griffin has done an admirable job of selecting and explaining the letters in this first volume. It is amazingly to his credit that he 'manages to be so well acquainted with (...) and to understand so well a world so remote from his own. In the whole volume, I found only two small points on which to augment his knowledge. If he had looked up Shakespeare's poem about greasy Joan, which we all know in part, he would have solved for himself the mystery of Marian's nose, referred to on page 93. It was red and raw from the cold, as Russell's always was from sunburn in the summer-and usually peeling besides. And on page 217, perhaps a more esoteric mystery: Milligan is a game of patience played with two packs of cards, which I have seen him playing with a special small set capable of being spread out on a small table. My only other quibble is that I think perhaps Griffin is a trifle too hard on Grandmother Russell, who may have been less calculating and more sentimental than he supposes. That she was not above emotional blackmail is clear from Russell's letter to Alys of 17 August 1894: I went to· my Grandmother, and found her on the sofa in her sitting-room. We embraced in silence for some time and then I looked at her sadly with tears in my eyes and she said "Well I'm worse than you thought I was": not with an air of triumph, but of mild reproof for my heartlessness in having felt so little anxiery. She besought me to consent to an absence; she says everybody who comes thinks it strange I should not be here when she is so ill, and that both thee and I are suffering in reputation in consequence. She gave repeated assurances (which I didn't need) of her absolute unselfishness in urging my home-duties; she really does care only about my moral welfare, which she feels to be imperilled by such neglect. (P. 98) Awful stuff, yet I think she may have rather been seizing any weapon that came to hand than laying deeply cunning schemes; but this is only opinion and I would bow to Griffin's greater knowledge of the facts. His analysis of Evelyn Whitehead's "attacks",their effect on Russell and his relations with russell: me Journal of me Bemand Russell Archives McMaster University Libraty Pr... n.s. I> (winter 1992-9~): 211-24 ISSN OO~6-O1631. 212 Reviews her, on the other hand, I found enlightening and quite the best thing I have read on the subject. Some other fine items must be singled out for special mention. First, the generous tribute to Russell's integrity over Frege on page 245. Russell had spent five years working in almost complete isolation on the Principles only to find, when it had gone to press, that much of what was best and most original in it had been anticipated by Frege. Yet, even in his private correspondence, he never gave so much as a hint of any concern about his loss of priority, but only his delight at having found a thinker with similar ideas. It required an integrity beyond the call of duty to add to the Principles an appendix drawing attention to Frege's work and generally to do what he could to make it better known. Griffin's editorial work is for the most part adlJIirably dispassionate, always informative, sometimes speculative, occasionally critical; but when the occasion warrants (usually over professional matters), he is unstinting in his praise. Russell's comments about The Principles ofMathematics in his letters seem absurdly modest. The book was undoubtedly a wotk of genius; in some ways, the greatest thing he ever wrote.... (I]r offered not merely a new philosophy ofmathematics bur a new way of doing philosophy. Yet Russell... (shrink)