Winston's Diary

George H. Williams, over at Wordherders, objects to the contents of my posting on the theory question in MLA interviews. While I understand Williams’s position, I think perhaps his own politics and his personal experiences with MLA interviews have blinded him to the fact that others might have somewhat different experiences.

Methinks "Winston" doth protest too much. I seriously doubt anything like this will happen. I had seven job interviews the year I was hired for this job. No one asked me a theory question, "dreaded" or otherwise. Instead, I was asked about my research, my teaching, and a little about the administrative work I did as a graduate student. The committees that expressed the most interest in me were from departments that had faculty who did work similar to mine. In my case that meant, mostly, book history and humanities computing. On one of my campus visits I did mention Judith Butler once, in the context of something completely unrelated to my dissertation on eighteenth-century Methodism, but aside from that, I can't think of a single situation in which I felt I was being tested regarding my politics.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most hiring committees don't care if you name-drop theorists or not. But they'd like to know that you're keeping up with the latest developments in your field, and if the only scholars you mention as influential were born in the 19th century, you're not likely to make that impression.

First of all, I’m not saying this is going to happen—I simply worry about the ensuing conversation if it does happen. Plenty of people I have talked to about interviewing at MLA have said they’ve run into the dreaded theory question. Some departments simply want people who do theory because they consider it “sexy.” Even in the MLA job list there were plenty of job listings specifically targeting post-colonial Victorianists, or feminist medievalists, or some other combination of era and theoretical bent. The theory question is out there; you are evidently lucky not to have encountered it. It’s also possible that your politics are enough in line with those of most of the people in the humanities that you fail to notice they are being questioned. You’re quicker to notice these things when you disagree with the people asking the questions than you are when you agree with them.

As for keeping up with the latest developments, those developments fall along two tracks, at least in my field. I keep up with the serious, textual scholarship, but I really don’t care what someone is doing with their application of theorist A to my chosen field. You fail to acknowledge the fact that those with the power to hire are also those with the power to choose what exactly constitutes “the latest developments.” It’s not like this is science, where the discovery of a new theory actually means something in the real world. For example, Edward Said has not invalidated I. A. Richards. I don’t understand why people in the humanities can’t get this. Copernicus and Galileo discovering that the earth revolves around the sun is a fact that must completely change the face of science. Foucault’s History of Sexuality is an interpretation. One is falsifiable, the other is not.

For that matter, Judith Butler’s theories of gender performativity often fly in the face of scientific fact. Perhaps some of these “recent developments” in the humanities don’t deserve the status they’ve been accorded.

Williams’s post generated a few comments, to which I would also like to respond.

Chuck, one of Williams’s readers comments,

I'm not sure whose argument this supports, but wouldn't this committee likely (though not necessarily) have read the writing sample that the interviewee mailed out? The writing sample seems to be the more likely site where one's politics will be recognized. I've been interviewed 4-5 times now, and no one has asked me a "theory" question that directly.

Ah, but they don’t all ask for a writing sample at this stage. I’m not sure that any of the schools I’m interviewing for have seen a writing sample yet. All they’ve seen in my CV and letter.

Then, in a second comment, Chuck states,

Hmmm...after reading "Winston's" blog, I have even more reservations about his position. I think it's important to keep in mind that hundreds of capable applicants with fantastic credentials (and from all political positions) will be unable to get the tenure-track jobs they want this year....Or maybe when I go into interviews, I should just use the secret leftist handshake...

Uh-huh. And lots of those not getting jobs are people who haven’t bought into the theory game. The really big jobs seem to go only to those playing the theory game.

I’m so glad conservative academics have given the left a chance to ridicule their fellow human beings. I can only hope that you didn’t buy into Hillary’s vast right-wing conspiracy crap, because that would seem to indicate that you’re just as paranoid as you accuse us of being.

There is prejudice against conservatism amongst academics. I’m not positing some vast left-wing conspiracy, I’m just saying that this sort of thing happens, and those of us who lean to the right of center worry about it. Perhaps you could show a little of that compassion the left is supposed to be so famous for.

Another reader, Matt K., states,

Of course there are exceptions and excesses, but in general departments are looking for three things at an MLA interview (and even more so during a campus visit): who's the smartest person in the candidate pool, is the person we think the smartest also a strong bet to negotiate the tenure process (in other words, you may be brilliant but if you can't commit words to paper in a productive manner you're not going to get hired), and is this a person we can stand to be around for at least the next six years. I think the notion of overtly political, let alone theoretical litmus tests are much overstated; that said, academics are people too (though some over at Invisible Adjunct would disagree) and it should come as no surprise, particularly in small departments or small towns, that academics want to work with folks they find agreeable and with whom they might have something besides a PhD in common.

So committees and departments are looking for someone they can stand to be around for at least six years, eh? And when the majority of the department is left, often far left (in real world, not academic, terms)? Are they going to be able to stand someone who supports the Bush Administration and its policies in the Middle East for six years? Someone who doesn’t support Affirmative Action? Someone who thinks Judith Butler is a fool? Think about what you’ve said. I know for a fact that at the institution I am presently at, there is no way in hell they’d knowingly hire a conservative. There is, in fact, not a single conservative in our English department, which has at least 25 professors. Not one.

Finally, I'll quote a comment from Jason:

It's also, frankly, peculiar--or, perhaps more precisely, an index of over-the-top convervative paranoia--to think that one's theoretical interests reliably index either one's attitudes toward the literary tradition *or* real-world politics.

Whatever. See my above comments on “the vast right-wing conspiracy” and the ability of those on the left to only see problems that affect them.

You name me a conservative who agrees with Said. Or Foucault for that matter. The fact of the matter is, much of modern theory is politically inflected. It’s difficult—if not impossible—to buy into the theory without buying into the politics.

You’re correct in saying (in a part of the comment not quoted above) that not all theory is so revealing of one’s politics. Bakhtin, for instance, is embraced by those on either side of the political fence, and I happen to like a great deal of what he has to say. But he’s not nearly as “sexy” as the more vehemently left theorists are, particularly since the 2000 election.

You can disagree with me, but you haven’t walked in my shoes. It's really amazing how many academics on the left can cite their own personal experience and the experiences of others like themselves and allow them to speak for all and sundry. So much for respecting the Other. My experience has not been your experience. Quit trying to invalidate my experience.