THE IDLER

When Judith Butler attempted to defend bad writing in the New York Times, she based her argument not on the merits of bad writing but on two logical syllogisms.

The first was directed against the Bad Writing contest and can be interpreted as follows:

Critics of bad writing appeal to common sense and eloquence. Common sense and eloquence have been used to promote slavery and homophobia. Therefore, critics of bad writing promote slavery and homophobia.

The fatal flaw in Butler�s reasoning is obvious. Common sense and eloquence have likewise been used to attack slavery and homophobia. To give just three examples: Thomas Paine, the hero of the American and French Revolutions, was a founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society in 1775 as well as the author of Common Sense; Martin Luther King quoted Langston Hughes� injunction to "say it plain" when he announced his opposition to the Vietnam War; And a major lawsuit demanding the Boy Scouts accept homosexual scoutmasters appeals to "common sense" in its arguments.

So the same syllogism can be used to contradict Butler�s claim. In rhetorical terms, Butler�s is a false syllogism, because it violates the law of the undistributed middle.

Butler�s second syllogism looks like the first one turned on its head:

Defenders of bad writing prefer difficult prose. Difficult prose has been used to fight against oppression. Therefore, defenders of bad writing fight against oppression.

Again, Butler�s logic is fatally flawed. For difficult prose has likewise been used on behalf of oppressors: Paul de Man was a Nazi propagandist; Martin Heidegger was a member of the Nazi party; and Pol Pot was trained as a French intellectual.

It would therefore be equally true, given Butler�s syllogism, that defenders of bad writing are champions of oppression.

Butler makes another claim, through assertion rather than logical argument. It is that defenders of common sense and eloquent writing, as found in a "small" and "conservative" journal, are agents of cultural hegemony. Although she quotes Adorno and Marcuse, the source of Butler�s argument is Italian Communist Party leader Antonio Gramsci. But Gramsci specifically discusses hegemony as rooted in the elite cultural establishment of a nation. By virtue of double marginality�small size and conservative cultural orientation�critics of bad writing cannot, by Gramsci�s own criteria, represent the hegemon.

Rather, it is Judith Butler who represents the hegemonic forces in American culture. She is a tenured professor at a huge multi-billion dollar elite state university, and published her column in America�s newspaper of record. By contrast, the founder of the Bad Writing Contest, Denis Dutton, lives in New Zealand, and his column critical of bad writing was rejected by the editors of the New York Times.

Because she cannot use empirical evidence or logical argument to honestly argue on behalf of bad writing, Butler chose to employ false reasoning, empty assertion (as well as ad hominem and ex cathedra tactics) to bash the marginalized and "othered" voices that challenge the intolerant--and intellectually dishonest--academic hegemony her article represents.

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws