What do you think?
Rate this book
On Paradox: The Claims of Theory
In On Paradox literary and legal scholar Elizabeth S. Anker contends that faith in the logic of paradox has been the cornerstone of left intellectualism since the second half of the twentieth century. She attributes the ubiquity of paradox in the humanities to its appeal as an incisive tool for exposing and dismantling hierarchies. Tracing the ascent of paradox in theories of modernity, in rights discourse, in the history of literary criticism and the linguistic turn, and in the transformation of the liberal arts in higher education, Anker suggests that paradox not only generates the very exclusions it critiques but also creates a disempowering haze of indecision. She shows that reasoning through paradox has become deeply it engrains a startling homogeneity of thought while undercutting the commitment to social justice that remains a guiding imperative of theory. Rather than calling for a wholesale abandonment of such reasoning, Anker argues for an expanded, diversified theory toolkit that can help theorists escape the seductions and traps of paradox.
367 pages, Kindle Edition
Published October 28, 2022
2 people are currently reading
45 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
January 15, 2023
A provocative and refreshing book. Anker's "On Paradox" explores the near dominance of "paradox" as a conceptual framework in modernity, including human rights discourse, literary theory, and in the classroom. While a useful analytic for unmasking hierarchies, it can devolve into a kind of solution itself--as if resolution, noncontradiction, and integrity are self-evident enemies. Basically, her book "the perils of intellectual engrossment with paradox, and it argues that too much has been sacrificed on that altar" (5). At times, paradox poses as both a problem/diagnosis and a solution--e.g., highlighting exclusions while also rendering them necessary in communication/art/lit/whatever. One of her primary claims is that "allegiance to paradox ... congealed into its own orthodoxy" (15), creating surprising homogeneity among thinkers and theorists. While an adept tool for "demolishing hierarchies and outing hypocrisies" (22) it can "produce a haze of indecision" by stupefying thought "in the face of real moral, political, and other difficult[ies]" (23). She deals at various points in her book with Elain Scarry's book "The Body in Pain" as an example. I'd read Scarry before, but not in these terms! She points out how for Scarry, the incommunicability of pain and the "crisis of representation" it presents yields "far-reaching insights into power's anatomy" (147). That "a conceptual failure--the ineffable nature of pain--would furnish deeper insight into something as consequential as power is therefore one paradox lying at the heart of Scarry's theory" (244). She also addresses trauma theory/studies. "[T]rauma's shattering of language and ensuing muteness ... is ... configured as near redemptive, but such thinking also bars wounds that might be speakable or find successful verbal and other acknowledgment from rising to the level of trauma. Injuries that disobey trauma's rarefied codes thus risk falling outside that category's limited radius" (250). Some forms of trauma theory think that it's only recognizable "through its expressionlessness" and so they don't know what to do when trauma exists on the surface, "plainly and immediately stated by the survivor" (251). As an alternative, she suggests in brief that theory shift toward what she calls an "integrative criticism" (264). She isn't calling for banishment of paradox as an analytical good, but that it needs to be put in its place so that we don't miss the way theory can highlight those "weather vanes" in art/culture/lit that point toward wholeness and integrity--relatedness.
This was a challenging read--in part because she's dealing with heady literary criticism (for the most part), but also because "paradox" is a large umbrella that covers a wide territory. At times, I wondered if "paradox" became the box into which Anker put all theories she found problematic. That said, she gathers a significant body of evidence to suggest that language akin to "paradox" has achieved a kind of self-evident truth and dominance in modernity, and it's worth questioning that. While her constructive proposal wasn't as developed (and kept slipping back into critique), the call for an "integrative criticism" is appealing. On a personal note, I'm intrigued by the analogous use of appeals to indeterminacy, paradox, contradiction, mystery, and non-resolution in biblical studies.
This was a challenging read--in part because she's dealing with heady literary criticism (for the most part), but also because "paradox" is a large umbrella that covers a wide territory. At times, I wondered if "paradox" became the box into which Anker put all theories she found problematic. That said, she gathers a significant body of evidence to suggest that language akin to "paradox" has achieved a kind of self-evident truth and dominance in modernity, and it's worth questioning that. While her constructive proposal wasn't as developed (and kept slipping back into critique), the call for an "integrative criticism" is appealing. On a personal note, I'm intrigued by the analogous use of appeals to indeterminacy, paradox, contradiction, mystery, and non-resolution in biblical studies.
Displaying 1 of 1 review
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.