So Literary Darwinism, then. This was a very interesting issue, and I’m glad that we were accorded plenty of time to discuss it. In groups and together, we went through a compelling list of our problems with it, and the consensus seemed remarkable.
But let’s not kid ourselves: it wasn’t meant to be. The way our reading packs were put together meant that anyone who approached the articles we were given in numerical order read the negative criticisms of The Literary Animal before they read the introduction to the book itself. And the seminar was led by David Amigoni, who authored one of the negative reviews – the only instance this week of an idea being introduced to us by someone who was opposed to it.
Now, I don’t think the reading pack thing was on purpose, and I don’t for a moment believe that David’s criticisms aren’t entirely sensitive, cautiously phrased, and accurate – as, indeed, were those of everyone who spoke during the session. But it still strikes me that this was a surprising deviation from how we’ve been approaching new ideas so far. And the ease with which we put Literary Darwinism in its place highlights, I think, some of the problems with conflict which interest me.
The problem is – and I apologise for repeating myself from the seminar room – that Literary Darwinism comes at us (Literary critics) from a very agressive standpoint. It’s very easy to respond in kind – but to do so can create some issues. To keep criticising them in their absense is to both intensify our own feelings against them and, moreover, to give air-time to a troublingly conservative ideology.
What defines a lot of conservative bad science in the media (as defined by the excellent Ben Goldacre) is its reluctance to engage sensibly, unemotively, and on issues, with its opponents. Literary Darwinism entirely fits inside this conception, and like Amigoni, we must strive to lead by counter-example wherever possible.
Tomorrow we step out into the real world to visit the museum of science and industry in Manchester. Some blogging will inevitably follow…
Will Tattersdill
This is really well put Will, and you set out an important aspiration. Thanks to you, and indeed everyone, for such a fascinating and wide-ranging discussion.
David
It really is terrible thinking that the people you mention in these things actually read them..! But thanks for doing so, David, and thanks for taking the time to reply! Hope to see you again soon.