As I wrote yesterday, we'll continue with the topic of Jonah Lehrer today. This article by Roxane Gay argues that the problem is not so much with Lehrer himself (although he certainly is responsible for his own actions) but with our societal desire to have a "boy wonder" intellectual in the form of a young, white male. Gay's position is that these types of falls from grace are enabled by our obsession with this archetype, which also functions to exclude writers and thinkers who don't fit the mold from wider public acceptance.
Though I wish it weren't the case, I think it would be naive to say that I'm not influenced by this vision of the transcendent genius. In many ways, our focus on the author shapes how we perceive the content. In fact, I think a pretty interesting study would be to keep a passage or article constant but change the name/bio/picture for the author and see how it shapes the reader's response. To be clear, I don't think we should ignore the author. If someone writes an article or a book that you enjoy, it's natural to believe that his or her other works are also likely to be enjoyable for you. But I think it's also important that we not take this for granted nor fail to critically examine how our perceptions of an author affect how we read that author's works.
"Jonah Lehrer throws it all away" by Roxane Gay
Published on Salon.com, July 31, 2012
http://www.salon.com/2012/07/31/jonah_lehrer_throws_it_all_away/
Eric
The counterpoint: "There is no 'genius problem' or 'Icarus syndrome' at work here. There's another reminder of the need to pay young people pittances so they can fact-check your ass."
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2012/07/31/jonah_swallowed.html
Hat tip to my friend Matt Stenovec for sharing that article.
Eric
I don't know how much i agree with this article, I think it is a stretch to try and say the real problem here is promoting of white male geniuses. In an article we read on here earlier Gladwell talks about how often times the most straight forward answer is the accurate one and that people like to try and make it into a bigger scandal then it is. The simple answer here is the guy got to where he did with some interesting writing (i for one didn't read him because he is a white genius male, I read him because he was thought provoking) and then was in over his head. Unable to keep up he began cheating. It's what people do.
ReplyDeleteIt should be noted the author of the article is an african american female.
I don't completely agree with her viewpoint, but I do think it has more truth to it than you may be giving it credit for. It is easy to say that at face value "I read what I do because it is interesting/thought-provoking." What Gay is asking is "what social influences are often ignored but that nevertheless help shape the things we perceive to be interesting/thought-provoking?" As an educated, white male, it's easy for me to say that race has nothing to do with it. But that is a function of privilege. I have the opportunity to not explicitly think about race much of the time, which is definitely not the case for others.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Gay is arguing that we explicitly think about wanting to have a white, male genius academic in our society. Instead, it's about how implicit attitudes about the relationship between things like race and class and intelligence influence our thinking often in subconscious ways. Interestingly enough, this is the type of thing that Lehrer wrote about on several occasions -- how we are "primed" to think in certain ways based on certain cues. For example, people exposed to sad words have a tendency to interpret a video they see as sad. Similarly, I think that in a society that has so often valorized being rich, white, educated, etc. that if we see an author who exhibits those characteristics, we are more likely to find his work interesting or thought-provoking. That's why I think a study presenting the same passage to people but with changed information (name/bio/photo) of the author would be fascinating. Perhaps it's already been done -- I should research this...
You may very well be right that the personal and financial pressure that Lehrer put on himself (or that was put on him by editors/publishers) made cheating enticing enough that he went for it. That is perhaps the simplest explanation for his actions in a vacuum. But I think what Gay is getting at is that there is a broader societal context that makes it even possible for someone like Lehrer to get built up in such a way as to create those pressures. He allowed (and arguably promoted) himself to be turned into the "wunderkind," and I think Gay wants us to ask why that sort of thing happens in the first place and why it seems to be more focused on authors who fit a more traditional archetype. The fact that Gay is a black woman in my opinion is relevant insofar as it helps to inform her standpoint, but I don't think that it in any way detracts from the argument that she is making. If anything, I think she has an ability to understand life as a black female writer in a way that you and I never could.
Eric
My comment is that Lehrer got to where he is by being a fascinating write able to engage the reader. I never even look at the author of the books I read because i search by topic or go off of recommendation. Just because he is a privileged young white boy doesn't mean society just happened to shove him where he is. I fully agree with the concept of considering hidden causes I just quite simply don't think this is a relevant example. It's the same way Jason Whitlock tries to make EVERYTHING about race. That's why i think it is incredibly relevant she is a black, female writer. She has an agenda. I'm not saying it's bad to look for equality, but just because you are looking doesn't mean you should find it everywhere.
ReplyDeleteThe ability to say that not everything is about race is itself a function of privilege. You could say the same thing about class. To quote Kanye West -- "having money's not everything; not having it is."
ReplyDeleteIt may very well be the case that for you, the author isn't a major factor affecting how you interpret what you read or whether you enjoy it. But Gay's point is about the way that our society (for example, the media who lavished praise on Lehrer) builds up certain writers as more legitimate or more likely to be thought-provoking. To the extent that this influences people like myself (who publish blogs and make recommendations to friends, etc.), I think it's important to discuss.
And I am not trying to take away from your point that Lehrer was (or at least seemed to be) an excellent writer. But there are a LOT of great writers out there who don't get published or hyped in the way that he did. I'm inclined to believe her point that this is about more than just coincidence but that perhaps many of the same privileges that are present in society at large also influence how editors and publishers select the work that they think is good or marketable.
Eric