My question is about McGann’s use of the term ‘ideology’ when he writes in chapter 3 on page 42, referring to Tanselle that “this is a theory of textual criticism founded in a Romantic ideology…” I am wondering what is McGann’s definition of ideology. If it means a false understanding, the falsity of which a person is unaware, then it doesn’t seem to fit with the Tanselle who is very aware in A Rationale that authorial intention operates editorially as a construct that is not realized in any document or ever reached by a textual critic’s reconstructed “text of the work”. I think Tanselle is arguing that one first has to determine “the stage that one wishes to recapture in the history of the work” (87), in other words, make a conscious decision which would seem to be at odds with unknowningly following an ideology as McGann seems to describe it, although I'm not sure because ideology is not defined in McGann. If one is interested in reception at a certain time then I think Tanselle says on pages 84-86 that authorial intention is clearly not the only consideration. (It’s too bad McGann didn’t revise chapter 3 of his 1983 text for the 1992 edition of A Critique to reflect and respond to Tanselle’s 1989 positions in A Rationale. McGann’s decision not to revise raises the question of what is the intention of his 1992 edition.) Why, too, is the ideology involving autonomy which McGann describes “Romantic” rather than a product of some other movement or malady, say, the Enlightenment, for example, which also valued autonomy a great deal? McGann does not explain or argue why the ideology is Romantic or how, if it is Romantic, it got that way.
Good point about not revising, Paul. I've also found it ironic that McGann has to keep defending his position against misinterpretations by saying that "that was not what I meant at al" (I think I say that somewhere in the new intro).
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about his use of "ideology" -- I feel it's of a piece with a grander tendency towards overstatement throughout the book (of course, the stridency is allowable; he's upfront that he's writing a polemic). In the copy I got from the GC reserve stack, a previous reader underlined each mention of "crisis" in the introduction, numbering each mention in the margin. We had similar experiences, I think.
ReplyDeleteFor what it's worth, McGann does briefly mention his intention (in not revising) in his 1992 preface:
ReplyDelete"Critique's interest now lies less in its technical and polemical arguments than in the historical focus is brings to the enduring problems of literary criticism. Critique is not a specialist handbook in need of revision, it is a small scholarly event that calls attention to cultural conditions and changes that remain important."