The Negative Article

The negative article is primarily one that takes issue with the positions of other scholars rather than putting forward its own perspective.

I was reading some articles by a friend of mine that I didn't agree with very much. The points of disagreement are multiple, and of some interest, but I don't feel I could write an article about this. Not because I would offend this person, but because it is hard to justify a mostly negative approach.

The problem with this kind of work is multiple:

(1) Critique is cheap. Graduate students, once they learn that texts are not sacred, enjoy being able to poke multiple holes in scholarly work. It can often be surprisingly easy to do, and can be loads of fun. The problem is missing the big picture. Yes, you can tell me five things wrong with The Anxiety of Influence, but can you tell me why it was an influential book in the first place? Can you tell me why we can't get past the concept even forty years later? Negativity can make you look immature.

(2) You are tying your own fortunes to a point of view opposite to your own, becoming dependent on someone else. Would you rather be René Girard or the guy who refuted René Girard?

(3) People are attracted to negativity but ultimately afraid of it. You can be provocative and get some attention, but many people will react with extreme negativity to your negativity. Even mildly critical views can offend others.


Nevertheless, a negative article can be justified in a few specific cases:

(1) The person you are criticizing is extremely significant in your field, but has had a negative impact. This is a tricky one, because you are speaking truth to power. If the figure you are attacking is very powerful, there could be repercussions. On the other hand, if you go after a minor figure, you will seem excessive.

(2) The entire consensus around a certain issue is mistaken. Here, you are challenging a consensus, but also offering a positive view that should replace it. The emphasis should still fall on the new paradigm, not just the one you are attacking. (Chomsky's famous demolition of Skinner is a good example of this. Although he destroyed Skinner's behavorial linguistics, the review didn't really convince the reader of what the alternative would be. it's still a good article, but you need to read other things by Chomsky to make sense of it.)

My most negative article was about some poets that I didn't care for. It's gotten me both friends and enemies. I wasn't criticizing other critics, but the poets themselves. I don't think it was a mistake, but it definitely had both positive and negative repercussions for me.

I had to be very careful with Andrew Debicki, who was a colleague and friend. I rarely agreed with anything he wrote, but often had to hedge my critiques much more than I would have liked to. I ended up writing a review that praised him on the surface, but which to any intelligent reader would be a rather serious critique. He usually pretended not to mind my obnoxiousness.

One model is Diacritics, which traditionally featured review-essays in which one major theorist tore down another. I wish there were a little more work like this, frankly. While grad-school style critique is cheap, it is also indispensable.