Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0001
Other Palgrave Pivot titles
Robyn Henderson and Karen Noble: Professional Learning, Induction and Critical
Reflection: Building Workforce Capacity in Education
Graeme Kirkpatrick: The Formation of Gaming Culture: UK Gaming Magazines,
1981–1995
Candice C. Carter: Social Education for Peace: Foundations, Teaching, and Curriculum
for Visionary Learning
Dilip K. Das: An Enquiry into the Asian Growth Model
Jan Pakulski and Bruce Tranter: The Decline of Political Leadership in Australia?
Changing Recruitment and Careers of Federal Politicians
Christopher W. Hughes: Japan’s Foreign and Security Policy under the ‘Abe Doctrine’: New
Dynamism or New Dead End?
Eleanor Sandry: Robots and Communication
Hyunjung Lee: Performing the Nation in Global Korea: Transnational Theatre
Creso M. Sá and Andrew J. Kretz: The Entrepreneurship Movement and the University
Emma Bell: Soft Power and Freedom under the Coalition: State-Corporate Power and the
Threat to Democracy
Ben Ross Schneider: Designing Industrial Policy in Latin America: Business-State
Relations and the New Developmentalism
Tamer Thabet: Video Game Narrative and Criticism: Playing the Story
Raphael Sassower: Compromising the Ideals of Science
David A. Savage and Benno Torgler: The Times They Are A Changin’: The Effect of
Institutional Change on Cooperative Behaviour at 26,000 ft over Sixty Years
Mike Finn (editor): The Gove Legacy: Education in Britain after the Coalition
Clive D. Field: Britain’s Last Religious Revival? Quantifying Belonging, Behaving, and
Believing in the Long 1950s
Richard Rose and Caryn Peiffer: Paying Bribes for Public Services: A Global Guide to
Grass-Roots Corruption
Altug Yalcintas: Creativity and Humour in Occupy Movements: Intellectual Disobedience
in Turkey and Beyond
Joanna Black, Juan Carlos Castro, and Ching-Chiu Lin: Youth Practices in Digital Arts and
New Media: Learning in Formal and Informal Settings
Wouter Peeters, Andries De Smet, Lisa Diependaele and Sigrid Sterckx: Climate Change
and Individual Responsibility: Agency, Moral Disengagement and the Motivational Gap
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0001
Conflict in the
Academy: A Study
in the Sociology of
Intellectuals
Marcus Morgan
University of Cambridge, UK
and
Patrick Baert
University of Cambridge, UK
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0001
© Marcus Morgan and Patrick Baert 2015
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1st edition 2015 978-1-137-52128-6
All rights reserved. No reproduction, copy or transmission of this
publication may be made without written permission.
No portion of this publication may be reproduced, copied or transmitted
save with written permission or in accordance with the provisions of the
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988, or under the terms of any licence
permitting limited copying issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency,
Saffron House, 6–10 Kirby Street, London EC1N 8TS.
Any person who does any unauthorized act in relation to this publication
may be liable to criminal prosecution and civil claims for damages.
The authors have asserted their rights to be identified as the authors of this work
in accordance with the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
First published 2015 by
PALGRAVE MACMILLAN
Palgrave Macmillan in the UK is an imprint of Macmillan Publishers Limited,
registered in England, company number 785998, of Houndmills, Basingstoke,
Hampshire RG21 6XS.
Palgrave Macmillan in the US is a division of St Martin’s Press LLC,
175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010.
Palgrave Macmillan is the global academic imprint of the above companies
and has companies and representatives throughout the world.
Palgrave® and Macmillan® are registered trademarks in the United States,
the United Kingdom, Europe and other countries.
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.
A catalog record for this book is available from the Library of Congress.
www.palgrave.com/pivot
doi: 10.1057/9781137521309
Contents
Acknowledgements vi
About the Authors vii
Bibliography 82
Index 93
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0001 v
Acknowledgements
We would like to express appreciation to our interviewees
for sharing their recollections and reflections, Vicky Aldred
and the Cambridge English Faculty Board for granting us
access to their archives, Jacqueline Cox and Frank Bowles
at the Cambridge University Archives for helping us
consult them, Jonathan Drummond at the Times Literary
Supplement for permission to reprint an advertisement
from their pages, Harriet Barker and Palgrave Macmillan’s
anonymous reviewers. Thanks also to Jonas Tinius who
generously read and provided valuable comments on a
draft. The research leading to these results has received
funding from the European Union Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement no.
319974 (INTERCO-SSH) and was aided by the stimulat-
ing intellectual atmosphere provided by the members of
this collaborative group: Christian Fleck, Johan Heilbron,
Victor Karady, Marco Santoro, Gisèle Sapiro and Gustavo
Sora. Finally, thanks to Lorena Cervera and Emma Murray,
for all manner of things.
vi DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0002
About the Authors
Marcus Morgan is a fellow and college lecturer at Murray
Edwards College, Cambridge, and a research associate in
the Sociology Department at the University of Cambridge,
UK.
Patrick Baert is Professor of Social Theory in the Faculty
of Human, Social, and Political Science at the University
of Cambridge, and a fellow of Selwyn College, Cambridge,
UK.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Conflict in the Academy
The research for this book is based upon the reconstruction of a histori-
cal case in which neither of the authors was directly involved. This case
involved a dispute over whether a young University Assistant Lecturer
in the English Faculty at Cambridge University would be upgraded
to a permanent position. What might conceivably have been quickly
forgotten as merely a trivial and routine difference of opinion within the
workplace very quickly turned into a cause célèbre, seen as illustrative
of fundamental shifts taking place within both the university system in
England and within the particular discipline of English Studies at the
time. The event rapidly swelled to heroic proportions, drew vast media
attention and became invested with considerable moral and symbolic
consequence. One of the first questions directing our research is how
and why this took place.
It is not our concern in this work to evaluate the common assump-
tion that academics tend to overestimate the significance of their own
internal squabbles.1 However, we would like to suggest that tired clichés
of ‘ivory towers’ and ‘dreaming spires’, or even more self-complementary
myths of universities as platonic institutions directed towards disinter-
ested enlightenment lead to an unhelpful black-boxing of these zones
of social life from attentive sociological enquiry, usually on the odd
assumption that the ‘real world’ is somehow always going on elsewhere.
This book intends to contribute toward a growing literature that refuses
to content itself with such popular accounts of academia as a withdrawn
and therefore somehow asocial zone, and which instead takes the reflex-
ive academic analysis of the social processes of academic life seriously
(e.g. Bourdieu, 1988; Camic, Gross, Lamont, 2011; Collins, 1998).
Of course it is true that much of any debate, including this one, can be
explained – or we would rather, explained away – by recourse to the indi-
vidual ‘personalities’ of those involved, and since academia may have a
tendency to attract and inflate already overblown egos and then set them
competitively against one another like few other sectors of work, it would
seem likely that such personalities would play an even larger role within
academic disputes than within controversies elsewhere. To add to this,
it has been suggested, somewhat unfairly perhaps, that ‘self-obsession,
never rare in academe, is especially common in English Departments’
(Bayley, 1981: 135) and so it may be tempting to disregard what came to
be known as the ‘MacCabe Affair’ as a simple case of egotistical pettiness
getting the better of collegiate civility. But such egos are neither born, nor
shaped, nor expressed outside of social space, and this book attempts to
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Introduction: A Storm in a Teacup?
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Introduction: A Storm in a Teacup?
at dusk, retrospective distance from the event also provides the advan-
tage of seeing the event in the context of its broader historical landscape.
Therefore, in comparison to many of the reports that were excitedly
penned in the immediate wake of the events, our study is afforded the
possibility of more adequately judging the controversy’s status as expres-
sive of definite shifts in the history of English Studies, higher education
in England, and England as located within an evolving international
scene more broadly. Similarly, whilst our own disciplinary location
outside of English Studies provides challenges in terms of discussing a
field with which we are substantively unfamiliar (we do not assume to
offer much in the way of insight into the literary-critical content of the
debate), it also allows us the possibility of approaching practitioners of
the discipline as a somewhat exotic species of intellectual labourers, and
diminishes any emotional temptation to take sides in assessing the affair.
What can be said of chronological and emotional distance, however,
cannot be said for institutional distance, and some familiarity with the
workings of the University, we feel, has been useful to our project.
Theoretically, the book endeavours to demonstrate the virtues of
adopting a pragmatic approach to theory selection and development,
which sees theory not as separable from the particular empirical situ-
ations it is called upon to understand, but rather marshalled on the
basis of its expedience in helping elucidate such specific settings (e.g.
Baert, 2005; Mills, 1959; Morgan, 2014). Moreover, building on insights
that challenge the philosophical marginality of metaphor to the human
perception and comprehension reality (e.g. Blumberg, 2010) we regard
the use of concepts and metaphors as not so much ways of uncovering
hidden truths than as ways of re-describing and reformulating social
phenomena. Sympathetic to Richard Rorty’s (1980) philosophical stance,
we see an important value of sociological research in its capacity to put
a new spin on old ways of seeing the world (Baert, 2005), and therefore
argue for something of a bricolage approach that selects and combines
different theoretical frames on the basis of their ability to cast the
research object in a new or interesting light.
In particular, the book shows how positioning theory is able to augment
a cultural sociological perspective in analysing intellectual disputes and
controversies. We find the new school of American cultural sociology,
which itself takes critical inspiration from a variety of disparate sources
(including the late Durkheim, Parsonian functionalism, phenomenologi-
cal sociology, symbolic anthropology, Turner’s (1957) pioneering account
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Introduction: A Storm in a Teacup?
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Introduction: A Storm in a Teacup?
Notes
1 For example, Noel Annan suggests that ‘to anyone outside a university, the
frenzy which appointments and elections produce seems petty and absurd’
(1974: 68) and John Carey writes with reference to Oxbridge in particular,
that there exists a firm belief ‘that their grouses are of national importance’
(1975: 19).
2 Tanner, for example, claimed of the pro camp, that ‘[o]ur group has very little
in common but that we’re pluralists open to new ideas’ (Fisher, McGee, Rich,
1981: 1).
3 Distinct camps were apparently clear to the participants at the time: as Lisa
Jardine recalls, ‘we all knew where we lined up’ (1994).
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0004
Part I
The ‘MacCabe Affair’
in Context
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0005
2
Chronology of Events
Abstract: This chapter provides a chronological description
of the events of the affair. To the extent that it is possible,
we try to avoid analysis altogether at this point, providing
as matter of fact an account of what occurred as we see
possible. Where facts are disputed, we draw attention to the
matter, highlighting the dissension rather than attempting
to resolve it via our own authoritative reading. The purpose
of this chapter is both to acquaint the reader with the
‘facts’ of the episode, as well as to provide a description
of the ‘raw material’ out of which the controversy was
forged. Nearer the end of this chapter, we discuss some of
the functions the controversy ended up serving for both its
participants, and the ideas involved.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Conflict in the Academy
Colin MacCabe had been both an undergraduate and then PhD student
at Trinity College, Cambridge, until 1974, and then a Research Fellow at
Emmanuel from 1974 to 1976. In the year that his Research Fellowship
came to an end he was awarded his doctorate, became a Fellow and
College Lecturer at King’s College, and was appointed to the now-
abolished position of ‘University Assistant Lecturer (UAL)’, which was
reviewed for the possibility of upgrading to the effectively permanent
position of ‘University Lecturer’ at the end of a five-year term.1 In this
position MacCabe was charged with the responsibility of teaching
‘English language in relation to literature since 1500’ (Inglis, 1995: 279),
and even prior to his term ending, unease with his presence within the
faculty was evident from the fact that after he had been appointed to
the Degree Committee, Professor Christopher Ricks resigned in protest,
prompting MacCabe himself to then resign, and Ricks, after some time,
and with some prompting from the Secretary of the Faculty Board, Mike
Long, to then return back to the committee (Correspondence relating to
nomination for election to various Faculty Board committees, 1970–82).
In spite of such early skirmishes, and Kermode’s claim that a ‘row about
literary theory was already brewing in the 1970s’ (1997: 254), the conflict
on which this book focuses only truly came to a head in 1980 when deci-
sions for appointments for the coming academic year began to be made.
Three separate bodies were responsible for implementing this decision-
making process: the Faculty Board (charged with ‘ensuring that teaching
within the faculty is appropriate and of a high standard’), the Upgrading
Committee (a subcommittee appointed by the Faculty Board, charged
with the responsibility of making recommendations for upgrading), and
the Appointments Committee (who acted to ratify the Faculty Board’s
Recommendation).
On 10 March 1980, the Upgrading Committee met to review the UAL’s
performance and recommend upgradings. The subcommittee received
reports from three senior professors, Christopher Ricks, Raymond
Williams, and Frank Kermode, as well as others, including John Barrell
and Richard Axton, who had all been to observe MacCabe’s (and the
other two UALs’) lectures, had read work written by the candidates,
and had received references from their chosen referees. In reference to
MacCabe’s lectures, whilst Kermode recalls that both he and Ricks had
‘found great improvements in them’ (Kermode, 2008), Ricks remembers
it differently – that he ‘did not think that they were very good’ (2013).
Inglis informs us that whilst Williams’s reports were ‘full of quiet praise’,
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Chronology of Events
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Chronology of Events
of the most senior figures in the English faculty – Frank Kermode and
Raymond Williams – were voted off the Appointments Committee. Two
other supporters of MacCabe, Stephen Heath and John Barrell, were
similarly voted off the Faculty Board. Since Williams and Kermode
were both professors, they remained members of the Board ex officio,
but whilst Williams ‘decided to stay on and fight on the Faculty Board’,
Kermode, the Edward VII professor, resigned from it, according to
some reports in protest (Walker, 1981a), and according to others due to
‘personal and health reasons’ (Fisher et al., 1981: 1). Tony Tanner, another
supporter, resigned from his post as secretary of the Faculty’s Degree
Committee in disapproval (Walker, 1981a), and John Barrell resigned
from the Upgrading Committee ‘in light of the elections that had just
been made to the Appointments Committee’ (Reserved Faculty Board
Minutes, 27 November 1980).
Derek Brewer, an English fellow at Emmanuel College who had been
named to the reconstituted Appointments Committee, was subsequently
contacted by MacCabe to request that the vote be retaken, and after
some consideration, he decided to call for it to be so (MacCabe, 2009).
The vote was duly retaken, and the outcome this time was 4 in support
of MacCabe, 3 against. In order for MacCabe to be appointed, however, 5
votes out of the 7 were necessary.
After the Christmas vacation, on 23 January 1981, Williams and
Kermode spoke to an open meeting, attended by more than 600 students,
on ‘the troubles within the faculty’ (Walker, 1981c). John Beer refused
to attend, as did Christopher Ricks who, adapting a famous phrase by
Leavis, commented that ‘to come is to condone’ (Walker, 1981d). On 28
January 1981, the English students passed a vote of no confidence in the
Faculty Board, demanding that it be suspended until an independent
inquiry had been conducted into the procedure surrounding MacCabe’s
non-reappointment (Witherow, 1981c; Rich and Tolmie, 1981).
Stephen Heath, a University Lecturer and passionate supporter of
MacCabe, collected the signatures required by the University for a meet-
ing of the Senate (all holders of a Cambridge MA, or higher, degree) at
the University’s Senate House.4 The meeting was presided over by the
Vice Chancellor, the mathematician Sir Peter Swinnerton-Dyer,5 and
nearly all of the main players attended (excepting MacCabe, who was
on a British Council lecture tour of Europe, and Ricks, who had no
interest in being present); the majority also contributed. The debate took
seven and a half hours over the 3 and 4 February and those who had
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Conflict in the Academy
supported the call for the meeting requested that inquiries into both the
general ‘state of the English Faculty’, as well as the more particular case
of MacCabe’s non-reappointment be launched, during which time they
saw it fit that the faculty be suspended.
On 11 February, the General Board of the Faculties (12 senior members
of the Faculties plus the Vice Chancellor) met to consider the MacCabe
Affair, prior to which they had appointed a special committee to examine
what had occurred (Walker, 1981h). At the end of February, Christopher
Ricks delivered a lecture responding to the theoretical issues of the affair,
and denouncing the importance of ‘theory’ to advancing literary criticism
(Walker, 1981i), which was later published in the London Review of Books
(Ricks, 1981). In March, Raymond Williams also delivered a lecture to
the faculty, also later published (1983), on ‘The Crisis in English Studies’,
which attempted to both clarify the underlying theoretical divisions
of the controversy, as well as to shed light on the term ‘structuralism’
that had been bandied around with casual imprecision throughout the
episode.
It is unclear which camp first drew the media’s attention to the event,
and accusations of orchestrating the various media were hurled from
all sides in the affair (e.g. Simpson, 1990: 264; Heath, SHD: 330; cf.
Beer, SHD: 353; Sykes-Davies, SHD: 335). Nevertheless, involved they
certainly got and the quarrel was reported at university, local, national,
and even international levels, in print (including front pages, and replete
with witty puns),6 radio, and television (including the BBC’s widely
watched Newsnight), with interest peaking around January and early
February 1981. Part of this clearly followed the well-worn path of media
amplification, with the student newspaper, Stop Press, insisting that the
attention was unwarranted, and – somewhat ironically in an issue in
which they dedicated their lead cover story to the affair – ‘deserving of
the label of the most overblown media story of the year’ (1981: 4; also
Cohen, 1981: 4).
A little later, it was reported that MacCabe and Heath had brought a
libel case, which was subsequently dropped, against John Harvey, and
the University’s own historic special appeals court – the Septem Viri or
‘council of seven’ – were claimed to have been called into action over
charges that information from confidential meetings had been leaked
(Walker, 1981e; The Times, 1982; Williams & Collings, 1981: 46). However,
the student newspaper, Stop Press, quickly corrected the national and
international press, reporting that Heath ‘denied that he ever intended
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Chronology of Events
any legal action’ and further, that to ‘the best available knowledge the
Septem Viri has not been convened for over forty years’ (Moss & McGee,
1981: 1).
Functions
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Chronology of Events
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Conflict in the Academy
In terms of the careers of ideas, rather than people, focussing upon the
immediate victory of the antis in blocking the possibility of MacCabe
being appointed to a permanent position diverts attention somewhat
from the fact that the kinds of nouvelle vague theory MacCabe was
understood to represent have now become more or less mainstreamed
as at least one essential element within the plurality of approaches taught
in English departments throughout the United Kingdom, including
Cambridge. For better or for worse, Erskine-Hill was simply wrong in
suggesting that ‘such positions ... must be regarded merely as a passing
folly’ (SHD: 338). Surveying the current paper options available from the
Cambridge English Faculty, Ricks is likewise off the mark in comment-
ing that ‘everyone now teaches, at least at undergraduate level, in a
rather valuably old-fashioned way’ (quoted in Wroe, 2005);7 as Higgins
remarks, ‘if anything has come to dominate contemporary literary stud-
ies, it has been the combination of theoretical and textual analysis’ (2013:
140).8 After the decision had been made not to upgrade MacCabe, a
students’ report to the Faculty Board stated that ‘many students consider
it very important that the field of study in which Dr MacCabe worked
should be continued to be represented within the Faculty’ (Unreserved
Minutes of the Faculty Board, 22 January 1981), and the evidence appears
to show not only that it did continue to be represented, but also that its
representation has, since the 1980s, in fact grown.
A final interesting function that the affair served, apparently thanks
to the distraction that the spectacle produced, was the introduction of
a feminist paper into the Cambridge English curriculum. Lisa Jardine
talks of how, since ‘feminism was no part of the poststructuralist debate’
that was taking place around the figure of MacCabe, the proposal of a
new paper on the ‘Literary Representation of Women’ managed to go
through a Faculty Board meeting ‘on the nod’ and ‘under the cover of
darkness’ (Jardine, 1994).
Notes
1 At Cambridge University, admissions, and small-group or one-to-one
‘supervision’ teaching is conducted within the colleges where students
live, and which employ a certain number of College Teaching Officers
(CTOs) who usually do not hold any University post. Most lecturing
however, is delivered by the university’s relevant faculty or department, via
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Chronology of Events
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
Conflict in the Academy
6 For example, ‘Unquiet Flow the Dons’, wrote Newsweek (Williams and Collings,
1981), and ‘Cambridge Scholars Wage Literal Warfare’ was the title of a Times
Higher article (Midgley, 1981).
7 There is also now a popular MPhil in Screen Media and Cultures at Cambridge,
for which MacCabe has acted as external examiner, and the incumbent King
Edward VII Professor of English Literature has written widely on screen media
of various kinds.
8 For a similar, though more critical, assessment of this ‘domination’, see Maskell
and Robinson (2001: 174).
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0006
3
Contextualising the Dispute
Abstract: This chapter locates the affair within both its
broader (socio-historical) and narrower (institutional)
contexts. Firstly, it draws attention to the post-Robbins
expansion of higher education, the relatively more rapid
expansion of the social sciences vis-a-vis the humanities
and the changing nature of English studies via its
incorporation of insights emerging from the social sciences
and from French theory. It stresses how these factors both
facilitated and provided symbolic weaponry in the dispute.
Secondly, it highlights the role played by Cambridge
University’s relatively unique collegiate institutional form
in structuring the resultant conflict, showing in particular
how colleges provided pools from which ‘performance
teams’ were recruited. Overall, it argues that such material
contextualisation is essential for fully comprehending the
symbolic dimensions of the affair addressed in Part II.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
In order to avoid the blind spots created via an exclusive focus upon
specific ‘disciplinary histories’ at the expense of ‘intellectual history’
more generally (Collini, 1988), this section attempts to situate the
MacCabe Affair within its broader intellectual historical context. This
chapter highlights the importance of the rise of the social sciences that
occurred alongside the explosion in scale and demographic heteroge-
neity of students within British universities during the 1960s (Savage,
2010). It suggests that this unprecedented shift in the form and scale
of the British higher education sector was linked to a cleavage of what
Lamont (2009) calls ‘epistemological styles’ within English Studies,
one side of which intended to retain the discipline’s mooring within a
traditional humanistic frame, and another which instead hoped to shift
both the discipline’s methods of analysis, as well as its object of study
in accordance with insights developing out of cognate disciplines, in
particular, the burgeoning social sciences.1 This section also intends to
show how English Studies’ late establishment in England, and especially
in Cambridge where the subject initially faced resistance, combined with
Cambridge’s subsequent influence in defining what came to be seen by
many as an almost paradigmatic approach across the discipline in the
United Kingdom (the situation was more complicated in the United
States and elsewhere), contributed towards creating a situation in which
perceived threats to this particular centre of the discipline, and its estab-
lished approach towards criticism, were felt particularly acutely. As will
become clear in the second part of the book, these broader socio-histori-
cal and education policy developments can also be seen to have provided
resources of symbolic weaponry that were subsequently deployed in the
performative enactment of the ‘MacCabe Affair’.
We would like to suggest that the story of the MacCabe controversy
ought to be placed within a broader account of disciplinary profession-
alisation, one which raises the question of what exactly a discipline is – a
question much easier to answer in the so-called hard sciences than in the
humanities. Is it, as Rorty (2006) has suggested, simply a matter of the
ritualistic reading and referencing of one set of books rather than another,
and the justifying of one’s claims to one community of practitioners rather
than another, or does it point towards something more essential in method
and content? One thing that appears clear is that disciplinary reproduction
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
arrive at Cambridge until 1911, with a School of English and only being
established in 1917 – was the dominance of the Classical curriculum.3 To
put this in context, the first department of our own subject, sociology –
usually considered a fledgling discipline – was established at the LSE some
ten years earlier, in 1907. Prior to the establishment of the School of English
at Cambridge, the subject had been taught as one section of the Medieval
and Modern (later Modern and Medieval) Languages Tripos, and until
a full English Tripos arrived in 1919, the subject was only intended to be
studied as a specialisation (a Part II, in Cambridge parlance4), after having
initially studied another subject, most likely Classics, for the first two years
of one’s degree. A full tripos of Modern English Studies, without an Anglo-
Saxon element, did not appear until 1926 (MacKillop, 1995: 207; 212).
In spite of this late start, after the Great War it began to develop very
rapidly, eclipsing the Classics as the central humanities discipline, with the
Cambridge School, characterised by its critical and analytical approach
(in distinction to Oxford’s philological and scholarly one) playing a
central role. The influential, zealous, bolshie, and highly opinionated F. R.
Leavis was key in championing the essential importance of the discipline
in Cambridge and beyond, and in establishing what arguably became
the orthodox humanistic approach to analysing literature until at least
the 1960s and to some extent, and in some locations – as this particular
case shows – far later too.5 The influence of Leavis, and his wife, on the
manner in which the Cambridge English School developed far exceeded,
however, the institutional recognition that the university offered to either
of them. When faced with the indignity of being offered the opportunity
to provide a term’s lectures Q. D. Leavis strongly declined, reminding a
representative of the Faculty that ‘without the contribution made by my
husband and myself to English studies at Cambridge there would have
been no English School here for people like yourself and the Chairman
of the Faculty Board to flourish in’ (Cambridge University Archives, June,
1965). For F. R. Leavis the close analysis of great works was understood
to be at the heart of literary criticism and this analysis was considered a
deeply moral pursuit, whereby the critic employed his or her whole intui-
tive humanity as a test for the work’s sincerity and merit, so that reading
well was seen to hold the possibility of cultivating the moral sensitivities
of the reader. This centrality of the basic instinctive human response to
literature, over and above any methodologically formalistic model of
analysis extended to Leavis’s distrust of other formalised modes of ration-
ality and thought, such as those that characterised scientific reason and,
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
begun to replace the older moral humanism. The literary text tended to
move towards the status of phenomenon: a socio-psycho-culturo-linguistic
and ideological event, arising from the offered competencies of language,
the available taxonomies of narrative order, the permutations of genre, the
sociological options of structural formation, the ideological constraints of the
‘infra-structure’. (1981: 137)
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
used the term ‘linguistic sociology’ (SHD: 336) to mock what he saw
as MacCabe’s defective approach (an epithet that might reveal as much
about the perceived status of sociology at Cambridge, or at least the
status in which it was held by the speaker, as it does about MacCabe’s
own work, e.g. Rose & Ziman, 1964: 121). Kirk, a professor of Greek at
Cambridge, defended the perspectives ‘that anthropology, sociology,
linguistics, and psychology have opened up for us’ and chastised factions
of the English Faculty for ignoring them (SHD: 345; also Beaton, 1981:
199). Malcolm Bradbury used the term ‘literary science’ in the passage
quoted earlier, and MacCabe discusses how the radical Parisian theory
of the 1960s, from which his own work drew inspiration, was grounded
in a ‘fundamentally anthropological approach’. He went on to claim that
whilst Cambridge had been ‘the pre-eminent English school through
the middle decades of the 20th century’, by the time he arrived, ‘it was
desperately in need of rejuvenation’ from ‘the vast new resources being
opened up by linguistics and anthropology’ (MacCabe, 2009; 2010a).
The situation was also described in similar terms in a letter written to the
Times Literary Supplement:
In an age in which the powerful intellectual movements of Marxism and
modern sociology and anthropology have cast convincing doubts on the
absoluteness of cultural values, and in an age of active contact with cultures
in which literature and literary studies have not enjoyed the privileged posi-
tion they traditionally have in our own, the elite status once claimed for
them, particularly at Cambridge, must now be actively defended if it is to be
maintained. (Beaton, 1981: 199)
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
England was therefore late to institutionalise the formal study of the English
language and its literature within its universities, and that the University
of Cambridge was even later than elsewhere in the country. Once it did
become established, however, it managed to displace the former central
humanistic discipline, Classics, and establish itself as the core humanity.
What’s more, Cambridge English, through its charismatic proponents
such as Richards, Empson, and Leavis, came to be seen by some as defini-
tive of the paradigm, not just in the universities, but also outside them,
in part through the Cambridge extra-mural ‘extension lecturing’ system
(Doyle, 1986), and in schools too, both through its control of a widely used
examination board, and through its former students going on to teach in
secondary schools up and down the country. This contextual environment
had two primary effects upon the MacCabe incident.
Firstly, since English had only relatively recently secured its profes-
sionalised position in Cambridge and elsewhere in England, and since
the paradigm of English studies in general was understood by many to
be so bound up with Cambridge English in particular, this set the scene
for great potential anxiety arising once this centre was considered to be
under threat, especially from an enemy within. Leavis’s primary concern,
after all, had been to ensure that English became disciplined: ‘isn’t a disci-
pline notably what English has, in this period of emancipation and high
prestige, not provided? The charge is hard to resist’, he wrote (1943: 33).
Too much pluralism, too quickly, could be understood as undermining
the discipline’s recently won status. Christopher Ball, an English don at
Oxford, wrote at the time that the fears produced through the accommo-
dation of ‘theory’ in English studies might have in fact concealed a deeper
anxiety common to all relatively young disciplines: ‘the possibility that the
subject is not really an academic discipline at all’ (Ball, 1981: 136). As Wyn
Grant has noted in reference to the history of the discipline of Political
Science in the United Kingdom, ‘intellectual openness and tolerance of
eclecticism has its merits, but if it is allowed to become too uncontrolled
it can lead to a lack of rigour in the deployment of methodologies and
techniques, which undermines the systematic comparison that the subject
has to offer if it is to be distinguished from polemic or idle speculation’
(2010: 24). Similarly, English Studies appears to have been attempting to
maintain this precarious balance between pluralism and innovation on
the one hand, and coherence and continuity on the other. In reference to
John Beer’s suggestion in the Senate House (SHD: 355) that five separate
strands of scholarship had emerged in the Cambridge English Faculty
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
between the conservative Right and the progressive Left gained a degree
of symbolic resonance that was in many ways unthinkable before
Thatcher’s arrival at No. 10.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
Notes
1 Specified in a much looser manner to Kuhn’s notion of a paradigm, Lamont
defines ‘epistemological styles’ as ‘preferences for particular ways of
understanding how to build knowledge, as well as beliefs in the very possibility
of proving those theories’ (Lamont, 2009: 54), and although she is more
concerned with ‘epistemological styles’ as they map onto discrete ‘disciplinary
cultures’, the term appears equally relevant to when multiple ‘epistemological
styles’ develop within a single discipline.
2 A sense of its social standing can be grasped from a participant in the
congregation debate before its establishment at Oxford opining that ‘women
should be considered, and the second and third-rate men who were to become
schoolmasters’ (Palmer, 1965: 111).
3 Heath quotes from a participant in an early discussion in the Senate
House over a proposed English Lectureship who suggested that ‘learning
English ... should be kept within the first ten years of one’s life ... literary
attainments should be acquired through erudition in the Greek and Latin
languages’ (Heath, 1994: 23–4).
4 At Cambridge University, a bachelor’s degree is organised into a ‘Tripos’,
which is divided into two parts, each typically lasting either one or two years
depending on the discipline.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Contextualising the Dispute
5 A journalist wrote at the time of the MacCabe quarrel that ‘the shadow of
Leavis hangs heavily over Cambridge’ (Jenkins, 1981: 112).
6 In particular, for example, at the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies
at Birmingham University (founded in 1964), thanks to an exile from
English Studies – Richard Hoggart. Under his, and subsequently Stuart Hall’s
leadership, not only was French and Italian theory incorporated into cultural
critique, but the object of critical attention was itself also vastly expanded to
include a focus upon ‘low’ as well as ‘high’ cultural expressions.
7 Richards’s approach to literary analysis had a profound effect on
systematising and formalising the discipline and distancing it from its
earlier dilettantish and belletristic characteristics, which acted to retard
its institutionalisation. Part of his influence was to produce a method of
literary analysis that could be readily examined in a methodical manner. His
method of ‘practical criticism’ emerged in the mid-1920s from his practice of
distributing brief poems, highly variable in quality, and with no indication of
author or date, to students who were to provide written feedback on them.
He published the results of these exercises in his landmark (1929) Practical
Criticism in which he documented in detail the various ways in which the
students failed to respond appropriately, critically, or with originality to the
poems. He prescribed a close encounter with texts themselves which focused
on an analysis of the complex relations between their internal compositional
elements. Whilst this approach to textual analysis, and its later development
by Empson, allowed for formalisation, it also had the effect of treating texts
as autonomous things, abstracted from the contexts of their production. This
was both different from the traditional manner of approaching a literary
work through paying attention to the work itself alongside an understanding
of the author and his or her times, as well as the more recent work inspired
by Williams, which re-embedded literary texts within the contemporaneous
social forces which helped give rise to them.
8 Though Thatcher had previously been Education Secretary in the early 1970s,
it was soon after her arrival as Prime Minister that the most stringent Higher
Education cuts were announced. In 1981, the Treasury gave the Universities
Grants Committee a month to plan an 18 reduction in their budget over the
next 3 years, involving a loss of approximately 3,000 posts.
9 Kermode (2008) recalls discovering ‘that there were undergraduates who
had been through their three years and had never been taught directly by a
member of the Faculty’.
10 Malinowski had in fact written a supplementary chapter to Ogden and
Richards’s (1923) The Meaning of Meaning, which had been interested
amongst other things in the ‘sociological and scientific understanding of
language’. However, it was precisely over this issue of allying English Studies
too closely with more scientific forms of analysis that Leavis (far from
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0007
Part II
Symbolic Struggles and
Performative Positioning
Having discussed the socio-historical and institutional
contexts of the affair, this section intends to deal with the
symbolic and dramaturgical aspects of how the dispute
itself was enacted, focussing, in particular, on the Senate
House debate. Controversies can be understood as liminal
events since they are defined by a breakdown of collective
norms and subsequent struggles over the reconstruction
of symbolic classifications (Turner, 1974). We demonstrate
how these struggles are best captured through adopt-
ing a pragmatically synthetic approach which combines
elements of recent cultural sociology with the perspective
of positioning theory that has been developed elsewhere
in relation to public intellectual interventions and engage-
ments (e.g. Baert, 2015). The former is seen as helpful
in decoding the symbolic landscape upon which the
performances depend in order to compel their audiences.
It therefore highlights issues such as staging, sacralisa-
tion, play, fantasy, pollution, appeals to universality and
the deployment of stigmatising or dignifying symbolic
labels. The latter is seen as productive in its ability on the
one hand, to show how actors strategise both alone and in
teams to position and fix social reality, and on the other,
to emphasise the contextual constraints and enablements
that act upon symbolic manoeuvring.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0008
Conflict in the Academy
We begin from the assumption that the pure fact of MacCabe’s failure
to receive tenure was simply that: an empirical occurrence without inher-
ent significance in its ‘facticity’ one way or another. Facts, such as those
described in the ‘events’ section earlier, are unable to speak for themselves,
but rather need to be told in a particular way in order to acquire symbolic
meaning (Alexander, 1984: 303). Facts only acquire meaning, and become
more than ‘mere facts’, once coded in meaningful ways and located within
culturally comprehensible narratives from which they derive their signifi-
cance. Further, the presence of such narratives is itself contingent upon the
wider cultural context in which the particular telling of the events takes
place. It is worth mentioning, for instance, that nothing much was made of
the fates of two other University Assistant Lecturers who also came up for
tenure at the same time as MacCabe, one of whom succeeded, the other of
whom failed to be appointed, raising the obvious question of how and why
a controversy occurred in the specific MacCabe instance.
Drawing upon anthropological insights into symbolic classifica-
tion systems, as well as elements of structural functionalist sociology,
Alexander’s (2003) analysis of the Watergate Scandal suggests that a
symbolic hierarchy exists within which the facts of events can be publicly
narrated, and that controversies are defined by the presence of significant
disputes over both the systems of classification into which particular
events are to be placed, as well as (drawing implicitly upon Parsons) the
level of value-generalisation at which such facts are told. Narrating facts at
the more profane level in this symbolic hierarchy signals that whatever has
occurred has done so within the terms of a continually and tacitly func-
tioning set of norms and values, and is therefore remarkable – in the literal
sense – only to the extent of reporting activity aimed towards the achieve-
ment of everyday goals and interests. Narrating facts at a more sacred
level in this symbolic hierarchy signals that collective norms, or at an even
higher level of generalisation, shared societal values, have been brought
into question and therefore that a state of systemic crisis is at hand.
Though far more consequential than the MacCabe Affair as an event,
the Watergate scandal was in fact more simplistic in its symbolic dimen-
sion. Effectively, the struggle was over whether the facts of the break-in
to the Watergate Hotel were to be told at the level of everyday goals and
interests (i.e. the level of ‘politics as usual’) as the Nixon administration
wished, or, as eventually took place, at the more sacred levels of societal
norms and values, hence signalling systemic crisis and the need for
fundamental purification and renewal. As we describe in the following
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0008
Symbolic Struggles and Performative Positioning
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0008
4
Examples of Symbolic
Strategies Employed by the Pros
Abstract: This chapter provides three examples of
performative positioning strategies employed by those we
dub the ‘pro’ camp, showing how they were in turn met
with counterstrategies. Firstly, we stress the importance
of staging the centrepiece of the dispute in the hallowed
ground of the university’s historic Senate House.
Secondly, we show how raising the issue of MacCabe’s
non-reappointment to the level of the sacred was a
key strategic investment for the ‘pro’ camp. Thirdly, we
show how the ‘pros’ attempted to position the ‘antis’ as a
conservative grouping, both culturally and politically, and
therefore implicitly position themselves as progressive,
as well as attach the affair to a well-worn narrative of
an out-of-touch, stick-in-the-mud Old Guard resisting
necessary progress.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Pros
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Conflict in the Academy
But of course on the level of the real, the faculty was not on trial, and
the antis well knew it. The contribution that a stage and its set makes
to what Coleridge called the ‘willing suspension of disbelief ’ is only
successful if the actors collude in playing by the script which accords
with the set, and the antis had no intention of doing so. The antis’
counterstrategy therefore involved lowering the tone of the proceedings
so as to desacralise the event, deprive it of its ritual status, expose the
performance as mere verisimilitude, and so return it to the level of the
profane. One tactic to this end involved employing humour and casual
indifference to undermine the pros’ efforts towards ‘impression manage-
ment’ (Goffman, 1990 [1959]). In contrast to the sacred and solemn
tone that was, quite literally, set by the austere neo-classical building,
the jocular triviality with which many of the antis delivered their own
performances signalled to the 600 strong audience not only a sense of
security in the knowledge that MacCabe’s supporters had already lost the
battle and nothing that happened in the Senate House would reverse the
Appointment Committee’s decision, but also that the ‘MacCabe Affair’
had nothing at all of the sacred about it.
For instance, commenting upon the term ‘structuralism’ which had,
as we shall see later, become a key semantic weapon in the debate, the
surrealist poet Sykes-Davis whimsically joked that ...
like all words that end in the suffix -ism it has no ascertained meaning –
always excepting ‘prism’, and perhaps ‘schism’, for the sake of its usefulness
in discussing the English faculty though, I am glad to learn that there is no
schism here ... I can for example, say quite grammatically, and what matters
more, truthfully, that not all members of the Faculty of English are brushed
with the same tar. If you see one or other of them smeared with a gooey black
substance, you should not assume that he has rubbed against some structure
or structuralist. He may be a perfectly honest man. (SHD: 336)4
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Pros
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Conflict in the Academy
and rule-bound rigidity, the playfulness of the antis’ jibes and fantasies
aimed at subversion, at a ‘loosening up’ of the show, and an ushering in
of a more permissive atmosphere. On a performative level, what play has
going for it is its seductive quality – its tempting call to ‘let go’ and ‘feel
good’, a siren song which when sung effectively, only the most joyless
audience is capable of resisting. However, whilst play, and especially the
heightened form of play found within direct humour, vastly expands
the range of permissible behaviour within a scene, it is, like all perform-
ance, also a delicate balancing act – constantly running the risk of blithe
flippancy. Just as the pros’ attempts at demonstrating the gravity of the
injustice that had occurred could, if not carried out with care, fall into
an unappealing po-faced humourlessness, so too the antis’ quipping and
projection of a lighter, more spirited sense of play, risked being received
as instead misjudged facetiousness.
These examples point to a more general insight into social perform-
ance – that audiences collude in determining a performance’s dramatic
success, and that the performers themselves are aware of this fact. In this
sense, a successful performance ought properly be understood as always
to some extent a co-creation involving necessary input from both actors
and audience, an implicit rule that structures all dialogic social interac-
tion. Both sides of the social interface that constitutes a performance are
required to ‘play along’ in order for the symbolic communication inher-
ent within it to come off effectively. If an audience remains incredulous,
then the performance has failed, and in the Senate House, the audience
was not only the official audience (those who had filled the seats to watch
the debate, and those who subsequently read its printed transcript), but
also all those who were themselves also participating in the debate.
And so one element of the strategic struggle went on – the pros in their
performative earnestness, struggling to elevate the debate to the higher
realms of collective norms and values; the antis in their performative
playfulness, equally intent on demonstrating that so little was at stake in
the proceedings that it was hardly worth taking them seriously at all.
As we have mentioned, in order for the pros’ case to hold any legiti-
macy, it was crucial that they were able to raise the central issue at
stake – MacCabe’s non-reappointment – to the level of the sacred and
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Pros
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Conflict in the Academy
rules of faculty meetings and so unable to make public the exact details
of what had taken place,7 assured the audience that notes he had taken
during these meetings ‘would, I am sure, convince any reasonable man
that, if the decision not to upgrade Dr MacCabe was not entirely based
on an objection to the kind of approach he was taking, nevertheless
such objections were influential on the discussion to quite an improper
degree’ (SHD: 332), and Stedman-Jones argued that ‘no coherent ration-
ale of the basis upon which the upgrading decision was made has yet
been produced’ (SHD: 360). Some members of the anti team also failed
to help their own cause on this point by unwittingly providing the pros
with apparent evidence in their charges of bias. For example, Erskine-
Hill, in reference to those in support of new forms of theory, told the
Times Higher Education Supplement that ‘anybody who encourages that
sort of position is not likely to be at the top of the list for an appoint-
ment’ (Midgley, 1981: 3).
Occasionally this strategy of positioning the antis as biased also
spilled over into accusations of wilful cruelty, with the effect of position-
ing MacCabe’s figure closer to that of victimhood, or even (in the more
portentous interventions) martyrdom. For example, Inglis called the
Faculty Board meeting in which Long had delivered his ‘twenty-minute
malediction’ over MacCabe’s book a ‘tribal blood sacrifice’ (1995: 281),
Steiner (who felt he had himself, at an earlier moment, experienced
comparable injustice at the faculty’s hands) characterised the faculty
as having ‘become notorious for its internecine detestation and inci-
vilities’ (Steiner, 1981: 135), Kermode referred to MacCabe as a ‘victim’
(1997: 258) and a ‘scapegoat for corporate guilt’, and described having
witnessed ‘repulsive behaviour’ (SHD: 335; Walker, 1981c), Heath told
The Guardian that it felt as if ‘a McCarthyite purge of the faculty’ was
taking place (Walker, 1981a: 28), and Tanner described it as ‘the most
unjust thing I have seen in my academic life’ (Walker, 1981a: 1). MacCabe
later described himself as ‘the victim of parochial envies and jealousies’
who had felt ‘like a small boy ... set upon by a gang of bullies’ (2009).
As a counterstrategy, the antis attempted to disrupt this projected ‘defi-
nition of the situation’ and de-sacralise MacCabe’s non-reappointment
by claiming that the decision was in actual fact taken at the profane level
of routine appointments considerations. John Harvey, for instance, told
The Guardian that the ‘debate about Dr MacCabe turned very largely
upon his teaching performance, his ability and his competence’ (Walker,
1981e: 22), and Long told the Senate House that whilst it ‘is intrinsically
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Pros
possible – indeed I think very likely – that Jacques Lacan might help
a Joycean to write well, especially on Finnegans Wake, [that] does not
mean, if one may say so at this moment with delicacy, that it has actually
been done’ (SHD: 344). The counterstrategy, in other words, aimed at
‘defining the situation’ as that of a relatively straightforward case of a job
candidate being beneath the standards required for the appointment;
positioning him as simply not up to the task at hand, and therefore the
decision against making him permanent, as a routine, clearheaded,
unremarkable, and profane one.
Whatever the actual underlying mechanism that had drawn all the
attention upon the English Faculty, it is clear that on the performative
level, the very fact that so much attention was indeed being paid to the
events could be taken as an indication that something untoward must
indeed have occurred, or otherwise, why all the fuss? A student in the
Senate House, for instance, suggested that ‘[i]f all were well in the English
Faculty we would not be here’ (Clemmow, SHD: 360). The very fact that
the debate had been called, and the very fact that the national press was
still busy printing stories about the events (whether or not these stories
were in substance behind the pros’ cause) sustained a performative risk
of undermining the antis’ claims that this was simply ‘business as usual’.
This placed the antis in somewhat of a ‘Catch 22’ predicament, since
their substantive efforts to inform audiences that the scandal had indeed
been overblown or orchestrated (e.g. Sykes-Davis, SHD: 335) continually
ran the performative risk of simply drawing further attention to an affair
which they were invested in claiming was no affair at all. To perform
nothing – an absence – is a very difficult performance to pull off, reveal-
ing how although the performative and the actual levels of social reality
may frequently act to support one another (‘facts’, needless to say, add
credence to a dramatic case), they do not necessarily do so since they
operate under different rules, and on occasion the one may in fact act to
undermine the other.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Pros
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Conflict in the Academy
of going rotten before it is ripe’ (Cornford, 1994 [1908]: 105). The cultural
stereotype of the Oxbridge don, as we see it expressed in a multitude of
popular portraits, both critical and affectionate from Tom Sharpe’s (1974;
1995) fictional satires to Noel Annan’s (1999) biographical sketches, is of a
fusty character, whose eccentricities depend upon the removal from practi-
cal necessity that his (the classical stereotype remains almost invariably the
unmarried male) cloistered archaic existence affords him, and who treats
any prospect of ‘progressive development’ in the running of university or
college affairs with the utmost suspicion. Again, whether or not it bears
any resemblance to reality, the popular cynical image of the Oxbridge don
(much of which seems to have arisen from a period prior to the reforms
of the 19th and early 20th centuries, Roach, 1959: 235–6) is of an individual
comfortable in his sinecure, perhaps more interested in the quality of the
college claret than in the quality of their own research, let alone the quality
of an undergraduate’s education (e.g. Rose & Ziman, 1964).
This strategy of positioning the antis as an outmoded Old Guard also
helped reinforce the second example of a symbolic positioning strategy
described earlier, since by placing the affair within the cultural narrative of
progressives vs. conservatives, MacCabe’s denial of tenure was again cast
as having occurred independently of professional considerations, and as
instead ‘related to a sense among Cambridge traditionalists that the time
had come to mount a strong resistance to further incursions by the tendency
MacCabe was thought to support’ (Doyle, 1986: 130). Since this tendency
was itself linked to the introduction of ways of thinking developed abroad,
a further dimension of this strategy involved positioning the antis as either
suspicious of foreign influences or else outright xenophobic. Moreover,
because Cambridge as a place is tied so strongly to a particular mythologised
and classed imaginary of England as a place, and English Studies is in turn
intimately wedded to the English nation to a degree that other disciplines
simply are not, the notion that its conservative defenders might themselves
be prone to nationalism and intent on preventing Gallic deconstructionists
crossing the fortress-like thresholds of the university’s ancient buildings was
a narrative fortified with even greater potential credence.
Casting the antis in a xenophobic role simultaneously meant position-
ing them as anti-professionalisation, not simply vis-à-vis formalising
methods (such as some versions of ‘scientific’ structuralism claimed to
offer) but also in respect to their opposition to the inexorable trend of
an internationalisation of the academy and the modernising movement
towards closer integration with other academic systems such as France.
This strategy may also have found a symbolic buttress in the written
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Pros
support for the pros’ cause, mentioned earlier in the book, that had
arrived from America and France.
Similarly, the capacity of the pros to cast themselves as representative
of the foreign influence found support in the fact that many of MacCabe’s
prominent supporters were interested in ideas from across the channel.
Stephen Heath, for instance, ‘taught much in French’ (Inglis, 1995: 279),
had written – in French – a study of the French literary theorist Roland
Barthes (Heath, 1974), and had also translated some of his work into
English (Barthes, 1977). Frank Kermode, who had encouraged the read-
ing of French theory in his seminar at University College London before
coming to Cambridge, describes being influenced by ‘the much despised
French theorists, people like Derrida, who was quite unjustly treated as a
kind of madman around here [Cambridge]’ (2008). During his doctoral
studies MacCabe had spent a year at the École Normale Supérieure,
where he had, by his own account, ‘sampled Parisian intellectual life to
the full’, working with Althusser and Derrida, and attending Barthes’s
seminars and Lacan’s lectures (2010c). The ‘theory’ which permeated
his first book (1979) was as distinctly French as the subject matter of his
second, on the new-wave filmmaker Jean-Luc Godard (1980).8
In his lecture to the faculty, Williams told his colleagues that in
protecting the established canon ‘what is often being defended ... is not
just a body of writing ... but a national identity ... a stand, a last redoubt,
from which more general notions of Englishness, of values, of tradition
are defended against all comers; until even native dissidents (to say noth-
ing of all those foreigners) are seen not merely as different but as alien –
speaking not our language but some incomprehensible jargon’ (1983:
195). This slide from ‘English’ as a body of literature to ‘Englishness’ as a
set of values which were ‘not merely academic’ was also acknowledged by
other commentators on the affair (e.g. Scruton, 1981: 137), and it is clear
the exclusions it implicitly carries. Others highlighted English academic
parochialism more broadly, noting the reluctant and sluggish national
response to theoretical developments on the Continent (e.g. Bradbury,
1981: 137; Donoghue, 1981), and accusing the antis of harbouring ‘an
in-built fear of what is going on elsewhere in the world’ (Heath, quoted
in Williams & Collings, 1981: 45). Again stressing how the new forms of
literary theory and cultural studies were linked to the social sciences,
Steiner, for example, stated that outside ‘Britain, the paramount fact in
modern literary studies has been the application to these studies of ways
of reading, of techniques of analysis, which drew ... on other disciplines in
the sciences humaines – i.e. linguistics, epistemology, the social sciences,
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Conflict in the Academy
on discussion of tripos reform since 1977 (Fisher et al., 1981) and also that
the findings of a working group set up by Kermode to investigate teaching
in the faculty had been actively dismissed (Kermode, 1997: 251; 2008),10
others, such as Sykes-Davies claimed that reform had already taken place.
‘No university’, he maintained, ‘has done more and few have done as much
as Cambridge to promote intelligent and useful interest in non-literary
English ... It has generally been our policy to reform ourselves when need
arises’ (SHD: 336; 337). Likewise, Stevens claimed that contemporary
critical approaches were already well integrated into the faculty, and that
‘in Part II of the Tripos an undergraduate who wishes to concentrate on
modern literary theory and its applications can devote at least half of his
working time to it, and possibly more’ (1981: 191).
These claims were themselves, in turn, challenged by students as
being ‘in any practical sense, untrue’ (Johnson, SHD: 358). Perhaps more
damaging for the antis’ case however, at least from the stance of dramatic
coherence within a particular performance team, was that their declara-
tions of intellectual openness and pluralism also clashed directly with
other remarks coming from within their own ranks, such as the claim
that forms of literary theory under the banner of ‘structuralism’ were
‘[l]ike all other Parisian fashions ... very passing’ (Sykes-Davis, SHD: 336).
Indeed, as we will see later, whatever their actual status as conservative or
not, a crucial performative inconsistency with the antis’ defence against the
notion that they were opposed to the newer forms of literary theory came
from within their own performance team, via open expressions of precisely
such opposition and resistance. In struggles over successfully ‘defining a
situation’, dramatic coherence appears to be of crucial importance.
Perhaps more effective was the antis’ counterstrategy of mirroring the
pros’ approach directly, and claiming that it was in fact they, the pros, who
were corrupted by political bias. One reason this allegation had a chance
of holding (Witherow, 1981a; Hughes, 1981: 257) was that Marxism had
by and large been the envelope within which the structuralist message
had originally been delivered to a British audience (Easthope, 1988), and
the pro camp had – as we shall see below – become strongly associated
with structuralism during the affair. This is not to say that the pros’
judgements were in fact prejudiced by political preoccupations; whilst
MacCabe had in his youth been a member of the Communist Party
(Simpson, 1990: 258) he described himself to The Guardian at the time as
being ‘a very inactive member of the Labour Party’ (Walker, 1981g), and
is reported to have later tried to sue The Times for calling him a Marxist
(Inglis, 1995: 276) – hardly what one would expect from a card-carrying
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Conflict in the Academy
Notes
1 Given the constitutional issues that comprised much of the substance of
the affair, the more poetic elements of the interventions found themselves
necessarily intertwined with the dry bureaucratic speak of administration.
2 It was also where Snow delivered his aforementioned Rede lecture.
3 Though we find ourselves in unequivocal disagreement with their positing
of agency in ‘things’, Actor-Network Theorists have similarly stressed the
importance of paying attention to objects and ‘inscription devices’ as ‘actants’
in controversies (e.g. Callon, 1986).
4 Sykes-Davis also employed humour in his contribution to the debate
through recounting his good behaviour in responding to a prying journalist’s
unsolicited phone call by offering him his suit measurements before promptly
hanging up the phone (SHD: 335).
5 The technique of ‘mise-en-abyme’ is a time-honoured theoretical move, one
effect of which is to divert attention away from the governing performance
through evoking a sense of dramatic disorientation.
6 Midgley reported at the time that the ‘most extraordinary aspect’ of the affair ‘is
the almost total failure of either side to understand the other ... the apparently still
deepening chasm of mutual incomprehension separating the two sides’ (1981: 3),
and Bergonzi writes that ‘often the contestants did not share the minimum
common ground that makes argument possible’ (1990: 10).
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Pros
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0009
5
Examples of Symbolic
Strategies Employed
by the Antis
Abstract: This chapter provides three examples of
performative positioning strategies employed by those we
dub the ‘anti’ camp, showing how they were in turn met
with counterstrategies. Firstly, we show how the ‘antis’
attempted to hold up the canon of English literature and
certain methods of literary criticism as sacred entities, in
demand of protection from forces of profanation. Secondly,
we focus upon the semantic struggle of positioning what
was imprecisely termed ‘structuralism’ as a pollutant,
imbued with moral threat. Thirdly, we highlight the strategic
positioning move of claiming that consensus in fact ruled,
and therefore that no controversy had in fact occurred,
noting the difficulties, given all the attention that had
already been paid to the incident, of maintaining this stance.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Antis
The first example of a symbolic strategy employed by the antis was their
effort to remind the audience of the principle that English literature was
itself an evidently sacred thing, embodying a set of values that demanded
protection from any possible corrupting or polluting forces. This strat-
egy relied firstly, upon constructing ‘the canon’ as a totem for English
literature at large – a core collection of works that provided a coherent
representation of the primary and sacred objects of the discipline itself,
and secondly, the defence of a particular established method of literary
study as definitive and coextensive with proper literary studies in general.
Defending the purity of these two elements from possible contamination
was projected as not merely a technical, but also a moral concern. Ian
Jack, for example, stated that it is our responsibility ‘to keep the attention
of students focused on great writers’ (quoted in Wheen, 2005: 77), Ricks
reminded The Guardian that ‘it is our job to teach and uphold the canon
of English literature’ (quoted in Walker, 1981a: 26), Erskine-Hill stressed
that the ‘first loyalty of us all is to our subject’ (SHD: 337), and Long
suggested that the usual suspect – ‘structuralism’ – ought not be given
any ‘special privileges’, since ‘along with all the other methodological
“isms” [it is] irredeemably secondary, and in some sense irredeemably
unimportant, in comparison with literature itself ’ (SHD: 344).
The implicit moral load being placed on English literature here is of
interest in its exemplifying one of the most common rhetorical tropes of
the fracas – the remarkably frequent appeal to higher (often universal)
concerns above factional or personal interests. As well as ‘English litera-
ture’, higher concerns here included claims to be speaking on behalf not
of one’s own interests, but rather in the name of ‘truth’, ‘the academy’,
‘facts’, ‘the Faculty’, ‘justice’, ‘the Tripos’, ‘the students’, ‘intellectual integ-
rity’ or ‘the University’. For instance, Sykes-Davis remarked that ‘those
who have set the press in motion and requested this meeting ... could
hardly have been more inept, or have caused greater harm to their own
Faculty and to the University’, and that it is ‘to the academy in the broadest
sense that our responsibilities are due’ (SHD: 335; 338, emphases added).
A student supporter, Mr Johnson, reminded those gathered that the
inquiry into MacCabe’s non-appointment, which he fully supported,
‘should have the interests of the English students at its heart, for it is for
them that the Faculty is run’ (SHD: 358, emphasis added), and Gareth
Stedman-Jones made an appeal for an inquiry ‘both in the interests of
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Conflict in the Academy
the reputation of the English Faculty in particular and the University’s good
name in general’ (SHD: 360, emphasis added). Dramatically, such claims
to be acting on behalf of something purer and more universal than
personal gain or petty retribution draw attention away from whatever
personal or partisan positioning moves may simultaneously be taking
place, and towards more lofty, venerable concerns. Cynics might argue
that religious and political figures have been practicing such attention-
shifting sleights of hand for time immemorial; distracting their followers
with baubles of the sacred to free up unhindered space for more base
manoeuvring.
Similarly to Orwell’s (1946: 257–8) diagnosis of the malleable emptiness
of much popular political terminology, it is also worth noting that very
different positions in the MacCabe dispute often claimed to be acting on
behalf of precisely the same higher concerns. Whilst, for example, Sykes-
Davis (SHD: 335) claimed to be motivated solely by protecting the inter-
ests of the faculty, Williams did so too, but from a diametrically opposed
position, arguing that ‘I am not here to attack the English Faculty but to
find, and help to find, conditions for the renewal of that enterprise, and I
believe that those who have called today’s discussion are centrally moved
by that intention’ (SHD: 347).
Aiming directly for the sacred heights, MacCabe himself recounted
that his motivation for persuading Derek Brewer for the vote on his
appointment to be retaken ‘was not a question of my future but one of
simple justice’ (MacCabe, 2009, emphasis added). In some cases the
fact that one’s actions were being led by higher concerns that may in
fact potentially threaten one’s private interests was stated explicitly.
Erskine-Hill, for example, commented that if his voting had displeased
some senior professors in the department (presumably Williams and
Kermode) ‘I should apologise for this displeasure, but might vote the
same way again, believing that I should not thereby jeopardise the latter
part of my career’ (Erskine-Hill, SHD: 337).
Occasionally, higher and lower concerns were placed side-by-side
in interventions to emphasise the danger of having one’s actions led by
dishonourable concerns, and the importance of taking the high road. For
instance, Woodward, the undergraduate students’ representative on the
Faculty Board, pointed out the problem ‘of individuals bearing factional
politics to the Board, apparently for the English Tripos, but in disregard
of its students’ (SHD: 340, emphasis added). Kermode also presents this
comparative technique in suggesting that when ‘prejudice, and a desire for
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Antis
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Conflict in the Academy
Williams, for example, reminded the faculty that, ‘the “canon of English
Literature” is not given; it is produced’ (1983: 193), and went on to spell
out some of the historical ways in which this production had occurred,
emphasising, again, the salient link between nation, language, and
literature:
you have in sequence, first, a restriction to printed texts, then a narrowing to
what are called ‘imaginative works’, and then finally a circumscription to a
critically established minority of ‘canonical texts’. But also growing alongside
this there is another and often more potent specialisation: not just literature,
but English literature. (Williams, 1983: 194)2
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Antis
come in the eyes of some to define what the study of English in general
should mean, then the symbolic environment was arranged in such a way
that the antis could position any threat to Cambridge English, as not only
threat to the local practice of English Studies in Cambridge, but also to the
discipline at large, and what’s more, even an implicit threat to the national
culture itself. In this manner, the emotive momentum and symbolic
weight of the affair quickly snowballed, rapidly assuming proportions
well beyond its local effects in terms of whether or not a young lecturer
was to be offered a permanent post. As the affair proceeded, this threat
also became increasingly associated with, and condensed into, a single
catch-all term: ‘structuralism’, which, in spite of repetitive protestations
that it was of absolutely no relevance or value to the debate whatsoever,
participants and commentators seemed incapable of ceasing to use (e.g.
Stevens, 1981; Simpson, 1990: 263; Williams, SDH: 347).3
The term was frequently used by the antis as a simple epithet, aimed
at stigmatising their opponents (e.g. Sykes-Davis, SHD: 336; Long, SHD:
343), and as a label it therefore quickly became imbued with a host of
moral, rather than simply classificatory significations. In this manner it
served as an imprecise shorthand for everything the antis believed was
wrong with the kinds of work they understood MacCabe and others to be
supporting. As Simpson puts it, it became ‘the term that the “business as
usual” faculty majority chose as their omnium gatherum definition of the
enemy’ (Simpson, 1990: 246; also Lewis, 1982: 3), and the various streams
of labelling theory that developed in the wake of Becker’s (1963) study of
Outsiders and Goffman’s (1963) examination of Stigma, have illustrated
how labels are capable to some extent of bringing certain types of subject
into being through ostensibly merely alerting us to their existence. In
this particular case, however, in order for this stigmatising strategy to
work, the term itself needed to be (re)positioned as in fact the pollutant
the antis wished to claim it was, and more specifically, as one threatening
to the kinds of literary study that the previous section suggested the antis
were intent on sacralising. If this could be achieved, then disinfecting
the faculty of its influence might then be taken as being of paramount
importance.
Towards accomplishing this end, Erskine-Hill suggested that in spite
of the scientific pretensions some of them held structuralists embraced a
radical relativism he dubbed ‘cognitive atheism’ in which ‘one interpreta-
tion is as valid as another’, and ‘touchstones, criteria, different degrees of
probability, and indeed the concept of truth’ itself are carelessly thrown
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Antis
convince doubters that the anti camp were welcoming of new ideas,
capable of identifying their merits, and willing to integrate them into
faculty teaching. There was again, in other words, a problem of coher-
ence across the strategic repertoire, which may itself have signalled a
greater diversity of opinion within the antis’ ranks. Moreover, its sting
was somewhat removed when those whom the label was contrived to
discredit readily adopted it as a banner of pride. For instance, the Regius
Professor of Greek, Geoffrey Kirk, proudly asserted his endorsement
of ‘structuralist analysis’ suggesting that it ‘is an approach, or set of
approaches, that cannot be simply ignored in any respectable university
in Europe’ adding – rather dubiously given the circumstances – that it ‘is
one that often increases understanding’ (SDH: 345). Kirk also suggested
that the antis were simply ignorant, and that ‘to label the whole structur-
alist movement as mindless and somehow wicked is the reaction, I am
afraid, of those who usually do not have the faintest idea what it is really
about’ (SHD: 345; also Bowie, 1981: 136).
Also addressing this apparent ignorance, and actively detaching its
moral from its technical connotations, Williams (1983) attempted to care-
fully parse out the various definitions of the term in his faculty lecture,
showing how whilst some were able to operate within the ‘dominant
paradigm’ of literary studies, others made a fundamental break from it.
Interestingly, he suggests that on at least one dominant understanding of
the term – that which points towards analysis of language and literature
as ‘an internal rule-governed system’ – structuralism might in fact be
understood as a ‘long-lost cousin who had emigrated from Cambridge
via Empson in the late twenties and early thirties’, visited North America
where it had been associated with New Criticism, and then returned
back to Cambridge via France in a somewhat altered form in the 1960s
(1983: 206). He was suggesting that the approach of ‘practical criticism’
initiated by the Cambridge critic Richards (who had left for Harvard
in the late 1930s), and developed by his student Empson was in some
sense a form of literary structuralism avant la lettre.4 The significance of
this counterargument in terms of positioning ‘structuralism’ was that
contrary to the antis’ claims, it could in fact be understood – at least in
one of its guises – as having originated in germ form within the very
faculty and social body that was now misidentifying it as alien and
attempting to expel it (see also Jones, 1981: 9).
Writing elsewhere, in The Guardian, Williams (1981) also argued
that since the figures that made the Cambridge tradition famous – for
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Antis
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Antis
not there was ‘a case for enquiring into the State of the English Faculty’,8
Professor Kermode stressed that ‘the answer must be: indeed there is,
and everybody knows it’ (Kermode, SHD: 333).
The struggle over whether or not an affair had taken place was like-
wise linked to whether or not the media had amplified or otherwise
accurately reported events. Whilst the antis almost universally insisted
that the ‘press has greatly exaggerated the bitterness in our Faculty’
(Sykes-Davies, SHD: 338), and was responsible for ‘wildly irresponsible
distortions’ (Stevens, 1981: 193; also Beer, SHD: 353; Erskine-Hill, SHD:
338), the pros instead suggested that ‘the press has not conjured up a
ghost’ (Clemmow, SDH: 361), and that whilst reports ‘may have been
misleading in detail ... they have been absolutely right in substance’
(ibid.), that ‘the evidence shows that the press tried assiduously to get
the facts straight, and to provide some honest account of the intellectual
differences involved in the quarrel’ (Simpson, 1990: 245). Kermode, for
example, summarised the reporting as having ‘not been such that the
larger public can know much about the facts of the matter; but those
who know more are unable to contest the truth of its general impression’
(Kermode, SHD: 333).
However, as mentioned earlier when discussing the first two exam-
ples of the pros’ own positioning strategies, the largest threat to the
antis’ claims that there was nothing of interest to see, was the dramatic
difficulty of convincing an audience that there was no fire (or that the
fire had already been put out) beneath the continuing billows of smoke,
whether or not that smoke had itself been artificially generated. Such
an enormous amount of attention had already been drawn to the affair
that on a performative level, positioning the commotion as having in
fact been magicked out of thin air was a challenging one to maintain.
More generally, even if the antis’ strategy managed to prove convincing
to the immediate audience, the controversy now had a momentum and
logic of its own. It had, at a certain ill-defined point, left the exclusive
hands of those immediately invested in the events, and entered a larger
public sphere, in the process gathering new investments (e.g. those of
media producers intent on selling their wares, those of media consumers
hungry for scandal and sensation, and those of an indeterminate number
of participants engaged in debates over literary studies elsewhere, who
could draw upon the episode as an analogue and parable for their own
local struggles). In this sense, it is difficult to draw a clear boundary
around the event in either space or, as we suggest in the following chapter,
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Conflict in the Academy
Notes
1 Even as late of the mid-19th century, Annan describes how Canon Barnes of
Christ Church, Oxford remarked that ‘“know what we’re coming to ... I’ve given
studentships to my sons. and to my nephew’s children, and there are no more
of my family left. I shall have to give them by merit one of these days”. An old
fellow of Merton was urged to award a fellowship to the candidate who had
done best in the examinations. “Sir, I came here to vote for my friend’s son, and
vote for him I shall, whatever the examiners say”. To award by merit had echoes
of the French Revolution’ (Annan, 1999: 6).
2 He goes on to ask, ‘Is “English” then the language or the country? If it is
the language, then there are also fifteen centuries of native writing in other
languages: Latin, Welsh, Irish, Old English, Norman French. If it is not the
language but the country, is that only “England” or is it now also Ireland,
Wales, Scotland, North America, Old and New “Commonwealths”?’ (ibid.)
3 One place we might begin to understand what the participants were referring
to when employing the term ‘structuralism’ is the index of MacCabe’s (1979)
Joyce book. Here we find a list of authors – Althusser, Barthes, Cixous, Derrida,
Foucault, Irigaray, Jakobson, Kristeva, Lacan, Saussure – some of whom would
nowadays be grouped under the heading ‘poststructuralism’, itself a notoriously
inadequate label, and one which commanded less widespread currency
in the early 1980s. The name ‘Levi-Strauss’ is conspicuously absent. The
anthropologist Edmund Leach was Provost of MacCabe’s college up until 1979,
and the primary exponent of anthropological structuralism at Cambridge, but
his scathing review of MacCabe’s edited collection of essays on Lacan (Leach,
1981) seems to underline the distance between the approaches going on under
the same label within these two disciplines.
4 Steiner (1981: 135) also reads Richards’s work in this way.
5 In spite of being the most famous, and influential literary scholar of his
generation, Leavis was only made a part-time lecturer in the faculty in 1936
at the age of 41, a full-time Lecturer only in 1947 at the age of 52 and a Reader
(the position he retired from two years later) in 1959. Before that, he was
based at Downing College, where he became a Director of Studies in 1930.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
Examples of Symbolic Strategies Employed by the Antis
Steiner (2007) notes how until he properly joined the faculty, Leavis was
unable to examine or be a member of the boards that set the tripos, with the
consequence that his students ‘paid a terrible price’ for their allegiance to their
charismatic mentor.
6 Alternatively, MacCabe himself suggested that ‘in fact it had been the
“Kermode affair” and it was Frank Kermode who had always been the
principal target’ (MacCabe, 2010a; 2010b), and Bergonzi writes that ‘it has
been suggested’, though he does not tell us by whom, that in fact ‘the gallophile
Stephen Heath was the real target’ (1990: 11).
7 This latter qualification differentiates our position from the more radical
accounts of the ‘life of things’ given by some theorists adopting the Actor-
Network approach.
8 This was the official title of the Discussion of the Senate that had been called.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0010
6
Conclusion
Abstract: This chapter draws together some of the principal
arguments made in the preceding chapters, advancing the
theoretical implications for studying controversies more
broadly, both within and outside of the academy. We stress
the utility of adopting a pragmatic approach to theoretical
synthesis that responds directly to the idiosyncrasies of
context. Whilst acknowledging the virtues of recent cultural
sociology, we elaborate how this case analysis demonstrates
the methodological difficulties of treating social life in
its ‘purely cultural’ aspect. We conclude by noting that
controversies should not be treated as bounded events, as
they inevitably emerge out of prior facilitating conditions,
and like all symbolic contributions to reshaping our shared
cultural life, their future impact or revival is forever
unpredictable.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Conclusion
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Conclusion
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Conflict in the Academy
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Conclusion
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Conflict in the Academy
new ideas, especially in the humanities and social sciences, are often
forged in alliance with those they approve of, and in opposition to those
they reject, simply studying the form and structure of academic conflict
in this manner may also help reveal insights into the substantive devel-
opment of ideas themselves (e.g. Collins, 2002: 52–3).
Finally, it is important to stress that symbolic conflicts, wherever
they occur, should not be considered bounded events since they are
never entirely complete or conclusive. Instead, because struggles over
the reorganisation of shared symbolic life are ongoing, they are perhaps
better understood as politics temporarily frozen in time (Unger, 1987:
145). This can be demonstrated by the fact that many of the same issues
touched upon here were still being contested long after the conclusion
of the ‘MacCabe Affair’, and indeed continue to be so in various popular
debates (e.g. Dawkins, 1998; Searle, 1990; Selden, 1986; Wheen, 2005).
Most obviously in this respect, a decade following the departure of
MacCabe for Strathclyde, another affair exploded in Cambridge, with the
ultimately unsuccessful attempt to deny the university from awarding an
honorary doctorate to the French philosopher Jacques Derrida. Not only
did this event involve many of the same individuals and networks as the
earlier MacCabe dispute (Smith, 1999), but its symbolic form also bore
a remarkable resemblance to the case we have used as the focus of this
book. Such comparable examples1 also help demonstrate the generalising
possibilities of case-specific cultural analysis in their capacity to unpick
cultural codes and determine symbolic narratives which are shared
across a variety of localised settings, and to do this without slipping into
the classical structuralist hubris of believing that in doing so, universal
features of the cultural repertoire are somehow being uncovered.
Whether or not such formal universal features (of symbolic disputes, or
any other cultural phenomena) in fact exist, is again, we would contend,
not a question that can be established in advance of careful empirical
reconstruction.
Note
1 A further related example that unfolded almost immediately after the
MacCabe Affair in 1981 erupted when a University Assistant Lecturer in Social
Psychology at Cambridge, David Ingleby, failed to be upgraded to a permanent
post. Ingleby, whose ideas about ‘critical psychiatry’ (1981) had also been
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Conclusion
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0011
Bibliography
SHD: All references refer to the Senate House Debate
on the ‘State of the English Faculty’ (3–4 February 1981),
the transcript of which was published in the Cambridge
University Reporter, 18 February 1981.
Interviews
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
Calhoun, C., (1997), Neither Gods nor Emperors: Students and the Struggle
for Democracy in China, Berkley: University of California Press.
Callon, M., (1986), ‘Some Elements of a Sociology of Translation:
Domestication of the Scallops and the Fishermen of St Brieuc Bay’, in
Law, J., (ed.), Power, Action and Belief: A New Sociology of Knowledge?
London: Routledge, pp. 196–223.
Callon, M. & Law, J., (1982), ‘On Interests and Their Transformation:
Enrolment and Counter-Enrolment’, Social Studies of Science, 12, pp.
615–25.
Camic, C., (1987), ‘The Making of a Method: A Historical
Reinterpretation of the Early Parsons’, American Sociological Review,
52 (4), pp. 421–39.
Camic, C., (1992), ‘Reputation and Predecessor Selection: Parsons and
the Institutionalists’, American Sociological Review, 57 (4), pp. 421–45.
Camic, C., Gross, N. & Lamont, M., (2011), Social Knowledge in the
Making, Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Carey, J., (1975), ‘Down with Dons’, The New Review, 1 (10), January,
1975, pp. 5–10.
Carey, J., (1992), The Intellectuals and the Masses, London: Faber & Faber.
Chaney, G., (1985), A Literary History of Cambridge, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cohen, M., (1981), ‘English Faculty Farce’, Letters, Stop Press: Cambridge
Student Newspaper, 31 January.
Collini, S., (1988), ‘“Discipline History” and “Intellectual History”:
Reflections on the Historiography of the Social Sciences in Britain
and France’, Revue de Synthèse, iv ( 3–4), pp. 387–99.
Collini, S., (1993), ‘Introduction’ to Snow, C. P., (ed.), The Two Cultures,
Cambridge: Canto/Cambridge University Press.
Collins, R., (1998), Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual
Change, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Collins, R., (2002), ‘On the Acrimoniousness of Intellectual Disputes’,
Common Knowledge, 8 (1), Winter, pp. 47–70.
Cornford, F. M., (1994 [1908]), Microcosmographia Academia: Being a
Guide for the Young Academic Politician, in Johnson, G., (ed.), (1994),
University Politics: F. M. Cornford and His Advice to the Young Academic
Politician, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Coser, L. A., (1964), The Functions of Social Conflict, New York: Free Press.
Davis, B. & Harré, R., (2007), ‘Positioning: The Discursive Construction
of Selves’, Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 20 (1), pp. 43–63.
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Bibliography
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0012
Index
Althusser, 30, 55, 72 symbolic, 34, 80
Annan, Noel, 9n1, 30, 54 conscience collective, 45
anthropology, 3, 5, 29, 31, 42, Cornford, Francis MacDonald,
56, 79 28, 34–8, 53, 78
Assistant Registrary, 13, 21n2 counterstrategies, 8, 43, 46,
Axton, Richard, 12, 14, 17, 37 50–1, 57, 69, see also
symbolic strategies
Ball, Christopher, 32 critical psychiatry, 80–1n1
Barrell, John, 12, 13, 15, 37, 49, cultural sociology, 5–6, 41,
59n7 76–7, 79
Barthes, Roland, 29, 55, 72n3 ‘bracketing out’, 6, 34, 77, 78
Beer, John, 14, 15, 32, 70, 71
Bourdieu, Pierre, 8, 36, 53 danger, 62, 79
‘bracketing out’, 6, 34, 77, 78 Derrida, Jacques, 52, 55, 72n3,
Bradbury, Malcolm, 27–8, 31 80
Brewer, Derek, 15, 62 Donoghue, Denis, 55–6
Bryson, Norman, 37 Dougherty, John, 37, 69, 70
Douglas, Mary, 34, 63
Cambridge University, 2, 12, dramaturgy, 6–7, 41, 43, 45,
18–20, 26–38, 39n4, 45, 47–8, 57–8, 62, 71, 75
53–7, 64–8, 78–80, 82 Durkheim, Émile, 43, 46
Cambridge University Reporter
(journal), 45, 82 Eagleton, Terry, 38
Christminster, 47 Edward VII Professorship, 15,
Classics, 26, 30 19, 22n7
English Studies, 26, 30, 32, English Faculty
64, 68, 73 Board committees, 12–14
College Teaching Officers Board minutes, 4, 13–15,
(CTOs), 20n1 21n3
colleges, 20n1, 28, 34–8, 78 Cambridge University, 2
conflict, 7–8, 12, 63–4, 66, 69 English literature, 13, 66
academic, 80 education, 27
generational, 52–3 professorship, 22n7, 25, 38
social, 17 as sacred, 61–4
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0013
Index
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0013
Index
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0013
Index
DOI: 10.1057/9781137521309.0013