Cultural Critique 75Spring 2010Copyright 2010 Regents of the University of MinnesotaPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERITON SOME POLITICS OF EDITINGSande CohenCivilization . . . has entrusted the conservation of its own traditions to aclass of persons [teachers] who, owing to their position, have not the power toconserve them. By doing this it has put itself as much at a disadvantage, ascompared with peoples it calls barbarous, as it were a tribe which threw awaythe paddles of its war-canoes, set sail, and employed crews of professionalmedicine-men to whistle for the wind.R. G. Collingwood, The New Leviathan. . . what is seen in the book are words. The book has become the body of pas-sion, just as the face was the body of the signier. It is now the book, the mostdeterritorialized of things, that xes territories and genealogies . . .platitudes . . . which cut the book off from its relations with the outside, areeven worse than the chant of the signier.Gilles Deleuze and Flix Guattari, A Thousand PlateausINTRODUCTORY: GENEALOGY AND HISTORYIn his afterword/evaluation of The New Historicism, Stanley Fish ex -coriatedmetalanguageassuch,arguingthatreectionontherulesofanyparticulardiscourse,game,orpracticecannotleadtomorethantinyinstitutionalmodications.Thecostofremindingnewhistoriciststhattheycannottransformtheconditionsofhistoricalrepresentation is Fishs absolutist, dogmatic irony: openness is noth-ingmore(orless)thanaresolutiontobedifferentlyclosed(Fish,310). A beginning has ended before it has begun. One wonders whatFish would say if he could be persuaded that some arts and humani-tiesscholarlybooksintheUnitedStatesarepublishedasmuchforpolitical and marketing reasons as for their additions to knowledge.Is it just another historical-ironic fact that a distinguished historian ata renowned university sells three to four hundred copies of an impor-tant book?05 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 114Inthisessay,Iwishtoopenupthedistinctionbetweenhistoryandgenealogy,toworktheirdifference,beforeturningtotheovertsubjectofthispaper,thepoliticsofediting,itspresentandmessyassemblages.Historical representation (narration) and genealogy are differentways of classifying and naming data in preparation for fuller elabora -tionfor interpretive and political conict, for laying hold on what,to borrow from Croce, is living and dead for a present, for assess-ingfutureprobabilities.Whateverelseitpointsto,historicalrepre-sentation is conditioned by its disciplinary preferences. While it is notwrittendownanywherewhatthesepreferencesare,itseemsfairtospecifyatleastfour:(1)agrudgingtoleranceforthediscussionof unwelcome data in the face of dominant models, for example, thepolitical history of America is often composed with a hands-off treat-mentofpastandpresentprofessionalsilencesandrationalizations,with some exceptions noted (e.g. Scientists against Bombs); (2) com-plementary with (at times omitted) data selection, there is emphasison full narration to legitimize and socialize the way data are named;(3) the assumption of the adequacy of basic naming means little con-sideration goes to the sense that names can be ruined and forced, forexample,whatdoesthenamedemocracyactuallyreferto?(seePlato,Schmitt,Althusser,andathousandothercritics);(4)histori-cal representation favors synthesis and thus narrative aesthesis, wheredreadfulthingsandprocessesaremadeintoagoodread,whereartandmoralityandthepoliticsofresolutiontouch.Wecancallthis good read the political necessity of humanizing the horrors ofex perience.Itisstartling,however,thathistoriansdonotacknowl-edgethatthepriceofhavingreadersofsuchbooksisoftenthebanalityofreadability,thedestructionofacuteknowledge.Rareistheuniversity-basedhistorianpreparedtoconcedethatthedefaultto narrative aesthesis is intrinsic to history-as-knowledge, the powerof art confused with epistemic or pragmatic claims. The very idea ofa good read is already a deeply vexed notion (Jenkins, 189, 26164).Genealogical analysis deals with the blending of knowledge, dis-cipline, the force of an interpretation, narrative incorporation, high-style, and so forth. It speaks to what has been socially and historicallydisplaced, often in struggles over historical representation (Foucault2003, 133). It is analytic and grants that elements not even named arePUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 11505 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 115in operation (Foucault 1997, 52). Genealogy has less to do with divin-ingtheemergent,butratherwiththeeventsthathaveledustoconstituteourselvesandtorecognizeourselvesassubjectsofwhatwearedoing,thinking,saying(Foucault2003,125).Agenealogicanalysiscanbecomparedtohistorybeforeithappens;itusesthenotion that experiences, on many levels, are not occurrences in story-time but dissymmetrical to narration. Genealogy problematizes timeand name; as a procedure, it is thus a resistance to the aesthesis of nar-rative. Genealogy suspends the illusion of a hard beginning, middle,and end to things of public value; it emphasizes the ceaseless combi-nation of timingsactualities taking shape, as in the warnings to stu-dents these days about the difculties of reading Joyce and that theirtime might be better spent with more accessible authors.Thus, genealogy has it that time in itself is rifted, dis-identical toitself. On the other hand, historical representation is like a vinculumthe aesthesis of writing passes to the reader of a historical text so as togivethecomfortsoffullness,completion,continuityaesthesisisapolitical nality, a forced peace-treaty (Nietzsche, 176). Aesthesis sur-vives a texts organization of data, epistemology, psychology, theoriesof human nature, and so on, so as to enter literary durability. Action,movement, recurrence, singularity as well as related notions of plea-sureandpain(folkpsychology,as ArthurDanto[240]onceputit),denotation and connotation (logic), sense and non-sense (success andfailure of interpretation), the said and the unsaid (excess), imaginaryow and hard fact are historicized if aestheticized. But genealogy in -sists that what is represented as historycompletion, nality, deni -tiveendbelongstoculturalpoliticalwar,notaesthesis.Hence,genealogy puts historical representation up as an intricate instru-mentalmechanismthattoday hastransformeditselffromthebadimageryoftherantinghistorian(vonTreitschke),forcingmetahis-torical continuities on a public, to the historian who now works forinstitutions that select and evaluate: give a grade, declines to certifya research project or a course offering . . . does not re personnel, itsimplydisapprovesrehiringthem(Terdiman,228).Bycomparisonto historical representation, genealogy evokes a pre-literary notion ofeventswithnodenitiveaesthesis-narration.FishssenseofironyconcerningNewHistoricismispreciselya(negative)applicationofpolitical-aesthesis.SANDECOHEN 11605 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 116This essay is devoted to making editing a subject of critical discussion.Itspeciescontemporarypracticesofeditinginfusedbypolitics.Itraises issues of discipline and control, which are less notions of overtrepressionastheyaremanagerialtechniquesthatFoucaultidenti-edinknowledgeasselection,normalization,hierarchicalization,and centralization. These techniques (e.g. selection) are less practicesofcensorshiponstatementsthanpartofanorthologytospeakisalreadytobeanopposingpartytosomeone,henceasituationalpractice. Discipline and control are used to establish the regularity ofenunciations. They rely on questions of [w]ho is speaking, are theyqualiedtospeak,atwhatlevelisthestatementsituated,whatsetcan it be tted into, which Foucault associated with a liberalismof university-based cultures, which has no clear boundary line withcommercial interests and service to society. Enunciative regularityneedsnewstatementstoconstantlyreplacethestockofstatementsthat no longer work, or have dated, as it were, before they are re -trieved, if at all (Foucault 2003, 18384). The perspective offered heresteps beyond Foucault a bit, arguing that scholarly publication, locatedwithinalargerprocessofto-edit,cannotsynthesizeknowledgebythe assignment of scholarly merit (reward) and that it is as often arbi-trary as not, as often despotic as not. In other words, competition andconict(war)trumpsbothdisciplineandcontrolasitmakesbothpossible, even if at times discipline and control get the upper hand onovertwar.Here,publication,merit,andpeerreviewareonlycon-testednotions.Despiteallthemeasuresusedtosustaincredibility,itisdifculttondanyunequivocalstatementofmerit,orprocessofproducingit.Meritandpeerreviewareniceprofessionalwordswith sometimes aggressive functions, as Foucault offered.In sum, genealogic critique starts with entangled terms that sig-nifyatonceprocesses,facts,andaccidentsthatareopentootherprocesses along with practices that are rational as well as fragile andevenwicked.Mytitlessyntheticphrase,politicsofediting,per-tains to what Foucault characterized as the elliptical and dark godof battles [that] must explain the long days of order, work, and peace.In other words, the politics of editing refers to practices that stabi-lizescholarlywriting,giveitplacesofaccessandsolidity,yetopenonto its illusions, chimeras, and mystication. The politics of edit-ingdoesnotrefertoalegislativeeventoragureofpeaceandPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 11705 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 117reconciliation,buttoametaconceptofdissymmetry...force,atruth-weapon . . . in which subjects and institutions ght over merit,rewards, recognition, and power-truth prizes (Foucault 2003, 55, 269).For example, a recent book on peer review in the United States, pub-lishedbyHarvardUniversityPress,diminishedthestudyofpeerreviewfortenure,focusinginsteadonpeerreviewinthereceptionof grants: tenure was judged too difcult to discuss because it was toolocal.1In another vein, the editors at Twelve/Warner Books must bequite pleased with the sales and visibility of Christopher Hitchenssrecent God Is Not Great. But this text is also part of a cultural war inwhich its dissemination makes it difcult for other texts to be noticed;to perpetuate Enlightenment skepticism toward religion disqualiesother discourses that say it is time to drop Enlightenment as a crite-rionofselectionforwhatmightconcernpubliccontestation.Whyrepeat the forms of opposition that have failed or in fact perpetuatewhat they claim to oppose? (Foucault 2003, 180).DISTURBANCES AND THE POLITICS OF EDITINGThemainconceptualformationsdiscussedhereediting,high-end scholarship, politics, publicationare experiences and con -ceptsthatconstantlyshiftbetweenthegeneralandthespecic,thevague and the precise, the singular and poor generalization, or moreprecisely the legacy and aberration of scholarly publication. To-edit opens to a foray into too many half known territories, a multi-directionalow.2Editorswhoriskedtheirfortunesandlivestopublish what was unacceptable to one force of police or another havegiven way to university and commercial editors, a group that includescuratorsinmuseumsandothers,whoselegitimacyturnsonservicetothepublic, anotuncontestednotion.Givenwayjustmeansliv-ing out what writers such as Baudrillard call a new consumption ofsign-values with no clear relation to knowledge. It is important to addthat scholarly production is not a disciplinary technique directly re -lated to censorship by a state, but now an internalized professionaldiscipline in which editors and institutions (university presses) aresubject to market risk, favor, patronage, reputation, prestige, accumu -lationsofadvantage,andothercertication/rewardprocessesthatSANDECOHEN 11805 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 118both generate and consume a book in the arts and humanities (Biagi-oli 2002, 32; Turner, 372, 374).Thus,editingetaliareferstobothprocessesandproductsofmodern critical thinking, the latter of which, as Vilm Flusser noted,isdifculttonowevendene(Flusser,44).Notionsofpeerreview,theprocessinganddisseminationofknowledge,the(alleged)pub-lics access to such knowledge, and the role of merit in guring forthpublic debate on matters of the day are part and parcel of the politicsof editing. These pure singularities (Foucault 1997, 63) are, mini-mally, operations that give and remove credibility to knowledge-truth.Academic publishing is at once a membrane of scholarships rela-tion to various publics and an engine that constructs shared knowl-edge. It is a stake in institutional reputation. It is an amalgam, at thevery least, of what evolutionary theory would call competition, andwhat that supreme adisciplinary or out-of-the-box thinker, Nietzsche,conceivedascultureceaselesslydressingandundressingitselfinthe covers of selectiondenitive appearances of knowledge, that is,canonic texts. As a junction of politics and culture, scholarly publica-tion is supposed to serve as a regulator of public knowledge, or itselects for the public, what the latter is said to actually need, differentfrom raw politics or edutainment selections. Yet this regulation (dis-semination)isentwinedwithfactorssuchasreputation,prestige,status, and impact, as well as the publics reading habits, the timepressuresthevastmajorityofpossiblereadersexperienceintheirdaily lives. The chief competitive process, highly differentiated, is tomake noteworthy knowledge necessary for the future. Yet dogmaticinterpretationssanctiedbyvirtueofthepositionofanauthororinstitutionaboundintheartsandhumanities,andthisalsoseemsto take place with a quickening of the decay-time in which ideas andgroupshaveanimpact,orlast.Noneoftheserelationsarestableinterested inuences are intrinsic to competition for the best im -pact, and evaluators are constantly under various pressures to selectarepresentativetextforthepublic.Theseengagementsregularlymisre, or professional life can be less than itself, so to speak (Turner,378).Forexample,thedifferenteditorialoperationsthatproducedwidely discussed books by the historians Stephen Ambrose, MichaelBellesiles, and Doris Kearns Goodwin did not prevent grievances onbehalf of the public concerning their alleged, later proved, plagiarismPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 11905 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 119(or misrepresentation in the case of Bellesiles). It was the readers ofBellesiless comments about his work in the Boston Globe that undidhistextscredibility(SmithandRutten;Rutten2002).Yetchargesofplagiarismalsoinvokeddefensesofit,ifthelatterleadspeopletobecomereadersofhistory.Doesafrmationofplagiarismshowanothermarkerofanemergingdisjunctionbetweenthemeansandendsofculture?Itseemsnecessarytostress,againforthesakeofcontext,thatconceptsofpublicknowledgeandprivateproduction,media impact and professional rigor and so forth are volatilized whenit comes to scholarly writing and the public(s). Context is incessantlychanged: we live out a metonym of scenes where an instant culturalstudies book from a university press on Clinton/Lewinsky mixes withtheconsolidationofscienticwritinghyperlinkedorownedbygroups such as the information provider Elsevier, in which both needcustomerusagefortheirprofessionalinformation,tocompeteforandsecuretheverypublicsuchinformationiscomposedfor.Itwould be difcult not to analyze academic publishing without diver-gentsensesofitsentanglements,forexample,thatsuchpublishingcoexists with popular and alternative editing, all of which are self-promotional to audiences, none of which coincide with the public.3Thustocontextualizeaneditingfunction istoconsidervariousevents and practices of it, shifting between scholarly publication andsome general issues that involve public knowledge (Casper, Chaison,and Grove, 437). The notion of context is not something to point at,ortoassume,buthastobeconstructed,partlybecausescholarlypublication is more unstable than ever. For example, scholarly textsabout the vicissitudes of worldly violence, say books on the MiddleEast, seem to be called for by various publicshow else to have aninformed public?but it is not clear what this public ever comes tolearnandtranslateintopoliticalandsocialthought,intopractice.Further, scholarly issues compete with a devouring popular press: afew years ago, 500,000 copies were sold in Italy of a teenagers accountofheremergenceintosexuality,andtheeditorwasreducedtosay-ing what merit came from this book: I felt something (Bruni, A7).HannoverHouse,whichsellsDVDstoWal-Mart,sold75,000cop-ies of a book, made into a documentary on the History Channel, thatcharged Lyndon Johnson with conspiracy to murder John Kennedy:editorsintwomediathrilled,andwhoistoobject?(Weber,A18).SANDECOHEN 12005 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 120Thus, the discipline and control required by scholarship is regularlyignored, subverted, upended. A genealogy of scholarship would haveto account for its differing relevance in various disciplines. StephenBann has argued that in the nineteenth century, the discipline of arthistory set itself against connoisseurship, going scientistic insofar asarthistorydevelopedtechniquessuchasframingandfocalization;todayartneedsarthistorytokeepupthevalueofacompetitiveartmarket,andmorethaneversanctiestheconnoisseur,whohasreturned in the shape of an editor and curator for an artists catalogueraisonn (Bann, 104).In addition to the movements of cultural war, discipline, and con-trol,itisimportanttoaddthateditingisinclusiveoftranstempo-ral political and cultural concepts said to have been left in the past.When did academic despotism and censorship stop happening, evenif now censorship is less overtly political and more pervasively social,as when young scholars are warned off from writing excessively dif-cult or critical texts in order to succeed? Mostly, scholarly publish-ersareconcernedwithmarketshares,andinvestmentsforshareshave implicitly become an agreement not to alarm or frighten a pub-lic. Are there dangerous academic books? Given the contentiousnessof the cultural wars in the United States, are there texts akin to whatone author has called the political pornographic pamphlet that circu-lated in France in large numbers between 1789 and 1792, ribald andanonymous, acutely critical of the powers-that-be (de Baecque, 167)?Is blog-land really its equivalent or replacement? Or graphic novels?Toconcludethissection:todayauthors,editors,andsoonarecaughtindisjunctionsaboutknowledge.Perhapsthemostacutedisjunctioniswithincriticalknowledgeitself:betweentheafrma-tion of morality, with its basis in modern idealism, which emphasizesrights and wrongs, and a critical analysis that is formal and amoral.This disjunction is clear in the difference between Habermas and deMan, the formers strenuous projection and protection of civil iden-tity for political action and the latters relentless critique of identityandthusaskingwhatpoliticscouldmean.Further,editorsrelyonreaders reportswhich are peer reviewand they are ambiguouslyused in the arts and humanities. These reports are as close as we havetoapartial fusionof democratic(merit)andexpertmeasuresofevalua-tion, yet progressive interests in making the world a better place canPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 12105 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 121collide with work editors think too contentious, partly over differentclaimsaboutknowledge,butalsopartlyaboutthesocialaspectsofpublishingunfriendlycriticismofthesharedcommunityinterestsof other scholars. Because this is such truculent material, everythingsaid below is obviously subject to a variety of readings or interpreta-tions. In such matters, conicts are multiple.THE EDITING FUNCTION: MULTIPLICITY IN ACTIONEditing is more than a repetitive practice that embeds various stan-dards in the means of cultural production, whether the artifact/prod-uct is a scholarly text, an artists book, or a trade manual. Yet editingis not reducible to any of its practices, such as conceptual organiza-tioningraphicdesignoraspecicactlikeproofreading.Arecentbook by J. R. and William H. McNeill, The Human Web, has it there isaneditorialboardoflifeandearth(323),whereeditingismeta-physical in scope, or at least a good framing device for a story. Vague-ness and precision surround to-edit, innitive mode, as editing spansgeneralandspecicuses(Hall,254).YetiftheMcNeillsoffertoomuch, editing is certainly not only vague. Tom Conley has noted theattemptbyanthropologistsinBraziltohelprainforestshamanscopyright their knowledge of plants, in exchange for preservation ofthe forest; such a copyright would edit-in for them future authorityto be involved in all decisions affecting the forests (Conley, 366). Edit-in is here political, affecting the credibility and exercise of a new right.To-edit and achieve some degree of political autonomy is one thing,but there is also editing whose coherence is a little frighteningthedesignrmBRCImaginationArtsconcoctedanAbrahamLincolnattraction in Illinois as if the sound bites of 2005 really re sembled thepolitical debates of the early 1860s, editing so total so as to inspirein the visitor a deep sense of personal connection and empathy with[Lincoln] (Rothstein, B1). What about to edit-out, which has mark-ers of repression (prevention) about it, as taught to us by Freud andnow Derrida? Did the law faculty at Egypts Al Zaqaziq Universityeditsanction, applaudProfessor Nabil Hilmi before or after heclaimed he was going to sue Jews for plundering jewelry during theExodus from Pharaonic Egypt . . . based on information in the Bible?4SANDECOHEN 12205 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 122Editing certainly straddles discipline and control, and is not at allsubsumedbynegative,eliminativepractices.Whowouldobjecttoeditingthatmakessomethingmorethoroughlycomplex,ifthatisthequalityanassemblagerequires,say,forafocuseddictionaryofreconstructedspeechpatternsinNaples,18001866?Further,theconcepts and functions of to-edit are not restricted to a single econ-omy, cultural or political. To assemble is to edit and can be done withcombinations of love and hatethe restoration of a forgotten authorsuchasZoraNealeHurston,orTedHughessburningofSylviaPlaths journals, where senses of fragmentation (feared) and comple-tion (de sired) joined to-edit = make a story. The editors of the LosAngeles Times might not deviate very much in their centrist, Enlight-enment version of progressivism, but their editorial line does coexistwith corporate requirements and information circulation. The editorsareself-censoredtoedit-outwhattheydeemexcessivedifcultyforreadersofthatpaper,ashift(regression?)toapsychologeme,such as guidance (Cohen 2006, chaps. 2 and 3). The editors of BKannouncetheirnewimprintasaninexpensivepamphletthatisreadable in the time it takes to drink a cup of coffee (BK). Editingcan shade into desperation or manipulation: the southern Californiawriter and academic John Rechy was called out for having pseudo-nymously written . . . ve-star reviews of his own writings, yet hedeclared his right to survive (=sell more) so as to offset poor promo -tions and reviews by what he called incompetent editors and readers(Harmon, A1). By comparison to such overt political practices, thereisalsoeditingthatpertainstosheercomposition,asinMichaelFriedsdescriptionoftheartistsNolandandCaro,whoseobjectswere not made by a process of adjusting, or modifying or adding orsubtracting constituent elements . . . to achieve . . . an ultimate effect(Singerman 2003, 140).Thereare,aswell,publisherswhowereabletocarryoutlargescale changes in cultural editing, as the case of the Italian publisherFeltrinellisuggests.HispublishingofDr.Zhivago in1960aswellasthe new Latin American literature of the times was joined to a chainof bookstores inseparable from civic sociality (Lyttelton, 61). StevenMay has drawn our attention to what he calls social editing, sensi-tivity by editors to context and need for revising inherited texts, andgives as an example Dante, who was said to have invented terza rimaPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 12305 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 123as an interlocking rhyme scheme that would greatly complicate anydeletionsorinterpolationsinhispoetry(May,207).Dantewasagreatproducerwhosemodeofwritingdefeateditsfutureeditors.Genealogy has no sure footing so as to organize editing in any sin-gle, continuous telling line and arc, although one can always refer to apast practice as something worse than the present, a narrative defaultthat satises present interests.At another level, Ian Willison reminds us that the success of themodernpaperbackduringWorldWarIIandafter,aninitialmass-mediatisationofthebook,belongstobothsobercontinuityandwildchangeinthehistoryofpublication,asmarketlogicwasblendingintoacultural-imperiallogic(Willison,580).Inhissur-veyofthehistoryofpublication,Jean-YvesMollierhasitthattheeditor remains a great gure of modernity, but is now menaced byglocality(Mollier,586).Transdisciplinaryjournalsinthehumani-tiessuchasCriticalInquiry andOctober werestartedinthe1970stoaddress the rigidities of an academic evaluation and reward systemseemingly unable to accommodate publishing new and critical work;theyarenowthemselvesvenuesandchannelsofrehierarchizationsetwithinanarguablyevenmorerigidacademiccastesystemthanthe early 70s (Cohen 2001). Scholars dream of receiving the kind ofreviewgiventoarecentbookonGoya,inwhichthereviewercallsthe book dazzling, disturbing and intensely personal, spanning dis-junctions between research and the public. The only thing the reviewerof that book did not cover is what a reader is expected to learn fromit, if anything (Uglow, 10).Modern pieties make editing serve as a benevolent, hence enlight -ened, practice of improving a text. A classical sense can be gleaned inJ. T. Merzs history of knowledge. He noted that eighteenth-centuryGerman editions of the most varied ancient works were set forth todirectly historicize and scientize German culture, giving agreed val-ues, at least for elites and those who were allowed to engage with theGerman educational system (Merz, 213; Steiner). But was it normal,as one scholar of Jane Eyre has shown, that Brontes own fair copy(deliveredmanuscript)wassubjectedtoovertenthousandcorrec-tions,includingmodicationsofsentencessoarbitraryastohavemade a pigs breakfast out of the authors artifact? (Deneau and Inge).There is editing that updates an authors work and editing that prunes,SANDECOHEN 12405 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 124or not merely cuts out but overtakes. Clement Greenberg changed theartifactsofanartisthewroteaboutandhadnancialinvestmentswith, such as David Smith sculptures. There is editing that restores afallen or forgotten text, and editing whose citations circulate bibliogra-phies with new readers in mind. Without the compilations of Pliny theElder, even more of the ancient writings would be unknown (Marin-cola). Yet with infrequent exceptions up to now, the modern editor isinvisible to all but insiders, the functions of mediation largely unknown.Further, as Roger Chartier has argued, early modern editing cre-ated a new genealogyhe might say a history continuous with evencyber cultureswhere texts organize prescriptions for readers eagerto undo or subvert knowledge-truth from other groups. At the levelofanindividualwriter,Chartiernotesthatthe1499publicationofRojassLaCelestina gaverisetodivergentreadings.Rojasbemoanededitors inserting headings and summaries, which he claimed was acustom not followed by ancient authors. Chartier shows that, fromthe Reformation on out, religious and political groups savaged eachother in print; in the seventeenth century the conicts of the Frondesaw writers and printers politicizing each otherfrom the letter tothe gazette, from the song to the narrative accountwhere editingwasaneventofculturalappropriation,offeringmannersofread-ing for highly focused groups. Chartierand I agreehas it that atexts making distinction and divulgation in the construal of newsociability constitutes a uid and staggered system of editing moves(Chartier,157,168,171,174).HisargumentcomplementsReinhartKosellecks notice that historicized cultural last things and the re -turnofallthingsnotionsofnalityarepartofsocialcompeti-tion, once conicting social groups activate their own time as new(Koselleck, 120).New and constructed sociability has been a constant of publica-tion since this period. One thinks of the Modern Library editions ofclassics that were editorially rigorous and inexpensive, or even Clas-sic Comics that made middle-brow literature available to the 1950schildrenofthe(notonly)petitebourgeoisie.Further,editingisnotxed:itpertainstomultiplesensesofdistancewithinsociability,what Chartier illumines as competition in the midst of sharing, andtheconstitutionofnewdistinctionsintheveryprocessesofdisclo-sure.ConsonantwithpoliticalconictoftheearlymodernperiodPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 12505 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 125andourownconsumersociety,editingfunctionsdonotonlyhelpconfergroupidentitybutalsoenablethetextualizationofsocialrelations.Editingbecomesopenedtodifferentsocialities,includingnan cialimpositionstoday,scholarsinsciencemustpayfortheirpublications, the fee (in the arts and humanities, wealthy institutionscansubvenethepublicationofthebook-for-tenure);orinanotherregister, Gilles Deleuze, in referring to A Thousand Plateaus, said thatits readers should connect with it as if they were samplers. A dif-ferentsocialityisconnectedtospecicmodesofwritinganditsconsumption, making strange alliances as well. Today, editors in theartsandhumanitiesareabsorbedwithissuesofreadability, codiedin and circulated by book-jacket blurbs that insist texts are accessi-ble,atagthatsubmitstothesupposedfearofareaderanindexof changed sociability. (Making reading safe across disciplines andknowledgesthrivesintheUnitedStates.)Anadvertisementforanew history of lesbian art in the United States goes out of its way tocite the authors blurb for whom the history of such art is a politicaltourthatisarrestingandwhereyoudonthavetobeatheoreti-ciantoreadthisbook....IworkedveryhardtowriteEnglish(Gaines). Strange that a progressive voice would insist on reading assuch a simple process, which seems to be something a conservativelike Hilton Kramer might say.Editingalsohasgenealogicalsourcesinsuchpracticesasper-sonalloyalty,notnecessarilyfromeditortowriter/author,butattimes between editor and text. Editors have enthusiasms, whether toperson and text or to a text with or without a person. The editors atLittle, Brown in 1934 let Celine keep his own translation title for Jour-ney to the End of the Night and, after refusing to publish his declaredanti-Jewish tract Bagatelles pour un massacre, went ahead with Deathon the Installment Plan, all the while putting up with Celines insistencethat Little, Brown sell the moovie rights (Kaplan and Roussin, 38081).Personalloyaltyhassignied,accordingtoEmileBenveniste,trust, pact, alliance, the pledged word, to inspire condence, relationsderived from now archaic social systems. New editorwriter fusions(e.g. The Believer magazine) self-consciously revive the editorfriendpact. But how is such friendship calibrated in relation to profession,market, and knowledge? If small presses are more personal, are theyreallylessreliableasknowledge,ordoesadifferentexposureandSANDECOHEN 12605 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 126purication(review)makesmallpressofferingssometimesmoreintense,asexperiencesofreading?Whatbondssuchbonds?Howcanuniversitypresseditorsactivatearchaicnotionsofloyaltyandtrust in the rst place, when the contemporary academic book is eval-uated, or is supposed to be, only for its addition to knowledge? Trustissupposedtogotoatext-as-knowledge;butthisprocessislikeaclosely guarded trade secret, and there is little published by editorsthemselvesonthehistoryofselectionprocesses,onwhathappensinside editorial boards.Soastoresistprematurenarrativesynthesis(aesthesis),theworld of to-edit, innitive form, thus opens onto that onion of inter-pretation that Roland Barthes told us was a contest for critical read-ing. For instance, is Holocaust studies a discipline that belongs toEuropean historical destruction, or is it only part of collective nihil -ism in general? If the latter, will it slowly dissolve in the United Statesasthegenerationofscholarswhocreateditpassesfromthescene?(Burleigh, 29). And if it is a discipline that today sends its workers toedit accounts that help, say, accused German corporations come toterms with history, what kind of discipline of editing is it when theCEOofthemediaconglomerateBertelsmanninvitesscholarswhowill aid that company in cleaning up its past (Meier, 5)? Academicpublishingshowsitscontemporarystructuraldistortions,tothepointwhereitisnotclearwhat,ifany,necessitydrivesmanyedi-torial decisions beyond survival and competition. The University ofCalifornia Press slashed its philosophy lists after a hundred years ofcommitmenttothearea,anindexofchangedsociality(theUnitedStates produces about 350 PhDs in all areas of philosophy, per year).Is this an intensication of the narrative-story of philosophys failureand thus a conrmation of its precarious existence?Thisgetsevenmoretangled:withscholarlybooks,thereviewofitedits,asitwere,theauthorscareer,asthereviewcanbe theonlyaudiencethatmatters toonespeer cohort,thoseevaluatorsandscholars who decide how to reward publication and give merit. Lind-say Waters, Senior Executive Editor at Harvard University Pressaninsiderifthereisonehasitthatpublicationisoverlycontinuouswiththetenuremill,universitypressesnowlessabletopublishone-offexperimentsandwherebookspublishedbyaprestigiouspress are not read despite a stamp of approval by reliable evaluatorsPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 12705 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 127(Waters 2004, 38). Here, disjunction and repetition are active, wherethe evaluators evaluate themselves principle can result in a Bangkok-like trafc jam of a hunt for prestige that affects knowledge. Theoryis over, declares Critical Inquiry and Henry Louis Gates, institutionand subject, and so editors can dis-invest in criticism, a turn againsttheorycontrolledbytheverycritics,likeGates,whomadetheirreputationas critics(Shea,94).Thoseforwhomtheoryisnotdeadbecome stranded, theory conict declared out of bounds.NEW PRESSURES: IMPACT AND REPUTATIONAcademicpublishingispresentlyrivenbycross-purposesandisinthe process of remaking itself in response to many variables. In this,the editing function is not so much a description as a query about thegenealogical movements of this concept, which are never unambigu-ous.Thisinvolvesconsideringthenormalsenseoftopublish,toputintheworldadiscoursewhoseanaloguesrangefromatextthat is some authors proverbial child to a line of technical efcacyor universal signage for airline pilots. It involves the complex sensesof an editor who can be a friend of writing, as well as a gatekeeper,andmore,wherepolitical,institutional,andpsychologicalcriteria(and omissions) govern the entrance of said work into the world. Thegenealogyofediting-functionsextendstoeveryconceptofmedia-tion, including the uses of a ctive origin. For example, John Guillorydirectsustoconsidercommunicationtheoryonandafteradebatebetween Adorno and Benjamin, which gives continuity to contempo-rary disputes, but also limits the terms that can be used on the pre-sent (Guillory, 35558).While shifts in editing from the early modern period are visiblevia changes in disciplinary concerns, impact value is changing. I learnedabout impact value from writers in science studies. Galileo never lostsight of it, or calibrated strategies and tactics of production, making,andconceivingwithimpactaconstantstake.Indeed,Galileowasfarmoretheeditorofhisownauthorshipthananycontemporaryscholar could imagine for themselves (Biagioli, 1994, 2002). The imme -diate impact, of say, Edward Saids Orientalism is undeniable, but itslongtermeffectisnotsoclear;thereis,afterall,SaidsreductiveSANDECOHEN 12805 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 128interpretationofFoucault,andOrientalismsrelationtoSaidsowneditorial practices, published in newspapersin which, for instance,heinsistedtheverycreationofIsraelwasanoriginalsinandwhichmightmakeOrientalism lessconvincing(Said,M3).Whatarethecriteriatoseparatetheproductiveandanti-productiveinsuchinstances?ThomasKuhnsTheStructureofScienticRevolutions hadundeniableimpact,butwasthisduetotheepistemicchangethatcame out of that texts concept invention or because it was a text thatmanydifferentdisciplineslatchedontoinordertojointhegameofrepresentingwhatthepubliccouldsayaboutscience?DidTheStructure of Scientic Revolutions change the way science works? Art-forums transformation into a promotion venue that uses artists, cura-tors, and academics in the name of providing a constancy of lists ofthe top ten may stand for the force of confusions between exchangevalue and sign value; but Artforum conrms the destruction of artis-ticautonomy,whichnowfullypassestothetastemakers(editors,curators) as it also conrms the participation of artists in anxieties ofthe visible.Todays need for impact is announced when editors insist on theirown self-transformation. Here is an editor at MIT, Roger Conover, whoinvokes a new rationalization for the selection of art history books:Ithinkofpublishingasafundamentallycuratorialpractice,thatistosay, it is about the selection and placement of texts and ideas in relationto other texts and ideas. Someone once said that the best editors are theauthors of their authorsframing, shaping, conceiving, commissioning,andcreatinglinesandencountersbetweenbooksratherthanmerelyprocessingmanuscripts.Thecuratorial,authorialroleoftheeditorasculturalproducerisunder-articulatedinoursociety.Ihavealsobeentrying to stress that authors and editors have a very serious business incommon called writing. Good writing still exists, but it does not neces-sarily look the same way it once did. The position of language, the prob-lem of editing, and the meaning of translation in a global culture are intheprocessofbeingtransformed.Thesequestionsalsotendtobeleftout of discussions about publishing, but they are far more important tothe production of value than tenure (Holly et al., 42).Conover locates editing in so many functions that this many meta-authors Conovers editor as authors of their authors, as he calls it.The actual subject is the sense of a repetition of circulation. His gratu -itous remark that tenure is not so good for publication is not helpful.PUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 12905 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 129Why has the name curator been stripped of conict by an editor whosees himself as a curator? What would a genealogy of to-curate dis-close?Doestheneedforimpactreviveanotherasceticideal,hereasenseoftotalityinourculturalproliferation?Forexample,theper-formanceartistAnnaDeavereSmith embedsherperformancesintotal editing: I seek an interpretive social science that is simultane-ously auto-ethnographic, vulnerable, performative and crit i cal . . . thatrefuses abstractions and high theory . . . a way of being in the world,awayofwriting,hearingandlistening(Denzin,43).HowcouldDeavere Smiths performance exactly duplicate this description?Impactissomewhatperversetoday.DeleuzeandGuattaripro-posed in What Is Philosophy? that contemporary critics ought to startwiththeideathatthepeoplearemissingfromtheproductionofacademicanddominantartisticartifacts,theirabsence(perversely)both alibi and proof of a disjunctive public life. When Gates, above,declared theory over, does that institutionalize its poor impactandfor whom? And is it true that the peoplereduced to consumers,the ones not involved in productiongrant the achievement or nal-ityofimpact?Buthowdoesthispublicreceiveandregisteritbyassignedtextstostudents,bygoingtoacuratedshow,by...?Should reputation/credibility and its impact be understood, in termsof books, as the review that stands for the publics editing? In the schol-arly zones, as opposed to, say, the more exible art world, where im -pact is inseparable from wow factors, impact is usually associatedwithinuenceinaresearchdisciplineandinstitution,manifestedasreputationequalsacontributiontoknowledge.Everypublisherwants to print an author whose work testies not just to the impor-tance of research itself, but also to the institution wise enough to sup-port such work, and to the author who is capable of putting impacttogether. So does the contemporary author already come forward, orincreasingly so, as an editor of impact? Reputation is potent because itgivesoffaself-evidencemarker:itfusesmarketandsign,orex -changeandgiftatonce.Thisisslippery.Forexample,theNewYorkTimes reviewed Bernard-Henri Levys book about Daniel Pearls mur-der in Pakistan. The review focuses on the force of Levys psychologi -cal motivation for writing the book: Amid my shock at [Pearls] deathwas the realization that we were entering a century in which a mancouldhavehisthroatcutforsayingMyfatherisJewish(Riding,SANDECOHEN 13005 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 130A19). Levys reputation allows him to simplify; such killings happenall the time. Is the sense of impact really then circulation of a patho-logical illusion created by a fusion of author, editor, and an audience,geared up to boost the sales gures that, in turn, stands for the pub-lic? Can scholarship live with this demand for impact, as it is impos-sible to specify the productive side of this public limpidly connectedtotheactuallifeofideas?Isreputationforpublicconsumptionsoprecious because it is a short-circuiting of other processes?Itisgenealogicnotyethistoricaltobeconcernedwiththedom inantcircuitsofbothanumericallydriven(impact)and anin -creasingly immaterially constituted system (reputation). Sorting thecriteriaofacademicimpact/reputationisundercoded,butincludesplacesofpublication:atanygivenmomentsomepressesajumpahead of others in selected areas; it involves invitations to consult asan expert inside another institution, reviewing a department as toits competitive, national ranking, hence receiving secrets about inter-nal dissension. Here, archaic and at times despotic courtier relationsare given a current function. Indeed, there are many kinds of secretsacademics have to keepespecially over matters they know but arenot supposed to know, another uneasy relation to knowledge produc-tion. In general, the academic assemblage now involves protection,equalization and hierarchy, silence, ritual, de-individuation, central-ization,autonomy,compartmentalization,themixturesofwhichdefeatalinearnarrationofacademiaandreputation(DeleuzeandGuattari 1987, 287). Reputation is secured by more than professionalpublications and, not infrequently, by discourses so indirect that theirvery mode of existence calls into question everything about the pub-lic notice of ones standing (as a former colleague, Catherine Liu, oncetold me, its corridor power that matters, making the latter a gov-ernment).Moreopaquestill,reputationhaslinkstoconceptsandpractices that evoke an auratic world, one that incorporates an avant-garde,theadventurersofartandknowledgethatisnotdetachableat times from cronyism. Reputation, apart from its at times obviousmaterialadvantages,allowsforadistanceforthosewhopossessit;yet it is not stable because it signies both shield (aura?) and resourceto be mustered. As a question of politics, reputation can be arbitraryand institutionalized, so that one is speaking of institutions requiringsignvaluethatinitselfshattersthemeritofcompetitiveselections.PUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 13105 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 131Indeed,tointroducemeritisalmostembarrassing:thereismuchintelligentandthoughtfulwritingandthinkingnotgivenmeritonaccount of political decisions authorized by place holders; many aca-demic decisions can result from, say, court packing, a practice to reg-ulatecompetitionaswellasfromsheeradministrativeat.Finally,professionalreputationintheartsandhumanitiesisaboutitsownarchivization continuouslysited/cited insuchconnectionsastenure,promotionreview,position,groupmovements,placesofpublica-tion, and recruitment of students. Tenure may be necessary for globalknowledgeinandofthesciences,butintheartsandhumanities,tenure can be a local relation with fuzzy outcomesprecisely becausemerit and production can be at odds. While all ranking systems forprofessorsaresubjecttomisrepresentation,assessingphilosophydepartments for 2005, the Chronicle of Higher Education had 63 percentofprofessorsatPennState(UniversityPark)withatleastonebookpublished,andatUCSanDiego,inthesametoptenlist,15per-cent with a book published. In the top ten for history departments,Loyola (Chicago) professors had a publication rate twice that of rst-rankedPrinceton.Thesenumberssignalboththeimmaterialityofimpactsimportanceasitismixedwitharbitraryyetbindinglocalinstitutional politics (Chronicle 2007). The media, such as the New YorkTimes, would much rather cite a professor from Princeton than Loy-ola, even if the public would learn more from the latter.COMPETITION AND DISJUNCTIONSAcontemporarygenealogyofto-editindicatesthatthevicissitudesof reputation and impact are enmeshed in other relations. Consider-ing editing-functions with movements of control and market, presenttrends can be elicited. Editors and authors must compete in makingthe noteworthiness of knowledge exchangeable, which is also an addi -tiontooperationsofreproduction.Thisishighlyspecictoactivedisciplinesthatarerequiredtopushtheirboundariessoastocom-pete; but the arts and humanities, geared to competition for the veryfew best places of publication and teaching, are now slippinginsti-tutionsincreasinglyacceptminimalperformanceforpeerreview.Atsomeinstitutions,conferencepaperscarrythevalueformerlySANDECOHEN 13205 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 132attachedtopublishedarticles.WesleyanUniversityPresscompetesto publish more ction than previously, responding to the audiencefor literary translations of foreign literature. It has changed markets,but retains its share of status and prestige because the change is con-tinuous with its history of publishing. As mentioned above, the Uni-versityofCaliforniaPresshasphasedoutphilosophy,whichyieldsa more desperate sociality (at least for philosophy). Soft war suggeststhatforauthorandeditor,itisrecognitioneveninitsfetishizedformthatisrequired.Isthereamoreviolentconceptthanrecognition?The psychic economy of value has to be sustained, in Baudrillardsphrase(Baudrillard,210;Loselle,231).Thiscanbreakdownifnotcarefully tended: the classics must be retranslated from time to time,astheydieoff;HarvardsAsianserieshassuchalongpastthatitwouldbesheerwastetoneglectit.Finally,competitioncanbesoerce that names must be conserved to circulate in specic areas. Thewritings of the historian Gordon Wood in the pages of the New YorkReview of Books are a case in point: a writer who constantly edits (re -stabilizes) new writing in American history by reiterating some basiccommon sense said to be intrinsic to the American people. On a dif-ferent level, university presses did not publish unchaperoned Frenchtheory, especially the work of Jean Baudrillard, until the im pact ofhis work was proof of a market, mostly provided by the academic andartexchangesinNew York,abigmarket,andBaudrillardcorrectlyinsisted he was radically misrepresented there (Lotringer, 153).Publishing, social impact, institutional vitality and subjective rep -utation, and other related concepts are muddled by unusual circum-stances. The offering of a scholarly book as a gift of knowledge toa community is inseparable now from a career move, where compe-titionforresearchfundsisamineeld.Intheartsandhumanities,thereisnocoherentstorybetweenthereceptionofgrantsandascholarsoverallproduction:nomajorresearchuniversityartsandhumanitiesdisciplineshowsanyclearcorrelationbetweenfunds,research, and publicationunless compared to teaching-only institu -tions, where publication is mostly gone. Further, the unread accumu-lations and patronage as well as other political formations are mostlyoff-limits for discussion in the arts and humanities, unless historicizedor located in the past. Communities of scholars and competition aremarried to each other, seen in the bidding wars for hot academics.PUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 13305 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 133Corynne McSherry has demonstrated disjunctions in her considera-tion of scholars, objects, copyrights, and intellectual property (1620).Scholars must publish with university presses, at least for entry to itssystem of rewards, a university press being self-legitimizing becauseitisbasedinthoroughvetting;butmostofthesesameacademicproducersndthemselvesmorethaneverremovedfromanybutanarrow context of reception. Of the 11,358 scholarly books publishedintheUnitedStatesin2002,noscholarcanconnectwithbutatinyfraction of them. A scholar who is not savvy in writing for a marketcan lose future chances. Further, most of us have little more than whatMcLuhancalledaprivate relationtoscholarship,enmeshed,asweare,bynewtribalandcollectiveenvirons(371).CornellUniversityPress tells us that instead of adding to the three miles of shelf spaceneededforitslibraryeachyear,soonwecandownloadbooksandjournals on demand; editors may well serve more as data-base man-agersthanasselectorsforapublic.5SureshCanagarajahnotesthatthere are now 100,000 journals worldwide, 70,000 of them in the sci-ences and technology, and the conventions of each now require themto try to be instigators of policy so as to survive (Canagarajah, 3334). Thus comes the time of the academic showcase, where even par-tially baked MAs must display their goods, sell themselves as bothinstitutionalandsubjective(bio)policy.Asmentionedearlier,itisperplexing that university presses can sell four to ve hundred copiesof a solidly written, serious study; that scholars can nd their moreintensiveworkoutofsynchwithtaste(aestheticpolitics). Again,should we conrm the equation that a successful career = good edit-ing = cohesion between self and institutional management?Competition prevails with many specic variations. Robert WrighthasdrawnourattentiontothefactonthegroundthatthenationaltraditionofliteratureinCanadahasbecomeobsolete,thisbecausebaby boomers are more likely to purchase books than to read them(Wright, 216). Canadian publishers compete with aging. Eva Wirtenhas argued that the glocality of editing involves consideration of whatshe calls transediting, part of the conglomerization of publishing andfeminizationoftheculturalsectorasawhole.Withtransediting,there is the specic outcome of an undeniable discrepancy betweenbookstranslatedfrom EnglishasopposedtothosetranslatedintoEnglish.Harlequinromancesarenotjustanotherimperialexport:SANDECOHEN 13405 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 134they are equally dependent on a strategy of localization whereby thenonEnglish speaking subsidiaries are responsible for publishing thetitles they want . . . translating and editing them, and nally printingandmarketingthem....[T]heworkofthetranslatorextendsintoediting...thatsometimesresult[s]intheconstructionofatotallynew text (Wirten, 56770). Book editing has become more porous asit makes more connections, as audiences are objects of a competitivehunt for readers.I want to bring the previous sections to a temporary pause witha discussion the edit-in of professors. I take seriously writers suchas Donna Haraway who insist on the multiple truths of the ways in-dividualstellstoriesaboutprofessionalandpersonalbonds,whichconcern an existence risked and at stake. But the unstable story ele-ments here are not part of personal existence as much as they outlineactive disjunctions that are impersonal.There are about 1,100,000 professors in the United States, workingin different hierarchies. Full-time employment has fallen by about 20percent since 1983. Tenure is now a minority phenomenon. At even thebest institutions, only one in ve arts and humanities graduates witha doctorate will achieve a research university position; increasingly,service to an institution can be at odds with scholarship. Scholarship isriddled with vigilant and insomniac rationality (Deleuze and Guat-tari 1983, 112) put to ambiguous goals, and general arts and humani-ties publication rates are, by discipline, modest.6In general, there is nostrong correlation between institutional position achieved and schol-arly production. The University of California system has 30 percent ofits tenured faculty unable to complete their second book ten years aftertenure (stalled). The California State University system is abandon -ing, department by department, the requirement of publication exceptas minimal entry dues. And today the edit-in of a professor and itstypical publication narrative is straightaway co-coded with terror nar -ratives,maderedundantinplacesliketheChronicleofHigherEduca-tion, with story after story about scholarly failure to achieve positionand recognition. At times, the Chronicle reads as an academic versionof soft-slasher lms, with nice people to whom bad things happen.Indeed, graduate training is a plunge into a selection-editing pro -cess.ItoccursasartsandhumanitiesPh.D.programsarestrangelyunder constraints and self-controlled: for 20068, fourteen EuropeanPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 13505 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 135historians at UCLA signed off on three dissertations for the researchperiod 1815present.7For historians in particular, what matters todaysoastosecureresearchfundsisinstitutionalsupportinrelationtoanever-renewedrecodingofpositivism,thedemandfornewfacts,eventhecreationofsellabledatabases.TherecentGratefulDeadexhibition at the New-York Historical Society came from an archivepurchased by a university, which then rents out the artifacts (Rohter).Infact,manyscholarsareincreasinglymeasuredbytheirabilitytoattract funds. Entrepreneurship in the arts and humanities is escap-ing the wicked artist taint and threatens to become a requirement,in some cases. No Mary Douglas style isolates need apply. In termsofanygivendisciplineintheartsandhumanities,thedynamicsofayoungprofessorsconnectionswiththerhapsodyofdiscovery(awild variable) yields to making contacts and nding workable spon-sors.Muchacademicwriting,ifnotgeneratedthroughreciprocitypatronage, is still part and parcel of what Pierre Bourdieu called aca-demic collective defense mechanisms, with a multiplicity of scalesof evaluation saturated in both vagueness and hierarchies, politicalalliances in the making (Bourdieu 1988, 19). An editor at the ModernLanguageAssociationsprestigiouspublicationunitannouncedin2001 that for the rst time in their journals long publication history,not one article that had arrived unsolicited for the journals consid-eration, [and] undergone its review process . . . [had] been acceptedfor publication; submissions from authors to that journal had fallenbelow two hundred per year, considered normal when each issue islled in advance with invited, solicited materials. Yet the editor insiststhattheMLAsjournalispremierandvetsitsauthors.Itguar-anteeswhatitpublishes,butwillnotaccountforinsideprocesses(Alonso,915).Thatisnotagoodsignofanactiveintellectuallife,based on bonds of trust and openness to share competence, the cir-culation of ideas. It is a strong disjunction. The narrative of discoveryis weakened, to put it mildly. Thus, is the journal of the Modern Lan-guage Association almost now entirely a private venture with publicimpact, where the (unknown, quiet, secret) uniformity of the solicitedarticlescohereswithalocaldespotism,liketheentanglementsofaBankAmerica Dean, ofcially designated at UC Berkeley, the donorfunctioninseparablefromtheoutttingofagoodname?8Indeed,donorpressuresaresopowerfulthatthirtyyearsafterafrmativeSANDECOHEN 13605 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 136action, the UC system steals superstar women from other campusesusing such funds rather than take a risk on younger women (Leovy,A3). Given resources, it is far less expensive to buy a brand name, mer-ited or not, than to invest in a plurality of new and potentially con-tentious agents. In sum, the genealogy of editing-in professors lookslikenarrativesofknowledgemixedwithbusinessventures,result-ing in a mineeld of political decisions surrounding the merit of ourartifacts. Importantly, the process of doing scholarship is turned intolegitimizing products, which effectively subverts a critical process ofscholarship itself (Deleuze and Guattari 1983, 362).Obviously, this is discordant material. Disjunctions matter, whichis, again, perhaps the main reason to resist a nalizing story-narrative.Nonetheless,tentatively,onecouldsaythatapartialsynthesisofeditorialfunctionsshowsaseriesofoperationsthatmachinetheconditioning[and] interdependenceofdisintegrationandreproduction(Luhmann, 48). Scholarly publication incarnates reliable knowledge,moment by moment, yet it must give way: in the arts and humanitiesthe relation between past-reliable and present selections is political,thoughonehopesitismorethanthat.Disintegrationandrepro-ductionareconditionsofexistence wherecompetitionandselectionare activated in securing a future environment for writing and teach-ing.Butproductionnowencountersnewdistinctions:forexample,there is more screen-reading than reexive reading and publica-tion,moretimely writingthanever,butalsosmallersharesforit,among other distinctions that could be made (de Zepetnek).BY WAY OF CONCLUSION: EDITORS ANDDISRUPTED SUBJECTSI think it clear that the category of to-edit is opened to the point thatit is not set within any clearly demarcated practice or narrative, sinceit joins production, evaluation, circulation, reviewing, dissemination.Plusreputation,credits,resources,andmoney.Assaidabove,aca-demically trained lawyers intelligently argued that plagiarism shouldbe evaluated only from its consequences, that a plagiarized book thathasbroughthistoryalivetomanythousandsofordinaryreaderstrumps the act of plagiarism that produced it (Green, M5). SomethingPUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 13705 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 137scary comes when product takes over process. Today an editor has towork the roles of investor, possible censor, rival claimant, and friendofideas,straddlingthepublicconsumptionofscholarlydiscourseanditsproducers.Thesearerelationsthatinvolveemergentbondsand new sorts of certications, part of the overall aporia that criticssuchasBourdieuhavecalledthetheodicyofthecompetent.Thisaporia involves professors as being at once producers and marketersof ideas, who offer knowledge as a gift and self-investment, a present,asitwere,totheknowingand not-knowing,yetoftenthemselvesdominated by writing bureaucracies, those who, at different thresh-olds, assess the possible market for such work, including its rewards(Bourdieu 1998, 43). In this, any singular subjectivity of scholarshipisdisrupted.OurMITeditorcitedearlierwhoseeshisworkasasuper-curatorannouncesthatimpactrecognition matters,atleastforthose sectors of academe that try to make new intellectual problems,where scholarship and avant-garde sometimes cross. All this belongswithChartierssenseofacontinuoushistoryofsociability,previ-ously discussed, but here too genealogy suggests new critical prob-lematics have emerged.A genealogic gure for what is new is that of a disrupted sub-ject,whichcutsacrossscholarsandeditorsaswellasinstitutions.Disruptedmeansrulesofproductionandconsumptionaredeeplypoliticized. As previously noted, the journal of the Modern LanguageAssociationmaynottakeunsolicitedarticles,asitannouncedin2001, but it certainly solicits and invites contributions when its editorswant to. If the mechanism by invitation only controls production,is this a return of courtier-type processes, a return of magistrates ofwriting?Thejournalboundary2 recentlycloseditselftounsolicitedarticles.9How does the impact of appearing in boundary 2 or the MLApublic offering offset the process of its noncompetitive selection? These arequestionsofgenealogy:thecontinuityofsuchprivatization istrans-politicalandgoeswithdisruptedsubjects.Howcanpublicsigni-cancebediscussed,letalonerewarded,whenitissothoroughlymixed with the private, in so many senses?ThustheSeniorExecutiveEditoratHarvardUniversityPresspublishes in venues where he competes with authors Harvard mightpublish(Waters2001).Heinsiststhatacademicsarenotnecessarilyintellectuals (true) while his own writing invokes Biblical Last DaysSANDECOHEN 13805 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 138about the confusion between scholarly innovation and conformism.He defends de Mans notion that art does not teach morality (Waters1995,300),butintonesthatwithdeManwesawevilrealeviland[we]rushedtocordonitoff.ThatispreciselyandexcessivelymoralisticgivingthecriticsofdeMantheirtruth,andthusplunges discussion of de Mans work into an acceptance of the reac-tionarycritiquesofit,thediscourselaudatoryandcondemningatonce.ThediscoursehereisnotProfessorXfromUniversityY;thisis the senior executive editor of a major press, versed in the academiclife, trained as a professor. Disrupted subjectivity means the editor ismixing roles and judgments, on the edge of incoherenceand insidethe politics of publication.Thus, in another venue, this editor calls French theorys sense ofincommensurability(Lyotard)anidealikelydamagingonhumanlife itself, and quotes as proof an author he has published; is he sell-ingabookandthevalueofapressinthenameofservingintellec-tuallife?Incommensurabilitylegitimatesablinkered,absolutist,non-pluralistrelativism.ItmarksthereturnofacertainkindofRomanticthought.GiventhatitwasdeManwhoshowedthatRomanticismwasepistemicallyacute,thatwriterssuchasShelleycarefullydiscussedincommen surabilitybetweenpastandpresentsenses of aesthetic completion and historical understanding, how canitbethatincommensurabilityisaprohibitionontheoperationofintelligence . . . the exile of . . . reection and theory? Our editor isself-disrupted or becomes a judge when he declaims that incommen-surability has to be ditched be cause it is corrosive and must bereplacedAs the Animals song . . . declares, we gotta get outta thisplace (Waters 2001, 134, 145, 149, 168). Published in boundary 2, whatkind of editorial evaluation happened there to disrupt more criticaland responsible scholarship?AsEmileBenvenistehasexploredinhisextraordinaryanalysisofIndo-Europeanlanguageandculture,writingsasocietydeemsworthwhile are inseparable from the discourses of praise, blame, andthe censor, whose role has never been only to block the publication orcirculation of a text, but also to assert with authority [a text] as beingthe truth; to say what corresponds to the nature of things; to proclaimthe norm of behavior. He who speaks is thus in a position of supremeauthority;bydeclaringwhatis,hexesit;heproclaimssolemnly.PUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 13905 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 139ForBenveniste,editing,censoring,andauthoringcouldhardlybedistinguishedincertaincircumstances,whereauthoritycancausetoappear,promote...thequalitywithwhichahighmagistrateisendowed, or the validity of a testimony or the power of initiative . . .applicationsbeingconnectedwith...auctor(Benveniste,422).Today, we see that editors want to be authors and curators, disrupt-ing lines between auctor and author. This is different from the editorwho told Jean-Paul Sartre that Nausea was a better title for the marketthan melancholia, Sartres titlethat Nausea was, so to speak, lessdistressing to potential readers (Sheehan, 4).In any case, running through scholarship are modes of soft cen-sorshipthatmightbeinconictwithknowledgeproduction.Thehumanist insistence that common language must not be disruptedby excessive theoretical discourse becomes censoring when invokedto make writing easier for readers; common language can becomean effective mechanism of soft despotism where scholarly books joinweak knowledge and ease of consumption, and readers are protectedfromwriting(Giordano,86).To-editintheartsandhumanitiesiscontinuous with operations of cultural warfare.The discourses used to select in the scholarly and art world(s)keep censorship at arms length. Yet peer review is more than a fuzzyconceptorpractice.Peerreviewispolitical,asisthesocialityofscholarlybookproduction.Today,genealogicalissuesareshowninthe rise and dominance of scholarly defensiveness in relation to priv-ileges (e.g., tenure) that have been fully capitalized. A scholar todayatadecentinstitutionhasalottolose,andalottogain,fromthesystem. In addition, writers such as Corynne McSherry have workedonsomeedgyaspectsofacademicconsecration,orthewaysourpro cessesandproductsarelegitimized(ornot).Inherframework,when an editor at a university press receives scholarly writingleav-ingasidethesomewhatdesperatesituationofthebooksentinthatwill secure tenureit seems clear that editors should engage with agift of knowledge. But it is by no means clear that receiving author-ship credits from a good university press means that acceptance of thework makes the author a member of the academic community (McSherry,83). Why? Because scholarly employment is not determined or tightlypegged to publication, which is another disrupted relation. Increas-ingly, the scholarly aspect of the academic community is at odds withSANDECOHEN 14005 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 140the politics of each communityits organization of position, credit,and reward, or rights of reproduction. Genealogic critique indicatesthat knowledge and merit do not necessarily cohere. Again, one doesnotachieveacademicrecognitionanditsfullpropriety/propertyrights without having ones gift of work acceptedproperty and pro-priety are thus also inextricably mixed. But acceptance is not the endof it. Editors who evaluate the intellectual merit of a work while beingincompetitionwithitsuggeststhatprofessional bondsoftrustandreciprocitypeerreviewcountfarlessthanpoliticalandmarketcriteria. The infamous ideal of a third-party evaluator becomes thusmore mythic (Strathern).In sum, how can a disciplinary community such as professionalhistoriansoreditors,subdividedbyinstitution,rank,publication,and reproduction, make appropriate decisions about what countsas good work? To-edit for publication involves judgment as to whatthe public receives and is connected to propriety stories; for exam-ple, for more than thirty years we have been told that deconstructionisbadforsociety,ameasureofhowvexingartsandhumanitiesknowledgehasbecome.Butimaginethatdeconstructivemethodshad become the norm for writing American history . . .Whatisallowedtocountasknowledgeforthepublicremainsdisturbedthatpublicdoesnotreaddifcultbooks.Inanycase,shouldpeerreviewbeconceivedasanextra-normal(Nietzsche)practice, like rhetoric was a wild card for Paul de Man? Apart fromquestions about institutional credibility that requireformal commit-menttopeerreview,itseemsobvioustosaythatpeerreviewforpublicationdoesnotnecessarilyexisttogetproducttomarket.Peer review can mean what not to get to market, that some productsdo not negatively rebound on the mediator, those who hold access tothecontractsforpublicationaswellastothewholecommunityofscholars who could be interested parties. Here, liability and reputa-tion mix or enter the other as threat, as liability.Thus, knowledge in the arts and humanities is subject to purica -tion through the burnishing of gate-keeping functions, what Deleuzecalledamixtureofarchaicismandfuturism,orlocaldespotismsgrafted to global processes. At a certain indiscernible threshold, all ofthispassesintoissuesofcontrol.Editingfunctionsintheartsandhumanities are politicized in every direction, following in the wakePUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 14105 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 141of competition and selection having been mostly used to devour alter-natives. After such knowledge, whats left? The certication processesthataresupposedtosupportthemakingofthetypicalhumanitiesbookopentoanintellectualimpasse,oncetheevaluatorsbecomecompetitors,thecompetitorsinturnsubjecttopoliticaldecisionsand threats of obsolescence, to the point where the credibility of theentire process may not, at times, be dissociable from anti-production.Despite all the truly intelligent books one could read.Notes1. Lamont,B13.ForLamont,scholarlycredibilityissecuredbytherecep-tion of grants, which she insists closes controversy. She makes a scary projec-tion: that the scholars she interviewed share the same value of deliberation inconsideringoneanotherswork,wheretheyknowthattheyarejudgingnotapplicants . . . but each others behavior. One would like to understand the dis-tinction between an applicant and an applicants behavior.2. Haraway, 3, 9. Thanks to Mario Biagioli for showing me this text, as wellas for constant provocation about criticism, intellect, and institution.3. But the notion of professional and its conjunction with information ishighly unstable. I beneted from the discussion by the Australian Broadcast Cor-poration.WhatkindofinformationcanoneexpectfromabookonClinton/Lewinsky (Berlant and Duggan), with its repetition of our, which forces conti-nuity, that is, creating an identity-based cultural-political subject? Is this the wayanewdiscipline,culturalstudies,canexpanditsrange,becominganinclusivediscourse, even if this risks a certain emptiness? The notion of alternative is reg-ularly presented as different. The Los Angeles Weekly was an alternative to theLos Angeles Times; but it has its own interested trajectoriesfor example, a morethan frivolous story written by one of its editors, Marc Cooper, was an excerpt ofhis just published book, advertised only at the close of the excerpt (see Los Ange-les Weekly, March 1925, 2004).4. Suing, 6. Of course, the media throws out such stories to attract readers;but the type of statement from this professor is not so unusual, as such statementsmake up part of the table-talk of contemporary academia, usually repressed.5. SeeCarlson,29;Bartlett; Ault.Itshouldbesaidthatthetribulationsofuniversity presses adding value to a scholars career and serving the publicare becoming more extreme. Harvard University Press recently published A NewLiterary History of America, posting its own Web page to promote the book; the textwas reviewed before publication in places like Salon.com. One of the editors, GreilMarcus, claimed the rationale for the book was to have authors write as if theywere the rst to seriously consider what a given gure, book, lm, song, or speechmeantinthelifeofthecountry.WernerSollars,coeditor,insisted,ThewholeSANDECOHEN 14205 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 142world is curious about American culture, its pervasive passions, its energies, andits idiosyncrasies. Both statements could be read as conrmation of the insular-ity of American intellectuals. And certainly not many university presses can com-peteonthisscale.See ANewLiteraryHistoryof America: Aboutthe Authors,http://newliteraryhistory.com/authors.html (accessed April 12, 2010).6. Compare,forinstance,historydepartmentsfor2007(http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2007&primary=10&secondary=95&bycat=Go[accessed August4,2008])withhumanitiesunits(http://chronicle.com/stats/productivity/page.php?year=2007&primary=10&secondary=182&bycat=Go [accessed August 4, 2008]).7. See Department of History, UCLA, Recent Graduates, http://www.history.ucla.edu/academics/graduate/recent-graduates (accessed April 12, 2010).8. Here, the concept of power is sustained by the notion of relevance, both ofwhicharerigidandporousnotions,subjecttoopportunityandsurvival.SeeManovich, who was solicited by the magazine to render futurism and fantasyas optimistic alternatives to art; and see Obra, Schwandt and Woodall.9. SeeDerrida,2.Derridahasitthatanimportantsenseofthearchiveformationistheresidenceofthesuperiormagistrates,thearchons,thosewhocommanded.TheWebpageforboundary2 putstheirsituationthisway:Theeditors of boundary 2 announce that they no longer intend to publish in the stan-dard professional areas, but only materials that identify and analyze the tyranniesof thought and action spreading around the world and that suggest alternativestotheseemergingcongurationsofpower.Tothisend,wewishtoinformourreadersthat,untilfurthernotice,thejournalwillnotacceptunsolicitedmanu-scripts (see http://www.dukeupress.edu/Catalog/ViewProduct.php?productid=45602[accessedApril20,2010]).Clearly,theeditorshavedeclaredastateofemergency.Works CitedAlonso,CarlosJ.2001.EditorsColumn:LostMooringsPMLAandIts Audi-ence. PMLA (January): 915.Ault, Charles. 2002. Scholarly Publishing: Books, Journals, Publishers, and Libraries inthe Twentieth-Century. New York: Wiley.AustralianBroadcastCorporation.2001.KnowledgeIndignation:RoadRageontheInformationSuperhighway.BackgroundBrieng.August12.http://www.abc.net.au/rn/talks/bbing/stories/s345514.htm(accessedMay2,2010).Bann,Stephen,1989.TheSenseofthePast:Image,TextandObjectintheFor-mation of Historical Consciousness in Nineteenth-Century Britain. In TheNew Historicism. Ed. H. Aram Veeser, 10215. New York: Routledge.Bartlett,RebeccaAnn.2004.UniversityPressesandAcademicLiberties:BothCrisis and Pie in the Sky. Choice 41, no. 9: 161922.PUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 14305 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 143Baudrillard, Jean. 1981. For a Critique of the Political Economy of the Sign. St. Louis:Telos Press.Benveniste,Emile.1973.Indo-EuropeanLanguageandSociety. London:FaberandFaber.Berlant, Lauren, and Lisa Duggan, eds. Our Monica, Ourselves: The Clinton Affairand the National Interest. New York: New York University Press, 2001.Biagioli, Mario. 1994. Galileo, Courtier. Chicago: University of Chicago Press..2002.FromBookCensorshiptoAcademicPeerReview.Emergences:Journal for the Study of Media and Composite Cultures 12 (May): 1145.Bourdieu, Pierre. 1988. Homo Academicus. London: Polity Press.. 1998. Acts of Resistance. New York: New Press.Bruni,Frank.2003.ATeenagerTakesItalybyStormwithaTaleofLust.NewYork Times, December 25.BK. 2005. What Is a BK? http://www.bukamerica.com/whatis.html (accessedApril 11, 2010).Burleigh, Michael. 1998. History. Times Literary Supplement, March 13.Canagarajah, A.Suresh.2002.AGeopoliticsofAcademicWriting.Pittsburgh:Uni-versity of Pittsburgh Press.Carlson,Scott.2004.CornellTriesaNewPublishingModel:ScholarshiponDemand. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 5.Casper, Scott E., Joanne D. Chaison, and Jeffrey D. Groves. 2002. The Once andFuture Book. In Perspectives on American Book History: Artifacts and Commen-tary. Ed. Casper, Chaison, and Groves, 43540. Amherst: University of Mas-sachusetts Press.Chartier,Roger.1989.Texts,Printings,Readings.InTheNewCulturalHistory.Ed. Lynn Hunt, 15475. Berkeley: University of California Press.ChronicleofHigherEducation. 2007.TheTopTenInstitutionsinSix AggregatedFields,asRankedbythe2005FacultyScholarlyProductivityIndex.January12.http://chronicle.com/article/The-Top-Ten-Institutions-in/7701(accessed April 24, 2007).Cohen, Sande. 2001. Critical Inquiry, October, and Historicizing French Theory.In French Theory in America. Ed. Sylvre Lotringer and Sande Cohen, 191216.New York: Routledge.. 2006. History Out of Joint: Essays on the Use and Abuse of History. Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University Press.Conley,Tom.2002.EndCredits.InScienticAuthorship:CreditandIntellectualProperty in Science. Ed. Mario Biagioli and Peter Gallison, 35967. New York:Routledge.Conover, Roger, Michael Ann Holly, Mark Ledbury, Douglas Armato, Susan Biel-stein,AndrewBrown,VivianConstantinopoulos,StephanieFay,HermanPabbruwe, Catherine M. Soussloff, and Ken Wissoker. 2006. Art History andIts Publishers. Art Journal 65 (Winter): 4150.Danto,Arthur.1997.ConnectionstotheWorld:TheBasicConceptsofPhilosophy.Berkeley: University of California Press.SANDECOHEN 14405 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 144de Baecque, Antoine. 1989. Pamphlets: Libel and Political Mythology. In Revo-lution in Print. Ed. Robert Darnton and Daniel Roche, 16576. Berkeley: Uni-versity of California Press.Deleuze, Gilles, and Guattari, Felix. 1983. Anti-Oedipus: Capitalism and Schizophre-nia. Trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane. Minneapolis: Uni-versity of Minnesota Press.. 1987. A Thousand Plateaus. Trans. Brian Massumi. Minneapolis: Universityof Minnesota Press.Deneau, Daniel, and M. Inge. 2002. The Copyediting of Literary Manuscripts.PMLA (January): 12830.Denzin, Norman. 2001. The Reexive Interview and a Performative Social Sci-ence. Qualitative Research 1, no. 1: 2346.Derrida, Jacques. 1996. Archive Fever. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.deZepetnek,StevenTtsy.2001.TheNewKnowledgeManagement:OnlineResearchandPublishingintheHumanities.CLCWeb:ComparativeLitera-tureandCulture 3,no.1:article8,availableathttp://docs.lib.purdue.edu/clcweb/vol3/iss1/8/ (accessed May 2, 2010).Fish, Stanley. 1989. Commentary: The Young and the Restless. In The New His-toricism. Ed. H. Aram Veeser, 30316. New York: Routledge.Flusser, Vilm. 2002. Writings. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Foucault, Michel. 1997. The Politics of Truth. New York: Semiotext(e).. 2003. Society Must Be Defended: Lectures at the College de France, 197576. Ed.Mauro Bertani and Alessandro Fontana. New York: Picador.Gaines, Malik. 2000. Through Womens Eyes. Advocate, July 4, 2000, 7677.Giordano, Giorgio. 2003. Twentieth-Century Textbook Wars. New York: Peter Lang.Green, Stuart. 2002. Historian Broke the Rules, but Is That So Bad? Los AngelesTimes, January 13.Guillory, John. 2010. Genesis of the Media Concept. Critical Inquiry 36: 32162.Hall,David,L.1996.OurNamesAreLegionforWeAreMany:OntheAca-demicsofDeception.InSelfandDeception. Ed.RogerT. AmesandWimalDissanayake, 24162. Albany: SUNY Press.Haraway, Donna. 2003. The Companion Species Manifesto. Chicago: Prickly ParadigmPress.Harmon,Amy.2004.AmazonGlitchUnmasksWarofReviewers.NewYorkTimes, February 14.Hitchens,Christopher.2007.GodIsNotGreat:HowReligionPoisonsEverything.New York: Twelve/Warner Books.Jenkins, Keith, 2009. At the Limits of History. London: Routledge.Kaplan, Alice, and Roussin, Philippe. 1994. Cline, U.S.A. Special issue, SouthAtlantic Quarterly 93, no. 2.Koselleck,Reinhart.2002.ThePracticeofConceptualHistory. Stanford:StanfordUniversity Press.Lamont,M.2009.ReviewingtheReviewers.QandAwithMicheleLamont.Chronicle Review, April 3.PUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 14505 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 145Leovy,Jill.2001.AuditFindsInequitiesinUCHiring.LosAngelesTimes,May 3.Loselle, Andrea. 2001. How French Is It? In French Theory in America. Ed. SylvreLotringer and Sande Cohen, 21736. New York: Routledge, 2001.Lotringer, Sylvre. 2001. Doing Theory. In French Theory in America. Ed. SylvreLotringer and Sande Cohen, 12562. New York: Routledge, 2001.Luhmann, Nicholas. 1995. Social Systems. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Lyttelton, A. 2003. Radical and Rich. New York Review of Books, September 25.Manovich, Lev. 2001. Hot List. Artforum, April, 43.Marincola,John.1997.AuthorityandTraditioninAncientHistoriography. Cam-bridge: Cambridge University Press.May,StevenW.2002.RenaissanceManuscriptAnthologies:EditingtheSocialEditors. In English Manuscript Studies, 11001700. Vol. 11. Ed. Peter Beal andGrace Ioppoli, 20316. London: The British Library.McLuhan, Marshall. 1978. Remarks from Do Books Matter? In The Reader in theHistory of Books and Printing. Ed. Paul A. Winckler, 37177. Englewood, Colo.:Indian Head.McNeill, J. R., and William H. 2003. The Human Web: A Birds Eye View of World His-tory. New York: Norton.McSherry, Corynne. 2001. Who Owns Academic Work? Cambridge, Mass.: HarvardUniversity Press.Meier, Barry. 1999. Chroniclers of Collaboration. New York Times, February 18.Merz, J. T. 1965. A History of European Scientic Thought in the Nineteenth Century.Vol. 1. New York: Dover Publications.Mollier, Jean-Yvre. 2001. Conclusions. In Les mutations du livre et de ldition dansle monde du XVIIIe sicle lan 2000: Actes du colloque international, Sherbrooke,2000. Ed. Jacques Michon and Jean-Yves Mollier, 58390. Saint-Nicolas: LesPresses de LUniversit Laval.Nietzsche, Friedrich. On Truth and Falsity in Their Ultramoral Sense. In EarlyGreek Philosophy and Other Essays. Ed. Oscar Levy, 17192. New York: Russelland Russell, 1964.Obra, Joan, Stacy Schwandt, and Peter Woodall. 2001. Corporate Donors Inu-ence Spilling into UC Classrooms. San Francisco Chronicle, June 26.Riding, Alan.2003.PhilosopherontheTrailofDanielPearlsKiller. NewYorkTimes, August 30.Rohter, Larry. 2010. In Archive and Exhibit, the Dead Live On. New York Times,March 11.Rothstein, Edward. 2005. Strumming the Mystic Chords of Memory. New YorkTimes, April 19.Rutten,Tim.2002.AmbroseToldtheStoriesfromHistoryThatWeNeededtoHear. Los Angeles Times, October 16.Said, Edward. 2003. Blind Imperial Arrogance. Los Angeles Times, July 20.Shea, Christopher. 2003. Theory Is Finished. New York Times Magazine, Decem-ber 14.SANDECOHEN 14605 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 146Sheehan, Thomas. 2010. Jean-Paul Sartre: Some Biographical Notes, to 1944. InSartre, Nausea. Available at http://www.stanford.edu/class/ihum40/sartre.pdf (accessed May 2, 2010).Singerman, Howard. 1999. Art Subjects. Berkeley: University of California Press..2003.NoncompositionalEffects,ortheProcessofPaintingin1970.Oxford Art Journal 26, no. 1: 12550.Smith, Lynn, and Tim Rutten. 2001. For Historians Students, a Hard Lesson onLying. Los Angeles Times, June 22.Strathem, Marilyn. 2000. Introduction: New Accountabilities. In Audit Cultures.Ed. Marilyn Strathem, 118. London: Routledge, 2000.Steiner, George. 1971. Extraterritorial. New York: Atheneum.Suing Over the Exodus. 2003. International Herald Tribune, September 11.Terdiman, Richard, 1989. Is There Class in This Class? In The New Historicism.Ed. H. Aram Veeser, 225230. New York: Routledge.Turner, Stephen. 2002. Scientists as Agents. In Science Bought and Sold: Essays inthe Economics of Science. Ed. Philip Mirowski and Esther-Mirjam Sent, 36286.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Uglow, Jenny. 2003. Review of Robert Hughes, Goya. New York Times, November23.Waters, Lindsay. 1995. Professah de ManHe Dead. American Literary History 7,no. 2: 284302.. 2001. The Age of Incommensurability. boundary 2 28, no. 2: 13372.. 2004. Enemies of Promise. Chicago: Prickly Paradigm Press.Weber, Bruce. 2004. Moyers and Others Want History Channel Inquiry over FilmThat Accuses Johnson. New York Times, February 5.Willison, Ian R. 2001. Massmediatisation: Export of the American Model? In Lesmutations du livre et de ldition dans le monde du XVIIIe sicle lan 2000: Actesducolloqueinternational,Sherbrooke,2000. Ed.JacquesMichonetJean-YvesMollier, 57482. Saint-Nicolas: Les Presses de LUniversit Laval.Wirten,EvaHemmungs.2001.Glocalities:PowerandAgencyManifestedinContemporaryPrintCulture.InLesmutationsdulivreetdelditiondanslemondeduXVIIIesiclelan2000: Actesducolloqueinternational,Sherbrooke,2000. Ed. Jacques Michon and Jean-Yves Mollier, 56573. Saint-Nicolas: LesPresses Universit Laval.Wright, Robert. 2001. Hip and Trivial: Youth Culture, Book Publishing, and the Gray-ing of Canadian Nationalism. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.PUBLICATION, KNOWLEDGE, MERIT 14705 Cohen_CC #747/7/201012:17 PMPage 147