THE EVIDENCE OF EXPERIENCEJOAN SCOTT

SCOTT WANTS TO REDEFINE EXPERIENCE AS THE HISTORIAN’S OBJECT OF STUDY, RATHER THAN THE EVIDENCE OF HISTORICAL FACT.

“BECOMING VISIBLE”: THREE SUCCESSIVE CLAIMS▸ Historians of difference have leveraged the incontestability

of autobiographical accounts of experience to “make visible” experiences that have been “hidden,” that is, “deemed unworthy of mention in conventional history” (776–7).

▸ This practice treats identities as though they are “self-evident,” or given, rather than historically variable, and “naturalize[s] … difference” (777).

▸ Historians should shift their practice to explaining the cultural logic that creates a specific historical relationship between difference and hegemonic norms (779).

HISTORIANS OF DIFFERENCE HAVE LEVERAGED THE INCONTESTABILITY OF AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNTS OF EXPERIENCE TO “MAKE VISIBLE” EXPERIENCES THAT HAVE BEEN “HIDDEN,” THAT IS, “DEEMED UNWORTHY OF MENTION IN CONVENTIONAL HISTORY” (776–7).

First Claim

SAMUEL DELANY’S ACCOUNT OF AN EARLY APPREHENSION OF HIS POLITICAL POWER EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF SEEING AND WHAT CAN BE SEEN —THE VISIBLE—AS THE BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE.

The Example: The Motion of Light in Water (1988)

DELANY’S ACCOUNT OF AN EARLY APPREHENSION OF HIS POLITICAL POWER EMPHASIZES THE IMPORTANCE OF THE VISIBLE AS THE BASIS OF KNOWLEDGE.

The Example: The Motion of Light in Water (1988)

THE METAPHOR DELANY USES TO MAKE THE PURPOSE OF HIS AUTOBIOGRAPHY EXPLICIT IS THE SAME METAPHOR THAT HISTORIANS USE AS RATIONALE FOR USING AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL ACCOUNTS OF EXPERIENCE AS EVIDENCE OF HISTORICAL FACT.

The Example: The Motion of Light in Water (1988)

▸ THIS PRACTICE TREATS IDENTITIES AS THOUGH THEY ARE “SELF-EVIDENT,” OR GIVEN, RATHER THAN HISTORICALLY VARIABLE, AND “NATURALIZE[S]…DIFFERENCE” (777).

Second Claim

▸ DELANY’S ACCOUNT OF THE HIDDEN WORLD OF HOMOSEXUAL DESIRE SUBSCRIBES TO ITS CATEGORIZATION AS DIFFERENT (778).

The Example: Sexual Desire

▸ HISTORIANS SHOULD SHIFT THEIR PRACTICE TO EXPLAINING THE CULTURAL LOGIC THAT CREATES A SPECIFIC HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIP (THE ~) BETWEEN DIFFERENCE AND HEGEMONIC NORMS (779).

Third Claim

I AM NOT ASKING YOU TO BE A HISTORIAN OF DIFFERENCE.

TWO POINTS TO TAKE AWAY FROM SCOTT▸ Your evidence needs to be analyzed, and Scott’s essay

should call your attention to the fact that there is an ethos built into the logic of your analysis. Be aware of your ethos.

▸ History is just one of the kinds of context you will research to make sense of the letters we read in this class. Scott’s essay challenges you to think beyond experience as the events, thoughts, and feelings described in the letter. Experience is instead the letter writer’s way of making sense of their world. It is the historically specific logic that shapes the writing of the letters. That logic may or may not resemble (y)ours.

TA-NEHISI COATES, BETWEEN THE WORLD AND ME (2015)

COATES’S HISTORY OF DIFFERENCE, PART I (2:35–6:58)▸ What kind(s) of difference is Coates making visible? Is

visibility the best metaphor in this case?

▸ What experience (cultural logic) is Coates trying to analyze? What experience accounts for his letter?

▸ Why might one call this account a letter?

▸ Who is Coates’s audience? How does your answer to that question affect your assessment of Coates’s purpose?

LOOKING AHEAD TO NEXT WEEK

YOUR LETTERS, OMEKA, ALEXANDER POPE’S LETTERS▸ Your first assignment is to record a letter that you write to

someone who looks up to you and, in light of a significant event of the last year, warn and advise them about the world as you experience it. Script due Thursday, February 9. Final recording due on Omeka Tuesday, February 14.

▸ Look out for CATME invitation. Forming presentations groups next week.

▸ Read about the scandal surrounding the publication of Alexander Pope’s letters and the revival of Greek and Latin letter writing in eighteenth-century Britain.