2 responses to “Anthony Appiah’s report on “literary studies,” as part of the background research for the “Boghossian Report””

1. Michel Xhignesse

   July 14, 2026 at 1:40 am

   With the disclaimer that I read Appiah’s ‘report’ quickly, and only had access to the excerpt of Kramnick’s that you gave, and that I am probably among the grumpier people who work in the philosophy of literature (and thus have less patience for some work in literature departments than others), but also that I am not _at all_ bothered by the usual bugbear of ‘social justice’/activism/whatever:

   Appiah’s text seems broadly pretty fair, but also, in my opinion, doesn’t really say all that much. That’s because he’s largely generalizing and not picking targets. And that’s fair enough, though I think that if you’re going to be at all critical, then you do have to identify what’s going wrong in particular instances. And insofar as he does, I think he’s actually hitting closer to the heart of the periphery, so to speak.

   There are lots of different activities that fall under the label ‘interpretation’ (here, I’m mostly following Beardsley’s characterization). Some are broadly explicative, meaning that they focus on unpacking structural features of the text, word meaning, unclear metaphorical expressions, etc.; some are elucidative, meaning that they try to determine what kinds of things are true in and of the text, to answer questions about the story’s events and characters, their causes, etc.; and others are thematic, meaning that they aim to uncover the ‘themes’ of a work. As I see the lay of the land, literary studies are mostly concerned with explication and thematic interpretation, while a big chunk of analytic philosophy of literature is devoted to determining the best principles and practices of elucidation.

   Different interpretive frameworks target different kinds of interpretation (e.g. formalist criticism like the New Criticism was/is primarily explicative, as were/are structuralism and narratology, etc.). At their best, these frameworks are truth-sensitive (with respect to the text) and will treat the text as their primary analysand. The problem, as I see it, is when the interpretive framework brought to bear is neither truth-sensitive (because it introduces claims substantiated neither by the explicit nor the implicit content of the text), and is instead motivated by extra-textual considerations (to be clear: I mean it is not interested in properties of the text/story, but rather in using the text/story as evidence for an extra-textual hypothesis). The result often looks like thematic interpretation, but really it’s just a toy exercise that ‘extends’ the text (what Walton calls a ‘game world’).

   I have in mind something like, say, the psychoanalytic reading of Hamlet (with an asterisk, because when that reading was first proposed, psychoanalysis was the going theory of human psychology; I just think there’s no call to be invoking it to ‘understand’ a text now). That kind of thing can be fun, but it’s not really a reading of _Shakespeare’s_ Hamlet; it’s closer to fan-fiction than to interpretation. There are chunks of literary theory that are like this, though it’s not really the chunks which are usually cited (common targets which I think are mistaken include, e.g., feminist theory, reader-response criticism, etc.). Instead, I think it’s stuff like psychoanalysis (at least today, when we have a distinct and perfectly respectable psychological criticism), some post-structuralism, archetypal criticism, and literary Darwinism which is the problem; and while psychoanalysis remains relatively popular and literary Darwinism was recently popular, these kinds of criticism are really on the wane. I’m happy to read (and have written) papers on the subject, but I don’t know that it warrants a big public ‘report’ and hand-wringing. And I take it that’s pretty much the direction Kramnick takes.

   So, yeah. Honestly, I’m not troubled by the ‘activism’ or whatever associated with some strands of criticism. What grinds my gears is criticism not rooted in the text under discussion, because to my eyes that’s not interpretation, it’s not criticism. It’s something else–play, probably. And there’s nothing really wrong with play (indeed, it’s quite important, and can produce real aesthetic value), but we shouldn’t mistake it for a different kind of academic inquiry. So I’m all for going back to the texts themselves, with the understanding that most criticism/theory actually passes muster on that score, including many of the usual conservative bugbears (a fact which Appiah, to his credit, acknowledges).

   But also, as I said, I’m pretty cranky on this subject. I don’t think my views are very widely shared among those with real expertise.

   Loading…

   Reply
2. Richard Moran

   July 14, 2026 at 10:16 am

   For anyone following the story of the Vanderbilt / Washington U. report, it is important to follow the story of Daniel Diermeier, the chancellor of Vanderbilt, who along with Andrew D. Martin commissioned the report. They are leaders of a movement to impose what they call ‘Viewpoint Diversity’ on university hiring and in general reduce the role of faculty in university decision making.
   This link gives some background: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2025/08/trump-university-presidents/683803/
   This link explains some of Diermeier’s connection with Peter Thiel and his secret ‘Dialog’ group: https://www.nashvillescene.com/news/pithinthewind/daniel-diermeier-peter-thiel-dialog-society/article_169039d7-7d1e-496a-a2dc-3cc492c08c62.html
   The link in that Nashville article to Gelman’s original post is worth reading: https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/2022/02/16/hey-i-got-an-exclusive-invitation-to-this-off-the-record-conference-but-i-think-ill-take-1907-jamaican-beef-patties-instead/
   Here is a Wired article on this connection: https://www.wired.com/story/leak-exposes-members-of-peter-thiels-secretive-dialog-society/ Here is a fawning interview with Diermeier on Freakenomics, but which gives a good idea of where Diermeier is coming from: https://freakonomics.com/podcast/why-does-vanderbilt-keep-winning/
   Here is Andrew Martin on Heterodox Academy: https://heterodoxacademy.org/podcasts/s2-episode-39-rebuilding-trust-in-higher-ed/
   Here is Harvard capitulating: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/4/15/harvard-donors-viewpoint-diversity/
   Here is Kirsten Weld of Harvard AAUP resisting: https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2026/4/20/weld-harvard-faculty/
   Here is what is already happening at places like Auburn University: https://alabamareflector.com/2026/07/13/academic-excellence-suffers-when-alabama-college-leaders-shrink-from-fights/

   What is remarkable is that these philosophers and others would lend themselves to this effort. Diermeier was a known quantity before they signed on.

   Loading…

   Reply