In a recent special issue of
modernism/modernity entitled
weak theory, a group of scholars debated,
receptively but appropriately gently, the merits of “weak thought,” a notion
that the editor Paul Saint-Amour derived from his readings of Eve Sedgwick,
Wai Chee Dimock, and Gianni Vattimo—a mode of argument, and even
intellection, designed to deflate expansive or overconfident epistemological
and ontological claims. The issue occasioned a great deal of online dispute,
then no fewer than four sets of responses from the various partisans and
antagonists of “weak theory,” and eventually, in a final invaginating
flourish, a set of responses to the responses by the initial authors
(including me). In their response, Melanie Micir and Aarthi Vadde brought
into the conversation a tweet by Jacquelyn Ardam:
I've been watching the conversations around @MModernity's “Weak
Theory” issue unfold from the sidelines and here is my take: sure is
easy to claim weakness when you have tenure or TT job. The Q of
weakness looks v different from the land of the contingent.
(@jaxwendy)