Dale
Martin's Poststructuralist Persona and His Historical-Critical Real Self
An Exchange Between
Robert Gagnon and Dale Martin over Martin's Critique of Gagnon in Sex
and the Single Savior
Robert A. J. Gagnon
Oct. 2006
(posted 3/6/07)
To see some interesting
email responses to this discussion click
here.
For a fuller critique of
Martin, "Dale Martin and the Myth of Total Textual Indeterminacy"
(in process), click here.
Dale Martin,
professor of New Testament at Yale University and a self-identified "gay
man," devotes six full pages of his recent book Sex and the Single
Savior: Gender and Sexuality in Biblical Interpretation (Westminster
John Knox, 2006; released Sept./Oct. 2006) to criticizing me as a poster
boy of "foundationalism," which for him is a dirty word. What is my
crime? My crime is thinking that some things written in Scripture
are relatively clear and that, on the whole, a Christian is probably
better off submitting to the core values of Scripture than deviating
from them.
Produced here is the
e-mail exchange that I had with Martin in Oct. 2006. A fuller critique
is forthcoming (for the beginning of which go
here). Although (1) Martin claims
that no certain meaning can be extrapolated from texts and indeed
criticizes me strongly for thinking otherwise, and although (2) Martin
knows me only through "text" (my books and this email correspondence),
he (3) shows remarkable textual certitude about what he thinks I know
and don't know and even what my motives are behind what I write. How is
it possible that Martin can put on a persona of textual indeterminacy
when he criticizes me but then, in that very critique, operate out of a
conviction of complete textual certitude? Indeed, how can he even
critique the "textual Gagnon" apart from some confidence that he can
determine meaning from texts? Why even write books and articles as he
does if texts are as ambiguous as he claims them to be? Read on.
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Monday, October 09, 2006 5:56 PM
To: Dale Martin
Subject: your book
Dr. Dale
Martin
Dear
Dale,
I have
read your two introductory essays in Sex and the Single Savior,
and (as you know) I am already very familiar with your republished
articles on 1 Cor 6:9 and Rom 1:24-27, since I have critiqued them in my
first book.
My initial
reaction regarding these two introductory essays in general and what you
have to say about my work in particular are: (1) you have produced an
unkind caricature; and (2) it is not a particularly strong
counterargument. I really expected something stronger from a scholar of
your caliber. I also expected you, at the very least, to do what I had
done with your work: represent it fairly, deal with your main arguments,
and stay away from ad hominem comments. You apparently have chosen a
different approach.
Be assured
that I will be writing a response. I can’t say that I will enjoy it but,
based on my reading of what you allege, I don’t anticipate major
problems in providing an effective critique. Unlike your treatment of my
work, I will respond to each one of your arguments, making sure that the
reader is aware of your strongest arguments. I have always felt that if
I show the problems with someone’s strongest arguments I have
made a much more effective critique. I do not see this characteristic in
your critique of me.
I noticed
in the SBL Program Guide that there will be a discussion of your book
involving only respondents who already agree with your perspective
wholeheartedly. Had those putting it together had the fairness and
balance that is normally expected among the academy of scholars they
would have included a genuine critic such as Hays, Watson, and/or me. I
recall that when SBL did a review of Francis Watson’s Agape, Eros,
Gender all three reviewers were staunch critics of his work.
It must be nice to be so insulated in public presentations.
I do hope
that we will have an opportunity some day to dialogue/debate these
issues in public, you and I. I have given your name more than once at
venues where sponsoring groups have asked for someone presenting an
alternative viewpoint.
Sincerely,
Rob
------------------------------------------------
From: Dale Martin
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 12:39 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: Re: your book
Rob:
I wouldn't expect you to
agree with my presentation of your work. I do not, in fact, believe you
present other people's work accurately and fairly. And it was not at all
my concern to take on your arguments piece by piece, or to respond to
your "strongest" arguments. I believe that your project is flawed from
first to last because you have inadequate understandings of scripture,
from a theological point of view, and of interpretation in general, from
a theoretical point of view. My goal was to inform other people about
the fundamental weaknesses of historical criticism as providing a
foundation either for the ancient meaning of the text or for modern
ethical use of the text. The points of your book I chose to focus on I
chose because they make those points clearly. I focused on your method
and rhetoric (which is not at all Christian and kind as you seem to
think).
And I am just as surprised
as you about the content of the panel discussing my book. But the
publisher put it together, not me. And of course, their goal is to sell
books. I just said I'd be there.
I have no interest in public
debates on these topics with people like you. I don't think they produce
anything but heat. I refuse to be a part of giving your sort of position
the public venue such debates provide, and I don't believe I will
persuade either you or any others who are firmly convinced of their
position simply by debating in public. So although I'd be perfectly
interested in discussing the issue with you in private, I always say no
to such invitations for public debates, not because I fear I will be
proven wrong (I don't believe we'd even be talking about the same
topics, really), but because I don't think they produce anything of
value for Christians or the church.
-Dale
------------------------------------------------
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 1:00 PM
To: Dale Martin
Subject: RE: your book
Dale,
Obviously
we do disagree, on all the counts [above]. On that we clearly agree.
If you are going to attempt to establish that historical criticism
cannot provide a foundation “for the ancient meaning of the text” then
you do, in fact, have to tackle the strongest arguments, not the
weakest. To argue for uncertainty by tackling some ambiguous
cases does not establish your case for the indeterminacy of meaning of
all ancient texts. Indeed, you state some of your own conclusions
for ancient meaning with great certainty, as I will point out. You even
sometimes use some of the same careless (in your view) nomenclature of
texts "speaking." To refer to homosexual practice as sin, or to note the
disproportionately high negative side effects of homosexual activity
(due largely to the absence of a sexual complement, not to some special
perversity of homosexual persons) is not to be unkind, though clearly
you perceive it as such. Of course, it doesn’t suit your interests to
note the numerous compassionate statements in my work. And for you to
accuse others of shaming rhetoric when this has been a staple of your
work on sexuality for years is really over the top. Few have been more
vitriolic in print than you.
There is
much more for me to say on your arguments but you will see my response
in due course. I believe that I have stated your arguments regarding 1
Cor 6:9 and Rom 1:24-27 accurately and fairly; you have not indicated
otherwise, at least in what you have to say in your book.
I wasn’t
sure what kind of hand, if any, you had in the formation of the panel,
and you will note that I accused you of nothing here. Still, it must be
nice to have such a panel.
If you
believed what you wrote in the last paragraph then you would not have
published a number of the pieces that appear in your book. If you will
persuade nobody in oral presentation, why do you assume that you will do
so in written presentation?
Sincerely,
Rob
------------------------------------------------
From: Dale Martin
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:00 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: your book
It is just that in my
experience public "debates" on this are too dichotomous and "tit for
tat" to move any meaningful discussion forward. If I were discussing it
with someone who worked with the same notion of textual meaning I have
(that is, if we shared some basic assumptions about meaning) I think it
might be useful. But since my main point is to argue that the
foundationalist position is bankrupt as it is, it doesn't make any sense
to conduct the argument on foundationalist assumptions.
If you note, the title of
the chapter announces that I'm doing a rhetorical analysis, which means
that I'm not concerned with whether the exegetical results of someone's
position are "right" or not. All I need to do is show that they are no
NECESSARILY right. That they are not the only possible reading. So I
critique people's rhetoric even when I believe they are "right" in their
exegetical results. In the case of your work, I was simply pointing out
that your claims that the Bible "says" things aren't true.
And when I used language
about texts "speaking" or "meaning," I think it is clear to most people
that I recognize those as manners of speech, as metaphorical and usual
ways of expression. I've pointed out enough in my work that I DON'T
believe there is one identifiable meaning of the text so that people may
see that I'm not making foundationalist statements about meaning, just
employing rather "normal" expressions.
------------------------------------------------
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 3:20 PM
To: Dale Martin
Subject: RE: your book
But you do
indicate one identifiable meaning in lots of ancient texts—and I can
demonstrate that by numerous citations from your work. And, of course,
anyone who uses the expression “the text says” uses it
metaphorically.
And,
contrary to what you say in your email, you do claim lots of readings to
be wrong in your published writings. Sometimes you are wrong in claiming
so (as I have established and will continue to establish). But to
pretend that you haven’t made such claims flies in the face of numerous
assertions of your own. To point out that there are many instances of
single “identifiable meaning” in texts, taken in context, is not hard to
show. I can think of dozens of instances in which you, or any sane
person, would have to concur.
Indeed,
you see lots of single identifiable meanings in your reading of my
book—a book which, incidentally, does not speak on its own. But that
doesn’t stop you from arriving at all sorts of emphatic (though
wrongheaded) conclusions about my work. And yet you only have text
before you, not a person (since we have never met).
The “tit
for tat” of which you speak involves critique—direct, on-the-spot,
minimal-squirming critique. You can put something in print knowing that
only a limited range of back-and-forth responses is possible. Perhaps
that is what you find troubling about a public, oral give-and-take. And
I believe that I can show that your main contention, namely, “that the
“foundationalist position is bankrupt,” has very great problems with
it.
A good
deal of your argument is based on showing that a text—indeed, all
texts—can be reasonably subjected to multiple interpretations, even
interpretations that are at wide variance. To make this case you have to
demonstrate this for every text and every reading; namely, that there
are legitimate counter-interpretations for every argument that a given
ancient text (to say nothing of modern) meant such-and-such in its
context.* This you have not done, not even close. In fact, based on what
you have already written and argued, it is apparent that you don’t
believe that yourself—or you fail to recognize the logical inconsistency
of your case. I can open to almost any page of what you have written,
where the presumption of certainty as to what an ancient or modern text
can mean or cannot mean is present.
The very
act of our email communication bears witness to these points.
*[For
example, you would have to be able to demonstrate that the case for
believing that Paul advocated mandatory circumcision for his Gentile
converts is just as strong an interpretation of Paul as the case for
believing that Paul proclaimed a gospel without a circumcision
requirement--a manifestly impossible thing to do.]
------------------------------------------------
From: Dale Martin
Sent: Tuesday, October 10, 2006 6:59 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: your book
I think you really just
don't understand literary theory.
When I talk about a meaning
of a text, or an identifiable meaning of a text, or "the text says," it
is in a context, which I often even make explicit, of "playing the game"
of normal, modern historical criticism. But I have repeatedly in my
career also noted that those statements are ONLY true given certain
assumptions about the social location of the interpretation. I often
explicitly point out WHEN I am speaking as a "historical critic" as
opposed to a "theologian" or a "gay man." So yes, I speak the way you
note, but I have gone out of my way, several times, to note that I
recognize that I am ASSUMING a context of historical criticism. And that
I do not believe that the meaning I derive is a property of the text
itself.
You simply don't seem to
understand the notion of contextual meaning, or the criticisms in the
past many years of foundationalist epistemologies. If you did, you would
realize that you can't demonstrate that I'm wrong just because on some
occasions I speak AS a historical critic, and at other times I do not.
What seems to you inconsistency is just the fact that I am not always
speaking within the same discursive realm. And often in my work, I have
made those shifts of register quite explicit. Several essays in the book
you are criticizing SHOW that shift taking place within an essay.
I think you should read the
rest of the book and attempt to understand my theories of interpretation
before you make lots of accusations that show a lack of understanding of
basic poststructuralist theories.
------------------------------------------------
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 12:14 PM
To: Dale Martin
Subject: RE: your book
Dale,
I don’t
think you understand the difference between understanding
poststructuralist theory and accepting its more extreme premises
(or, indeed, operating out of those premises). Your ‘pretend hat’ is
often just that; you don’t (indeed, can’t) live in the real world
operating with some of the extreme poststructuralist premises that you
enunciate. You put on that hat when it serves your purposes to do
so—especially when someone has shown Dale Martin the historical critic
to be wrong—and take it off when it serves your purposes—in other words,
when you think you can demonstrate that Paul meant this or didn’t mean
that.
By the
way, when you assume that you clearly know what I mean in my book and
email correspondence—and, more, what my motives are and what I
understand even behind and beyond what I actually communicate in
text—which person am I dealing with? Dale Martin the “historical
critic”? The “theologian”? Or “gay man”? It must be nice to claim such
certainty in interpreting my writings when you have the “historical
critic” hat on. But what do you do when you put your poststructuralist
hat on? Do you suddenly become uncertain about what the text of my
writings means? If so, how do you do that? Do you tell the certain
historical-critical side of your brain to stop feeding you nonsense
about textual certainty and recognize that matters of interpretation are
really uncertain after all? Really, which is the “game” here? When you
play “historical criticism” or when you play “poststructuralist
theories”? I think that the real game for you is the latter, though you
pose it as the former.
Here’s how
you operate in your correspondence to me. You say that you know
that:
Gagnon
“really [really?] doesn’t understand literary theory.”
Gagnon
“simply” [simply?] doesn’t “understand the notion of contextual
meaning.”
Gagnon
does not, “in fact [in fact?], . . . present other people’s work
accurately and fairly.”
Gagnon
has “inadequate understandings of scripture . . . and of
interpretation in general.”
Gagnon’s
rhetoric “is not at all [at all?] Christian and kind.”
That is a
tremendous amount of textual certitude, wouldn’t you say? (Note your
persistent use of adverbial expressions denoting certitude and the
categorical/absolute nature of your assertions.) Again, all you have to
go on here is text, right? Now, when you (?take off your historical
critic hat and?) put your poststructuralist hat on, do you cease to be
so certain about what I believe, know, and say, on the basis of reading
text? Do you suddenly, as if suffering memory loss, disavow all the
certainty that you have just expressed? Please explain. How is it that
text does not have determinate meaning and yet you have here only text
and have come to a series of determinate meanings?
Although
you adopt the persona here and in your writings of someone who is
at heart a poststructuralist but can play the historical-critical “game”
when he has to, the real depth of your emotion comes in your writing
when you express absolute certitude about what your perceived opponents
believe, know, and write, even beyond what is actually communicated in
the text itself. Extraordinary. I would think the game-playing “certain
Dale” would be less passionate, not more so, because you are only
playing a game, adopting an assumed persona that doesn’t represent your
deepest convictions. It seems, then, that you really do believe, deep
down—note your statement below: “I do not, in fact [!], believe
you present other people’s work accurately and fairly”—the textual
“certainties” that you have expressed in your writings. It is not just a
game you play, or a hat that you put on, merely to enter the “discursive
realm” of the writer. Your emotive mode of expression betrays you, both
in these email correspondences and in your writings.
As you
yourself have said, you do “in fact/ really/ simply” believe certain
things about me based entirely on the interpretation of texts. You
behave not as if in a game but with all the earnestness that you can
muster, that these “verities” are indeed true.
I have
rarely encountered someone who, in practice, operates with a greater
conviction of textual certitude than you. You can “write” and “say”
otherwise but you have shown otherwise. You have shown that you are not
just “playing the game.” You don’t live or conduct yourself on the “as
if” basis that you pretend to others. You are, in reality, the worst
sort of textual absolutist because you deceive yourself and attempt to
deceive others that it is otherwise with you.
I have no
doubt that if we put you under hypnosis, or could concoct a valid “truth
serum,” or even give you a lie detector test you would confirm by your
responses that you really do believe the 5 points that you said about me
above—all on the basis of text. You don’t regard your own interpretative
skills as tenuous, do you? Apparently you do believe that texts control
interpretation (you have had nothing else on which to base your
judgments) and you are convinced, certainly as regards “my texts,” that
your interpretation is the correct one.
Rob
------------------------------------------------
From: Dale Martin
Sent: Wednesday, October 11, 2006 4:17 PM
To: Robert Gagnon
Subject: RE: your book
This just proves that we are
on such different wave lengths that debate is senseless, especially via
email.
As I said before, I'd be
glad to have a conversation about all of this in person some time, but I
won't "debate" it, and I certainly won't waste time going back and forth
like this via email. Absolutely no understanding--or even speaking the
same theoretical or theological language--seems possible.
Don't email me again about
it, please.
-Dale
------------------------------------------------
From:
Robert Gagnon
Sent: Thursday, October 12, 2006 9:46 AM
To: Dale Martin
Subject: RE: your book
Dale,
I have no
problem with ending the email discussion at this point. Unlike you,
though, I see the main problem as not radical discontinuity in
theoretical or theological language between you and I but rather the
radical discontinuity within yourself, between your poststructuralist
persona, especially as regards Scripture and Christian tradition, and
the historical-critical real self, as regards handling most other texts,
most notably contemporary persons with whom you disagree.
Remember:
you are the one that kicked this off by making a concerted, 6-page, and
largely ad hominem attack (misrepresentation) of my work.
Rob
To see some
interesting email responses to this discussion click
here.
For a fuller
critique of Martin, "Dale Martin and the Myth of Total Textual
Indeterminacy" (in process), click here.
Robert A. J. Gagnon, Ph.D., is a
professor at Pittsburgh Theological Seminary and author of The Bible
and Homosexual Practice: Texts and Hermeneutics. He can be reached at
gagnon@pts.edu.