© 2012, Joshua Gang. All Rights Reserved. !
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
© 2012, Joshua Gang. All rights reserved. ! BEHAVIORISM AND LITERARY MODERNITY, 1913-2009 by JOSHUA GANG A dissertation submitted to the Graduate School-New Brunswick Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey In partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Graduate Program in Literatures in English Written under the direction of Rebecca L. Walkowitz And approved by New Brunswick, New Jersey October, 2012 i ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION Behaviorism and Literary Modernity, 1913-2009 By JOSHUA GANG Dissertation Director: Rebecca L. Walkowitz “Behaviorism and Literary Modernity, 1913-2009” constructs a history of twentieth- century literature by examining how writers incorporated behaviorism’s arguments against consciousness into discussions of aesthetics, subjectivity, and empire. Skeptical of introspective knowledge, behaviorist thinkers argued that only external behaviors— and not mental states—could be known empirically. This paradigm not only dominated twentieth-century psychology and philosophy but also made crucial, if unrecognized, contributions to modern literature. Examining how behaviorism circulated and competed against other psychological doctrines, this dissertation substantially alters the idea of modernism as a “turn inward.” Instead, I argue that modernism comprised an intense debate about the nature of such interiority and about the relationship of internal mental states to external aesthetic forms. Where some modernists said that literary forms offered unique access to mental states, others came to understand form itself as a behavior with ii no necessary ties to consciousness. Competing with explanations offered by psychoanalysis, structuralism, and cognitive science, behaviorism was at the heart of this debate—as well as others about the nature of subjectivity, agency, and language. Writers skeptical of depth psychology found through behaviorism new models of aesthetic form and political action that seemingly circumvented the problems of self-knowledge and other minds. Bringing together analyses of the New Critics, Samuel Beckett, Djuna Barnes, Bertolt Brecht, Richard Wright and JM Coetzee, this dissertation demonstrates how behaviorism changed literary thinking across the globe and allows new insights into the psychological dimensions of aesthetic form, critical interpretation, and globalization. iii Contents. Abstract of the Dissertation ii Dedication v Acknowledgements vi Introduction: Outward Turns 1 Chapter 1: Behaviorism and the Beginnings of Close Reading 36 Chapter 2: Mindless Modernism 72 Chapter 3: Brecht, Wright, and the Neurology of Political Literature 115 Chapter 4: Coetzee, Colonialism, and the Cognitive Revolution 171 Works cited 212 iv Dedication To AEJJ. v Acknowledgements I owe many things to many people. I am especially grateful to my dissertation committee: Rebecca Walkowitz, Jonathan Kramnick, Elin Diamond, and Doug Mao. They have overwhelmed me with their intelligence, warmth, and generosity. Few students have teachers so dedicated and enthusiastic. I owe particular thanks to my director Rebecca Walkowitz, who always supported me and never failed to push my thinking further. I cannot thank her enough. I am indebted to many Rutgers English faculty. Michael McKeon has been a tireless source of wisdom and humor. Lynn Festa, Colin Jager, David Kurnick, Meredith McGill, and Henry Turner have been outstanding interlocutors and helped me more than they know. Many of the most important and helpful conversations I had in graduate school happened at the Center for Cultural Analysis. To say that “Evidence and Explanation in the Arts and Sciences” and “Mind and Culture” shaped my work would be an understatement. This dissertation is stronger for the help and encouragement I’ve received from Emily Bartels, Matt Buckley, Marianne DeKoven, Billy Galperin, Ann Jurecic, John Kucich, Diane Sadoff, and Carolyn Williams. I am also thankful for the support I’ve received from faculty at other universities, particularly Nancy Armstrong, Jessica Burstein, Mike Lemahieu, Heather Love, Steven Meyer, Sam See and the editorial boards of ELH and Novel. Two people must be singled out here: Cheryl Robinson and Courtney Borack. vi I mean it literally when I say that this would not have happened without them. I also want to thank Leandra Cain and Rhea Ramey, who have tolerated me exceedingly well. Over the past few years I have come to rely on Sarah Alexander, Sarah Balkin, Manuel Betancourt, Dan Crossen, Craig Iturbe, Katherine Schaap Williams, Mary-Rush Yelverton, and Emily Zubernis in all areas of my life. They have kept me healthy both intellectually and emotionally. Long phone conversations with Ted Martin about anything and everything have done me a world of good. And when I was off campus, Juliette Wallack, Joel Pellini, Josh Honeyman, and Wendy Chang kept me laughing and well fed. I have also been lucky enough to enjoy the good company and critical eyes of Jordan Aubry, Sean Barry, Mark DiGiacomo, Mike Gavin, Octavio Gonzalez, April Graham, Devin Griffiths, Katy Howard, Jenna Lewis, Dawn Lilly, Caolan Madden, Alex Mazzaferro, Lizzie Oldfather, Brian Pietras, Jenny Raterman, Emma Raub, Debapriya Sarkar, John Savarese, Matt Sherrill, Devon Sherman, Samantha Stern-Leaphart, Anne Terrill, Scott Trudell, Mark Vareschi, and Meryl Winick. Three people deserve additional thanks and their own paragraph. Colleen Rosenfeld, Greg Ellermann, and Naomi Levine are absolute friends and critics. They have seen me, and my writing, at my best and worst. I owe them so much. And of course I must also thank my family—parents, sisters (and future brother- in-law), grandparents, aunts and uncles and so on. Nothing demonstrates love like putting up with someone who keeps talking about behaviorism. They have been extraordinary and continue to be so. vii 1 ! Introduction: Outward Turns “An ‘inner process’ stands in need of outward criteria.” —Ludwig Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations1 Behaviorism is an obsolete and infamous idea. Its claims—that consciousness is unknowable, that mental states lack any consistent connection to behavior—have suffered definitive rebuke over the past fifty years. And its style of empiricism has withered while innatist approaches to the brain, including those of cognitive science and recent philosophy of mind, have flourished. In literary history and cultural study, behaviorism remains a marginalized object of curiosity (and sometimes disgust). When it has appeared in accounts of literary history, behaviorism has served mostly as a foil to the psychological depth, agency, and aesthetic autonomy so valued by modern humanism. In contrast to psychoanalysis and existentialism, which allow for psychological interiority and intentional political action, behaviorism threatens to reduce us to mindless automata. Taken at face value, behaviorism is antithetical to the progressive, often utopian, aspirations of modern criticism and theory. And so if modern literature comprised a psychological turn inward, a turn toward subjectivity and the priority of subjective knowledge, then behaviorism’s distrust of introspection and mental states have been rightly excluded from literary history. And yet despite its obsolescence, despite its exclusion from historical accounts of modern literature, this dissertation argues that behaviorism comprised a central force in the development of transnational modernism and criticism. Behaviorism’s anti- ! 2 ! psychologism, particularly its attitudes about the knowability of mental states, circulated globally and competed against the explanations offered by other psychological discourses, such as psychoanalysis and cognitive science. Offering a set of philosophical and political entailments different than these discourses, behaviorism was drawn on by writers who were skeptical of psychoanalysis’s claims. Moreover, behaviorism allowed these writers to reconceive notions of aesthetic form, meaning, and selfhood without recourse to introspection or speculating about the minds of others. In these ways, writers from throughout the twentieth century translated behaviorism from a psychological and philosophical idea into a literary one. And as I hope to show, that very understanding of “literary” knowledge is a product of behavioristic thinking. Examining behaviorism’s place in the intellectual marketplace and following its circulation across the globe, this dissertation offers tangible evidence of how behaviorism came to shape modernist writing and criticism. As such, it not only complicates the characterization of modernism as a “turn inward” but also shows the larger philosophical and historical stakes of that imagined turn. Spanning the whole twentieth century and moving between North America, Europe, and sub-saharan Africa, behaviorism’s literary history reveals heretofore hidden connections within modernist literature and redefines the relationship of such literature to the philosophy of mind and the global history of ideas. As it stands, however, behaviorism is relatively absent from literary history and criticism. What we might infer from two important histories of modernism and psychology is that behaviorism went unnoticed by most writers and critics. In Judith Ryan’s The Vanishing Subject: Early Psychology and Modernism (1992), behaviorism is mentioned only twice, buried beneath deep analyses of psychoanalysis, structuralism, ! 3 ! functionalism, and early phenomenology. In Louis Sass’s Madness and Modernism: Insanity in the Light of Modern