The suppression of the authorship controversy is a case study in academic cancel culture: a self-reinforcing belief system of dogmatism, groupthink, and foreclosed inquiry.
I agree that looking at the authorship question would create lively new interest (wonder and possibility) in Shakespeare.
Not knowing much about it, I had thought the majority of the evidence would point to William Shakespeare, with some small amount pointing to other authors. But now that I have read more about it, it seems like it is the reverse.
I've been following this debate for years without having any strong opinion about it. And I've noticed exactly the phenomena he's describing in the rare occasions when I brought it up as a topic of conversation. One of the most arrogant, smug, condescending dismissals came from a 3 year college lit-major (w/o portfolio).
You mean in the sense that it was initially widely ridiculed as a conspiracy theory until it gradually began to enter the mainstream scientific and political discourse as a legitimate question worth investigation? That might be a good analogy.
Exactly. I think that's a growing concern these days. People lose faith the institutions (like universities and the press) that ought to be evaluating knowledge claims (per Rauch) b/c they believe that these institutions have been captured by people more interested in promoting their ideology than finding the truth.
Michael, thank you for this excellent article and also for the presentation about it you gave at the HxLibraries Symposium last Thursday. This is scholarship of the true "open inquiry" kind that we need more of. I have come to believe that academics become captured by "sacred narratives" in their disciplines, and sealed off from contrary evidence, as. much as people outside academia can become captured by conspiracy theories for their socially motivated reasons. The incentive structure in academia can be just as conformist, tribalistic, and focused on groupthink.
I'm reminded of Damrosch's "community of scholars" (We Scholars) and how it should operate to encourage debate and inquiry, and to encourage conversations outside of narrow specialities. Also, more recently, Kathleen Fitzpatrick's "Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach To Saving the University." The norms of scholarship and teaching have broken down too often into ideological conformity away from the best approaches to open inquiry. Those two thinkers point to a better way of reforming the academy so that it regains some credibility and trust. Your article is also a good example of how genuine "inclusion" is suppose to operate within a discipline or a community of scholars.
Have you thought about characterizing this argument in terms of Lakatos' scientific research programs ? There seems to be almost no recognition of modern (eg Popper and after) methodology of science in any of the attacks from the academy on AntiStratforrdian's as conspiracy theorists. Your formal characterization of the Stratfordian hypothesis maps perfectly into Lakatos' notion of the hard core and periphery of a research program, and the Stratfordian program is a perfect example of a degenerating SRP. I think an appreciation for the value of accepting a core of a priori beliefs to researchers working within an SRP and the historical resolution of disagreement over such fundamental assumptions through competition between SRPs and eventual replacement often devoid of direct engagement would be helpful on all sides. The same arguments you make against Stratfordians often apply to proponents of Oxford or Bacon; the interpreting the evidence requires a theory, different theories find support in different narratives. In the end, absent some decisive piece of evidence, it will be productivity - the ability to synthesize all the evidence and drive productive research hypotheses that will win the day.
I agree that looking at the authorship question would create lively new interest (wonder and possibility) in Shakespeare.
Not knowing much about it, I had thought the majority of the evidence would point to William Shakespeare, with some small amount pointing to other authors. But now that I have read more about it, it seems like it is the reverse.
Exactly so, which makes the whole debate as framed so upside down: we're compared to creationists when it is the consensus view that is faith-based.
Also this meme made me laugh: https://x.com/SecretSunBlog/status/1790765164142223377/photo/1
What an excellent article. Thank you.
I've been following this debate for years without having any strong opinion about it. And I've noticed exactly the phenomena he's describing in the rare occasions when I brought it up as a topic of conversation. One of the most arrogant, smug, condescending dismissals came from a 3 year college lit-major (w/o portfolio).
Would you say that the Oxford thesis is the "lab leak theory" of Shakespeare scholarship?
You mean in the sense that it was initially widely ridiculed as a conspiracy theory until it gradually began to enter the mainstream scientific and political discourse as a legitimate question worth investigation? That might be a good analogy.
Exactly. I think that's a growing concern these days. People lose faith the institutions (like universities and the press) that ought to be evaluating knowledge claims (per Rauch) b/c they believe that these institutions have been captured by people more interested in promoting their ideology than finding the truth.
Michael, thank you for this excellent article and also for the presentation about it you gave at the HxLibraries Symposium last Thursday. This is scholarship of the true "open inquiry" kind that we need more of. I have come to believe that academics become captured by "sacred narratives" in their disciplines, and sealed off from contrary evidence, as. much as people outside academia can become captured by conspiracy theories for their socially motivated reasons. The incentive structure in academia can be just as conformist, tribalistic, and focused on groupthink.
I'm reminded of Damrosch's "community of scholars" (We Scholars) and how it should operate to encourage debate and inquiry, and to encourage conversations outside of narrow specialities. Also, more recently, Kathleen Fitzpatrick's "Generous Thinking: A Radical Approach To Saving the University." The norms of scholarship and teaching have broken down too often into ideological conformity away from the best approaches to open inquiry. Those two thinkers point to a better way of reforming the academy so that it regains some credibility and trust. Your article is also a good example of how genuine "inclusion" is suppose to operate within a discipline or a community of scholars.
Thank you very much Craig for your comments -- and for the reference to these additional authors, I'll have to check them out!
Have you thought about characterizing this argument in terms of Lakatos' scientific research programs ? There seems to be almost no recognition of modern (eg Popper and after) methodology of science in any of the attacks from the academy on AntiStratforrdian's as conspiracy theorists. Your formal characterization of the Stratfordian hypothesis maps perfectly into Lakatos' notion of the hard core and periphery of a research program, and the Stratfordian program is a perfect example of a degenerating SRP. I think an appreciation for the value of accepting a core of a priori beliefs to researchers working within an SRP and the historical resolution of disagreement over such fundamental assumptions through competition between SRPs and eventual replacement often devoid of direct engagement would be helpful on all sides. The same arguments you make against Stratfordians often apply to proponents of Oxford or Bacon; the interpreting the evidence requires a theory, different theories find support in different narratives. In the end, absent some decisive piece of evidence, it will be productivity - the ability to synthesize all the evidence and drive productive research hypotheses that will win the day.
Thank you David, I was not familiar with that framework, but it sounds very applicable!