This summary was written by Lisa Schilz and Jessica Bergmann
Sosnoski begins his essay with four quotations that link the
"institutional construction of intellectuality and the social construction
of sexuality" in such a way that his readers can only wonder what the
abstract correlation may be (33). By using the pronoun 'she' and 'he' to
describe situations of error in academia, 'we' begin to understand
Sosnoski's argument that competition between male and female intellectuals
is clearly a tool for "maintaining the patriarchal status quo" (35).
In the section entitled "The Construction of Intellectuality in the Institution of Criticism," Sosnoski states that "traditional literary criticism" is a term used to describe a group of individuals who decipher between what is true and what is 'false.' He also mentions an important point we discussed last class during the "Nattering on the Net" discussion. The fact that men made historical efforts in the field of science is notable, but woman's participation along those same lines is theoretically forgotten (36).
Sosnoski continues to discuss patriarchal dominance in scholastic institutions throughout the section entitled "Intellectual Sexuality in the Institution of Criticism." He makes several important references to the development of young "gentlemen" in the nineteenth-century during the "rise of professionalism" (40). Sosnoski reminds us that in order for women working in academia, at that time, to succeed certain male traits had to be acquired and applied to their own work. Interestingly enough, Sosnoski creates a fictional character, "Magister Implicatus," to serve as a ghostly reminder that a patriarchal work environment still exists today. By accepting Magister Implicatus as the dominant structure of a professional career we are bonding with a personification of patriarchy within "our job descriptions, our textbooks, our examination committees and other quarters of the institution of literary criticism. (Sosnoski 41) By this unwitting action we create through the "ladder of institutional success (degrees, salaries, ranks...) competition. (Sosnoski 41)
In the following section entitled "falsificity is inextricably linked to competetiveness" Sosnoski draws a vivid link between the urge in the world of criticism to falsify your competitors criticism in order to further one's own career. It is inescapable because the machismic nature of this high-bred intellectualism creates a deep sense of competition. At the base of this is the need to dispute your colleagues (read competitors) work and ideas to further your own. The system which was created to control this only intensifies the power stuggle for prizes of jobs, grants, publications, promotions and salaries. The "system" is falsificity "a mechanism of a disciplinary apparatus to regulate competition". (Sosnoski 41) The result of this are theories which inevitably must conflict. When differing theories arise they must be proved false, assimilated or appropriated. It is either "assimilated into his belief system as an error" or acquired as one's own knowledge. All of this competition inevitably leads to dissonance which prevents "critical arguments" being "distinguishable from quarrels".(Sosnoski 44)
Sosnoski ends by suggesting alternatives to patriarchal and machismic traditional criticism. He suggests "intellectual compassion" as an alternative to "intellectual machismo", concurrence instead of appropriation, collaboration instead of conformity. Because the innate nature of these approaches is non-competetive they encourage the "de-masculinization of the Magister-Implicatus." (Sosnoski 47) Perhaps he should have said, "why can't we all just get along".