Are the Apologists Jealous of Quinn?

[_Gadianton]

The following is a review of the MI's article, A Response to D. Michael Quinn's Homosexual Distortion of
Latter-day Saint History

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=1&id=280

Much has been said and could be said about this non-traditional book review by the MI, but what struck me most about this piece was the Mopologists' zeal to paint Quinn as yet another enlightenment bugaboo obsessed with objectivity and Truth, yet failing to achieve absolute impartiality and objectivity. It's like the only argument they have anymore. But it's fascinating how badly they misrepresent Quinn here, and how badly they seem to want to emulate him. Really weird stuff.

"...Whatever that means"

Whatever place "the enlightenment" may have had in the war Migdley and others waged on Arrington, it's clear Quinn does not define New Mormon History as an enlightenment project. According to Quinn,

This “new history” examines the experiences of “common people” and reverses the lack of emphasis on women, children, families, and ethnic minorities...The New Mormon History includes all of the ingredients of “new history” in America

http://signaturebookslibrary.org/?p=745

That's a post-modern perspective if I've ever seen one. And Quinn's projects fit the bill, investigating underprivileged discourses like homosexuality and "magic" in Mormon history. But Quinn's reviewers at the MI are dead set on painting him as a "positivist" villain. Under their heading, Judging Quinn by His Own Standards, they catch him red-handed:

writers are certainly "dishonest or bad historians" if they fail to acknowledge the existence of even one piece of evidence they know challenges or contradicts the rest of their evidence. If this omission of relevant evidence is inadvertent, the author is careless. If the omission is an intentional effort to conceal or avoid presenting the reader with evidence that contradicts the preferred view of the writer, that is fraud, whether by a scholar or non-scholar, historian or other specialist. If authors write in scholarly style, they are equally dishonest if they fail to acknowledge any significant work whose interpretations differ from their own.5

And under Quinn's So-Called Neutrality and Functional Objectivity they say,

"Quinn follows a number of less-than-perceptive historians who have claimed neutrality, detachment, or objectivity"

"Quinn has made a fetish of his supposed "functional objectivity," faulting others for their alleged lack of it.6 But some of his primary sources are more forthcoming about themselves—they do not pretend to be neutral or objective—than he is about himself"

"Though certainly no poet, Quinn has also assumed the role of social activist, while all the time claiming to be entirely neutral and "functionally objective," whatever that means.

Though it's obvious what "functional objectivity" means in context of Quinn's Signature intro as he contrasts it with "historical objectivity," one can easily Google the term's marriage to post-modernism or pragmatism. As one example definition, "I would agree that one can achieve functional objectivity – in which one is still influenced by one’s personal situation, but possesses a measure of detachment..." -- http://gregsopinion.com/?p=5672

Given the last citation especially, the reviewers misunderstand functional objectivity to mean pure objectivity and neutrality, an embarrassing, sophomoric mistake for supposed scholars to make. And following up on Quinn's "evidence" quote, also found in NMH intro, a little context will help understand what is meant. He is responding to several MI scholars who, in the spirit of Migdley I suppose, use Peter Novick as an excuse to do "faithful history" where evidence is intentionally left out in order to affirm the "narrative" of the TBM. Well, usually it's critics of post-modernism that argue post-modernism falls apart in relativism, but for Mopologists, relativism is a good thing, because it means they can be right no matter how wrong they are. And this is what Quinn is responding to. Here is the quote from Quinn:

"David B. Honey and Daniel C. Peterson, “Advocacy and Inquiry in Mormon Historiography,” Brigham Young University Studies 31 (Spring 1991): 153, defend Mormon historians of faith-promoting motivation who “leave out less-than-desirable episodes, tell only one side of the story, or are incomplete in their treatment.” In support of this, Honey and Peterson in n76 argue “that ‘suppression of evidence’ is in fact an essential step in the application of a ‘viable tradition’ of interpretation.” They cite Peter Novick, That Noble Dream: The “Objectivity Question” and the American Historical Profes-[xiii]sion (New York: Cambridge University Press: 1988), 527, in support of this."

So Quinn's comments make perfect sense given the context. No post-modern or "new" historian nor any postmodern theorist to my knowledge would argue that evidence should be suppressed in order to tell whatever story is desired. The rules of evidence may seem incomprehensible in postmodern theory, but if, say, a binary opposition doesn't exist in a text, Jacques Derrida wouldn't argue we'd be justified in making one up in order for the text say whatever we want. Whatever "rules" are involved in the kind of investigation at hand, whether it's Mormon history or Deconstruction, the "rules" must be followed. It's obvious, who could honestly disagree? Quinn is complaining about what many of us have experienced ad nauseam with apologists, that post-enlightenment, faithful history is justified by default.

The MI's postmodern turn -- Quinn envy?

As has been well-established by Doctor Scratch, the toying with postmodernism under Migdley was fully taken up as the de rigueur by the MI in volume 20 of The Review. But what's interesting here, is that all these articles that extol narrative history in turgid prose essentially reduce to the basic points Quinn makes in the introduction to NMH. Perhaps the Mopologists can find a TBM narrative under the rubble of history as Quinn found a magic narrative? It seems Quinn is well ahead in the game here, and I think the apologists are extremely jealous because he's been so successful with his "fradulent" methods. I put "fraudulent" in quotes because Quinn is only a fraud when using the strawman framework of "absolute objectivity" the Mopologists created and then attributed to Quinn against him. They can't fault him by their own standards, a misreading of narrative history as mere apologetics, because by their standards, Quinn's methods -- as the Mopologists interpret them -- are fully justified. If Quinn is distorting the evidence, then he is doing exactly what the Mopologists believe a scholar should do post enlightenment. They are angry because Quinn's "apologetics" for homosexuality and Mormonism as folk magic have been so much more successful than their own apologetics. Not to mention Quinn's projects have been massive in comparison to their own, and predate them by many years. Bushman alone is in the league of Quinn here, yet he's not really an apologist.

Volume 20 of the Review is an attempt to do what Quinn did 20 years ago, just with slightly different subject matter and more emphasis on the failure of objectivity for a little extra CYA. It would seem that they owe Quinn a debt of gratitude.

[_Kishkumen]

Excellent work, Dean Robbers!

My sense of what Quinn is saying about historiography places him firmly in the social historian's camp, where the story of people outside of the traditional elite is told instead of the master narrative of the ruling class. It is a perfectly legitimate enterprise, but you wouldn't know that based on Bitton's review. It seems to me that there is a fair amount of ideological rancor mixed into the Quinn review.

I am also amused by the evidence for a real point of intellectual conflict between Daniel Peterson and Mike Quinn on historical method, which Daniel never bothered to refer to specifically, in spite of the fact that he has been discussing this with numerous scholars online for years now. So, our inability to understand the disagreement was never an issue. I would also say that it appears to me on first glance that I would agree with Quinn over Peterson (big surprise).

Finally, once again we see, in FARMS Review's failure to give Quinn an accurate and fair review, the problem of having folks who have an axe to grind or who do not engage the materially seriously do a review of a scholar's work. The conclusion I am forced to draw based on the evidence of the reviews themselves, like the review of Quinn cited here, is that these are not really academic book reviews at all, but partisan hit pieces. I suppose if this were the National Review and these were editorials it would all be good. Unfortunately, this is a publication that is regularly presented to others as "academic" and it is published under the auspices of a foundation that operates on the campus of a major American university.

This is a real problem.

[_Samantabhadra]

No post-modern or "new" historian nor any postmodern theorist to my knowledge would argue that evidence should be suppressed in order to tell whatever story is desired. The rules of evidence may seem incomprehensible in postmodern theory, but if, say, a binary opposition doesn't exist in a text, Jacques Derrida wouldn't argue we'd be justified in making one up in order for the text say whatever we want.

So true.

I suppose if this were the National Review and these were editorials it would all be good. Unfortunately, this is a publication that is regularly presented to others as "academic" and it is published under the auspices of a foundation that operates on the campus of a major American university.

This is a real problem.

When I first discovered the Book of Abraham and FAIR, for about two and a half seconds I was impressed by the seeming professionalism and attention to detail/citations of the work. Then I spent a few minutes actually reading the text, and it very quickly became apparent that their articles (to say nothing of their reviews) would not be able to pass peer review at any real-world journal.

[_Kishkumen]

When I first discovered the Book of Abraham and FAIR, for about two and a half seconds I was impressed by the seeming professionalism and attention to detail/citations of the work. Then I spent a few minutes actually reading the text, and it very quickly became apparent that their articles (to say nothing of their reviews) would not be able to pass peer review at any real-world journal.

And as far as FAIR is concerned, I don't really care. I do care about the situation with BYU, however. I hold two degrees from BYU, and the value of those degrees is impacted by the reputation of the university. The fact that its reputation is potentially compromised by the FARMS Review is not something that I take lightly.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Compelling thesis Dean, I believe you have carried the day with it!

[_Doctor Scratch]

This is a powerful and incisive analysis, Dean. I'm curious, though: which article from Volume 20 did you have in mind? Midgley wrote the intro to issue 2--this is the one where he tells his "origin story," about how he got his ass kicked by non-LDS pastors on his mission and still resents it half a century later.

Incidentally, the editorial contains an extended attack on Richard Mouw, whom Midgley tries to paint as an anti-Mormon. If Midgley hates the rather gentle and mild-mannered Mouw this much, I think you can pretty much guarantee that DCP hates him, too.

[_Gadianton]

Good eye, Scratch, it's actually volume 21 I meant to refer to, with the essays of Martin Marty, Migdley, and Goff, Barney, and Faulconer.

This, from Mig:

In none of these essays is there an explicit effort made to demonstrate the historical authenticity of Mormon’s book, since this is assumed or taken for granted. These authors have their own reasons for doing this. But setting out those reasons is not their intention, though these essays bear witness of their faith. In each instance there is a prior commitment to the historical authenticity of the Book of Mormon. In addition, none of these authors see themselves as proving the Book of Mormon, something both unnecessary and impossible. Instead, the authors seek to uncover and examine what they consider to be the unusually complex and subtle message embedded in the text

Quinn is interested in "functional objectivity" where his own biases and interests lead him through history without satisfying the impossible demands of "historical objectivity" but importantly, without compromising evidence for his case either. It would seem similar to the volume 21 project, but, Quinn might be closer to Martin Marty's exposition than Migdley's here, which explicitly make narrative history into apologetics.

All Quinn would have to do is say, "I do not try to demonstrate the historical authenticity of same-sex dynamics, since this is assumed or taken for granted, and my essays bear witness to my belief same-sex dynamics exist in the foundations of Mormonism. In my work, there is a prior commitment to same-sex dynamics. I do not see myself as proving same-sex dynamics exist in Mormonism, something both unnecessary and impossible. Instead, I seek to uncover and examine what I consider to be the unusually complex and subtle message of same-sex dynamics in Mormon history and culture." If Quinn prefaced with this, he could then present all his work and the Mopologists would have no way to argue against him.

[_bcspace]

Heck no.

[_Kishkumen]

If Quinn prefaced with this, he could then present all his work and the Mopologists would have no way to argue against him.

Sure, if they weren't bigoted homophobes. I don't know that they are, but they are certainly not sympathetic to the cause of gay rights. LOL.