LEITERS
1.
Mr. Graff blurs the distinction
between academic and literary
interests, a distinction I was at some
pains to make. Also, not all literary
judgements are political. The
revisionists take this line to justify
their own political interventions. I
might add that Terry Eagleton, who
plies his own brand of Marxism, is
scarcely an authority in these
matters.
2. Here again the academic
community is confused with the
literary one. And the pejorative use
of the term "elitism" confuses the
issue. The fact is that our literary and
cultural tradition was created by the
outstanding minds and talents of our
society.
Obviously there are other currents
and other cultures, which can be ex–
amined from a sociological and
historical point of view. But these are
not substitutes for the tradition that
writers build on.
3. Harold Bloom's interest in the
Romantics is an incident in the fre–
quent shifts of sensibility within the
tradition.
4. The idea of serving students'
needs begs the question of the aims
of education, as does the notion of
pluralism. What are these needs, if
not to learn the heritage of our
civilization, unless one is talking
about vocational and political needs?
5. The point I made about the
revisions in the curriculum having to
do with academic interests and
careers was not intended to deny that
many teachers are dedicated and
believe in what they are doing.
6. As for the market forces
supporting the new ideologies, that is
hardly a recommendation. It is one
689
more sign of the commercialization of
new ideological trends.
In the end, Mr. Graff again substi–
tutes scholarly interests for literary
trends, which obscures my main
point-that literary history has not
been written by academics and
scholars, whose role always has been
to teach and to do research within the
boundaries of the accepted tradition.
That history has been determined by
writers and literary critics.
To the Editor:
William Phillips
Boston
Thank you for the issue of
Partisan
Review
with your report on the
A. 1.
H.
P. Convention in Vienna lastJuly.(PR
I, 1989). Because at that time I had
to be in the hospital, I can judge the
accuracy of your report only by what
you wrote about my paper and that
of Dr. Leupold-Lowenthal. I found
what you wrote absolutely accurate
and conclude from this to the other
papers.
All the greater is my distress that
your report includes cliches about
Vienna and Austria, which I must
strongly contradict. You state that
"even the average Viennese has
accepted the existence of the
unconscious, although he has re–
mained anti-Semitic." In Vienna and
Austria as a whole the unconscious is
not accepted, and anti-Semitism is no
longer the prevalent attitude. The
most recent polls have clearly shown
that it is rapidly disappearing among
young people and that it exists
amongst perhaps twenty-five
