Science/New Critic Revelations

There are two things that popped out at me while reading LeFevre’s “Invention as a Social Act.” The first occurred in her introduction, when she is discussing how her study draws on “theories and examples of processes of invention in a variety of fields” (4). Later, on pages 6-7, she layers quotes from contemporary scientists who seem to argue both for and against a concept of invention that views “scientific inquiry as an ‘uncovery’ of what is supposed to exist objectively in nature,” and she sides with the idea that discovery is an “active function” (7). This led me to question whether she meant all scientific research, for example anthropological ethnographies, where a researcher goes into a “field” of sorts with, to my thinking, the sole purpose of observing and reporting?

My question stems from the fact that I had taken a qualitative research methods class in the Anthropology department as an undergraduate. My instructor for that course was Dr. Sather-Wagstaff, and she discussed with the class her most recent work with memorial sites like The World Trade Center and the Holocaust Museum in D.C. Later, LeFevre clarifies somewhat by asserting that there is a different, dynamic view of invention where creation is “new for the individuals or groups who have not previously thought of it, or new in that it has not previously been conceived by anyone at all” (7). My impression of Dr. Sather-Wagstaff’s work on memorial sites is new, or at least covers new sights that mark new tragedies, so LeFevre’s conclusion appears to be applicable in this case. Ultimately, her (LeFevre’s) connections between rhetoric invention and the sciences is not one that I had made before. Despite the differences that I had thought existed between English studies and at least some of the sciences not being as expansive as I had previously thought, the question still lingers as to whether LeFevre means all scientific research, or only those that have obvious connections to English studies?

The second thing that stuck out for me was her discussion of three major factors that contribute to the Wests’ favoring of the Platonic view of composition.  LeFevre states that those factors are: “the influence of literary studies on composition; the persistence of the romantic myth of the inspired writer; and the widespread effects of capitalism and individualism” (15). Of those three, the one I was least familiar with was the influence of literary studies on composition. LeFevre’s discussion of the role New Criticism has played was fascinating. Prior to starting my graduate studies, I had taken a literary theory course, so I was already familiar with New Criticism. Though the theory is no longer widely in use, academics still focus on doing what New Critics call a “close reading,” “looking at individual details or characters…occurring in a self-contained text,” whenever we start looking into a text (16). This leads me to question what other influential, theoretical lenses have had an impact composition/invention/authorship?