A Response to Peter Lehman's Essay "Pluralism versus the Correct Position"

Abstract

Near the end of his response, Bordwell characterizes my notion of pluralism as in contrast to his pluralism which values competition among the various methodologies. I happily accept Bordwell's characterization of my version of pluralism as flaccid and noncompetitive, though I propose that his pluralism would be better termed phallic pluralism. Indeed, I am quite struck by the emergence of such masculinist terminology as and the desire for competition in Bordwell's conclusion. Film theory here sounds a little bit like a male sporting event with a championship (and a champion) at stake. My flaccid pluralism, on the other hand, is supportive and is based upon a notion of value and usefulness as opposed to competition and winning. Bordwell is correct in noting that within my notion of pluralism such methods as cognitive psychology, psychoanalysis, Marxism, feminism, formalism, auteurism, and cultural studies do not compete with each other. I have found and continue to find them all useful methodologies. This does not mean that those practicing different methodologies will never converge on the same point nor that they should not debate among themselves. I do believe, however, that these points of intersection are not primarily a competition wherein one side demolishes the other, winning the film theory World Series. Indeed, Bordwell's desire to win a competition that will place his middle-level, cognitive-based theory at the center of the discipline is based upon the very king-of-the-hill model that dominated the Grand Theory of the seventies. My model, on the other hand, recognizes the strengths and limitations of a variety of methods without believing that one should or will win out over the others via robust competition, sending the king rolling down the hill.