“The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby: Summary and Critique

Introduction: “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby

“The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby first appeared in College English in September 1996, published by the National Council of Teachers of English. This essay confronts the contentious status of humanism in contemporary literary theory, where it has been criticized or outright dismissed as an outdated or ideologically problematic approach. Battersby argues that, despite the critical trends of the time, humanism—particularly in its pragmatic and pluralist forms—remains an indispensable framework for understanding literature and the human experience. He contends that our intellectual engagement with the world is inevitably mediated by “content-involving capacities,” such as language and thought, that make humanism unavoidable. Battersby explores how humanism intersects with Western intellectual history, drawing from figures like Protagoras, Aristotle, and Enlightenment thinkers to demonstrate its enduring presence. Additionally, he highlights that while postmodernist and anti-humanist theories challenge the notion of human universals and objective truths, they fail to replace the foundational roles that human agency and rationality play in the creation and interpretation of meaning. Through this work, Battersby not only defends humanism but repositions it as a resilient and essential paradigm in literary studies, offering valuable insights into the continuous evolution of humanistic inquiry. This essay has become influential in debates about the role of humanism within literary criticism, urging a reconsideration of its principles and advocating for its relevance in the face of relativism and cultural critique.

Summary of “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby

• Humanism’s Contested Place in Theory: Battersby notes that contemporary critical and theoretical discourse often dismisses humanism and the notion of “human universals” as outdated or ideologically flawed. Despite this trend, he argues for a nuanced view, asserting that humanism—particularly in a pluralistic and pragmatic form—remains crucial and unavoidable for beings with “content-involving capacities” like humans (Battersby 555).
• Diverse Manifestations of Humanism: Humanism is not a monolith; rather, it has many forms across history, each reflecting unique ideals, from the Hellenistic emphasis on skepticism and reason (Protagoras, Plato) to the Enlightenment values of equality, justice, and liberty. These manifestations create a “confusing, often contradictory array” of perspectives that span centuries and differ widely in beliefs and practices, leading Battersby to conclude that there are many “humanisms” rather than a single one (Battersby 556).
• Humanism as a Scapegoat: In modern theoretical frameworks, humanism often serves as a scapegoat, labeled the carrier of Western-centric and hierarchical values. Postmodern thinkers like Foucault and Derrida challenge the foundational elements of humanism, critiquing the idea of objective truth and fixed human nature. Instead, they argue that meaning is fluid, socially constructed, and shaped by “knowledge/power relations” (Battersby 557-558). Thus, rejecting humanism becomes synonymous with rejecting Western intellectual constructs.
• Critique of Relativism: Battersby critiques the relativistic stance that denies any objective truth or universal human values, which he argues is self-defeating. Without shared values or standards, he asserts, meaningful dialogue and critique are impossible. Battersby references Hilary Putnam’s work, noting that beliefs and values can be “better, truer, or more useful” even without an absolute metaphysical guarantee (Battersby 560).
• The Pragmatic-Pluralist Humanist: Battersby advocates for a “pragmatic-pluralist” humanism, which recognizes the role of human agency and the possibility of meaningful reference to reality. He suggests that language and thought are not isolated but instead part of “intentional systems” that give determinate meaning. This approach allows for flexibility and acknowledges that concepts evolve with experience and use, rather than being rigid absolutes (Battersby 561).
• Universality in Human Capacities: Battersby concludes with a defense of human universals, arguing that shared cognitive structures and physical experiences provide a basis for communication and understanding. He draws on Kwasi Wiredu and Ruth Anna Putnam, among others, to argue that universal cognitive traits, like the ability to reason or recognize fundamental relational concepts, allow for cross-cultural dialogue and critique, making humanism an essential, enduring framework (Battersby 565-566).

Literary Terms/Concepts in “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby

Term/Perspective	Definition/Explanation	Application in Battersby’s Argument
Humanism	An intellectual stance focusing on human values, agency, and rationality; traditionally involves belief in universal human qualities.	Battersby defends humanism as inescapable, arguing that it accommodates human experience and content-involving capacities (555-556).
Pragmatic-Pluralist Humanism	A modern, flexible interpretation of humanism that emphasizes a pluralistic approach to truth and rationality without absolute guarantees.	Battersby advocates for this form, which acknowledges human agency and rationality without essentialist constraints (560-561).
Metaphysics of Presence	The philosophical belief in a stable, determinate reality that language can directly represent.	Battersby critiques this, arguing that while direct access to reality may be impossible, meaningful reference still exists (561-562).
Relativism	The belief that truth and moral values are not absolute but vary by culture, context, or personal perspective.	Battersby critiques relativism, asserting that some shared human principles make intercultural critique and understanding possible (565).
Social Constructionism	The idea that reality, including knowledge and categories, is constructed by social processes and power relations, rather than being an objective fact.	Battersby notes social constructionism’s critique of humanism but maintains that human agency and shared values persist (558).
Postmodernism	A theoretical stance that questions grand narratives, absolute truths, and stable meaning, viewing knowledge and reality as subjective and fragmented.	Battersby positions postmodernism as critical of humanism’s universal claims, yet sees limitations in postmodern relativism (558-559).
Knowledge/Power Relations	A Foucauldian concept that sees knowledge as intertwined with power, influencing societal norms and perceptions of truth.	Battersby examines this concept to illustrate humanism’s role as a counterpoint to purely power-driven perspectives (558).
Universalism vs. Particularism	The debate over whether certain truths, values, or principles are universally applicable or culturally specific.	Battersby defends universalism to some extent, citing shared human capacities as a basis for intercultural communication (565-566).
Intentionality	A term in philosophy referring to the directedness or purposefulness of thoughts and perceptions toward objects, events, or states of affairs.	Battersby asserts that intentionality supports humanism by demonstrating the role of agency in constructing meaning (563).
Objective vs. Subjective Truth	The distinction between truth as universally applicable (objective) and truth as dependent on individual or cultural perspective (subjective).	Battersby argues for a balanced view, where certain truths are context-dependent but communicable across cultural lines (564).
Foundationalism	The philosophical stance that there are basic, self-evident principles or foundations on which knowledge is built.	Battersby criticizes foundationalism as inflexible, favoring pragmatic humanism that evolves through human engagement (561).
Cultural Critique	The practice of analyzing and challenging cultural norms, values, and assumptions, often to reveal power dynamics.	Battersby views humanism as providing a basis for cultural critique without descending into complete relativism (565).
Essentialism	The belief that certain qualities or traits are inherent, natural, and defining for particular groups or categories.	Battersby opposes essentialism, advocating for human universals based on shared cognitive capacities rather than fixed essences (562).

Contribution of “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby to Literary Theory/Theories

1. Humanism in Contemporary Theory
   Battersby revitalizes the relevance of humanism in literary theory, arguing that despite critiques from postmodernism, humanism remains essential for engaging with literature and understanding human experience. He repositions humanism as “inescapable,” emphasizing that literary analysis benefits from recognizing universal human capacities and cognitive structures (Battersby 555-556). This approach reinforces humanism’s adaptability and challenges claims that it is outdated or incompatible with modern critique.
2. Pragmatism and Pluralism in Literary Criticism
   Battersby’s “pragmatic-pluralist” humanism draws heavily on pragmatist theories, especially the works of Hilary Putnam. He suggests that literary interpretations must be adaptable, evolving through a pluralistic approach that accommodates multiple perspectives without rigid foundationalism. This contribution aligns with pragmatist views on truth and rationality, offering a framework for literary critics to assess interpretations based on their usefulness, coherence, and adaptability, rather than absolute standards (Battersby 560-561).
3. Critique of Relativism
   In response to the relativism prevalent in postmodernism, Battersby argues that shared cognitive capacities enable meaningful intercultural critique. He contends that extreme relativism undermines the possibility of literary criticism and cross-cultural understanding by denying objective standards. By advocating for “shared forms of reason” based on common human experiences, he contributes to a middle ground in literary theory that opposes both absolutism and extreme relativism (Battersby 565-566).
4. Social Constructionism and Power Dynamics
   Battersby acknowledges the critiques of humanism from social constructionism, which views reality as a product of power and knowledge relations (Battersby 558). While he agrees that human experience is influenced by social structures, he argues against the complete reduction of human agency. By integrating elements of social constructionism with humanist theory, Battersby’s work contributes to a nuanced literary theory that considers social influences while still valuing human agency and intentionality.
5. Response to Postmodernism and Deconstruction
   Battersby addresses postmodern and deconstructive theories that challenge fixed meanings and objective truths. He critiques the notion that humanism inherently supports “ontotheological” or logocentric thinking, instead proposing a form of humanism compatible with interpretive flexibility. By doing so, he broadens the applicability of humanism in literary theory, showing that it can coexist with some postmodern insights while resisting its more radical skepticism (Battersby 558-559).
6. Universalism and the Possibility of Intercultural Criticism
   Battersby’s defense of human universals offers a significant contribution to theories that question the possibility of universal truths. He argues that shared cognitive structures, such as rationality and basic conceptual capacities, provide a foundation for intercultural communication and criticism. This approach contributes to global literary theory by proposing that certain cognitive traits, such as the ability to “translate” and understand other cultures, make meaningful critique possible across cultural boundaries (Battersby 565).
7. Intentionality and Agency in Literary Interpretation
   Battersby’s emphasis on intentionality aligns with theories that stress the role of human agency in creating and interpreting meaning. He contends that human cognition inherently involves intentionality, allowing us to refer meaningfully to objects and events beyond language. This view supports a humanist approach to literature, emphasizing that literary interpretation is not merely the product of social constructions or linguistic systems but also involves individual and collective agency (Battersby 563).

Examples of Critiques Through “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby

Literary Work	Critique Approach	Example Critique Using Battersby’s Humanism
Hamlet by William Shakespeare	Humanist Interpretation of Character	Using Battersby’s humanism, Hamlet’s existential questioning about life, death, and morality can be seen as resonating with universal human concerns. Battersby’s concept of “pragmatic-pluralist” humanism allows Hamlet’s introspection to be read as a fundamental human struggle (Battersby 560-561).
Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe	Cultural Critique and Universal Values	Battersby’s approach would interpret Achebe’s depiction of Igbo culture’s resistance to colonialism as illustrating universal themes of identity, justice, and resilience. This perspective supports the idea that cultural critique can highlight shared human values across societies (Battersby 565).
One Hundred Years of Solitude by Gabriel Garcia Marquez	Critique of Relativism in Theme Analysis	Battersby’s rejection of extreme relativism supports reading Marquez’s exploration of memory, family, and history as universally relevant. Themes in the novel are accessible beyond the Colombian context, appealing to universal aspects of human experience (Battersby 566).
Beloved by Toni Morrison	Agency and Intentionality in Narrative	Through Battersby’s emphasis on agency and intentionality, Sethe’s choices in Beloved can be interpreted as acts of resistance and personal will. This humanist approach validates her decisions as expressions of individual agency within oppressive societal structures (Battersby 563).

Criticism Against “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby

• Over-Reliance on Universality
  Critics might argue that Battersby’s emphasis on universal human capacities oversimplifies cultural differences, potentially ignoring the complexities of diverse worldviews and experiences.
• Resistance to Postmodern Insights
  Battersby’s defense of humanism may be seen as resistant to valuable postmodern critiques of foundationalism, such as deconstruction’s exploration of unstable meaning, which questions fixed interpretations and reveals the inherent multiplicity of texts.
• Underestimation of Social Constructionism
  Battersby’s pragmatic humanism may downplay the influence of social constructs on individual agency, arguably overlooking the extent to which identity, values, and meaning are shaped by societal structures and power dynamics.
• Limited Acknowledgment of Relativism’s Merits
  While Battersby critiques extreme relativism, critics may argue that he underestimates its potential for promoting tolerance and understanding of cultural differences, which can foster greater inclusivity in literary theory and interpretation.
• Potential Essentialism in Human Universals
  Although Battersby rejects essentialism, his focus on shared human cognitive traits and capacities might inadvertently echo essentialist ideas, implying that certain qualities are intrinsic to all humans despite cultural and historical variations.
• Overlooked Agency of Non-Western Perspectives
  Critics may contend that Battersby’s humanism, rooted in Western intellectual traditions, risks marginalizing non-Western perspectives that challenge the very foundation of humanist assumptions, potentially reinforcing a Eurocentric approach to literary theory.

Representative Quotations from “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby with Explanation

Quotation	Explanation
“Humanism… is inescapable for creatures with content-involving capacities such as ours” (555).	Battersby argues that humans inherently need humanistic values because they are necessary to give meaning and content to our lives, making humanism unavoidable.
“Just as there is no such thing as history, only histories, so there is no humanism, only humanisms” (556).	Battersby suggests that humanism is not a monolithic concept but rather an array of diverse perspectives and forms, similar to how history is composed of various narratives.
“It is coextensive with Western intellectual history, [and therefore] humanism is inescapable” (557).	This statement emphasizes that humanism has been deeply embedded in Western thought throughout history, making it a persistent and unavoidable part of the intellectual landscape.
“The metaphysics of presence… a belief in our ability to hook our thoughts and language on to things as they really are” (559).	Battersby critiques the traditional metaphysical belief that language and thought can directly represent reality, arguing that this is a flawed aspect of older humanist thought.
“Pragmatic pluralism… would be the last to say that there is not much powerful sense in the critique” (560).	Battersby acknowledges critiques of humanism, especially how Enlightenment values have been misused, but proposes that a pluralistic, pragmatic approach to humanism can address these concerns constructively.
“There are only the various points of view of actual persons which reflect the various interests and purposes that their theories and descriptions subserve” (560).	Citing Hilary Putnam, Battersby underscores a pragmatic perspective that recognizes knowledge as always shaped by individual perspectives and interests, emphasizing the subjective element in human understanding.
“Once we have given up on metaphysical realism… we can free ourselves to get on with the sort of referring and meaning we do anyway with a clear conscience” (563).	Battersby suggests that abandoning rigid metaphysical beliefs allows for a more flexible and practical approach to understanding and interacting with the world, a key aspect of his pragmatic humanism.
“Our criticism can only be offered from within our tradition or culture” (566).	Battersby argues that cultural critique must come from within a shared cultural framework, making cross-cultural criticism possible through intercultural standards and values.
“To have a thought or a world to talk about or be aware of, we must of necessity participate in systems of rationality” (567).	This line underscores Battersby’s belief that rationality is fundamental to human experience, supporting his idea that humanism is essential for meaningful engagement with the world.
“Those who would deny the enduring value and significance of humanism… implicate themselves in pragmatic inconsistency” (567).	Battersby concludes that attempts to refute humanism are self-contradictory, as such denials still rely on the rational, intentional systems that humanism encompasses.

Suggested Readings: “The Inescapability of Humanism” by James L. Battersby

1. Battersby, James L. “The Inescapability of Humanism.” College English, vol. 58, no. 5, 1996, pp. 555–67. JSTOR, https://doi.org/10.2307/378756. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
2. Rae, Gavin. “Re-Thinking the Human: Heidegger, Fundamental Ontology, and Humanism.” Human Studies, vol. 33, no. 1, 2010, pp. 23–39. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/40981088. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
3. Wolff, Ernst. “Levinas’ Post-Anti-Humanist Humanism: Humanism of the Other.” Political Responsibility for a Globalised World: After Levinas’ Humanism, transcript Verlag, 2011, pp. 105–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv1xxsvc.10. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.
4. Manne, Kate. “Humanism: A Critique.” Social Theory and Practice, vol. 42, no. 2, 2016, pp. 389–415. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24871349. Accessed 13 Nov. 2024.