In his greatest work, The
Interpretation of Dreams, Sigmund Freud introduces an extremely useful
concept, “overdetermination,” that previously had found employment only in
mathematics. Using his signature
therapeutic technique of free association, Freud would lead his patients to
engage in spontaneous unedited verbal association to elements in the dreams they
reported to him, revealing thereby repressed contents of the mind. By this means, Freud was able to get at the
unacknowledged memories, wishes, fears, and libidinal urges whose presence in
the patient’s unconscious were the causes of his or her neuroses.
Because it was impossible to anticipate what associations
would be triggered by a dream element [“Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar,” he
once remarked sardonically], Freud would persist until either each dream
element had yielded up its associations or else the flow of associations simply
had run dry.
As he conducted his clinical work, Freud made an odd and
fascinating discovery. On occasion, he
found, an element in a dream would trigger a series of associations that completely
explained the presence of the element in the dream, but would then continue to
yield new associations that resulted in a second completely adequate
explanation of the dream element. This
dream element, Freud said, was not simply determined
by the materials revealed through the associations; it was overdetermined. Its presence in the dream had two independent
explanations, each one all by itself sufficient to explain that presence.
The mathematical analogue is a system of linear equations in
which there are more equations than unknowns [for example a system of five
equations with three unknowns.] As those
familiar with a little math know, such a system has a consistent solution only
if the equations are not linearly independent.
[Louis Althusser, by the way, in his discussion of Marx’s supposed economic
determinism, screws this up by using “overdetermined” to mean “multiply determined”
or “determined by several cooperating causes,” a fact that I tried without
success to point out to my UMass friends and colleagues Richard Wolff and
Stephen Resnick.]
All of which, it may perhaps surprise you to learn, brings
me to my decision to resign my full professorship in the Columbia University
Philosophy Department in 1971 and transfer to the University of Massachusetts,
where I spent the remaining thirty-seven years of my fifty year teaching
career. As I settle comfortably into my
eighties, I find, reflecting on the arc of my life, that my decision to leave
Columbia was genuinely overdetermined.
At the time, I thought I understood quite clearly why my first
wife, Cynthia Griffin Wolff, and I decided to move to Western
Massachusetts. Our first choice as a
place to work and live had always been Boston, but that did not work out. Neither of us was thrilled with New York, but
we both had good jobs, and we were both undergoing psychoanalysis, so we
settled for Manhattan in the middle sixties.
In ‘66 we bought a summer home in the Berkshires, and then in ’68 our
first son, Patrick, was born. Upon
arriving in New York in ’64, we had moved into a Columbia-owned apartment half
a block from the campus that can best be described as upscale-slum. Only in New York would a senior member of an
Ivy League university department feel grateful for such digs. We knew that we did not want to raise Patrick
in a Manhattan apartment, arranging play dates, hesitating to buy him a bike,
and worrying about schooling. Then in
the summer of ’69, when Cynthia was again pregnant and we were taking daily
drives from our Berkshire house to nearby Northampton so that Cynthia could get
a Big Mac [the only thing she could keep down with morning sickness], we
happened upon a magical little street called Barrett Place where we were
clearly meant to live. Later that summer
a beautiful three story brick Federal style house on Barrett Place came on the
market. Without a moment’s hesitation, we
bought it the day we saw it, sold our summer home two days later and – if you
can believe it – only then commenced looking for jobs in Western Massachusetts! Two years later, we both transferred to
UMass.
I was of course well aware that a move from Columba to UMass
would be viewed by the academic world as déclassé. Indeed, I
even joked that whereas people had been saying “Boy, Bob Wolff must be pretty
good, he is at Columbia,” now perhaps they would say “Boy, UMass must be pretty
good, Bob Wolff is there.” I also knew
that at UMass I would be deprived of entrée to the Upper West Side circle of
Public Intellectuals, which I was being offered in the late ‘60s. But that was not a world I very much lusted
for. Indeed, my principal concern was
that although in ’71 the teaching load at UMass, like that at Columbia, was two
courses a semester, a big underfunded state university might find itself forced
to go to three courses a semester. I was
willing to accept that [though it never happened in the subsequent four
decades.]
So we moved into our beautiful house on Barrett Place with
Patrick and now Tobias. In time, the
boys got bicycles, which they rode freely all over town. They went to the local schools, I spent three
years as Cubmaster of the Northampton Cub Scouts, I even ran for town school committee
[and lost by twelve votes]. Never once
did I regret leaving Columbia.
And that is a complete explanation of my decision. But with the benefit of almost half a century
of hindsight, I now realize that it is not the only complete explanation, for
my decision, as Freud would have said, was overdetermined. The best way I can explain this is by reference
to a wonderful 1991 movie, Tous les
Matins du Monde, which features both Gerard Depardieu and his son. The movie centers on the life of the great 17th
century viola da gamba player Monsieur de Sainte-Colombe, played by the French actor
Jean-Pierre Marielle [who had a small part in The Da Vinci Code.]. After
Sainte-Colombe’s beautiful young wife dies, leaving him with two young little
daughters, he withdraws from the world to his country estate and devotes
himself entirely to perfecting his musicianship. He has a little hut built on the grounds of
the estate where, for long hours each day, he practices, experimenting with a
seventh string on his instrument and inventing new phrases and techniques of
playing. He refuses an invitation to
play for Louis XIV at Versailles and plays in public only for the local gentry.
When a young man comes to him asking for
lessons [this is Depardieu’s son], he sends him away, saying that although the
young man may have a successful career at court, he is no musician. Sainte-Colombe does not even deign to publish
the compositions he has written, considering them merely exercises.
Looking back on my life, I realize that in leaving Columbia
and the center of academic life, I was in a very small way doing what
Sainte-Colombe did – withdrawing from the public world with its seductions,
rewards, and demands, so that I could pursue the ideas in my head wherever they
might lead me, regardless of their reception by the larger world. Now, this is of course embarrassingly self-aggrandizing,
but all of us, I think, look to literature for an understanding of our own
unimportant lives. Who among us has not
felt some kinship with Elizabeth Bennett or Julien Sorel or Juliet or Ivan
Karamazov -- or Alexander Portnoy? As
the years passed in Western Massachusetts, I died away to the academic profession,
ceasing to attend annual meetings, no longer “keeping up” with the journal literature,
receiving fewer and fewer speaking invitations, until finally I became quite
convinced that other philosophers thought I had died [a suspicion reinforced by
Wikipedia, whose page on me, when it first appeared, began with the words “Robert
Paul Wolff was …”]
I was quite content with this state of affairs, and even
moved from a Philosophy Department to a Department of Afro-American Studies for
the final sixteen years of my teaching career.
As I look back, I can see quite clearly that leaving Columbia
in 1971 was one of the best decisions of my life. And quite clearly, it was overdetermined.
Now is the autumn of our content. (or *Leaving Civilization and its Contents*)
ReplyDelete1971 was a good year for dropping out. Younger people may not understand that.
ReplyDeleteI dropped out of Columbia graduate school (English and Comparative Literature) in 1970. I've never looked back.
I took the road the less traveled by (as did you), although I certainly did not see it in those terms 46 years ago.
It's hard to say whether I made a good decision, since the person I am now is a result of that decision and the values that I have now are a result of that decision and thus, I judge that decision with values that I would not have if I had not made that decision.
I always wondered why you left Columbia for UMass and whether you taught the famous Kant course at UMass. Now I know the answer to the first question (2 answers, actually). I will wait patiently for the answer to the second.
ReplyDelete