Apology to Susan Neiman
Also: “Visual Thinking: Art as a Form of Thought” by Hanneke Grootenboer
Dear all,
In Nathan Oseroff-Spicer’s review of Left Is Not Woke by Susan Neiman that we published last week, an accusation of plagiarism was made at the end of the review. The accusation has proven to be totally unfounded. Nathan and I have both apologised to Professor Neiman and I will work to improve our review process to ensure that nothing like this happens again. Professor Neiman wrote me this letter:
Normally I don’t respond to reviews, but the accusation of plagiarism is not a disagreement but an imputation of a crime. In his review of my book Left is not Woke, Mr. Oseroff-Spicer writes:
Neiman’s book is based on a 2022 talk she gave in Cambridge titled “Why Left is Not Woke”. Much of the content in her book is taken directly from the 2022 talk, with some interesting exceptions..… Neiman received a copy of all the responses to her Cambridge talk, with some of Buxton’s comments incorporated into Neiman’s text, albeit without crediting Buxton. For instance, Buxton’s “I agree with Susan [Neiman], pace Audre Lorde, that sometimes we need the master’s tools” becomes Neiman’s “But pace Audre Lorde, sometimes you need the master’s tools to dismantle the master’s house”…it is my hope that Rebecca Buxton receives at the very least a mention in the acknowledgements if Left Is Not Woke should ever see a second printing.
The implication that I would quote a younger commentator’s ideas without attribution is a serious one. Had the reviewer read more carefully, he might have noticed the fulsome acknowledgement made to the youngest commentator, Samuel Zeitlin, whose suggestions were most helpful, and perhaps concluded that borrowing without acknowledgement is not the sort of thing I do. But it is even more astonishing that Mr. Oseroff-Spicer does not see that his accusation refutes itself. If Buxton writes that she agrees with me, it is clear that she is quoting me – in this case from my original lecture. Is he suggesting that I should have quoted her quoting me?
So many similar misreadings mar this review that it is impossible to answer them all.
Susan Neiman
The passage in question has now been removed and Professor Neiman’s letter has been included at the end of the review. My sincere apologies to Professor Neiman for any distress this may have caused, as well as to our readers and supporters who expect better of us.
Your Sunday Read
“Visual Thinking: Art as a Form of Thought”: What, asks art historian Hanneke Grootenboer, is visual thinking? As she explores in this unusual and beautiful essay, this question is at the heart of an ongoing debate on the relation between art and philosophy whose roots can be traced to the early modern era. Taking in a range of thinkers from Aristotle and Horace through to Adorno, Deleuze, and Heidegger, Grootenboer defends the idea that painting as way of guiding thought. As she writes: “If one needs a dwelling place to start thinking, an artwork can serve as a kind of shelter where thinking can take place.” You can read her essay here.
And here are a couple of the "pensive images" Hanneke discusses in her essay:
Wishing you all a lovely Sunday, wherever you are.
Anthony Morgan
Editor