“neoconservatives.” In both his defensernof literary (non)theory and his critique ofrnliberal moral and political epistemology,rnFish presents arguments that arc notrnjust friendly toward conservativernthought, but are themselves expressionsrnof the best of conservative reasoning.rnFish is perhaps best known as one ofrnthe founders of so-called “ReaderrnResponse Theory,” usually caricaturedrnas something like “texts have no inherentlyrnobjective meaning and thereforernmean whatever the reader wants them tornmean.” This is, of course, tantamount tornsaying that texts have no meaning at all,rna blatantly nihilistic position that Fish isrnoften accused of holding. But, as withrnany difficult and subtle theory, it is easierrnto dismiss a caricature than to engagernthe real thing. This is preciselyrnFish’s charge against contemporary neoconservativernliberals.rnFish’s argument is not that texts havernno meaning, but rather that the meaningrnof the text—any text—is necessarilyrnshaped by the context of the author, asrnwell as by the context of the reader. Itrnmakes no more sense to say that a textrnhas a meaning apart from an interactivernreader than it does to say that a fallingrntree makes a noise if there is no one orrnthing there to hear it. This is no morerncontroversial a position than saying thatrnno text is self-interpreting, a staple of, forrninstance, good Roman Catholic bibhcalrnhermeneutics. As Fish explains it, thernauthor has explicit reasons for writingrnthe text, but he is also molded andrnformed by practices and contexts thatrnhe has not chosen, which give his textrnmeanings that are out of his control.rnThe reader, in turn, is no less encumberedrnby reasons and practices, bothrnknown and unknown, as he reads therntext. And it simply is not possible torndeny that these practices and reasonsrn(rather than some elusive universalistrnReason) have some performative influencernin the writing and the reading ofrnthe text. The ironic answer to his criticsrnon the right is that for Fish a text mayrnmean all sorts of things, but it can neverrnsimply mean whatever the reader wantsrnit to mean. For this would imply that thernreader is capable of abstracting bothrnhimself and the author of the text fromrnthe particular communities of whichrnthey are part.rnImportantly, Fish sees this theory as arnrefutation not of conservatism, but ofrnliberalism, which toils under the delusionrnthat it has found some epistemologicallyrnprivileged position from whichrnit can find objective meaning in terms ofrna universalist rationality. This leads to arnhighly individualist account of reading arntext, which assumes that any rational interpreterrncan find the “objective” meaningrnof the text on his own, apart from anyrninterpretive tradition. While neverrndenying that there is such a thing asrn”truth,” Fish denies that any such privilegedrnposition is possible. Truth, whateverrnit is and whenever it is found, isrnnecessarily found within some communityrnof understanding.rnThis argument is closely connectedrnto Fish’s more political critique of liberalism,rnwhich is presented in two keyrnchapters: the title essay of the book andrn”Liberalism Doesn’t Exist.” Fish is mostrnbrilliant in giving lie to the claim that liberalismrnis a neutral set of procedures,rnrather than a substantive—and thereforernexclusionary—account of the good. Preciselyrnin denying the reality of publicrngoods, liberalism has posited a publicrnview of good and must therefore fashionrnits various moral and political institutionsrnaround that. Free speech, ratherrnthan being a procedural guarantee ofrnaccess to the public arena, must be understoodrnagainst the background ofrnliberalism’s substantive understandingrnof what does and does not constituternpublic good. Free speech is thus a substantivernpolitical expression of liberalrnideology, which necessarily must excludernsome speech-acts.rn”I am not making a recommendation,”rnexplains Fish, “but declaring whatrnI take to be an unavoidable truth. Thatrntruth is not that freedom of speechrnshould be abridged but that freedom ofrnspeech is a conceptual impossibility becausernthe condition of speech’s beingrnfree in the first place is unrealizable.”rnFor the same reason that there is no epistemologicallyrnprivileged position fromrnwhich a text can be read and understoodrnwith perfect “objectivity,” so no speakerrnmay free himself from certain politicalrnand ideological boundaries that he hasrnnot chosen but cannot discard. Thernbackground of any “speech-act” is “notrnan object of [the speaker’s] critical selfconsciousness;rnrather, it constitutes thernfield in which consciousness occurs, andrntherefore the productions of consciousness,rnand specifically speech, will alwaysrnbe political (that is, angled) in waysrnthe speaker cannot know.” Like “textcreating,”rnspeech always happens inrnsome kind of community and is therefore,rnat least to some degree, both constitutivernof and shaped by that community.rnThus, commitment to free speech as arngood in itself is inseparable from commitmentrnto liberal ideology, even byrnthose who would declaim that commitment.rnThe liberal notion of free speechrnpresupposes the radically individualistrnanthropology that characterizes thernworst in liberal moral theory. Moreover,rnideological commitment to free speechrnpresupposes the very worst in liberalrnmoral theory: radical moral relativism.rnThis has important and perhaps ironicrnimplications for conservative criticisms ofrncampus speech codes. Conservativesrnhave no interest in advocating abstractrnfree speech on campus, because “freernspeech” is a liberal “truth-claim” at warrnwith all other claims of truth and there-rnTHE MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR.,rnPLAGIARISM STOK^rnEdited by Theodore Pa|i|>’i”<rnA publication of The RockfordrnInstitute. 107 pages (paper).rnOnly $10 (shipping and handlingrnchiirges included).rnTO ORDER BY CREDIT CARD,rnCALL: 1-800-383-0680 OR SENDrnCHECK OR MONEY ORDERrn(MADE PAYABLE TO THErnROCKI-ORD INSTITUTE} TO:rnKing Book, 9.M North Main Street,rnRockford, IL 61103 (Discountsrnavailable for bulk orders.)rnAUGUST 1994/31rnrnrn