A reflection on "The Essayification of Everything"

Christy Wampole, an assistant professor of French at Princeton University, wrote an interesting piece today in the online New York Times, entitled "The Essayification of Everything."In it, she explores the origins of the modern essay, commonly attributed to Michel de Montaigne and Francis Bacon, and goes on to suggest that, "the genre and its spirit provide an alternative to the dogmatic thinking that dominates much of social and political life in contemporary America."

According to Wampole, the word "essay" comes from the French word Essais, which in Montaigne's day meant "attempt." An essay was therefore an attempt at puzzling over a topic or question. The essayist looked for answers without always finding any. The strength of the form was not its capacity for determining truth, but rather the progression of thought it inspired. In this respect, an essay is a bit like a walk, in which the experience is as important if not more than the destination. As Wampole quips, an essay "...impels you to face the undecidable. It asks you to get comfortable with ambivalence."

Wampole argues this attitude runs contrary to polarizing influences in society and politics today. "...for many," she writes, "the certainty with which the dogmatists make their pronouncements feels increasingly like a bothersome vestige of the past. We can either cling rigidly to dissolving categories or we can let ambivalence wash over us, allowing its tide to carry us toward new life configurations that were inconceivable even 20 years ago."

In a similar vein she later writes:

"Today, unresolved issues of class, race, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation and other categories have created a volatile social dynamic, and, with our current economic instability to boot, it is no wonder that throwing oneself wholeheartedly toward any particular idea or endeavor seems a risky proposition to many of us."

This skepticism is a big reason why I find Wampole's piece interesting. She seems to channel the spirit of Montaigne's essays--epoché, or suspension of judgment-- into contemporary issues of social and political life. Yet I'm not sure that skepticism of this variety is the answer to dogmatism Wampole hopes. The very same technology and interconnectedness that make this suspension of judgment useful in a dynamic world also makes it easier to isolate one's self from other's arguments and points of view. The Internet affords almost anyone today the ability to read and talk with people who share many things in common, without ever coming into contact with those who hold contrary views. If the essay compels one to "get comfortable with ambiguity," this capacity to live in self-imposed bubble of opinion is liable to lead to a very different end.

Nonetheless Wampole provides an interesting perspective on the subject. A rapidly-changing world such as our own is liable to require an openness to novelty that belies the certainty of rigid ideologies. I think the message here is that our opinions have importance, but perhaps we should take them--and ourselves--less seriously.