Just because someone refers to a particular author who has written a secondary literature book/paper.....
Does it mean that they necessarily agree with everything that the author says in that book/paper or elsewhere?
Does it necessarily mean that they know and admire that writer?
No, it doesn't.
Every researcher shows the process they have gone through by citing what they have been reading and analysing. This demonstrates how these sources have informed their research in a variety of ways. Referencing is not simply a system for declaring whose ideas you have used when agreeing and disagreeing with secondary literature and so on. It is standard, modern practice to cite for a range of reasons, such as showing where you learnt a specific piece of information that isn't common knowledge. Referencing for a broad range of reasons also has the advantage that your readers benefit from seeing the huge amount of time you have taken to search for, obtain and read the scholarship before analysing and assessing it while constructing your arguments and interpretations.
My citation and research practice is perhaps very complex because it is based on detailed study guides and recommendations for university students (UG and Post-Grad including for PhD theses). Surely everyone has read these, so I tend to assume this! In addition, I have also undertaken various post-graduate courses as well as professional training courses in publishing (including a specific, technical one on referencing skills). Hence, I perhaps cite many more sources that I have read than the average researcher. Thus, my references and citations do not reflect those with whom I merely agree or disagree. It is a more nuanced approach. I'm showing where my thoughts or ideas came from. Showing the roots of a tree, as it were. Just as you don't see the full roots of a tree, if at all, so you don't see where someone's idea sprang from if they don't explain it which makes the process appear more mysterious than it is. And why is that important? Because it means that the reader learns how I draw on others work in my background reading and where my inspiration comes from. Much like an artist can be inspired by a work of art in the past and draw upon it to create their own original artwork so an academic researcher does much the same.
The idea, for instance, does not have to be the same as mine for me to cite it. Just as a work of art might prompt me to produce something completely different from the original source of inspiration so an idea can spark off an unrelated thought. All I'm doing by citing the source of my inspiration is to show what I was reading when certain ideas occurred to me (if indeed I was reading something as opposed to just thinking). Hence, I may cite a sentence simply because there is a small point it makes, or a few words the author uses, which are vaguely relevant to the point I wish to make or an argument I wish to present. The author's aim may well be very different from mine or their argument and even whole stance may be nothing like mine, but I will cite them anyway.
Readers can, if they wish, search the same sources I have read and read it for themselves. They then may develop the source in a completely different way from me. That doesn't mean one of us is right and the other wrong, it merely means we've drawn inspiration from the same source and have made different connections.
I don't check who most of the scholars are, for example, their political views, or their ethics. It's not possible to wade through everything they have ever written to check for the slightest thing that I don't like about them, their values or ideas because it could result in missing the good points they have made so reducing my overall general knowledge and argument. Besides, scholars may add different views later I couldn't know about at the time I was writing, some even change their mind and argue for the opposite of what they previously claimed. If I only refer to scholars I like that would be censorship and constitute poor research and scholarship. I can't 'doctor' what I read according to who the person is, if indeed, I can find out who the person is. This applies across the board no matter what my research focus is, e.g. a topic such as empathy, or philosophers such as Cavendish or Shepherd so the examples of Scruton and Nadler here are not exhaustive. This citation approach also applies to translators of Spinoza's Latin texts. In the end, I prioritise my own translation from the Latin.📚
Hence, I'm not especially selective about which secondary literature I read on a topic, philosopher, or text for many reasons (a few of which I give below) because it is all part of the process of research:
One: secondary literature is a source of general knowledge about a field and a way of generating inspiration for your own original ideas
Secondary literature is mostly about gaining general knowledge of what various types of scholarship, interpretations and academic thought is out there. I was once asked: do you only read material you agree with or do you also look at arguments you disagree with? My answer was that I have always read just about everything, irrespective of whether I agree with it or not, in order to analyse a subject from every angle and perspective. I can potentially build on any argument I read, for instance, either by furthering it or by criticising it. How would one construct a contra without gaining some perspective on the opposing stance? How can I assess whether my argument stands up to potential future assessment, questions or criticisms if I haven't considered other views before rejecting them for my own stance? 🤔
Two: obtaining secondary literature
There are practicalities to factor in when carrying out research. I cannot access the entire body of secondary literature that anybody has ever written on Spinoza (or anyone else for that matter). Articles are often behind paywalls, I cannot buy every book that has ever been published, and some material is out of print and unavailable to buy. Publishers can relegate published books to collect dust in a warehouse (often irrespective of the author's wishes) and even good bookshops can find it hard or impossible to order and obtain these copies on request. So not everything published is on a shelf or even in stock on the internet. I've sometimes found that books published recently, within the last few decades, have essentially vanished from bookshop shelves or online.
Libraries are not the solution either. Only various types of academic libraries have a broad range of secondary literature books (unlike regular public libraries which have limited choice) but many of them charge very high membership fees. Nevertheless, even they do not stock all the books I require for my research ideas or provide online access to enough various non-open access websites hosting journal articles, books or publishers. There is not much added value for me, as an independent researcher, when academic libraries want membership fees that also include access to standardly available books and online resources I can freely obtain for myself from top academic online systems which choose to be inclusive rather than favour those with an institutional affiliation. And some specialist libraries have elaborate processes to complete before accessing their materials, which takes time away from other important aspects of research. Of course, as an independent researcher, my access to secondary literature scholarship is generally far more restricted than it is for affiliated researchers.
However, I still found that even when I did have full institutional access (to both my wider university's main library and my particular uni college's library plus their online access) to scholarly publications while a university student, I could not obtain any source I needed or wanted to develop my original ideas. This was, and still is, especially prevalent when searching for historical texts, despite also searching through other, non-university institutions' online library catalogues too! So I haven't found that institutional access to resources has solved my research needs. Hence, I read whatever I can get my hands on! One way I have done this is through one of my favourite pastimes: hunting through secondhand bookshops and discounted bargain book sections, online and in bookshops. And I often kick-start my reading by starting with introductory books and guidebooks.
In terms of Spinoza, I came across Scruton's 1986 Introduction to Spinoza in a second hand section in a bookshop. I knew nothing about Scruton, the man, I just knew that he was a philosopher. Do I agree with everything he writes in his introduction? Certainly not! Later, in discovering more about him, I decidedly did not like his stance on things whether in this introductory book or elsewhere in his writings.
For more on Scruton and how his views are so very different from mine, see:
https://philosophythoughtsasandwhen.blogspot.com/2021/05/speaking-as-woke-philosopher.html
Three: censorship of reading material
I do not censor my reading of secondary literature according to whether or not I happen to be aware of things I may not agree with about a philosopher, their views, their life story or their scholarship. Obviously, I do prioritise and de-prioritise works I'm prepared to read and examine, especially as part of my research. If I did not, I would be researching the same small point for eternity and lose the focus of my argument.
But that doesn't mean I have changed my mind about the passages Scruton wrote and the historical facts he sheds light on which sparked off my original theory/interpretation of Spinoza. This is merely part of a referencing etiquette everyone (especially recent UG and Post-Grad university students) should be familiar with. If you learn some information (including factual info) from a passage of secondary literature, then you cite it as support for your own stance/argument, irrespective of whether you agree with the author's views or not. Especially when, as was the case with the passages I cited from Scruton, the information in his book is specific and not commonly found in other sources.
It also gave me the confidence to take the Jewish dimension further than anyone else. Others had tackled the Jewish aspect of Spinoza so I knew I was on the right track but no-one wanted to present Spinoza as an Orthodox Jew writing within an orthodox tradition. I also read in her preface to her book on Spinoza that Professor Susan James had no intention of going down the Jewish route so I knew we wouldn't overlap at all. She had invented a new theory of her own and I didn't want to tread on her toes. It's about respect for other researchers and scholars in your field. You don't take over their theory and try to outshine them either by unfairly producing yours first through the advantage of professional status or by having a theory too similar to theirs. So, of course, my thesis was going to be very different from Susan James's because I respect her unique contribution to the study of Spinoza. Nevertheless, I wanted to contribute to Spinozean research by presenting Spinoza in a slightly different light than before with respect to who he was and what his overall stance on religion, politics and ethics was in his various writings.
Four: you never know what might spark an idea 💡
Scholarship or even just a specialist magazine article can trigger all sorts of research questions and arguments for me, irrespective of how passionately I agree or disagree with the content of it. There are many approaches I can take, depending on the content and style of the reading material or secondary literature. Here's just 2 examples: 1) I could flesh out the points or arguments, either to demonstrate where I think they have gone amiss or to show that it fits well with my stance. 2) Alternatively, I can show how a passage supports my argument, even if the author's views are different from mine.
Having read secondary literature sources, the next obvious question is: how do I decide to refer to which passages and authors?
If I definitely don't wish to open up a whole, specific research field then I won't read books and articles on it during my researching process because it will drag the focus of my research off-piste were I to incorporate them. For instance, relating Spinoza to German Philosophy or Idealism, as some philosophers do and encourage others to do too, would be totally irrelevant for me. Also, I would then need to spend a lot of time analysing those texts so that I am just as knowledgeable about those other philosophers or topics. But then I'd have to be careful that those areas of my books or papers don't misfire or start to meander.
Another example that comes to mind was some peer review I received on an academia session I started, that suggested I should incorporate Aristotle in my Empathy Project, despite my project building on McKinnon, who is less than positive about the sexism around Aristotle's philosophy! This is when I learnt that peer review is not especially helpful because their suggestions all too often merely reflect the peer reviewer's own stances and biases, rather than truly appreciate what I, or any author, is trying to say and work with that. By doing this, they may introduce inconsistencies into a researcher's work that weren't originally there! This could also weaken an argument and leave it open to easily won criticism.
This is where Professor Susan James's approach is so spot on, whether asking questions, answering questions or assessing a philosophical stance. She makes the effort to understand what a philosopher is trying to say and work with that, staying internally consistent with it, not suggesting irrelevant or biased opinions or literature or trying to use it to peddle her own stance. She actually gets to the nugget, asks the right sort of question that gently nudges the point forward. It often looks like a simple point but, should the philosopher build on it, it would definitely improve their paper and significantly strengthen what they are aiming to do, because it prompts and challenges. The researcher should then able to spring off from her feedback to think about and assess their own work! It opens a kernel and you need to stop and think because there's a well of ideas to explore that come flooding into one's mind (or at least should do if you are listening properly!) to chew on for ages later. She asks questions I find myself thinking deeply about ever after, even though it was a question for someone else and isn't necessarily directly relevant to my research at that precise moment in time. Now there's a woman after my own heart! 🙂❤
Returning to my citation topic, you have to read carefully to spot why I have cited or referred to someone. There's a world of difference between how I've cited Scruton and Nadler, and how I've cited, Susan James.
With, for instance, Scruton and Nadler, I take an isolated point and then I run with it in a very different direction from how they think about the topic or philosopher. I'm not interested in their interpretation or stance, I'm just showing my reader what sources I used when developing my thesis. I cited Nadler in a broad way. I referred to a few comments he wrote to show what I had read, what I was springing off from. I did not cite him because I am making the same point as him; or because his interpretation of Spinoza is the same or similar to mine; or because I thought he would possibly agree with my development of Spinoza and Judaism; or because I am building on his comment in a way that he had in mind. Nadler's interpretation of Spinoza is irrelevant to mine. I had already begun my Jewish interpretation before reading his work so I would have formulated my interpretation in the same way had I not read it or if he hadn't written it. But the reasons for my reference to him stands, such as citing his somewhat throw-away written comment that researchers don't analyse the Jewish aspect of Spinoza enough so it's a gap in research. Nadler does not specify how those current and future interpretations could or should look. So any Jewish interpretation can fill this research gap, therefore mine does too. It's called academic freedom. 👍📚🙂☕
And even so, I tweaked my interpretation a little later, going from seeing Spinoza as being similar to what nowadays is called a Reform Jew to seeing him as firmly within, and consistent with, Orthodox Judaism. There's no such thing as total conformity or one view within anything, Orthodox Judaism isn't any different. One of Spinoza's Rabbis was liberally-minded but that didn't make him what today we would call a Liberal Jew.
It is when I thought more deeply about Susan James's historical context argument/stance in her 2011 book on Spinoza and her Royal Institute of Philosophy paper presented 2014 that, when I found additional historical facts about Spinoza's Rabbis and kept re-reading his texts, I decided my interpretation would be even more accurate and consistent by understanding him as an Orthodox Jew. So my interpretation of Spinoza is still following on from her interpretation and building on her historical, contextual, analytic approach, for instance, his life experiences, the Dutch context, and incorporating history in my books to, like her, support my philosophical points. I'm just narrower in scope, for example, only looking at small sections which draw out his philosophy or illustrate my argument; only referring to certain events in Dutch politics/society which support my point, such as the deWitts incident; examining the role of the Dutch synagogue he attended and the Rabbis he met in the Netherlands. So we complement each other - if you were to read our work alongside each other then you get a fuller picture of Spinoza because we are covering different sides of the same coin. And don't get distracted by the Latin and my use of it to elucidate my argument! We are on the same page and to think we're not is merely wishful thinking, by some!
