Naïve Readings: Reveilles Political and Philosophic by Ralph Lerner (review)

Naïve Readings is an enjoyable series of critical examinations of major historical texts written by a political historian who thinks he has discovered rhetorical analysis. On its dust jacket, Ralph Lerner’s latest book purports to offer “a new method of reading . . . a way toward deeper understanding of some of history’s most important—and most concealed—messages.” A tantalizing endorsement—one that befits Lerner’s distinguished scholarly career. Lerner himself calls the book a “reconsideration” of “our current habits of reading” (2). So, we are led to expect a bold survey of the major thinkers he studies, from Franklin to Tocqueville to Maimonides (no female thinkers are discussed in the book).

There are some major concerns with the book, however. First, Lerner never explains what he means by naïve. Given that this term represents the book’s central justification, the lack of any developed discussion of its meaning and application is puzzling. Second, the readings themselves do not appear to exhibit a new type of analytical approach. To this reviewer, Lerner appears to perform a standard kind of rhetorical analysis.

Regarding the first concern, in its mere 12 appearances in the book, the term naïve (or its variation) is never actually defined. In two instances, Lerner provides short explanations (two to four sentences) of what naïve reading is, but there is no indication of why this form of reading should be called “naïve.” Indeed, the term is often presented as the opposite of what one typically understands naïve to mean. For example, in the introductory chapter, Lerner implores us to become “naïve” readers by understanding “that the way the author shapes a work matters,” everything from its “form” to its “irregularities and idiosyncrasies” (3). Repeatedly, Lerner asks us to recognize that there are knowing choices behind even the most banal details of great texts. Consider this moment from the afterword:

Readers who undertake to approach a text naively . . . must resolve to read slowly. They must be willing to retrace their steps, to pause over irregularities, to attend to seemingly trivial repetitions or near-repetitions, to resist skimming over bland and boring passages.

(219)

This description seems a lot like the basic advice all literature students get early during their undergraduate career. From start to finish, Naïve Readings seems to call for the opposite of naïve reading.

In my efforts to better understand Lerner’s meaning, I was obliged to do my own outside research. Sure enough, all definitions of naïve emphasize a lack of awareness, judgment, insight, and access to information. I also came across a 2010 New York Times Opinionator essay by Robert Pippen, a philosopher who is a colleague of Lerner’s at Chicago, that calls for “naïve reading.” Pippen uses justifications similar to those of Lerner, only with far more clarity and development. For Pippen, naïve reading means the eschewing of formal methodologies and preconceived critical theories. It means close attention to the details and aesthetic elements of the text and its context—both its historical context as well as the context set up within the literary artifact itself. It also requires a careful sensitivity of the reader to determine how the elements of the text interact. It is strange that Lerner does not cite Pippen. After all, Pippen’s essay motivated an interesting—if short-lived—debate on the merits of “naïve reading.” For example, The MLA’s Kathleen Fitzpatrick responded to Pippen on her blog in partly the same way I respond to Lerner—namely, that such reading cannot really be called “naïve.”

So, we are left to infer from Lerner’s analyses what he means by “naïve,” which leads to my second main concern with the book. Even in Lerner’s cogent, well-researched discussion of these artifacts, we do not find rich, new ways to approach complex texts. For instance, in the chapter about Jefferson...