[Discussion] Theorizing Myopia

[Gonul]

For NEMLA, 2004
Theorizing Myopia

Myopia, or nearsightedness, has been used as a metaphor for the =
inability to see in such fields as marketing, finance, for example, =
where it often signifies a kind of blindness or blind spot and not what
=
it actually is--vision that is in some way impaired.  Blindness, in =
fact, differs from myopia in that it is total darkness, and as developed
=
by Paul de Man, capable of lifting momentarily to provide a moment of =
overwhelming critical vision.  Myopia, on the other hand, is not capable
=
of switching on and off; it highlights what is in the foreground, and =
blurs what is in the distance, noticed by critics in the paintings of =
C=E9zanne and Monet, for example, who were said to be myopic. =20
It has been widely held that myopia is genetic, passed down from =
forbears, and that the myopic individual had no recourse but to remain =

that way and most likely chose occupations like those that necessitate a
=
great deal of reading or that required close work .  Holistic health =
care practitioners as well as medical researchers, basing their premises
=
on the work of early 20th century physician, Dr. William Bates, claim in
=
various ways that myopia may be caused by the subject's own mental =
properties, and that activities like reading caused the myopia rather =
than became favored because of it.  Some propose that there is a myopic
=
personality, a resistance to progress and futurity, suggesting that the
=
literal deficiency of vision is linked with a metaphoric incapacity. =20

This session seeks papers that will explore myopia, nearsightedness, as
=
a trope in literature-author, work, character, genre, audience, =
critic-and/or speculate whether it is an aberrant condition or a defense
=
against metaphoric blindness.

Please send 1-page abstracts by September 15, 2003

ddeluise@erols.com (preferred)

 or=20

 Professor Dolores DeLuise

Department of English

BMCC/CUNY

199 Chambers Street

New York, NY  10007