My position is simply this; if we lived in a less exploitative world, in which one could contemplate one's privileged life as other than contingent upon the misery that must pay for it elsewhere, then literature might be enjoyed for its own sake, for its wonderful aesthetic (notwithstanding that all texts are political). As it is, literature is both the ground of contention and the antidote, both sententious and salubrious; the discourse "is" the aesthetic. Great literature is just a commodity, and its assimilation cultural capital if the reader doesn't examine her own life according to its lights.
I think it's unfair to dismiss deconstruction as "negative"; Derrida didn't see it that way. It was via deconstruction that we have been able to expose our grand historical narratives as pure hubris.
There is nothing wrong with excellence, except if it's pursued for its own sake. I don't believe excellence to be a fleeting illusion, because for me there "are" universals and essentials--which are what make Shakespeare's sonnets great apart from their intricacy.
It's not the vulgarity of the bourgeoisie that I object to, it's the illusion of an insular little world of pleasant sensation they're coddled in. Of course in a sense there is no such thing as a bourgeoisie, as your last quote implies (debatable), yet the impact of it's collective demands make it just that. Solzhenitsyn is saying that it's the human heart that must be reformed--but is each human heart peculiar to itself, or is it the product of culture? Can individual reform occur in Sodom and Gomorrah, or must the culture be reformed first?
If your charges analyse texts in this way, I'm satisfied.

>if we lived in a less exploitative world
Every political ism and ology and every religion has been hijacked by human nature. Leftist and rightist utopias have all failed. The key to a "less exploitative world", if such is attainable, is in personal morality, not grand narratives.

>one could contemplate one's privileged life as other than contingent upon the misery that must pay for it elsewhere
Is life a zero-sum game? Russian "repentant noblemen" saw it thus. Not the whole story.

>all texts are political
Yes, even Nick Earls'. I loathe his for their hedonistic empty-headed conservatism! I remember Manning Clark once asking a tutorial: under what circumstances does a country produce a great literature? Social and political tensions must be part of that. But don’t you see also a place for Lewis Carroll's Alice books, enjoyable quite outside those grand issues?

>Great literature is just a commodity, and its assimilation cultural capital ...
Very one-dimensional economic view.

>...if the reader doesn't examine HER own life
Gratuitous feminist crap!

>It was via deconstruction that we have been able to expose our grand historical narratives as pure hubris.
Postmodernism has done us service by showing the need for more scepticism. GB Shaw (not a postmod!) said it right:
1. “He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.” [Caesar and Cleopatra]
2. "What is wrong with priests and popes is that instead of being apostles and saints, they are nothing but empirics who say 'I know' instead of 'I am learning', and pray for credulity and inertia as wise men pray for scepticism and activity."

>is each human heart peculiar to itself, or is it the product of culture? Can individual reform occur in Sodom and Gomorrah, or must the culture be reformed first?
Yes a product, but not only; AND there is free will:
“It seems to me that the meaning of a person’s life consists in proving to himself every minute that he’s a person and not a piano key.” – Fyodor Dostoyevsky (Notes from the Underground, Chapter 8)

Glorfindel
You seem very sure of yourself. I, on the other hand, am not.
Personal morality is surely no key to a less exploitative world unless it "become" a grand narrative?

Yes, poor old Onegin saw it as such. I couldn’t say. I just meant that consciousness of such contingency surely spoils the fun?

Yes, I suppose we all need diversion—as long as we don’t live by it!

You truncate what I say in the next and wilfully (it seems) misread me. My point was neither gratuitous, feminist nor economic. Perhaps I was too subtle?

I’m a big fan of GB (I might even be related), and I doubt that you, or even he, is more sceptical than I.

As for the rest, we seem mostly in agreement. Did I give the impression I subscribed to constructivist culturalism?

“Yes a product, but not only; AND there is free will”
A soul then? Or are we talking Kantian free will to be moral?

I can accept most of this, but my point remains that the condition humaine demands engagement beyond privileged self-indulgence.

“Men and women do not live by culture alone, the vast majority of them throughout history have been deprived of the chance of living by it at all, and those few who are fortunate enough to live by it now are able to do so because of the labour of those who do not. Any cultural or critical theory which does not begin with this simple most important fact, and hold it steadily in mind in its activities, is in my view unlikely to be worth very much. There is no document of culture which is not also a record of barbarism” (Eagleton, taking liberties with Benjamin).

Having just re-read Jay's piece, it strikes me as even more supercilious than it did on first acquaintance. This kind of self-importance belongs to a different age. The "absolutely crucial role" of the critic is mere rationalisation for a sinecure. At least GB Shaw was a prolific creative genius as well--oops, I just fell into one of Jay's stereotypes. I think criticdom should be preserved for those who have done the hard yards--and I'm not talking graduate school--just as ex-cricketers legitimately gravitate to the commentary box. As a puffed up critic from another age once said: "a book is like a mirror; if a monkey looks in, an apostle can't look out".
Perhaps you should enter the fray, Jay, and put me in my place.
I feel a little guilty about this cruel assault, but a critic's got to be able to take it as well as give it.

I totally agree with Squeers that "a critic's got to be able to take it as well as give it". I disagree with the suggestion that my "creativity" - my right to write, if you like - extends only to my enrolment in the humanities school of a sandstone university.

This kind of suggestion indicates: (a) That Squeers' knowledge of my work extends to my brief 'author's bio', and (b) the academic-bashing that John Howard's government fostered during their eleven years in power is still alive and well.

For the record, I am not an 'academic'. I have tutored in universities, but I have also worked in fields as diverse as marketing, insurance, and the public service. I wonder if this will sustain the stereotype of the sheltered young scholar preaching "identity politics" and "political correctness" in the "ivory tower"?

Hey, first time I've been dissed by an elf-lord of Rivendell. Thanks Glorfindel.

Good luck with your contribution to the planet.