Evaluating Evaluation Strategies: A South African Case Study

Abstract

The recent polemic sparked off by the debate between Stephen Watson and Andries Oliphant in The Weekly Mail (April-May 1989) underscores the fact that the contingency of value judgments coupled with the complexities of a diverse number of critical theories makes it imperative to develop a methodology that will prevent a breakdown in critical discourse and enable the literary historian to identify, classify, and evaluate the subjective value judgments at a particular point in time from a sound philosophical basis. This paper explores the methodological possibilities implied by Shusterman's analysis of the logical status of value judgments by an examination of the evaluative strategies employed by Watson and Oliphant in their respective reviews of SA in Poetry/SA in Poesie.

Opsomming
Die onlangse debat tussen Stephen Watson en Andries Oliphant in The Weekly Mail (April-Mei 1989) onderstreep weereens dat die kontingensie van waardeoordele, tesame met die kompleksiteit van 'n diverse aantal literere teorieë, die ontwikkeling van 'n metodologie noodsaak wat enersyds 'n totale ineenstorting van kritiese diskoers sal verhoed, en andersyds die literere historikus in staat sal stel om vanuit 'n deeglik filosofies-gefundeerde basis die subjektiewe waardeoordele op 'n bepaalde tydstip te identifiseer, klassifiseer en evalueer. Hierdie artikel ondersoek die metodologiese moont­likhede soos geïmpliseer deur Shusterman se analise van die logiese status van waardeoordele deur 'n kritiese ontleding van die evalueringstrategieë wat deur Watson en Oliphant in hulle onderskeie resensies van SA in Poetry/SA in Poesie gebruik word.