October 12, 2001

6:10 PM

Why Do They Hate Us? A fine essay by Robert Tracinski about the mindset of university intellectuals. The closing line sums it up concisely; "It is the job of university intellectuals to understand, to transmit and to defend the intellectual achievements of 2,500 years of Western civilization. We can now see clearly that today's academics have betrayed that sacred trust. We must seek out better guardians of reason and progress."
posted by Oxydude (44 comments total)

"We must seek out better guardians of reason and progress."

Right. They should have large pecks, and huge muscles, they shall be clothed in toga-style outfits and be given pointy sticks to keep the dweebs out.

Ayan Rand institute is always a sane voice of reason. Nuclear annihilation of Afghanistan is the ONLY possible solution! NUKE THEM NOW! NOW!
posted by tiaka at 6:25 PM on October 12, 2001

Today's academics follow a different tradition, an anti-Enlightenment backlash that began nearly 300 years ago with the philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, who lauded the "noble savage" uncorrupted by civilization. It continued with Immanuel Kant, who declared his intention to "deny reason in order to make room for faith."

Rousseau and Kant as "anti-Enlightenment? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....

oh, that's a doozy. The man's a muppet. And I don't mean Bert.
posted by holgate at 6:28 PM on October 12, 2001

But if these academics are so concerned about repressive regimes — why would they seek to protect the Middle East's worst dictatorships: Afghanistan, Iran, Iraq? If they revere "equality," why aren't they demanding an end to the Taliban regime, which regards women as less than slaves?

Hell of an essay there, with the obvious exception that it's clearly bullshit. I don't know if Tracinski read the rest of the Chomsky essay that he quoted, but I believe it explicitly called for an end to oppressive regimes everywhere. Unfortunately for his standing in the eyes of Bob Tracinski, Chomsky chose to support more peaceful, diplomatic means for ending said oppression.

So far here at NYU I've attended 7 lectures about the 'Mid-east' situation since the attacks, three fronted by faculty from the politics department, and the remaining four by members of the Middle Eastern Studies department, and not one of them could be described as any less than perfectly unbiased or favoritist towards any of the various opinions held about the causes and solutions of this matter, which is a great deal more than I can say about the inflammatory rhetoric I just read.

The professors that I've had contact aren't the flag-burning America haters that the ever idiotic Tracinski makes them out to be. They're just sick and tired of ignorant hate-mongers like Osama and the venerable Bob dripping their poison over all they survey.
posted by saladin at 6:29 PM on October 12, 2001

two comments. two ad hominem attacks. can we do better? how about taking on the tenets of the argument. why do the views of the academy seem so skewed from those outside it? i don't think it's a case of the vanguard. If anything, society seems to have heard them out and said, for the most part, no thanks. Also, why does their seem to be such supression of speech on campuses these days? Here's a great example of what I'm talking about.
posted by prodigal at 6:36 PM on October 12, 2001

This commentary about anti-American sentiment among academics is really just thinly veiled left bashing by an obvious conservative.
posted by wfrgms at 6:41 PM on October 12, 2001

Actually it was accurate and probably the best essay regarding any of this to date
posted by rabbit at 6:53 PM on October 12, 2001

Sigh I suppose some academics hate America, although this is hardly the sole preserve of the left wing. (Actually, what many have conveniently forgotten is that pre-60s American academics often held the USA and its culture in great contempt. And those were the conservatives!) However, I've yet to meet one who has said that the Taliban was just fine and dandy--although, again, I'm sure there must be one out there somewhere. I agree that much of the peace camp is simply refusing to face facts; these aren't people we can reason with.

What I find baffling about the "America-hating" rhetoric is that it wholly distorts the meaning of "love." Love knows its object. And that means acknowledging and accepting the beloved's faults. It also means helping the beloved to overcome the faults that go beyond mere "quirk" and enter the realm of danger. A parent who indulges a child's habit of stealing cars is not expressing "love." The parent who stands up in court and says she loves her son the murderer, but thinks he has been rightly sentenced to life in prison, is.

To interpret any criticism, no matter how stringent, as "hatred" misses the point entirely. It seems that what many conservative types are really calling for is idolatry, not love. Idolatry, after all, is all about worshipping the object you have invented for yourself. Unfortunately, unlike love, idolatry usually doesn't withstand any inconvenient revelations.

I'd add that identifying such "America-hating" with the left is, to be blunt, bonkers. Try reading The New Criterion. Or Robert Bork. Or Bill Bennett. Or Fr. Neuhaus. Everyone/thing on that list appears to loathe America and its culture with a passion. But they aren't "America-haters," because apparently there's a consensus that denouncing America as a country of moral degenerates doesn't constitute "America-hating." Oh, wait, isn't that one of the reasons we're being targeted by Islamic fundamentalists?
posted by thomas j wise at 7:10 PM on October 12, 2001

two comments. two ad hominem attacks. can we do better?

ad hominem? A man who both mis-dates Rousseau by half a century, then cites him and Kant as opponents of the Enlightenment, obviously has no concept of the Enlightenment, nor of the academy, nor of the "2,500 years of Western civilization" he regards as the academy's job to defend.

The academy's job, believe it or not, is to engage in analysis and critique: to encourage the habit of questioning, or inquiry, especially towards tired concepts such as "the Western tradition". Transmit and defend the methods, not the findings: it's been that way since Francis Bacon launched his assault on scholasticism. If you want something that inculcates blind, rigid adherence, then there are a few madrassas in Pakistan waiting for your call. After all, "sacred trust" belongs to religions. Or, alternatively, get in touch with the Ayn Rand Institute, which adheres to similar principles.
posted by holgate at 7:17 PM on October 12, 2001

And frankly, the piece itself is so shallow and sketchy that it's barely worth a counter argument. There's a sequence of straw man arguments, then a few bits of selective quotation, a couple of false dichotomies, and an utter misinterpretation both of postmodern theory and the Enlightenment itself. It reads like a bad undergraduate essay: all rhetoric, and none of the reason that he apparently holds so dear. It's just a shitty piece of writing.
posted by holgate at 7:38 PM on October 12, 2001

Oxydude, please explain how the "summing up" makes any sort of defensible argument whatsoever. How have today's academics "betrayed that sacred trust"? What, exactly, is "sacred" about it? Why are they entrusted only with the intellectual achievements of Western civilization, particularly those academics who, hey, don't happen to be Western?

The structure of debate normally includes a presentation of the opponent's argument, so as to refute it. There is no fair presentation of the argument, let alone any refutation of it. There are only choice soundbites designed to skew the impression of those who don't, or won't, read Chomsky, and leave open -- rather astoundingly, as one would think it's important -- the question of whether they are, in fact, wrong about American policies.

And he's certainly wrong about the left "allying" itself with the Taliban. We were the only people who were speaking out against them for the last six years, chump.
posted by dhartung at 7:56 PM on October 12, 2001

He's not referring to the academics as allying with the taliban's human rights policies, he's saying they have allied themselves with the taliban in their perception of U.S. foreign policy. Indeed they have
posted by rabbit at 8:02 PM on October 12, 2001

Indeed they don't, rabbit. It's a false analogy. The academic left's critique points to the double-standards and short-termism of past US foreign policy ventures; the only thing it shares with the Taliban is a refusal to cheerlead same.
posted by holgate at 8:11 PM on October 12, 2001

Here is just one example that was referenced in a MeFi thread earlier today. The PROFESSORS dismissed class early so that the "idealistic" young punks could chant, "1-2-3-4, we don't want a racist war!"
posted by davidmsc at 8:35 PM on October 12, 2001

you say "indeed they don't", and then proceed to validate my point. So let me ask you a couple of loaded questions then.

The left supports U.N. sanctions against the people of Iraq, and the U.S.'s role in the Gulf War?

They don't believe the United states should not be the world's policeman, and should look closer to home?

The don't believe that the U.S. is wrong in imposing
it's "materialistic" values on other struggling nations?

That's what i thought. The left is in agreement with the taliban's perceptions of U.S. foreign policy(aside from the religious element), which is what i specifically limited my statement to. It's okay to admit that the left shares many views on U.S. foreign policy without subscribing to the taliban's human rights policy. Being defensive about it won't alter the truth.
posted by rabbit at 8:40 PM on October 12, 2001

A fine essay he reads; consults the meaning of "fine", of "essay" as well; and proceeds happily to the link, licking his Jolie-like lips in anticipation.

*Thud*

Notices the dreaded "Immanuel" in Kant, so as not to confuse with his much crazier cousin Gottfried Kant.

*Apoplectic leg wriggling*

Notes that it's "Jean-Jacques" Rousseau - JoJo to you and me - and not his far more intelligent sister Mimi Rousseau.

*puce vomit surfaces on lower lip*

Shockingly discovers that old Kant was against the Enlightenment

*spasms galore and unmentionable incontinence ensuing all the while, straining Pampers to the limit*

Picks up his anti-Kantian Hegel and, under this cretinous logic, looks up his Christian name.

Is about to reveal, when - dammit, you aynrandly retentive supercreeps! -

*expires, convulsing*

But happy!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:45 PM on October 12, 2001

Gary Hull's shut down Duke web site still seems operational. Simpson still seems to have the objectionable link on his web site. Tracinski's attack isn't on all academics, but rather upon those who aren't members of the objectivist network. Tracinski's hypocrisy is that he presumes to speak for all of American society. Maybe if he spoke only for himself, then I would begin to feel that he understood the concept of intellectual honesty.
posted by bragadocchio at 8:48 PM on October 12, 2001

discontextualized quote. reference to chomsky, falwell and bush sr. broad, ambiguous statement. smug repetition of arguments heard in a million other threads. nitpicking at somebody else's spelling. ad hominem attack. setting up straw man. blowing down straw man. reference to thread 9622. smiley.
posted by signal at 8:57 PM on October 12, 2001

I'd like to add one minor point that hasn't come to light in this discussion:

These people are trying to kill us! These people are trying to kill us!

Yes, our society is deranged, our politicians are corrupt, our foreign policy is screwed, we've warmed the globe with our CO2, and we're getting the entire third world addicted to Coca-Cola and Marlboros. (Although for some reason, there seem to be more people trying to get in, than trying to leave.)

These "people" are mass murderers. They don't give a fuck about their own lives, and they sure as hell don't care about you, me, Kant, the Enlightenment or, contrary to popular opinion, Sesame Street.

It ain't pretty, but not killing them would be the most heinous crime America could commit.
posted by groundhog at 9:04 PM on October 12, 2001

Tenure means never having to say you are sorry for being an asshole. Very few people in any given overall university are from The Left." Instead, you have a few articulate and well-known people who have been writing consistently on any matters dealing with American policy and these same people are here at work again--Chomsky and Said.
But in my experience I find most professors whimpish folks going along with whatever keeps them in money and jobs.
In passing, where is Ralph Nader?
posted by Postroad at 10:50 PM on October 12, 2001

sorry for this add-on: Salon Magazine Premium has a piece on Nader and what he has just said in addressing a university audience out West. Alas, I can not give you a URL because you need to be a subscriber to get it. but here is about the most concrete thing he did say, though the concrete is very runny and unfirm:

"We have to make sure we don't make more mistakes and worsen the situation by our actions abroad," he said. "We need to have a prolonged and detailed debate on foreign policy so we reorient our policies [to face] the post-Soviet era. [We need] to side with the millions and millions of workers and peasants for a change, instead of dictators."
posted by Postroad at 11:03 PM on October 12, 2001

The left is in agreement with the taliban's perceptions of U.S. foreign policy(aside from the religious element), which is what i specifically limited my statement to.

No, rabbit. You're not even bothering to think. See, if I believe that your views are wrong because they're based on an utterly false analogy, it's different from believing your views are wrong because they've been caricatured into something offensive to my religion. And your lumping of the left with the Taliban is simply facile. Being dumb about it won't alter that truth.
posted by holgate at 1:36 AM on October 13, 2001

groundhog, please provide a list of "these people". Osama bin Laden? bin Laden and al Qa'eda? bin Laden, al Qa'eda, and the Taliban? bin Laden, al Qa'eda, the Taliban, and the ordinary people of Afghanistan? bL, aQ, T, Afghans, and all of Islam? Or something in between? Surely some of them are trying to kill us, and indeed have killed some of us.

In any event that's not justification for the hatchet job that this Ayn Rand automaton does in trying to neutralize principled American dissent by linking it to bad people who don't like us.

If I drive across your front lawn in my SUV, and you shoot me for it, does that mean that I was justified in driving across your front lawn? Is it "allying" with a murderer to suggest that not driving across people's front lawns might help one avoid getting shot? If gravely wounded, I turn my SUV on your wife and run her over while aiming at you, is it self-defense, or self-defense and murder?
posted by dhartung at 4:18 AM on October 13, 2001

Here is just one example that was referenced in a MeFi thread earlier today. The PROFESSORS dismissed class early so that the "idealistic" young punks could chant, "1-2-3-4, we don't want a racist war!"

Of course, somehow "some professors" (with two mentioned by name) some how becomes "The PROFESSORS" (in the same way that Palestinian children coached into cheering by a photographer became THE PALESTINIANS.) In a classic example of in-depth investigative college journalism with a deep devotion to the facts, they never mention how many professors let people out of class. (As opposed to how many professors treat class attendance as optional.)

But as other folks mentioned on this thread, the essay is pretty much a hack job. Many on the left were protesting the U.S. getting buddy-buddy with Fundamentalist Islamic groups for over two decades now. Ineed one of the big arguments about the Gulf War was the fact that Kuwait was as much an Islamic theocracy with very similar attitudes towards women as the Taliban. Stories from Saudi Arabia seem to indicate their attitudes are not much different from the Taliban, they are willing to tolerate an American military as long as we infidels keep to ourselves and don't pollute the local environment.

So of course this essay pretty much follows the worst of political writing over the last month. Set up a bunch of straw men and vent your spleen without coming up for air or reality. The last I checked, ROTC was still thriving on most campuses. Conservatives on campus are still writing books that support our current foreign policy while liberals are still writing books that question it. Debates among faculty in my current ivory tower reflects all sides of the conflict. The left is even pretty divided on what and what kind of military action we should take. Some suggest that war may be unfortunately the most humane way to solve the problem, others feel that war is likely to create more problems than it would solve.

There are some other problems in the essay. For example, criticizing academics for being "anti-enlightenment" because they are not simply mouthpieces for 2,500 years of history. However, the "enlightenment" was a revolution in its rejection of the cannon (along with the geocentric universe, phlogston, and 7-day creationism) in favor of progress, reason and empiricism. Newton could now say that KE=mv, and Meme. du Chatelet could say, "No, experiments show that KE=mv^2." The enlightenment suggested that the role of philosophers is not to rationalize Biblical or Greek scripture but to question and expand on it.

Certainly there is a bit of a culture clash. A large chunk of the U.S. believes that the universe was created in 7 days 6,000 years ago (followign that 2,500 year old cannon) while very few people in the physical and life sciences agree. Specialists in the history and culture of central asia and the arab world are more likely to read the works and the views that never get translated except in bits and pieces. So there is a difference in view, however those differences in view don't translate into the sweeping claims made by the article.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:45 AM on October 13, 2001

Thanks holgate for clarifying your opinion. You talk about the role of the academy to encourage the habit of questioning, or inquiry, especially towards tired concepts such as "the Western tradition".

Two points. First, the fact is that there isn't much encouragement of any opinion which isn't postmodern-Lacan-Derrida-etc in outlook. Anyone to the right of Chomsky is derided as

a) old-fashioned
b) fascist
c) racist
d) greedy corporate monster
e) stupid
f) all of the above

My second point. Certainly we should look to improve "the Western tradition." However, we should also recognize its acheivements and I do believe there is nothing wrong in saying this is the tradition which has given more people the chance to attain happiness than any tradition we've been able to develop as a species.
posted by prodigal at 9:03 AM on October 13, 2001

"These people"? I think that's pretty obvious - those responsible for the act, and those who assisted them.

The nationality or religion is completely irrelevant to the issue. They could be scientologists from Luxembourg for all I care.

I don't question anyone's right to dissent. Go for it. I protested against the Vietnam war, and I'm glad I did. But the current anti-war "movement", if that's what it really is, seems more like a relexive reaction, and not very well considered.

I really don't quite get where you're going with the SUV analogy thing, but if you're gravely wounded, it's kind of irrelevant what the verdict is, isn't it?
posted by groundhog at 9:05 AM on October 13, 2001

prodigal - I see your point, and I agree wholeheartedly. But people need to understand that its not necessarily about the left-right dichotomy, because there are plenty of left-leaning individuals (myself included) who have just as many problems with the PoMo autocracy. CamillePagliaishardly

shitmyspacebarjustbroke

morelater
posted by hipstertrash at 10:56 AM on October 13, 2001

hipstertrash...that's inadvertantly the funniest thing I've read today. I hope you get your spacebar fixed and finish your post - looked like it was going in an interesting direction.
posted by bragadocchio at 11:44 AM on October 13, 2001

brag - i thought it was pretty damn funny myself ... one of those events that makes you shrug and smile and remember not to take yourself too seriously.

ahem

Camille Paglia is hardly a stalwart conservative (and no, kids, refusing to ape the party line of the institutional left does not put her in the right by default), and yet she has been demonized and academically lynched by the establishment, who have sunk so low as to attack her scholarship because she dares to question the politics and heirarchies of the Academy, and generally deny her a level of professional respect appropriate for a thinker of her stature.

On a personal note, I've always identified philosophically with various forms of socialist anarchism, and yet I feel completely alienated by an anarchist movement overrun with situationist and poststructuralist thought & methodology, a movement largely unrecognizable as being descended from that of Proudhon, Kropotkin, Goldman, Nestor Makhno, the FAI-CNT, or any pre SI incarnation of anarchism. I feel as though I'm stuck in limbo: my convictions are undermined by nearly every aspect of the current community, who have a monopoly on the mantle of anarchist tradition, de facto ownership of both the history and future of the philosophy.

And don't get me started on the problems of academic literature & criticism, and the dangers of institutionalizing concepts like legitimacy and artistic merit, the stagnation that will result from placing art at the mercy of a professional cabal.

Anthropoogy and sociology teach us that, for an individual to find success within a certain social entity (tribe, pack, class, etc), their actions must further the strength, security, and viability of the group. individual action is only tolerated insofar as it does not disrupt or compromise the larger entity. The fact that Academia is more interested in the integrity of Academia than the integrity of knowledge should be self-evident, regardless of where a person sits on the political spectrum. The fact that so many individuals on the left are compromised by Bolshevik opportunism and decide to sign onto the party line does not make this a leftist phenomenon. its a human, bureaucratic, elitist phenomenon; these traits exist across the board.
posted by hipstertrash at 1:07 PM on October 13, 2001

the fact is that there isn't much encouragement of any opinion which isn't postmodern-Lacan-Derrida-etc in outlook. Anyone to the right of Chomsky is derided as blah blah blah

This is utter piffle, devoid of any support, because in fact it's insupportable. As a parody of what was trendy ten years ago, it's barely recognizable. But even at its trendiest, "postmodern-Lacan-Derrida" was only deeply influential in literary theory. Derrida and other poststructuralist types were being read and responded to in history, anthropology, philosophy and some of the other humanities fields; these responses were not always positive and indeed often hostile (in my field, linguistics, Lacan was noted, if at all, as a hopelessly misguided bastardization of Saussure). You'd be hard-pressed to find a mathematician, scientist or engineer that belonged to any kind of pomo orthodoxy, nor did these ideas get much of a foothold in political science, economics, or psychology. To the extent that these ideas even get a hearing, they're met mainly with a smirk outside literature departments.

"The fact is," the academy is a pretty diverse place in terms of methods, concerns, philosophical underpinnings, and approaches to data. Nobody agrees with anybody here. To paint it as some sort of postmodernist monolith is the height of inanity.
posted by rodii at 1:31 PM on October 13, 2001

rodii - I'm glad that you brought up linguistics and Saussure, because I see the situation there as a parallel to pre and post SI incarnations of anarchism that I mentioned above. While I lack much of the formal experience of these disciplines, I've dome quite a bit of reading on Saussure, structuralism, semiotics, etc. I'm not too familiar with how Lacan is recieved in the field of linguistics proper, but I'm wondering if your assesment of the situation isn't a trifle hyperbolic. Because I have seen, in my own reading and research that Saussure's work, insofar as it has found its way into philosophy and cultural/media studies, exists as nothing more than a stepping stone to Lacan and Derrida. Is there any evidence of a viable structuralist tradition that exists to this day? Does semiotics circa 2001 bear anything but the slightest resemblance to Saussure's 3 part equation?

You are right that postmodernism's star has been falling for at least a decade. And while the critics of postmodernism and the post-pomo vangaurd are gladly moving on, both the remainder of academia and the rest of the intellectual world have been slow to follow suit. As it has filtered down from the intelligentsia. postmodern theory has spread like a cancer at so many levels, until it seems like every 16 year old angst poet with an online journal is making statements about the primacy of the artist's subjective experience. We are far from being out of the woods ...

But even if you go with the vangaurd and accept the death of postmodernism, nothing has come along that can, on a large scale, fill the gap. Anyone looking for a better answer is left to work in a vaccum, faced with the aftermath of deconstruction. Postmodernism was not unlike a parasite, insofar as it attached itself to nearly every preceeding or contemporary school of thought; the competition was either dismantled or assimilated. Fine at the time, but the present looks grim: sifting through the cast off debris, digging up theories that were left behid, untouched for decades, or accepting that postmodernism will be the foundation upon which its successors are built. The fact of the matter is, dead or not, the damage has already been done.

Mind you, all of this is definitely from an outside perspective, but an informed one. I'm sure that anyone who is at the forefront of academic thought will have come across ideas or writings that paint a contradictory picture. But if the evidence is so obscure, confined to the select few, if a 'layman' with an active interest in the matter has not come across that evidence, then how viable or relevant is it? I think that this is the point people are making vis a vis the myopic tendencies of the Academy. When the workings of the 'great minds' happen outside of society at large, when the scholars become exclusive and insular, and eventually cut off the reciprocal flow of knowledge between Academe and the rest of us, where does that leave us? We can either accept their system, their rules, their absolute authority, or we can make them irrelevant by refusing to grant them automatic and unconditional ownership of knowledge ant thought, empower ourselves to take on a share of the "cultural legacy."
posted by hipstertrash at 3:38 PM on October 13, 2001

Groundhog - Interesting that you should say that. The war movement, from day one until today, has always seemed to me to be reactionary and emotional. It's funny how much depends on your point of view.
posted by Hildago at 4:34 PM on October 13, 2001

rodii,

regarding piffle. you missed the etc at the end of my PoMo chain, which should have implied any body of thought which can be used to make the following cases:

1) capitalism is evil
2) race explains all current power relationships
3) capitalism is evil
4) men are evil
5) capitalism is evil

Academics like Paglia, who say that capitalism is brilliant and that Western Civ is largely a male creation are ignored at best and more often demonized.
posted by prodigal at 6:28 PM on October 13, 2001

prodigal - Your appraisal of Paglia is is beyond reductionist; you are praising the same misrepresentation of her work that ohers damn her with.

Paglia is not Ayn Rand. She doesn't idealize capitalism; as a matter of fact she doesn't really idealize anything. And she doesn't fit nicely into anyone's box. She's a pragmatist, especially where history is concerned, and thus yes, she has written positive and encouraging things about capitalism, but more as a reality/reflection of reality than a 'brilliant' goal in and of itself.

And yes, she has been a very vocal champion of the male gender, past and present. But put it in a bit of context, please. Much of what she says isn't all that shocking or revelatory; she's really only controversial insofar as her statements and observations take aim at the more revisionist strains of feminism. Her praise of men, also, is often a praise of 'the masculine,' i.e. embracing and wielding power. Power, for Paglia, might be the only thing approaching an absolute, hence her tendency towards the pragmatic.

Bottom line: I've heard her agree with both the right and the left, depending on the issue and the context. What I said above is true in the other direction: she is not a poster girl for the right just because she isn't part of the left.
posted by hipstertrash at 6:57 PM on October 13, 2001

hipster--

I don't think I was being hyperbolic. Remember I was talking about Lacan's reception in linguistics. Linguistics is a very parochial field, and I think it's fair to say that both Lacan and the wider tradition of semiotics hasn't gotten much of a hearing. Saussure is still very much a touchstone, but filtered through Leonard Bloomfield, who is almost unknown today outside linguistics, and Roman Jakobson. The reading of Saussure that led to Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Althusser and the other major structuralists (and on to Derrida, Kristeva and the whole Tel Quel bunch) just didn't ever happen in linguistics. (I'm not saying I'm glad that it's true, just that it is true.)

Prodigal--

Anyone can add "etc." to mean "and whatever evidence I should have brought forward to make the point I was trying to make," but that's not exactly persuasive. You want me to find examples for you? Do your own homework.

But if you're suggesting, as you seem to be, that you're damning any argument that can be used to make any point you disagree with, then I don't see why anyone should bother listening to you at all. This is really just another tired rant about a bunch of straw man arguments. Who says "men are evil" and how does that relate to the state of the academy? I think "piffle" was too kind.
posted by rodii at 7:46 PM on October 13, 2001

>>You'd be hard-pressed to find a mathematician, scientist or engineer that belonged to any kind of pomo orthodoxy, nor did these ideas get much of a foothold in political science, economics, or psychology.<<

Good points but I'm not exactly certain that its entirely the case. Postmodernism did have an influence in the social sciences through Radical Constructivism and Radical Social Constructionism and the entire Qualitative/Quantitative methods debate. What is really interesting about the entire modernism/postmodernism debate is that at its core is an old philosophical conflict that has been going on for 2,500 years and probably will be talked about for 2,500 more.

For the most part, this doesn't seem to have had the major trauma on the social sciences as occured in literary theory. If anything, the end result is a healthy improvement in that we are a bit more humble and aware of the ways in which politics and science interact. Perhaps one of the reasons why postmodernism didn't become a dogma in psychology is because many postmodernist criticisms are mind-numbingly obvious. (And is it possible to have a dogma for a movement that isn't a movement, and a philosophy with no common philosophy?)

Postmodernism had some good criticisms before they became an end to its self. It is one thing to take a skeptical view of the relationship between knowledge and reality. It is quite another to claim that no relationships exist at all between knowledge and reality and its all a bunch of word games. Again, what's interesting is that postmodernists claim to have re-invented skepticism.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:06 PM on October 13, 2001

rodii - thanks for the clarification. I have come across the names of both Bloomfield and Jakobson in my research on Saussure, but have not yet tracked down any of their work. I'm assuming that you've read down that other line, from Levi-Strauss on down? If so, you are in a very good position to gague the contrasts, the impact that Lacan, Derrida, etc. had in other disciplines, versus their relative absence in linguistics. What, if any, are the striking differences between your field and the others that, while closely related, took the same touchstone in an entirely different direction?

I can see now why your assesment of the situation is a bit more balanced and pluralistic. My stint in higher education was split between economics (a field that, like linguistics, is slow to change and very singular in its theoretical reference points) and philosophy (immersed, obviously, in the theoretical tangents in question). And since then, like I said, I've been chipping away at semiotics, media and cultural studies. If you throw literature into the mix, its a recepie for either theory whoredom or alienation ...
posted by hipstertrash at 9:19 PM on October 13, 2001

Kirk - very astute, especially your last paragraph. In this regard, the parallels between postmodernism and existentialism become very relevant, insofar as they are both useful as a kind of litmus test or analytical tool, yet both tend to implode when given primacy or taken literally.

As far as the social sciences are concerned, are you looking solely at the 'traditional' disciplines like psychology? Because I can see your point in a limited sense, but I think that the advent of interdisciplinary studies has carried many of these ideas into the social sciences, even if the core disciplines remain in tact.

And I find it interesting that postmodernism has sometimes appropriated illustrations from math and physics, moreso than either discipline has found use for pomo theory. The two examples that come to mind are quantum theory (ref. Schroedinger's Cat, for starters) and chaos math. It makes me wonder how many lit crit folks have any grasp of the science behind the examples and generalizations.

Ok, I'll slow down now, I swear ...)
posted by hipstertrash at 9:42 PM on October 13, 2001

(KirkJobSluder) Good points but I'm not exactly certain that its entirely the case. Postmodernism did have an influence in the social sciences through Radical Constructivism and Radical Social Constructionism and the entire Qualitative/Quantitative methods debate.

Agreed, which is why I ignored sociology in my list (which is the disciplinary place I think a lot of this has happened; also the social-psychology hinterlands and education departments).

Remember, I'm arguing against prodigal's claim that the academy is a big pomo monolith, and you can't have other opinions without bad consequences. All I'm saying here is that the reception of post-modernism (which I think you understand and prodigal doesn't) has been very different in various fields, to the extent of being nonexistent in many. Hardly the Evil Academy that's being theorized here.

(hipstertrash) What, if any, are the striking differences between your field and the others that, while closely related, took the same touchstone in an entirely different direction?

Sheesh! You ask a lotta questions! There are dissertations to be written about this. I wrote a bit here but then decided not to post it--I don't feel comfortable saying some of these things without documentation. I'll just mention four key things that kept linguistics out of the broader cultural conversation: its confrontation with Native American and other "exotic" languages, and closely related, a "butterfly-collecting" empiricism derived from Franz Boas; behaviorism; phenomenology (a profound but buried influence on European lx especially); and the dominance of Noam Chomsky, who is adamant abut reducing language to psychology and consistently hostile to any other kinds of explanation.
posted by rodii at 10:04 PM on October 13, 2001

It is one thing to take a skeptical view of the relationship between knowledge and reality. It is quite another to claim that no relationships exist at all between knowledge and reality and its all a bunch of word games.

Quite so, and my own experience with the work being done and taught in English departments today puts most of it firmly in the former camp. There was a brief period about forty years ago when the latter view suddenly struck a number of luminaries as a fine notion, but the reputation that literary criticism has for embracing that kind of truly radical antiessentialism far outstrips the reality.
posted by redfoxtail at 10:19 PM on October 13, 2001

And I find it interesting that postmodernism has sometimes appropriated illustrations from math and physics, moreso than either discipline has found use for pomo theory. The two examples that come to mind are quantum theory (ref. Schroedinger's Cat, for starters) and chaos math. It makes me wonder how many lit crit folks have any grasp of the science behind the examples and generalizations.

Very few, I'd guess. I'd say very few people outside the particular fields have taken the time to study what they actually mean, besides a simple popularized summary. I mean, I have what I think is a pretty good grasp on Gödel, but for the chaos stuff I'd have to rely on Gleick, and as good a science writer as he is, he's not a scientist. And I studied math for years. (I'll make no claims to any but rudimentary familiarity with quantum physics.)

This is one of the reasons the Sokal spoof worked so well -- a great many literary and social critics are in love with the rhetoric and ethos of science but don't really have the education to tell the good from the bad. Neither one of these is surprising. One can look at C.P. Snow's Two Cultures idea for the latter and (lest we think that this is just a vice of the academic left) the weird relationship between the New Criticism of Ransom and Tate and the scientific method (and technological development) for the former.

People love to appeal to science and rationality, even if they shouldn't. What better refutation is there to a critique of your ideology than saying that the immutable laws of physics are on your side?
posted by snarkout at 10:30 PM on October 13, 2001

a great many literary and social critics are in love with the rhetoric and ethos of science but don't really have the education to tell the good from the bad

True, literary and social critics aren't scientists. There's no reason for them to be. They are literary and social critics. That's their job. If they do it right, they should survey all of mankind's creative endeavors, and try to formulate some kind of synthesis. They should show an interest in science, and in technology, and cooking, flower arrangement, etc. etc. They should be rigorous about this, as Sokal showed so clearly, but this doesn't mean they shouldn't attempt it.

Let's not forget that science is a fairly recent, albeit wildly succesful, offshoot from philosophy, and that the whole framework of empiricism, positivism and rationality was set up by philosophers, by thinkers, academicians. The fact that science "works" most of the time by no means invalidates questions as to its epistemology, ontology, teleology, etc, nor the attempt to apply its findings to other philosophical pursuits.

I personally have little use for post-modernism (though my background is architecture rather than literature or linguistics), but feel that intellectuals are perfectly entitled to survey a society's complete output. Einstein's relativity and Freud's analysis effected important changes even on the un-cultured masses who couldn't have gotten past their prefaces. There's no reason to think that Chaos and Complexity Theory, i.a., won't. There is no reason for intellectuals not to rise to the challenge of this integration.

I am not defending post-modern intelectuals, especially not the more dilettantish ones, all I'm saying is that you don't have to be a Physics Nobel Prize winner in order to think about the social and intelectual impact of science.
posted by signal at 3:39 AM on October 14, 2001

Very nice, people...we heard from a philospher, a linguist, and an architect - had we attracted an artist and a musician, we would have had a quorum.

A small, cryptic, I-missed-the-thread personal opinion: Post-modernism, done right, is tenacious - it can autotomize and regenerate. Dainty efforts to re-institutionalize its gifts will piss it off. Its current decline within academe is largely the result of dilution, and that dilution is largely the result of the pointy-headed rat's discovery that it was eating its own tail.
posted by Opus Dark at 5:46 AM on October 14, 2001

And my damn-I-missed-the-interesting-bit addition: the reason I find certain "postmodern" authors such as Deleuze and Guattari interesting is that their work re-addresses the questions that were asked as part of the political and scientific revolutions of the 17th century. And since we appear to be re-assessing many of the convictions of "modernity", through such disparate things as neuroscience and globalisation, it's nice that some people already asked the same questions.
posted by holgate at 9:03 AM on October 14, 2001