|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:Again, when a student has an outburst like this, it is far more important to spend a minute or two to address than to continue teaching Rawls like nothing happened. What outburst? Nobody said anything anti-gay during the class. The kid who complained didn't say a single word in front of the class. Instead, they confronted the teacher alone, after class, to berate her for not stopping the lecture to smack down someone who had expressed a pro-gay opinion in class. Moreover, what happens when the bigot doesn't magically concede that they're wrong after a minute? Or ten minutes? Or fifty minutes? The teacher poked some holes in the student's argument, exactly like you're suggesting, and instead of conceding and changing his mind, he recorded it and went around whining that a teacher at his Catholic school wasn't anti-gay enough. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Dec 2, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:What outburst? Nobody said anything anti-gay during the class. The kid who complained didn't say a single word in front of the class. Instead, they confronted the teacher alone, after class, to berate her for not stopping the lecture to smack down someone who had expressed a pro-gay opinion in class.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:41
|
|
|
So today class we'll be looking at Wittgenstein and his study of designation and meaning. His classic example is of the Morning Star and Evening Star. As we know they both designate Venus, but they clearly mean different things. Question, teacher. Yes, student? When others say The Moon Landing, and I say The Clearly Faked Moonlanding, is that an example of this? Perhaps, student, let us discuss the topic of Apollo 11 and the moon landing in detail.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:49
|
|
|
Why are people saying extreme examples like hate speech, holocaust deniers, and so on are a strawman of the position that 'free speech should be allowed on campus'? It's not a strawman at all. That you back down from endorsing someone's right to hijack a class for holocaust denial, or the KKK's right to host a function at a public university, is a tacit admittance that you agree free speech needs to be limited in some respect. It's a boolean issue, an either or question. You've already conceded your point, and are merely discussing where the line of 'what's too much/offensive' should fall. You can no longer couch your arguments in grandstanding about free speech if you freely admit there are conditions under which executing the right to free speech is undesirable or disruptive.
PoizenJam fucked around with this message at 19:02 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:I don't think he's saying that I think he's saying that they basically have a non-specific "diversity requirement" class that is basically a "check the box and move on" thing and that's bad. I think that's true and moreover I think that's true for any subject though I think it comes from a good place (simply put not everyone is going to be either interested in or good at the class and a broader survey gives students inexperienced in the field a broader swath of information to find a hook rather than locking them into one subject). I think that it's much more common to have a swathe of classes that can be used to satisfy the requirement. In the CUNY system, for example, and the UC system, this is the case. I don't know of any examples of this single class that's a diversity checkbox. That's why I'm asking for them. For reference, the CUNY policy: http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/students...ity-requirement And the Berkeley policy: http://americancultures.berkeley.edu/content/student-info In both of them you'll note that European counts as one of the groups. The classes that satisfy these requirements are broad-ranging and I have had zero trouble fulfilling these requirements while taking serious and challenging classes. There are relatively few easy courses at CUNY, some of them might satisfy the diversity requirement but it'd be a coincidence.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 19:13
|
|
|
I went to a big state school in the Midwest that catered to racists, fundamentalists and other malcontents and all it did was make them woefully unprepared for anything in the job market. By not calling out lazy thinking and sheltering suburban fundamentalists from having to learn evolution for their bio major nobody who knows what's going on there took those kids seriously. I used to help adjudicate student complaints for the sociology dept. and the majority of them were pure BS, like people being offended by a PowerPoint slide showing the Venus de milo because she naked.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:03
|
|
|
I thought part of the Bush administration's deal was putting people from those sort of schools into tons of government positions in order to make their outlook the norm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:Why are people saying extreme examples like hate speech, holocaust deniers, and so on are a strawman of the position that 'free speech should be allowed on campus'? It's not a strawman at all. That you back down from endorsing someone's right to hijack a class for holocaust denial, or the KKK's right to host a function at a public university, is a tacit admittance that you agree free speech needs to be limited in some respect. It's a boolean issue, an either or question. You've already conceded your point, and are merely discussing where the line of 'what's too much/offensive' should fall. You can no longer couch your arguments in grandstanding about free speech if you freely admit there are conditions under which executing the right to free speech is undesirable or disruptive. But that would require a nuanced position!  Though less snarky, I think its closer to the truth that people assume that when they say "free speech" they are building in a certain level of acceptable restriction, and what they are really arguing for is closer to free speech as practiced in US law. Usually when people mean "absolute free speech" they identify it as such because the concept is useless in the confines of most discussions,
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
Radish posted:I thought part of the Bush administration's deal was putting people from those sort of schools into tons of government positions in order to make their outlook the norm. Right but try getting into med school with s BSc in bio from my college vs. an elite institution. Virtually none of the premed kids on my floor wound up going to med school.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:Right but try getting into med school with s BSc in bio from my college vs. an elite institution. Virtually none of the premed kids on my floor wound up going to med school. I got the feeling the ultimate goal was to, over the long term, condition society so that scientists and similar fields wouldn't be able to weed out those kinds of views but it doesn't seem like that plan worked out as well as they would have hoped.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:13
|
|
|
Poizen Jam posted:That you back down from endorsing someone's right to hijack a class for holocaust denial, or the KKK's right to host a function at a public university, is a tacit admittance that you agree free speech needs to be limited in some respect. It's a boolean issue, an either or question. You've already conceded your point, and are merely discussing where the line of 'what's too much/offensive' should fall. Well yes, but that's the whole thing, isn't it? Even the government agrees there are certain types of speech that aren't protected - hate speech, for one - or the ever popular 'shouting fire in a crowded theatre' example. Speech that can do harm to others is not protected. But what consitutes harm? The issue then becomes what are acceptable boundaries to limiting speech, which is the real thing people get into fights over. Who defines the boundaries, and why? Who determines if their criteria is 'just' or wise? What effect does limiting it in this way vs that way have on society? Is that effect a net positive? Free speech as a whole is a myth - there isn't a human being alive whose speech isn't in some way limited by their circumstances and situation. It's people taking a concept - freedom of speech against an oppressive govt - and trying to extend it everywhere because the truth is, we'd all like to be able to say whatever is on our minds all the time. It's a beautiful fantasy. But life isn't nearly so perfect. You can't tell your boss, or your client, or your parent everything you really think all the time. Learning that there's a point where you stop being the center of attention whose opinions are given leverage is incredibly frustrating, and these sorts of discussions are the growing pains. Everyone wants to be heard, it's such a deep basic need. But it's a childhood need and has to be unlearned at some point - it is just as important to learn how to exist in a group without demanding your specific emotional needs be individually catered to. It's important to learn how to listen instead of dictate. You could easily make an argument that college is the last place they're likely to be heard in such a way and it should be allowed as a last bastion before facing the coldness of the world. Or conversely you could argue that because it's the last step before the working world they should be trained with the real skills they need to know, rather than getting pushed out into the world only to be eternally frustrated at how stifling the realities of the adult world are - and creating a social cycle of subsumed needs and frustration that is hard to break out of. Personally, I think the latter is what breeds so much of the resentment that bleeds out onto these issues. A lot of people moving forward on the idea that people speak to engage others in discussion, but often people desire simply to express themselves to relieve their own frutrations, not necessarily to engage in any meaningful discussion. It essentially becomes the adult version of a temper tantrum. 'Look over here! See me and that I have these emotions!'. Should those people be given a stage for their own personal catharsis? Should the needs of everyone in the class be put aside to prioritize the needs of the person demanding attention? Is it more important to teach these people how to work in groups, or to teach them that expressing controversial opinions will get them individual treatment and attention? StrangersInTheNight fucked around with this message at 20:36 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:15
|
|
|
Radish posted:I got the feeling the ultimate goal was to, over the long term, condition society so that scientists and similar fields wouldn't be able to weed out those kinds of views but it doesn't seem like that plan worked out as well as they would have hoped. I don't think there was a conspiracy of anything other than education as a business and the soft bigotry of low expectations for white suburban children who attend big state university in the Midwest. It's not like the bio dept. was run by fundamentalists- they were mostly burnt out and didn't give a gently caress either way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
I'm gonna throw myself in this because I've also been in this situation, sans recording and angry blogger professors. While the topic wasn't gay marriage, it discussed the Global North and South, and Western-biased global institutions. As the discussion shifted to Africa's current status with loans and internal conflicts, I had the one student who stated that Africa's current problems are due to colonialism. After class another student approached me, upset that I hadn't countered it by stating that Africa has been independent for several years and so on. He cited a study of a few countries that were doing better than others, and made a sound argument when looked at in a vacuum. I replied back with some basic texts that outline the history behind the current situation, tribal warfare, and made some specific references to the Rwanda genocide. Now the kid wasn't a piece of poo poo like the homophobic one over here, but he was pretty adamant. He also implied that there was a sort of natural state of Africa to be in constant warfare citing some very odd sources, and some very odd reasoning. Was he a racist? Probably. Regardless, it is important to be able to refute dumb poo poo opinions on their merits, because shutting them down galvanizes the holders of said opinions that they are right and people are afraid of the truth. It also reinforces their idea that their dialogue is being shut down due to a massive 'PC' conspiracy. I invited him to bring up the discussion in the next class, but he declined. I think deep down they knew they would be destroyed academically and socially. I do have to respect his bravery in bring up his thoughts to a black instructor though. That said, it's very important for college and university campuses to allow discussion of ideas and opinions, provided they are related to the topic at hand. This is a difficult balancing act with limited time, and certain topics must be omitted because fringe opinions with faulty reasoning always exist. Omitting those topics based on the fear of offending other classmates, or being socially uncouth is stifling and lazy reasoning to prevent such topics from being addressed. Even the most ardent homophobes, racists, sexists, idiots, morons, and the generally uninformed have the right to know why their opinions are considered wrong. Education in the social sciences often comes from a form of dialogue, and as long as everyone participates in good faith something good can come of it. That said, the instructor's job was to teach the Liberty Principle, and she did it. The student's objection to same sex marriage wasn't on-topic, and unless he was somehow connecting gay parents' children to the liberty principle, this wasn't the forum to discuss it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:34
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:I'm gonna throw myself in this because I've also been in this situation, sans recording and angry blogger professors. While the topic wasn't gay marriage, it discussed the Global North and South, and Western-biased global institutions. As the discussion shifted to Africa's current status with loans and internal conflicts, I had the one student who stated that Africa's current problems are due to colonialism. I'm still concerned that y'all are focusing on Abbate's behavior rather than McAdams, FIRE, and Fox News. I'm not convinced that Abbate violated anyone's rights, but surely McAdams et al. are behaving horribly here and if there's a problem with free speech in universities, it's people like them. Nothing Abbate says justifies such bullying, yet most of y'all keep breezing over that, and how that can be a threat to free speech far worse than whatever you think Abbate did wrong (I'm pretty sure she did nothing wrong). sugar free jazz posted:So today class we'll be looking at Wittgenstein and his study of designation and meaning. His classic example is of the Morning Star and Evening Star. As we know they both designate Venus, but they clearly mean different things.  "108. "But is there then no objective truth? Isn’t it true, or false, that someone has been on the moon?” If we are thinking within our system, then it is certain that no one has ever been on the moon. Not merely is nothing of the sort ever seriously reported to us by reasonable people, but our whole system of physics forbids us to believe it. For this demands answers to the questions “How did he overcome the force of gravity?” “How could he live without an atmosphere?” and a thousand others which could not be answered. " - Wittgenstein in On Certainty. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 21:03 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
Not to mention that "everyone agrees about gay rights so there's no need to discuss it" is literally the opposite of what a philosopher would say, since they're broken contrarian dickheads who argue about poo poo like, because they use an inclusive "or" in philosophy, at the cafeteria they can have both the pie and the pudding.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:That said, the instructor's job was to teach the Liberty Principle, and she did it. The student's objection to same sex marriage wasn't on-topic, and unless he was somehow connecting gay parents' children to the liberty principle, this wasn't the forum to discuss it. The student didn't bring up their objection in the class at all, though, they did the exact same thing the student in your example did - come up to the instructor after class and complain that they didn't argue against something another student had said in class that the complainer disagreed with. The only major difference between your example and this case was that your student didn't record you then run to a conservative blogger with the recording to publicly accusing you of being g a super-politically correct liberal racist brainwasher telling students that whites are responsible for all of Africa's problems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 22:33
|
|
|
I don't see how any of this is the state restricting speech. Favoring some viewpoints over others isn't a violation of freedom of expression as long as there aren't reprisals against people for what they believe. A professor is right to privilege correct or logically sound information from a student in or out of class over nonsense regurgitated from the mouths of ideologues. Just like the federal government would be right to look at actual climate science instead of "research" by industry "scientists" telling to govt. to drill for more oil.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 22:44
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:The solution to racist and sexist opinions is almost always more, not less speech. This might sound good and all, but is it really true? Racism in particular shows no sign of going anywhere, and I can't think of any benefit from letting people use racial slurs (for example), while there are countless very real negative effects. Speech can actually hurt people, in some cases every bit as much as "sticks and stones" (like driving people to suicide for example), and there are definitely cases where there should be some burden to prove that it's actually worthwhile in some way.
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:As a Jewish student, I'm glad you used this example. If there was some weirdo spending my entire finance class sitting behind me, seething at the global Jewish conspiracy to control banking, I would much rather have him shout it out, and for the class to work it out as a group, then for him to sit there and learn nothing. I'd be the first to explain why he was being dumb. It's basically the only chance for students like that to learn. This is only the case because (in most places in the US at least) you would feel secure in the knowledge that the vast majority of your classmates aren't actually anti-semites and don't agree with the one crazy person. This isn't the case with something like race or homosexuality, though, where there are, in fact, many people who would agree with expressed bigoted opinions. As an actual Jewish person, if I lived in a country where antisemitism was common, it would absolutely make me extremely uncomfortable if people felt free to express antisemitic ideology in a class that I was attended. edit: I just realized that the guy I quoted is probably coming from a perspective where he actually believes stuff like racism and sexism is really rare and only felt/expressed by an extreme minority of bigots. That would at least explain his opinions. It's still super dumb and wrong, but at least it's better than "minorities should just suck it up and deal with hateful language and ideas  "edit2: Also, almost all the posts Snark keeps calling strawman are actually entirely accurate analogies/metaphors. I think he's mixing up analogies and strawmen or something. Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 23:19 on Dec 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:14
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:The student didn't bring up their objection in the class at all, though, they did the exact same thing the student in your example did - come up to the instructor after class and complain that they didn't argue against something another student had said in class that the complainer disagreed with. The only major difference between your example and this case was that your student didn't record you then run to a conservative blogger with the recording to publicly accusing you of being g a super-politically correct liberal racist brainwasher telling students that whites are responsible for all of Africa's problems. True, this entire debate at the end of the day is manufactured outrage by that student, spurred on by an older professor lashing back at the infestation of post-modernism and critical theory into academia. While I have a fundamental problem with the theories and their applications, it would be unfair to throw a grad student under the bus just to win a small battle. I did gain the honour of being labelled a neo-marxist by a random student in my post-course review, there's that. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 2, 2014 23:56
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:True, this entire debate at the end of the day is manufactured outrage by that student, spurred on by an older professor lashing back at the infestation of post-modernism and critical theory into academia. While I have a fundamental problem with the theories and their applications, it would be unfair to throw a grad student under the bus just to win a small battle. Ghost of Reagan Past fucked around with this message at 00:18 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:11
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This might sound good and all, but is it really true? Racism in particular shows no sign of going anywhere, and I can't think of any benefit from letting people use racial slurs (for example), while there are countless very real negative effects. Speech can actually hurt people, in some cases every bit as much as "sticks and stones" (like driving people to suicide for example), and there are definitely cases where there should be some burden to prove that it's actually worthwhile in some way. Ytlaya posted:This is only the case because (in most places in the US at least) you would feel secure in the knowledge that the vast majority of your classmates aren't actually anti-semites and don't agree with the one crazy person. This isn't the case with something like race or homosexuality, though, where there are, in fact, many people who would agree with expressed bigoted opinions. As an actual Jewish person, if I lived in a country where antisemitism was common, it would absolutely make me extremely uncomfortable if people felt free to express antisemitic ideology in a class that I was attended. Ytlaya posted:edit: I just realized that the guy I quoted is probably coming from a perspective where he actually believes stuff like racism and sexism is really rare and only felt/expressed by an extreme minority of bigots. That would at least explain his opinions. It's still super dumb and wrong, but at least it's better than "minorities should just suck it up and deal with hateful language and ideas
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 00:40
|
|
|
This is some Orwellian poo poo. So the graduate student is in trouble because she did NOT take the time to attack unrelated aspects of a student's example?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 03:00
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:This is some Orwellian poo poo. So the graduate student is in trouble because she did NOT take the time to attack unrelated aspects of a student's example? 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:51
|
|
|
Ghost of Reagan Past posted:If she's teaching Rawls, I highly doubt critical theory or post-modernism have anything to do with her course. More generally, the people most associated with post-modernism and critical theory aren't necessarily read or taught in philosophy departments (or are outright ridiculed). Abbate's own research (I don't know her, I'm just glancing at her publications) has nothing to do with that stuff, either. I don't know why McAdams decided this was a good idea, but if that's his reasoning he's lashing out at a phantom. I mean, he's a malicious jerk anyway, but this would just add to his dumbassery. Oh he's totally lashing out at a phantom, a lot of tenured professors in Political Science are. The field has tried to move into objectivity and comprehensive theory building since the 1970s (look at any publications back then, and note the incredible amount of effort put into analysis to maintain objectivity, particularly when it comes to case study analysis), but the recent cross over of sociology and gender studies have allowed Critical Theory and Post Modernism to become a mainstream method of analysis, stagnating a lot of work under the 'guise of creating a dialogue. McAdams' publications and coursework focus on public policy, electoral analysis, and conspiracy debunking. His type of work is being sidelined for critical publications that create a dialogue, but don't get anything done. After reading his blog post I personally think he was using the incident as a jumping stone to criticize the current direction of Academia. I sympathize with his feelings, but he's absolutely wrong and unprofessional for taking a secret recording and using it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
KOTEX GOD OF BLOOD posted:The Supreme Court has articulated a relatively clear jurisprudence about speech - you can't yell "fire" in a crowded theater, is the classic example. It sounds as though you are arguing for a lower threshold. It's basically impossible to do so without becoming censors. If you accept that threshold, you are already engaging in censoring, you just decided that it is an acceptable level of censorship. So you are just debating about the details and how much censorship is enough. Of course you don't want to frame it as that, since it undermines your position a bit, but thems the breaks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:Oh he's totally lashing out at a phantom, a lot of tenured professors in Political Science are. The field has tried to move into objectivity and comprehensive theory building since the 1970s (look at any publications back then, and note the incredible amount of effort put into analysis to maintain objectivity, particularly when it comes to case study analysis), but the recent cross over of sociology and gender studies have allowed Critical Theory and Post Modernism to become a mainstream method of analysis, stagnating a lot of work under the 'guise of creating a dialogue. In my experience the "objective" professors are the biggest hacks who use questionable methodologies to come to ideology-friendly conclusions. For example, there's this garbage that was cited in the last decade as proof of a terrible media bias towards liberals but with coding that was terrible (RAND corp is listed as a liberal think tank, for example) and shits all over his conclusion. Outside of studies dealing with electoral systems and public opinion polling political science is full of numbers masquerading as objective science. Also lol if you think marxian approaches to political science are a recent thing. Theda Skocpol would like a word w/ you.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:33
|
|
|
Critical Theory isn't Marxism, it's a theory that borrowed terminology from Marxism
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:34
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:there are definitely cases where there should be some burden to prove that it's actually worthwhile in some way. That's great as long as people you agree with are on the board that determines if what people want to say is worthwhile. But then when they aren't.........
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:In my experience the "objective" professors are the biggest hacks who use questionable methodologies to come to ideology-friendly conclusions. For example, there's this garbage that was cited in the last decade as proof of a terrible media bias towards liberals but with coding that was terrible (RAND corp is listed as a liberal think tank, for example) and shits all over his conclusion. Outside of studies dealing with electoral systems and public opinion polling political science is full of numbers masquerading as objective science. It looks like his ilk have never heard of the 'is-ought' problem. It is laughable to think 'science' and 'objective reasoning' can justify moral and ethical positions. You can use the scientific method to determine if we're achieving our desired goals, but science can say nothing about what goals we ought to set.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:In my experience the "objective" professors are the biggest hacks who use questionable methodologies to come to ideology-friendly conclusions. For example, there's this garbage that was cited in the last decade as proof of a terrible media bias towards liberals but with coding that was terrible (RAND corp is listed as a liberal think tank, for example) and shits all over his conclusion. Outside of studies dealing with electoral systems and public opinion polling political science is full of numbers masquerading as objective science. Fair enough. I've had good experiences with professors who use excellent methodology to analyze case studies. I don't have any on hand because I'm sleepy, but I think we can both agree that lovely academics exist in every field. That said, there is significant potential for the application of objective analysis beyond public opinion polling and electoral studies. Measuring poverty rates, municipal downloading and funding, etc. I hope it was hyperbole when you said that there only 2 applications for objective analysis in Political Science. The poster above me addressed your second point. To add though: I have met Dr. Skocpol, and she's an amazing researcher in every aspect, although we never talked about methodologies (I'm terrible at conferences).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 05:52
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:Fair enough. I've had good experiences with professors who use excellent methodology to analyze case studies. I don't have any on hand because I'm sleepy, but I think we can both agree that lovely academics exist in every field. That said, there is significant potential for the application of objective analysis beyond public opinion polling and electoral studies. Measuring poverty rates, municipal downloading and funding, etc. I hope it was hyperbole when you said that there only 2 applications for objective analysis in Political Science. I've always lumped poverty etc. under sociology but that goes to show how hosed up the department system of western academia is when departments overlap each other all the time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 06:40
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:Oh he's totally lashing out at a phantom, a lot of tenured professors in Political Science are. The field has tried to move into objectivity and comprehensive theory building since the 1970s (look at any publications back then, and note the incredible amount of effort put into analysis to maintain objectivity, particularly when it comes to case study analysis), but the recent cross over of sociology and gender studies have allowed Critical Theory and Post Modernism to become a mainstream method of analysis, stagnating a lot of work under the 'guise of creating a dialogue. I don't know which country you live in, but the notion that postmodernism is mainstream in either sociology or political science in the United States is absolutely false. Just like the notion that "public policy, electoral analysis..." are being "sidelined for critical publications that create a dialogue, but don't get anything done" is also absolutely false in the American academic context. Apropos: http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/the_myth_of_the.html http://leiterreports.typepad.com/blog/2005/10/postmodernism_a.html joepinetree fucked around with this message at 08:36 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 07:58
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:I don't know which country you live in, but the notion that postmodernism is mainstream in either sociology or political science in the United States is absolutely false. Just like the notion that "public policy, electoral analysis..." are being "sidelined for critical publications that create a dialogue, but don't get anything done" is also absolutely false in the American academic context. You're right, I'm not in the US, so I don't know the specific situation there. I work in Canada and Europe, both which definitely have a different Academic environment than the states. I'm hesitating from going further into my argument, but I have to point out that your source is just one Academic's point of view. All I can say is this: From my experiences going to conferences over the past five years, there has been a distinct shift from papers focusing on public policy and local government issues on the empirical level to socially-oriented critical papers. The rise of constructivism and post-positivism in the 1990s is an indicator, along with Part of that is due to the loud voices from gender studies seeking representation in newly related areas of social science/humanities, another part of it is how new these approaches are, and their multiplicity presents open ground for fresh research.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:02
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:You're right, I'm not in the US, so I don't know the specific situation there. I work in Canada and Europe, both which definitely have a different Academic environment than the states. I'm hesitating from going further into my argument, but I have to point out that your source is just one Academic's point of view. Well, I am an academic in the US, so I am not just going off of Leiter (and, by the way, there are two different academics writing in those links). But we don't need to rely on them to tell us anything. We can open up the list of articles for APSR, AJPS, CPS, the program for the APSA, etc. and we will see that there is no such thing. And I am pretty sure it is the same for Canada. I am sure things vary from European country to European country, but there is also no such postmodern turn in the Journal of European Public Policy, the European Journal of International Relations, and the European Journal of Political Research, and so on. I mean, I would love to know which major departments or publications have specifically adopted these postmodern ideas.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
joepinetree posted:Well, I am an academic in the US, so I am not just going off of Leiter (and, by the way, there are two different academics writing in those links). But we don't need to rely on them to tell us anything. We can open up the list of articles for APSR, AJPS, CPS, the program for the APSA, etc. and we will see that there is no such thing. And I am pretty sure it is the same for Canada. I am sure things vary from European country to European country, but there is also no such postmodern turn in the Journal of European Public Policy, the European Journal of International Relations, and the European Journal of Political Research, and so on. Unfortunately, I haven't done the appropriate research into this. Like I said, this is based on my own experience at conferences, certain schools, and speaking to professors (I'm aware of the irony of using personal experiences as an explanation for this). If I'm wrong, I'll be wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:Unfortunately, I haven't done the appropriate research into this. Like I said, this is based on my own experience at conferences, certain schools, and speaking to professors (I'm aware of the irony of using personal experiences as an explanation for this). If I'm wrong, I'll be wrong. You're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:You're wrong. Thank you for your contribution. SparkPeople fucked around with this message at 17:31 on Dec 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 17:08
|
|
|
SparkPeople posted:Thank you for your contribution. You're welcome. But seriously, if you were aware of the 'irony', then why say it in the first place? Bizarre anecdotal speculation isn't ever really worthwhile. If you look at course catalogs, journal publications, or any other data measure, there's really a very small amount of postmodernism in modern academia. Foucalt holds strong, most others are on the cutting room floor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 11:41 |
|
|
Is this our annual "people from political science whine about things they don't understand" thread? Given that we have people actively complaining about postmodernism (which I guess is the intellectual equivalent of complaining about the climate) I'm going to say yes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2014 18:14
|
|
