“Dialectic post-postmodern Afro-Latin critical gender theory”
During my lengthy and extremely boring graduation ceremony last year, I passed the time by snickering at the thesis topics of the liberal arts majors. The topics I saw were typical of the BS that passes for research in the humanities these days: critical (Marxist) theory, obsession with sex, and “ethnic” (anti-Western) studies. I was reminded of them by Mike S. Adams recent column on the bullshit topics academics specialize in. I decided to check out my own Texas A&M’s departments, and found much of the same. The biggest bullshit-generators in academia are the political science (something I have four years of firsthand experience in), philosophy (which has been mostly reduced to nonsense) sociology (which is not even a valid concept), and especially the English department, which tends to be the farthest removed from reality, having little or no training or reliance on scientific rigor, logical thought, or historical lessons.
For you students: have you ever checked your what passes for research in your school’s humanities departments? (Yes, the post topic is a meaningless jumble of words. But so is the crap put out by the humanities departments.)
Hey David-
I’m curious–do you actually have an argument to offer here? You’ve dropped the names of a few departments and scoffed a little, but I’m interested to know what your counter might be to some (at least one?) of the arguments you belittle here. I know critical theory is hard for you to understand, but if it’s so stupid, surely you can actually construct some sort of refutation.
Comment by Sharleen — 6/13/2004 @ 4:23 pm
David is obviously insecure about his own lack of understanding of the subjects that he’s so Ineloquently ridiculed. His view of the world is clearly limited
Comment by David Towers — 6/14/2004 @ 11:42 am
David,
You must of struck a nerve with the previous 2 “English Majors”.
I know critical theory is hard for you to understand,
but if it’s so stupid, surely you can actually construct
some sort of refutation.
Surely, if the subject matter is not “so stupid” as you say,
you could provide some sort of refutation.
Comment by RIP Ford — 6/14/2004 @ 2:10 pm
Certainly, you don’t expect me to analyze the fallacies found in four (technically three) fields of study in a single post? If you would like to see my objections to critical theory, I might blog about it in a future post.
…On the other hand, when “experts” tell you that truth is a lie, property is theft, freedom is slavery, and sex is all in the mind, you don’t need to be an “expert” to know that there is something wrong with academia.
Comment by David — 6/14/2004 @ 6:38 pm
BTW, what’s wrong with the comment box?
Comment by David — 6/14/2004 @ 6:39 pm
David-
I do know that you haven’t constructed an argument here. Responding with overgeneralizations of fields you’re not familiar with doesn’t provide evidence for your claim. And “RIP Ford,” surely you know that the burden of proof rests on the person making the argument. I’ve asked Dave to present evidence that the theses (or even one of the projects) he makes fun of are problematic, not situated or adequately framed historically, etc. If he chooses to refute them knowledgeably, I’d be more likely to see this post as having some substance, rather than mere whining.
David, your overgeneralizations of entire academic fields are humorous at best. You occlude scholars who actually share your values who operate within these fileds as you totalize all studies in these departments. It’s really a shame that in making this attack, you leave behind the very characteristics of a solid argument that you claim to advocate.
I’m not going to say more because this comment box is driving me nuts–not sure what is wrong with it.
Comment by Sharleen — 6/15/2004 @ 4:22 am
Again, I wasn’t trying to explain what is wrong with academia in a single, brief blog post. I was pointing the prominence of what most people already recognize as absurd. Whether it is reflective of 95% or 100% of academics, is irrelevant. With several fields, such as sociology and “minority” studies, the corruption is total – the very subjects are based on an deeply flawed view of human nature.
Comment by David — 6/15/2004 @ 8:19 pm
David, I completely agree. The only point I take aceptance from is sociolgy: it is a valid science
though not the way it is mainly practiced today. The fault in sociology today (the study of cultural
phenomena)is that it studies the aggregate of individual behaviour while denying the very
nature, and therefore existence, of the individual. It is the individual and its ideas who shape
society, not the floating absractions of the sociologist (”socialization”, “alienation” etc).
Comment by Harald — 6/17/2004 @ 4:22 am
Agree with David? Then you’ll love “The Lecturer’s Tale” by
James Hynes.
Comment by Ann — 6/17/2004 @ 9:13 am
I’ll agree with you, David. I’m a graduate student in history and am a little dismayed that you didn’t include the trivial crap that often passes for scholarship in that field. We produce massive quantities of effluvia too!
I think you’re slightly wrong, though, in saying that the English department is tends to be the farthest removed from reality, having little or no training or reliance on scientific rigor, logical thought, or historical lessons. I think that most of these fields suffer from the mistaken notion that they need scientific rigor and the posturing that follows. I’m sure that it’s just sloppy formulation on your part, but how exactly would one apply the lessons of the scientific method to analyzing Shakespeare? I know that they apply in the most general epistemological sense, but surely the constructs of hypothesis, observation, experimentation, and thesis don’t lend themselves to critiquing literary works.
Sharleen, I love how you use “occlude” and “totalize” in the same sentence. Your penchant for such verbiage reinforces the underlying subtext of David’s thesis. Perhaps in lieu of using the verbose trappings of the academic, you might deign to proffer vernacular, Anglo-Saxon English. It makes so much more sense and indicates a clarity of thought absent from dissertation diarrhea.
Comment by Bill Brown — 6/17/2004 @ 10:00 pm
Bill, do they not teach you to use the dictionary in your esteemed graduate program? Though you may continue to chalk up your difficulty in understanding things to diarrhea if you like–it’s an interesting reflection of your reading practices.
David, check out this post by Amardeep Singh in which he critiques Mike Adams–it’s worth the read to learn how Adams isn’t exactly fair (or totally honest) with his own criticism.
Comment by Sharleen — 6/19/2004 @ 2:31 pm
You mean “HIS593-Dictionary Usage”? It wasn’t required, so I didn’t take it.
I understand the crap, but that’s mostly due to being immersed in it for years. It’s completely inscrutable to the average reader. And my understanding of it doesn’t mean that it’s cognitively worthy.
Comment by Bill Brown — 6/19/2004 @ 8:47 pm
Sharleen, it’s also funny that you suggest I consult a dictionary since your use of “occlude” is completely wrongheaded and “totalize” isn’t even a word. You meant exclude and lump.
Comment by Bill Brown — 6/19/2004 @ 8:48 pm
Why you Agree with David?
Comment by [email protected] — 7/16/2004 @ 7:10 pm