Many Regressive Returns!
Here is something that might bring a smile. :)
"Graphs on the Death of Marxism, Postmodernism, and Other Stupid Academic Fads":
http://tinyurl.com/3zhq8y
And a snippet from the above (from Sept. 2008):
Try to understand what is happening with those declining graph lines. Those lines suggest that the intellectual guts of political correctness are steadily rotting away!
All right, here is another item in a related vein of "news", of which the keen, sophisticated, cutting-edge readers of this most excellent of all possible web logs will not fail to grasp the importance. Well all right, perhaps it is mainly of interest to those who have got the patience to sift the arcane in search of the significant. (The purpose of the arcane, you see, is precisely to conceal the significant, like a needle in a haystack!) I myself occasionally have such patience, and it looks like THIS was one of those occasions:
"Beyond Reform: Agency 'after theory' ":
http://fty.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/3/315
As you will note, this is an academic article from a journal called Feminist Theory, dated December 2007 — which is fairly recent. Best of all, Sage Publications offers the article for download free of charge. Follow the link, and look for the red word free at the upper right.
Here is the abstract from the article:
Pay special attention to that little word 'agency'; it speaks tons. Then read THIS again: http://tinyurl.com/d2t6w6
. . . . where, as you will note, that little word likewise occurs.
Finally, allow me translate the meaning of "regressive return" to "an age of pre-theoretical innocence" into layman's English. It simply means throwing political correctness overboard. So in the end, the big question which the article looks into is this: how to move beyond (cultural Marxist critical) "theory" without sacrificing political correctness.
Because "theory", as we see from the first-linked website, is in decline.
I'll leave you connect more dots on your own. . . .
"Graphs on the Death of Marxism, Postmodernism, and Other Stupid Academic Fads":
http://tinyurl.com/3zhq8y
And a snippet from the above (from Sept. 2008):
"We are living in very exciting times -- at long last, we've broken the stranglehold that a variety of silly Blank Slate theories have held on the arts, humanities, and social sciences. To some, this may sound strange, but things have decisively changed within the past 10 years, and these so-called theories are now moribund. To let those out-of-the-loop in on the news, and to quantify what insiders have already suspected, I've drawn graphs of the rise and fall of these fashions."Marxism! Psychoanalysis! Deconstruction! Feminism! Hegemony! Narratology! Oh my! Is it possible that all of these doctrines are "going south"? What the graphs appear to indicate, is that such things are being talked about less in the academic journals! And if they are being talked about less in the journals, it's a pretty safe bet they're being talked about less in academia at large. Furthermore, if academic people are talking about those things less, it means that they are edging those things out of their speech and out of their minds in favor of something else. . . .
Try to understand what is happening with those declining graph lines. Those lines suggest that the intellectual guts of political correctness are steadily rotting away!
All right, here is another item in a related vein of "news", of which the keen, sophisticated, cutting-edge readers of this most excellent of all possible web logs will not fail to grasp the importance. Well all right, perhaps it is mainly of interest to those who have got the patience to sift the arcane in search of the significant. (The purpose of the arcane, you see, is precisely to conceal the significant, like a needle in a haystack!) I myself occasionally have such patience, and it looks like THIS was one of those occasions:
"Beyond Reform: Agency 'after theory' ":
http://fty.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/8/3/315
As you will note, this is an academic article from a journal called Feminist Theory, dated December 2007 — which is fairly recent. Best of all, Sage Publications offers the article for download free of charge. Follow the link, and look for the red word free at the upper right.
Here is the abstract from the article:
"This article assesses the peculiar condition of being `after' theory. Any attempt to better understand why theory now haunts contemporary intellectual practice more than it challenges it must make use of the archive of feminist theory's critical distance with poststructuralism. In fact, feminist theory's traditional concern with the possibilities of/for agency gives us the most useful framework for assessing both the in/adequacy of theory and the in/adequacy of any `after theory' return (whether to aesthetics, intentionality, universalism, liberalism, the literary, etc.). If the question of agency puts pressure on theory's shortcomings, and the continued failure to locate agency within a constructivist framework gives legitimacy to regressive returns, then a more sustained discussion of agency is urgent. In turn, locating agency requires, philosophically and critically, a recuperation of `experience' as a way of knowing. If it can be argued that the constructive process is what occasions experience, and experience, finally, is the site of agency, then we can theorize the `how' of agency without relying on externalized positionalities (which are phenomenologically untenable). Finally, if, politically speaking, the failure to locate agency leaves us oscillating between the avowal and disavowal of reform, then a sustained discussion of agency promises to take us `beyond reform' altogether."Even if this is not your preferred style of literature, I would encourage you to give it a go. Hint: something important is happening here; an intellectual crisis is brewing in academia. Read the rest of the article, and you will learn of a loss of faith which bedevils the intellectual ruling class! It seems they have reached a point on the cliff where they can climb no higher, and yet they can't go DOWN again! And those orange-highlighted passages jump right out and sock me in the eye — that is why I highlighted them!
Pay special attention to that little word 'agency'; it speaks tons. Then read THIS again: http://tinyurl.com/d2t6w6
. . . . where, as you will note, that little word likewise occurs.
Finally, allow me translate the meaning of "regressive return" to "an age of pre-theoretical innocence" into layman's English. It simply means throwing political correctness overboard. So in the end, the big question which the article looks into is this: how to move beyond (cultural Marxist critical) "theory" without sacrificing political correctness.
Because "theory", as we see from the first-linked website, is in decline.
I'll leave you connect more dots on your own. . . .



18 Comments:
Ding, dong ~ the Witch is dead! hahahaha YEAH!!!
Regressing to where?
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2009/jan/09012207.html
@Julie:
Interesting page you have linked to. . .
But seriously. "Marriage" ought to be a reserved keyword, as they say in the computer programming biz.
That is: Marriage = man + woman
If the combination is something else (other than man + woman) then call it by a different word.
For example, "partnership".
But NOT the word "marriage". That word is already taken. . .
Therefore, "gay marriage" is an oxymoron. A square circle.
The union of male and female is a culturally distinct and separate thing, and so ought to have a unique name in order to signal the difference.
It is NOT "just one form of marriage among others". It's the only marriage there is!
See how easy that is! It all comes down to semantics! :)
Dear Fidelbogen,
Please, if you so desire, post this edited version of my last comment in your honored blog. I'm a bit drunk and upon review the first draft was a bit sloppy. :)
During the last century, the tradition of philosophical, social-historical criticism has, roughly speaking, moved from Marxist cultural criticism to semiological structuralism to post-structuralism or "deconstruction." I would not go so far as to say this tradition is dead or dying. This would be, in my opinion, precipitous. Rather, it may be experiencing a lull or, more probably, that "certain interests" are no longer exploiting them (as much) in an attempt to make their arguments appear weighty.
It should be noted that the heavy weights within this tradition have tended to resist categorization by force of their own works.
Fidelbogen,
Science has disproved and ridiculed many of the Marxist theories. First of them is the feminist tenet, which proclaims of sexual differences as sexual constructs.
The second is the marxist theory on the origin of family, which was used by feminists as a cornerstone of their ideology.
Then we have the deep inter-racial differences in IQ, intelligence, monogamous instincts etc.,
Now, almost everyone, barring few extreme idealogues,believe that an utopia is a dream.
Hence is the decreased discussion on leftist theories.
Hi CF. So it all comes down to language. Very logical.
Unfortunately, logic is out the window these days.
Feminism is declining, you say, along with "political correctness" in general. Your point, I assume, is that this supports your platform that feminism is to be done away with.
"One should remember that the truth is not decided by the number of people subscribing to it. Whether or not certain ideas are 'out of the mainstream' is besides the point."
— "The Anti-Male Shaming Catalog"
http://www.dumpyourwifenow.com/2007/03/01/the-anti-male-shaming-tactics-catalog/
Is this not the exact reverse of the point you are trying to make?
@N.J:
NJ = "New Jersey"? "Natasha Jensen"? ;)
"Feminism is declining, you say, along with "political correctness" in general. Your point, I assume, is that this supports your platform that feminism is to be done away with."
*IS* feminism declining, along with polcor? Perhaps. Or then again perhaps it is merely in a cyclical downswing? Time will tell.
However, being the bloodhound that I am, I sniff around for things that smell significant, so I can share them with my readers. . .
Hopefully this ol' hound-dawg ain't just howling at the moon! ;)
"Is this not the exact reverse of the point you are trying to make?"
That is difficult to say, since I am not clear about what point you think I am trying to make...
Feminism (measured as the agglomeration of its motions and consequences) is not "to be done away with", but rather countered.
Dear Fidelbogen,
I believe B.F. Skinner was the principal proponent of so-called "blank slate" theory. :)
Philosophical Pragmatists and their Deconstructive counterparts are best described as anti-essentialists. Both Pragmatism and Deconstruction - considered as a set of philosophical views about truth, knowledge, objectivity, and language - are neutral concerning feminism. So if one wants specifically feminist doctrines to explain the world, neither Pragmatism nor Deconstruction will provide them. Unfortunately, many people espousing these philosophical schools have exploited them to do just that.
I'll use Richard Rorty (a thinker for whom I otherwise have a good deal of respect) as an example.
Most of what Rorty says about feminism is commonsensible to Pragmatists up until the point where masculinism is talked about as a definite thing unlike all the other Rorty objects (neutrinos, chairs, women, men, literary theory, feminism) which are social constructs.
Rorty makes of "masculinism" a kind of insideous monster.
"For masculinism is the defense of the people who have been on top since the beginning of history against attempts to topple them; that sort of monster is very adaptable, and I suspect that it can survive almost as well in an anti-logocentric as in a logocentric philosophical environment." ..
Rorty ends with the claim that:
"Neither pragmatists nor deconstructionists can do more for feminism than help rebut attempts to ground these practices (masculinism) on something deeper than a contingent historical fact - the fact that the people with the slightly larger muscles have been bullying the people with the slightly smaller muscles for a very long time."
That's it? Certainly, such a monster would be a wily critter whose powers are predicated far more on wits that brute force! Perhaps Rorty should reread some of his first lesson in logic on the difference between significant cause, necessary cause, and appeals to confident speculation of the oversimple kind.
Rorty is right to tell feminists that the acid bath of deconstruction will not help their cause. Rather, it will likely "de-center" the points central to their arguments. In this school of thought, there can be no "progress of reason," "spirit of the age," "unity of assumptions," of "dominant world view." Instead of broad continuous (period) histories, deconstruction offers only discontinuous fields of discourse from specific disciplines. The more discontinuous and fragmented the episteme -- the more differentiated it is -- the closer one approaches the post-structuralist project -- one of rejecting smooth and simple synthesis of theory.
That is what, as I see it, has been my project as regards feminism: To deconstruct it and its understanding of history. To do what institutional philosophers like Richard Rorty dare not
@MartyLee:
"Unfortunately, many people espousing these philosophical schools have exploited them to do just that."
So it goes. If ya got the right tools and the right skills, you can jack my car and pull the engine out! :(
Just don't let me catch you. I don't like people jacking my car. . . :-0
..........
It's funny, but what you have described sounds almost like an incarnation of the wave/particle paradox on a higher level:
Wave = "spirit of the age", et al
Particle = "fragmented episteme"
...........
But. . . in the end, finally, really, it's all about POWER. 'Twas ever thus!
Elemental, Watson! ;)
@MartyLee: As long as we are on the subject of blank slates, let us not forget about John Locke. . .
Oddly enough, Locke is a whipping-boy for plenty of 'blank-slaters' in lefty academia - along with his contemporary Rene Descartes! (Oh man, they just LOVE to flail at Descartes!)
Anywho: in my own observation, human beings of all races, cultures, nationalities, etc,usw, are markedly more alike than different. There is, I believe, a 'universal' human nature. Culture varies wildly of course, but is only the thin uppermost crust of the psyche. The deeper you dig, the more essentially similar the human animal becomes.
Everywhere. At all times.
I've never known this to fail, except in the case of those exceedingly rare "aliens" whom one occasionally chances to meet... ;-}
@Bhanu:
"..Hence is the decreased discussion on leftist theories."
Oh.. but just watch them dance around in deep denial, trying to pretend that something completely different is happening...! ;)
This promises amusement! ;)) !!
Off topic.
I liked this site because I have collected information from it. But then I comment (first time) and get kicked off. Strange thing that
So I was SAD and MAD. I didn't get a last say let alone a fair chance and now the site I liked is the site I dislike.
But then I was not SAD or MAD but GLAD because I noticed another comment was from a writer of a newspaper and I am thinking they have may have listened in.
http://ww4report dot com/node/6493
I haven't put the dot (.) in the middle because I would rather they not delete what I wrote.
But I kinda find it funny.
Just to be on the safe side, we ought to be planting trees like crazy. I confess to being an occasional tree-hugger. Trees are cool. Trees never hurt anybody - well, not unless they fall on somebody, but that's a risk you take in return for living in a world full of trees.
Sigh! If only we could generate massive social change by some manner of GRASSROOTS INITIATIVE. . .
Of the sheeple, by the sheeple, for the sheeple. . .
It ought to scare the sweet bejesus out of us, that elite cliques and orgs wish to take the vanguard in all of this.
@CF, I hear what you are saying. Can't relate too much because NZ has enough trees. But I have studied a paper on the environment. Plants that have medicinal purposes being wiped out before we discover them is important to me.
Also the landfills of rubbish around the world and pollution.
But the climate change issue is a hoax.
..........
When you think of it. The personal has become the political for all of us.
Fidelbogen,
N.J. = my name
I'm only suggesting that the apparent downswing of feminism, as per the information in the article, does not mean that feminism is a bad thing. All it says to me is that academia is bored with the notion of feminism, believes that the problem has been solved, and therefore isn't as interested in publishing about it.
On my first reading of this post, it seemed like you were using the graph as supporting evidence against feminism, but upon second reading, I guess this is more of a "good news fellow anti-feminists" nudge to your followers.
I'm not entirely clear on exactly what your problem is with feminism. I ask because you seem like an intelligent person, and you've certainly put a lot of time and effort into this blog. It's clearly something you care about greatly, but I don't quite understand what your premise is.
Was feminism so bad fifty years ago? A hundred? Do you think women should not have the right to vote or own property? Is the objectification of women in our society (and especially the media) okay, or do you simply believe it isn't there? Do you think there used to be problems, but now they're solved and those of us who are still fighting should just shut up and quit whining?
It's an honest question. If I'm going to challenge your ideas, I need to understand what they are.
@Ears:
". . you seem like an intelligent person . ."
Mmm, yes. Quite surprising, but if you dig around you'll find quite a few here in the sector who seem that way. And some who don't, as I'll readily admit. Alas! ;)
"I'm not entirely clear on exactly what your problem is with feminism."
You sound like a newcomer to MRA discourse. It's quite an intricate world — becoming an "academia" of sorts in its own right.
So: here's a thought that might prove illuminatory: "Feminism" is a WORD, but the mischief starts when the THING standing back of that word won't keep still. . .
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home