Vacuity and Consensus
In response to this article, some readers have been discussing PoMo politics and its various “trickle-down” effects. Readers who’ve been following that discussion may be interested in some points made by Fabian Tassano over at his blog. Tassano addresses the broader subject of leftist bias in academia and the creeping censorship that follows:
“The larger part of academia has become obsessed with jargon and formalism, at the expense of meaningful content. An academic’s principal options in fields such as economics, psychology or sociology are now (1) become a number-cruncher (do tedious empirical research with plenty of highly technical statistical analysis, much of which is likely to be questionable), or (2) generate pseudo-theory of a kind which reproduces the currently fashionable terminology. In either case, taking care to say nothing that conflicts with received wisdom. In fields such as literature or philosophy, there is only option (2). The high level of technicality and referencing typically masks the triviality — or absence — of genuine content.
The purpose of academia has changed from producing real insights to generating reinforcement for the preferred world view… It should be obvious by now, to anyone who cares, that the principle of free speech is being gradually eroded in the West. Either by straightforward ditching, or — more subtly — by redefining it in ways designed to legitimise the prohibition of ideologically incorrect viewpoints. For example, not long ago an editor at the Index on Censorship admonished us for being too literalist about the issue: ‘People shouldn’t think that the Index is against censorship on principle. It may have been so in its radical youth, but it is now as concerned with fighting hate speech as protecting free speech.’ (Rohan Jayasekera, commenting about the murder of Theo van Gogh.)
…Where we get dissident research being done at all, it is — inevitably — funded by bodies with links to commerce and/or right wing politics, since those are the only organisations with an incentive to challenge the il-liberal consensus. This is used by the mainstream both (a) to prove that there isn’t a restriction on what research gets done, and (b) to discredit that research.”
The article can be read in full here. Tassano’s book, Mediocracy, may also be of interest.
I’m afraid to say that Tassano’s option (1) exists also in all the sciences, and option (2) in much theoretical high energy and cosmological physics. As for (1), the bottom line is funding, and there is such conservatism built into the system that in order to succeed as a researcher, one has to play the game and stick to conventional wisdom. There is still a little room for truly creative endeavour, but this exists only at the very top – with tenured professors who can get away with a little creative accountancy when it comes to how they spend their research grants.
There are obviously major differences between the arts, humanities and sciences, but many of the problems are shared. I conjecture that they are largely the result of laziness, lack of imagination and economic self-interest (i.e., protecting one’s livelihood). Censorship — either self- or imposed — comes way down the list.
“PoMo” ideology may have a role to play in the arts and humanities, but I do not see this as the root of the problem. Postmodernism is a fundamentally reactionary ideology; it is a symptom and not a cause. Leftist ideology may be dull and uninteresting, but so too is much of the contemporary discourse that passes for liberal and libertarian thought.
As for failed academic careers, one would have to ask specific questions of Fabian Tassano as to why his career went pear-shaped. Mine failed as I did not produce sufficient peer-reviewed papers at a crucial time in my postdoc years. I stand by my many criticisms of state schooling and academia, but cannot blame the system as a whole for my personal woes.
I know very little about Tassano, but am aware of Celia Green’s ideas and personal background. I regard Green’s ideas as worthy of serious engagement, but I think she makes too much of her educational handicaps and failure to establish an academic career. As I type, there is a banner running across the status bar of my browser, when viewing Green’s website, that reads:
“State education should be abolished. If it could ruin my education and my life, it could ruin anybodys.”
Now I’m no fan of state education either, but Green is here being silly, and it does her cause no good whatsoever.
From what I can see, Celia Green would never fit into academic life, and should not be attempting to get back in. We can be passionate about our research, and sweat blood over our PhDs, but academia does not owe us a living, and we have no right to expect that our academic careers will extend beyond a few years of postdoc life.
Like another former academic, Sue Blackmore, Green should instead rejoice in her independence, and make a living from writing and public speaking. May the Oxford Forum thrive if it has anything useful to contribute, but let it be *for* something rather than a reaction against the ills of academia, real or perceived.
It’s all very well complaining about mediocrity, but where is the excellency? It exists in those who rise above their condition and focus on the possibilities inherent in life. I may not be one of them, but can still acknowledge true brilliance in others when I see it.
Francis,
I think that there are certainly more objective criteria on which to found a reputation in the sciences, such as reproducibility of experimental results. The problem with the humanities, such as they are, is that they have made themselves a willing adjunct to the promotion of programmes of social change, in part in order to foster a sense of the meaningfulness of the endeavor. It’s not “art for art’s sake,” anymore, despite what some of the academics will tell you. And the cruel irony is that one isn’t recruited into, for example, literary studies by virtue of a commitment to Marxist deconstruction of postcolonial narrative in the Caribe. It is rather a function of the academy’s image of itself as heroically transforming the society whose resources it nevertheless absorbs for conferences in the Bahamas and chaired professorships of sherry and cheese. Daft.
Dan & Francis,
I couldn’t say what state the teaching of economics or physics is in, but it seems fairly obvious that the humanities have, as Dan says, become a “willing adjunct to the promotion of programmes of social change, in part in order to foster a sense of the meaningfulness of the endeavour.” As noted in the article below, one suspects a great many arts students have learned to express the ‘correct’ kind of politics, in the ‘correct’ kind of language, in order to gain approval.
https://thompsonblog.co.uk/2007/02/art_bollocks_re.html
The endless arts catalogues and press releases I’m sent are littered with obligatory and unconvincing claims of political “relevance” and of “raising issues” of one kind or another. (Actually, they’re pretty much all of one kind, politically at least.) It wouldn’t be entirely outrageous to suggest that the humanities have in large part been transformed into a vehicle for the ruminations of embittered Marxists.
“I think that there are certainly more objective criteria on which to found a reputation in the sciences, such as reproducibility of experimental results.”
Dan – That’s only part of it. Personal and social skills, together with political acumen, also play a big part in the success or failure of scientific careers.
As for the reproducibility of experimental results, what matters most to a scientist is his or her citation index. For that reason, an effective strategy is to ensure that a proportion of one’s papers are every so slightly wrong. That way, everyone cites you, if only to (mildly) criticise. It’s somewhat similar to comment journalism and political blogging, where success comes through annoying people so much that they respond publicly.
That’s interesting, Francis. When I get into disputes, I always forward mild (though telling) criticisms first, whilst keeping a large club in reserve awaiting the inevitable rejoinder.
BTW, how much does a stunning cleavage help a scientific career?
Dan,
I doubt many scientists feel comfortable with the back of their jeans hanging quite that low.
“BTW, how much does a stunning cleavage help a scientific career?”
Are you commenting on my man boobs? Right, outside!
If this is going to get bawdy, I may have to rethink the all-night free bar.
Well, you did say “vacuity.”
I can see I’m going to have to take up the carpet and put down some sawdust. The cheap kind.
I suspect that the academic boredom factor, heightened by the sort of institutional stultification described above, adds fuel to the fire of politicization. Ever notice how some academics seem to liven up when they start injecting politics? Neither art nor science care about politics. The “correct” politics doesn’t save mediocre work from anything but swiftness of oblivion — I guess it’s a kind of “Cthulhu, eat me last” kind of thing.
The real question is: Where can we go from here? It would seem that when the absurdities pile high enough, PoMo and the rest of it would eventually topple. On the other hand, the absurdity-that-doesn’t-recognize-itself capacity of criticism and theory seems greater with each passing year…
In literary criticism, the only alternative is to do something entirely strange and besides the point. For instance, applying the sciences to literature in a very 1 to 1 way is one bizarre alternative to postmodernism…Literary Darwinism is one example. The Big Bang Theory, String Theory etc. have all been applied to literature as if they somehow explain it. The oddity of this approach merely shows how stifling PoMo has become. When in the jail-cell of postmodernism, some critics will do anything to get themselves out.
litandart.com
Fabian Tassano’s article is almost better in your extract than in the original.
He makes an excellent generic point about spurious technicality but spoils it but turning personal with People like me … cannot get on in modern academia. By doing so he invites readers respond with something like Francis Sedgemore’s contribution. It may well be true, but the exmination of potential reasons for his lack of success tends to obscure the wider point that he was making.
“Celia Green would never fit into academic life, and should not be attempting to get back in… Green should instead rejoice in her independence, and make a living from writing and public speaking.”
The problem with this advice is that research (i.e. learning more about reality) is her primary interest; moreover, however hopeless it may seem for someone past 70 to still be trying to initiate a research program, she has every reason to regard doing so (in her case) as an objectively valuable action to undertake, and not just as a personal whim. In her books, starting almost forty years ago, she enumerates a number of attitudes prevalent in science and philosophy which serve to retard progress. Those attitudes are still prevalent. The outcome of a research program run by someone with a different set of attitudes cannot be known, because the experiment has never been conducted. That is the larger meaning of all her decades without funding: the human race has thrown away a huge opportunity. Even at this late hour, if she somehow got the millions of pounds she cries out for, it is still likely that (in collaboration with her associates) she would produce something remarkable.
OK David – level with us. Did you set fire to Celia Green’s garden shed? Tell me the truth, young man!
I’m much too useful to have a career in academia.
Vacuity And Consensus: ‘Leftist Bias in Academia’
The purpose of academia has changed from producing real insights to generating reinforcement for the preferred world view…And of course it the academics that have decided what the preferred world view is…. Which brings to mind the response to his r…