Mike wrote:
> I do have some thoughts on your second question, however. What was:
>
> That brings me to the second point. It seems to me that critical theories
> (in the widest sense, those seeking to critique and redress exploitation,
> inequalities of power etc) will always remain in a subordinate position
> within their disciplines regardless of how good their analysis and
> resolution of the disciplinary crisis may be - at least until broader
social
> change brings them to the fore. There is a danger of implicitly assuming
> that the best ideas will always win out in the clash of intellectual
> argument if they can convince enough people. Sadly, that isn't the case,
as
> I'm sure we all know ;).
>
> Bruce
> -----
>
> This is an issue I have struggled with a lot. One way to react to this
> is to absolve oneself of any responsibility vis a vis professional
activity
> until the broader social change comes along, and perhaps, instead, to work
> on wherever you think the high leverage points are with respect to such
> channge.
This was not what I meant, though I think it does hit one real problem on
the head. I am not just an academic but also a political activist and there
is always a dangerous temptation to a form of dualism in which 'broad social
change' goes into the sphere of politics (thereby accepting a responsibility
for creating it), while leaving one's academic activities in a sort of limbo
where one either gets immersed in trivia or becomes a sort of 'pure
critic' - that is, either a backseat driver (and academic in the bad sense
of not relating to the world outside academe) or a court jester, licensed to
mock and critique the status quo, but ineffective in changing anything.
I think the range of possibilities open to an individual vary a lot,
depending in some degree on the subject matter. When I was teaching (I took
early retirement) a lot of my teaching was of technical subjects such as
database design, which are not too amenable to a radical perspective on
society (at least not for much more than 10 mins / semester!).
It also depends, for want of a better word, on the zeitgeist and the degree
to which forces in society as a whole are questioning what is usually taken
for granted and/or acting to change it. (that is, I suppose, what I meant by
the 'broader' in 'broader social change). For example, in the late 60s /
early 70s there was widespread questioning of university curricula in terms
of their ideological and practical functioning in the wider society and this
in turn spawned a whole number of 'counter-movements'. In the UK, we had
movements and journals (some of which survive in different ways) in
'Radical Philosophy', 'Radical Science', 'Socialist Economists', 'Critical
Social Policy' etc. Some of these movements did try to intervene actively
outside the campus gates.
Today in a lot of disciplines we have a dominant conformism and/or an
apathetic / abstentionist feeling that nothing can be done, often dressed up
in respectable academic arguments.
> There are of course various hybrid lines of action one could adopt (while
> remembering that the best ideas don't always (often?) win, at least not in
> one's lifetime.
>
> One line that I have thought holds promise relates to the theory/practice
> issue which is somewhere near the core of the question, I believe. Current
> dominant views, say, with respect to acquisition of literacy, routinely
> fail, and do so in ways that have painful, visible consequences for
participants. If one can create theory driven practices which succeed as
visibly as
> practices supported by dominant views fail, it seems to be both good
> science and perhaps a modest contribution to promoting "broader change" (
> depending on just how broad you mean).
Yes, I think the key thing is to make one's expertise available in that
cause. Even that it not very easy today - not just because of funding,
promotion policies etc - but also I feel because there are fewer sites where
there is a possibility of getting a foot in the door and doing it. So I also
meant that broader social change will create lots of new openings for this
kind of practical engagement with the world.
> When criticism leads to quietism, it helps to sustain harmful practice and
> perpetuates bad science.
>
> Does that sound reasonable?
Yes - more than that...
Bruce
> I hope to get in some reading time ere sundown and look forward to
Laszlo's
> response to you note.
> mike
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Oct 01 2001 - 01:02:19 PDT