Saturday, July 21, 2007

Group Profile: The Latin Americanists

[The latest installation of a (usually) Friday series profiling Group of 88 members, which has included posts on Wahneema Lubiano, Grant Farred, Sally Deutsch, Joseph Harris, and Kathy Rudy. The posts examine the scholarship and teaching of Group members, trying to delve into the mindset of professors who last spring abandoned both the tenets of Duke’s Faculty Handbook and the academy’s traditional fidelity to due process. An item to keep in mind: in higher education, professors control the hiring process. The people profiled in this series will craft future job descriptions for Duke professors; and then, for positions assigned to their departments, select new hires.]

Duke’s History Department features three professors who study the history of Hispanic Latin America (Mexico, Central America, and South America outside of Brazil). Pete Sigal, Irene Silverblatt,* and Jocelyn Olcott are all members of the Group of 88. Each also signed the statement of the “clarifying” faculty.

Pete Sigal has a B.A. from Bucknell and a Ph.D. from UCLA. This coming fall, he’ll be teaching courses in colonial Latin American history and a junior seminar entitled “Sexual History around the Globe.” That course asks,

“What does it mean to sexualize history?” We will ask how we can sexuality not just as a topic of study, but as a reading practice. What happens when we focus a feminist and queer analysis on history? How does the historical narrative change as we use sexuality as our reading practice? What happens to the sign of history when confronted with the sign of sexuality? As we read historical narratives that focus on a wide variety of topics, we will discuss those topics by developing sexuality as our reading practice. Thus, when we read a military history, we will ask not just about sexuality as a topic with the military (did soldiers have sex with other soldiers? did soldiers impregnate prostitutes?), but also about sexuality as a reading process (what happens when we center our entire analysis of the military by sexualizing the bodies of the soldiers? what happens when we read the military as a sexualized institution?) Similarly, all other topics will be sexualized in our reading practice. We will read primary and secondary literature from various time periods and locations: hence will perform sexual histories around the globe.

Sigal has published one book (From Moon Goddesses to Virgins: The Colonization of Yucatecan Maya Sexual Desire); edited another (Infamous Desire: Male Homosexuality in Colonial Latin America); and written several journal articles. He has condemned the “Eurocentric biases” of studies of homosexuality (in effect, criticizing gay and lesbian studies from the left, not an easy thing to do), and has suggested that his own scholarship sheds light not just on history “but also on current academic and political controversies regarding the cultural and social constructions of sexual identity.”

To give a sense of the themes prevalent in Sigal’s work, here are some chapter and subchapter titles from his 2002 book, which examines colonial Maya society:

  • “Transsexuality and the Floating Phallus”;
  • “Fornicating with Priests, Communicating with Gods”;
  • “Pedagogy, Pederasty, and Political Power”;
  • “Having Sex in a Church”;
  • “Blood, Semen, and Ritual”;
  • “Gendered Blood and Transsexual Bodies”;
  • “Ritualized Bisexuality”;
  • “The Phallus without a Body.”

In From Moon Goddesses to Virgins, Sigal argued, “The gendering of blood signified the transsexuality of fantasy and desire . . . the Maya fantasy world showed that the people would allow the phallus to play a central role in creation.” This development, however, was “mitigated by the importance of the vagina.” In the end, “the phallus certainly was vital, showing a male dominance, but its vitality was most important when it was attached to nobody.”

In a 2002 article, the Group of 88’er maintained that colonial Maya social structure was based on a “phallic signifying economy” that “stratifies the political system based on gender and age.” Maya stories, contended Sigal, showed the “bieroticism of desire as they primarily discuss sexual acts between men and women as they present the male body in an erotic manner, attaining the pederastic relationship.”

In the end, Mayans recognized that “it is the desire for the phallus that will allow access to political power.”

Maya society, it seems, was a hotbed of sexual radicalism. But when Sigal explained how he reached his conclusions about “the central location of homosexual desire” in colonial Latin American history, his arguments sounded a bit more dubious.

The Group of 88’er conceded that much of his evidence was not readily apparent in the texts—even that other scholars had examined the very same documents he used and not detected his “previously unrecognized pederastic political rituals.”

How, then, did Sigal achieve this historical coup? He combined insights from “poststructuralist gender studies and queer theory influences” with use of philology and postcolonial theory to “understand the texts that I read as literary devices which I decode in order to represent the cultural matrix.”

In a 1998 article, Sigal wrote that historians needed to avoid the “traps of reading the evidence too literally.” (Facts, indeed, can be inconvenient things.) Spanish sources, for instance, claim “that the Incas despised sodomy”—but “we cannot take them at their word.” Sigal appears to have gone to the opposite extreme and assumed that any text of whose message he disapproved could be ignored or creatively re-interpreted.

The net result of such theorizing? A discovery that “Maya writing ostensibly was about politics, religion, ritual, and warfare but subtextually was about gender and sexual desire.” And in these texts—as redefined through Sigal’s “matrix”—“homoeroticism is presented as a universal and positive sexual desire, which maintains and enhances the survival of Mayan society.”

Some people might call Sigal’s “matrix” little more than a rationalization intended to produce an outcome that fits the historian’s preconceived political and social agenda. Regardless, creatively interpreting the texts to suggest that the West imposed anti-gay attitudes on a more sexually tolerant Maya society uses history to promote Sigal’s beliefs about current “political controversies regarding the cultural and social constructions of sexual identity.”

Irene Silverblatt has a B.A. from Swarthmore and a Ph.D. from the University of Michigan. In more than 25 years as a professor, she has published two books: a study of the Inquisition in colonial Peru; and Moon, Sun, and Witches: Gender Ideologies and Class in Inca and Colonial Peru. Silverblatt has described her work as part of “research into the origins of women’s oppression—both symbolic and institutional”; she suggested that her first book contributed to debates over “the transculturality of women’s subordination.”

Silverblatt has urged gender historians to recognize that “the interplay between sexual assault, resistance, patriarchal control, and political dominance is intricate.” To take some examples: “What of indigenous women who did not resist forcible rape? Should their lives and actions be deemed any less heroic or any less virtuous? And what, on the other hand, of those who used their sex to open what were often only the most meager opportunities for themselves or their families? Are they any less virtuous for surviving?” Her essay did not explain the reasons for her apparent assumption that historians should view “indigenous women” as “heroic.”

Her general approach? In a vaguely Maoist line from a 1988 article, Silverblatt gushed about the “exciting literature of self-criticism and reflection,” a development that she deemed critical to understanding the origins of women’s oppression.

The third in the trio of Group of 88 Latin Americanists, Jocelyn Olcott, rejoiced at having “started college at a moment when Latin American Studies distinguished itself for its insistence on simultaneous engagement with both scholarship and politics.” She attracted some attention shortly before the lacrosse case emerged, when she joined her future Group colleague, Diane Nelson, in attempting to shout down David Horowitz during his address at Duke.

Olcott describes her research interests as the “feminist history of modern Mexico”; her book “shows women activists challenging prevailing beliefs about the masculine foundations of citizenship” by examining “how women inhabited the conventionally manly role of citizen by weaving together its quotidian and formal traditions, drawing strategies from local political struggles and competing gender ideologies.” In her acknowledgments, she expresses appreciation for intellectual guidance from fellow Group of 88 members Wahneema Lubiano, Sally Deutsch, Laura Edwards, Esther Gabara, Diane Nelson, and Priscilla Wald.

Last spring, Olcott co-taught a class with Lubiano (Introduction to Critical U.S. Studies), which attracted seven students (for 40 slots). The jargon-laden description gives a sense of why: “The course,” Lubiano and Olcott wrote, “will ask us to think about what it means to be an ‘American.’ Thinking about that concept demands considering the critical production in the United States from different disciplinary perspectives. We will take what we learn about ‘making’ the U.S. and apply what we learn to problems closer to ‘home.’”

What course will this self-described specialist in Mexican feminism, whose most recent journal article is entitled “Miracle Workers: Gender and State Mediation among Textile and Garment Workers in Mexico’s Transition to Industrial Development,” teach in fall 2007? “Regime Change and U.S. Interventions,” which

will examine episodes of U.S. interventions abroad that resulted in the overthrow of democratically elected regimes. While we will focus on Latin America as the primary region of study, we will also consider comparative cases. Readings and research will consider cultural, social, and economic tools of intervention as well as military and diplomatic methods. Students will divide into four research teams and, using documents provided by the instructor as well as those that student find on their own, will research and write histories of U.S. interventions in Guatemala, Chile, Iran, and Congo.

The ideal of a research university is based on the belief that professors will use their research to bring new knowledge into the classroom. In this instance, for $43,000 in tuition and fees, parents are sending their children to be taught about U.S. foreign policy toward Iran and the Congo by a professor whose research has come in . . . Mexican feminism. But Olcott is a Group of 88 member, which apparently is all the qualification needed in some quarters of the Duke faculty.

With their research and teaching interests, is it any wonder that Sigal, Silverblatt, and Olcott all rushed to judgment in spring 2006; and then refused to apologize for their actions last January?

---------

In the end, Duke students who want to study the history of Mexico, Central America, and South America (other than Brazil) can choose between taking classes from:
  • a specialist in Mexican gender history;
  • a specialist in Maya gender history;
  • a specialist in Peruvian gender history.

That’s intellectual diversity, Group of 88-style.

*--Silverblatt has a joint appointment with the Department of Cultural Anthropology.

250 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 250 of 250
Anonymous said...

Is the Floating Phallus a Communist?

Anonymous said...

Haskell @ 8:11,

Since I am the one preaching that we play nice and keep the level of the discussion high, I'll stick to the high road and interpret your post as asking a legitimate question of method -- albeit in a combative form that might discourage a thoughtful answer.

The problems with your hypothetical is that no serious scholar planning to use quantitative methods casts the issue in terms of "something happened" -- he cannot measure anything if he does NOT specify what "something" is. So, if you hear a professor claim to be proving empirically the statement "something happened" without stating what "something" is, then by all means keep yor kids away as that person is incompetent or dishonest -- in fact, almost certainly both.

Once the "something" is properly identified, if it did not happen there is no statistical method I know of that can prove that it did.

This is the whole point of the Lacrosse case. There is NO evidence that a rape occurred because it DID NOT occurr. Once the students were charged with rape, a specific crime that entails a specific set of procedures for establishing whether it occurred or not, the only way to convict them became resorting to illegal methods. The rest is history...

Soc.Sc.Prof.

mac said...

9:41 am
Perfectly stated.

The 88 and their types, the ones who constantly flame
the blog with offal, are
really nothing more than
what Chaucer ridiculed.

The only difference is the period in which the hypocrisy
is acted-out (hypocrite - in the Greek - means "actor," BTW.)

So now you can buy your pardons from the 88:
if you are sufficiently obedient,
and kiss enough ass,
you can indulge yourself
in any fantasy you can dream up.

Buy your pardons now: the 88 is having a yard sale!

Anonymous said...

Inman 8:24 Exactly. A cherished myth, so well known (by some) that it needs no verification. It is a faulty assumption, certainly. But I have seen my Southern heritage shredded by such assumptions and have little patience with faulty logic or myth-based "knowledge".

Anonymous said...

Intellectual diversity???? My old philosophy professor at Duke would call it intellectual masterbation.
Where is God's name did Duke dig these clowns up?

trinity60

Anonymous said...

Soc.Sc.Prof 8:43

Exactly right, the something that happened was originally supposed to have been a rape. I was just pointing out that without rigorous methodology and scrupulous attention to facts, wrong conclusions can be drawn but can be made to appear "correct". And, unfortunately, there seem to be a large number of poor souls (Carrie Smith) who are still convinced "something happened". I applaud folks like you who know how to do good science.

Anonymous said...

Can we get back to reality?

88 supposedly intelligent college professors, because of their academic prejudices, not to mention their racism and sexism, decided to sign a ridiculous document whose premise was:

whites--bad
women--good
blacks--better
gay blacks--really good
gay black females--summa cum laude

That's the scary thing about these monsters--they'll apply their racis and sexism to the "real world."

Polanski

mac said...

8:43

One of the difficulties of interpreting science is the perspective one takes:
like looking at a river from either side (or from the middle.)

Not a great start, but maybe this helps:

Three scientists study the human brain and behavior:

The a) scientist studies the brain from a behavioral (or even Behaviorist) perspective.

The b) scientist studies the brain from how it behaves in the absence or excess of certain neuropeptides, neurotransmitters etc.

The c) scientist studies the brain under FMRI or PET scan, seeing how it responds to stimuli, (including the introduction of
chemical messengers, neuropeptides etc and so forth.)

WAAAY oversimplified, and not very well stated, but none of the three qualify as false-or-soft science.
And yet they all add to the science. Helps to have someone to put them together, to connect the dots.

On the other hand, faux scientists start with an agenda,
make a hypothesis based upon that agenda (and not upon an observation) and draw a conclusion to fit the agenda.

That's the signature of the 88:
agenda-driven pseudoscience.

Anonymous said...

Polanski @ 9:22

I appreciate you intent but I frankly have to disagree with your conclusion. I do not see a NECCESARY connection between the "listening statement" and your hypothesis that this was a "ridiculous document whose premise was:

whites--bad
women--good
blacks--better
gay blacks--really good
gay black females--summa cum laude"

Granted ... one could reach those conclusions by reference to the "scholarly" work of the signatories (by inference only). But absent specific inculpatory evidence.... may I suggest that you devote your efforts to proving the case and not the moral equivalent of yellow journalism.

With all due respect and regard.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

9:51 is the first post that I have thought deserved deletion. It is am nworthy diatribe.

Anonymous said...

mac @ 8:43: "On the other hand, faux scientists start with an agenda, make a hypothesis based upon that agenda (and not upon an observation) and draw a conclusion to fit the agenda.

Agreed. And the best way to debunk them is to highlight that the facts contradict that hypothesis. I seriously doubt that the majority of the Duke faculty are faux scientists/scholars -- it IS a great university after all. I am convinced, however, that those who are real scientists/scholars there want no part of discussions based on questioning the proffesoriat's morality, intelligence or political beliefs.

Soc.Sc.Prof.

Anonymous said...

I know this is way off course...but I just finished watching the movie about flight 93...and I wondered if the children of those brave souls will be offered an education at one of the service academies. Like the progenty of Medal of Honor winners.

Just curious.

Anonymous said...

"One can imagine the course work under these nuts is similar to flash cards."
Just look at the syllabus. The class is divided into four "research" groups. LOL.
The perfesser sits back,does no lecturing, lets the students do all the work, then publishes what the student write.

Anonymous said...

Polanski, you have it all wrong. (I'm surprised, given that you are an Eagle.)
The Beguines did not secede from the Catholic church. They were not religious, they didn't take vows, they could leave and marry. They were probably a reaction to the scarcity of men - since the guys were off fighting the the Muzzies. Crusades, remember.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Soc.Sc.Prof 9:55

"I am convinced, however, that those who are real scientists/scholars there want no part of discussions based on questioning the proffesoriat's morality, intelligence or political beliefs."

I take your point, and it is a good one. Yet those real scientists live in an imperfect world. How does one get entitled into the Proffessoriat? Is it like becoming the Pope? Are they gifted with papal infallability? It seems to me that once a group oversteps the bounds of responsible behavior, then that group deserves very careful study. No one is attacking the majority of professors at Duke -- well, maybe their silence, but there ought to be a mechanism to address morally culpable behavior.

Anonymous said...

haskell @ 10:52,

Thanks. Some thoughts.

"How does one get entitled into the Proffessoriat?"

From what I see, hard, hard work. And a lot of dedication. Contrary to what some posters here assert, serious scholarship is a 24/7/365 job. High-achievers easily qualify for the label of workaholics and put in as many hours as doctors, lawyers and other professionals.

"Is it like becoming the Pope?"

No, it's not an elective post. And typically the appointment becomes for life (tenure) only after one has proved his worth to his peers. Which takes a lot of hard work.

"Are they gifted with papal infallability?"

No, no one is, not even the Pope when he speaks on matters outside his job description.

"It seems to me that once a group oversteps the bounds of responsible behavior, then that group deserves very careful study."

Yes! Which is why I follow Prof. Johnson's work and applaud his effort.

"No one is attacking the majority of professors at Duke -- well, maybe their silence, but there ought to be a mechanism to address morally culpable behavior."

Please pay closer attention to what gets posted here. You surely do not attack the majority of the Duke faculty, but others do. When Duke professors read this blog yours are only a few among a lot of other posts, mostly anonymous. How can they -- and why shouold they be asked to -- tell the difference bewteen angry people who engage in silly rants and responsible people asking legitimate questions? Finally, let's think carefully about whether attacking them for their silence is legitimate or productive. My bet is that most of them do not think of their apparent public silence as a sin of omission.

Soc.Sc.Prof.

mac said...

Soc.Sc.Prof,

Point taken.

I work very hard in my field, too.
(I won't reveal which field.)
Let's just say that it is riddled
with delusionals, gods and goddesses
in their own minds:
they work very hard at creating
and maintaining their illusions,
BS that The Great Randi would find easy to explode.
.............
Tons of seminars, taught by 88-alikes.
..................
Some are even self-described priests and priestesses
in the "Order of Melchizedek."

...............

Yes, they work hard to convince their peers of the merit
of their work. It works,
on feeble minds who are eager to
believe, eager to BE somehow majestic, powerful.
Gods and Goddesses.
.................
...................
Mostly, however, it's just bullshit,
smoke and mirrors: it's what I find so offensive about my own profession -
(not my own work, mind you: I've got strong self-BS detectors.)

I take it personally: not being believed (I won't get into those
particulars of my childhood)
will do wonders for your views
on lies and liars: they become
detestable, an uncoverable stench.

The mythology I'm referring to
is mirrored in the course-offerings KC has described,
from those educators who teach them, for whom there apparently
is no such thing as either a
truth or a lie.

I've seen courses like these, in my profession, but they
go by other names, similarly fraudulent, similarly narcissistic and delusional; make-believe,
self-deifying...total shit.

It's gotten to the point where I am having to seriously consider
a change in professions.

I can thank the 88 for that; I see the road we're taking,
in my profession: the road worst-travelled.

Anonymous said...

Soc.Sc.Prof.

"Please pay closer attention to what gets posted here. You surely do not attack the majority of the Duke faculty, but others do. When Duke professors read this blog yours are only a few among a lot of other posts, mostly anonymous. How can they -- and why shouold they be asked to -- tell the difference bewteen angry people who engage in silly rants and responsible people asking legitimate questions? Finally, let's think carefully about whether attacking them for their silence is legitimate or productive. My bet is that most of them do not think of their apparent public silence as a sin of omission."

That is a brilliant observation. "...a sin of ommission." Is silence a sin of ommission?

Even with my jaundiced view, I still hold Duke University in awe. Duke University is a remarkable institution. And as such an institution, its behavior must be consistent with the standards to which it aspires. University policy memorializes the standards of the institution. But policy can only dictate response to ordinary circumstances and events.

Extraordinary circumstances and events require the exercise of leadership. That is, in part, the subject of this blog.

Richard Brodhead is surely a gifted, responsible and honorable steward of Duke's legacy and future. But he failed.

He failed at a critical moment in Duke's intersection with all things not Duke. His words and statements did not do justice; his actions did not advance justice; his actions, in fact, abetted those who seemed to ignore the concept of justice. In fact, his public statements of early April 2006 seemed to ignore the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

Richard Brodhead is not one to whom I would ever trust my child. He has shown that he is all too willing to abandon sensibility, with a child being offered as a scarifice on the altar of diversity.

Richard Brodhead must resign.

Thomas S. Inman '74

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Dear Inman,

Well said. My bet is that the serious scholars at Duke did not and do not see as their job to speak out against the abuses of the 88. They probably expected Brodhead to step up to say, as that other President did, "the buck stops here" and lead the university out of the stormy waters. I agree that failure to perform the duty that comes with one's office IS a sin of omission. I contend that professors' regular duties do no include taking on colleagues who make controversial public statements. Those who did went beyond the regular call of duty. Let's keep the focus of criticism where it belongs.

Soc.Sc.Prof.

wayne fontes said...

To Polanski

Brodhead twice turned down offers to read the complete defense file.

Anonymous said...

Polanski,

I was and am trying to be polite.

But I am firm in my resolve that he must resign.

Anonymous said...

Soc.Sc.Prof.

You are a welcome voice of reason.

Thank you.

wayne fontes said...

To Soc.ScProf

The bulk of the lacrosse players were in trinity. The non-Trinity professors felt they didn't have a dog in the fight.

Most Americans sat out McCarthy's reign of terror. For academia today my impression is that the label racist carries more of a stigma than red did in the 1950's.

Anonymous said...

12:56 Inman. Why not fire him first? Brodhead is not a leader of any sort.

Anonymous said...

Wayne Fontes...

McCarthy was right. The false charge of racism by true PC bigots and racists is a wholly different matter.

Anonymous said...

wayne fontes,

Generally, I cannot speak as to what others feel. However, that's not how most of the professors I know think about students. Finally, I am not sure that you have the Trinity vs. non-Trinity aspect right.

I'm too young to have lived through the McCarthy era. I agree on your assessment that the racist label carries a big stigma. Fear of that stigma might have played a supporting role in silencing some professors. I don't think it was the main factor though.

Soc.Sc.Prof.

mac said...

Soc.Sc.Prof.

Fear of being called a racist/sexist
is enough to make lots of people cower.
(The "R"-word and the "S"-word are
just newer versions of the "N"- ord.)

I ask you: if no one is willing to stand up and say:
"this is bullshit," (as KC has)
then who will?

It's not a little matter -
(and I think you minimize it, frankly.)

What would you do, if you actually did think it
was a cancer on education?
What would be your solution?

wayne fontes said...

To Soc.Sc.Prof

One Duke Prof told me about the Trinity vs Non-Trinity. I trust him but I am relying on one persons impression.

To NJNP

Every time I bring up McCarthy someone wants to tell me he was right. While he was correct in some instances he was also wrong in many. Every time I ask the same question. Did he know he was right or was he repeating rumor and innuendo? Not once has anybody offered any proof that he had any proof before he made allegations.

Anonymous said...

I feel that I am out of the loop...what is the difference between trinity andf non-trinity?

Anonymous said...

mac,

I don't get you. What am I minimizing? I'm not an in-your-face kind of person and express myself less colorfully than you do. The answer to your question is actually simple: you fight bad scholarship with good scolarship -- which is what I believe Prof. Johnson is doing. But don't delude yourself that this process works quickly. It doesn't. What you cannot do -- because it backfires -- is attack professors for their presumed belief systems. Your presumption might be wrong, and good scholarship is not the exclusive domain of some belief systems. (We have already agreed today that letting one's belief system interfere with one's empirical validations is bad scholarship, so I won't go there.)

Soc.Sc.prof.

mac said...

Dear Soc.Sc.Prof.

Please don't feel attacked.
I am asking what you would do it
a group of professors used
their weight, (and the weight of
their departments, fraudulently obtained)
to ostracize, humiliate and threaten 3
demonstrably innocent young men?

I am saying that it is well wotrhwhile to look into
their scholarship - (or lack
thereof) - to see if perhaps
there was a significant oversight
(over the years) in the hiring
of such men and women.

Many, I will admit, seem to have
fine credentials. Many - (like Lubiano) - have almost laughable
credentials, the professorial
equivalent of the experience of
one SANE Nurse who played a role
in this Hoax.

KC has taken great pains to describe and to define the issues
relating to the credibility of the
accusers, and how the lack of
substance in the accusations
mirrored the lack of credibility
of the accusers -
in this case, some of the accusers being the so-called 88.

You might ask:
How did they get there?
Why were they hired?

It looks as if there is a good bit of intellectual incest
being practiced.

I agree with you: good scholarship
is an antidote to bad
scholarship. But what if the whole ship is sinking, so-to-
speak? Does one depend upon
the rats to save the ship?

Anonymous said...

Soc.Sc.prof. @1:42

Are you suggesting that good scholarship is a function of the field of study,... that a "belief system" underlying a particular field is considered when defining good scholarship?

With due respect and humility... I suggest otherwise.

Good work...good scholarly work... can withstand the scrutiny of peers and the opinions of the 'simply interested'.

A well developed theory has a mathematic quality. It is sound and internally consistent. That is how one can evaluate scholarly work in any field.

But, in no way is that a function of the field of study.

Are you suggesting otherwise?

mac said...

Just saw American Psycho.
It reminded me of something:
not the lacrosse players/students,
but something else.

Patrick Bateman became incensed about...a colleague's business card
being superior to his?

The letters one has behind one's name, PhD etc,
the academic pedigree, conferred
upon one for...hard work?
Or maybe they're sometimes awards,
no more significant than the print
on a business card?

Sometimes, perhaps?

It was interesting in the movie
that Bateman told a homeless man
to get a job, but his own calendar
was discoveed to be -
(by the end of the movie) - virtually empty.

It's surpising that the story was
required reading at Duke,
considering how many Patrick Batemans
there apparently are, conducting themselves
as if they are of significance,
of special importance,
while their classes are mostly...
as empty as Bateman's schedule.

Anonymous said...

mac,

No worries, I don't feel attacked.

The ship is not sinking. Solid institutions survive bad leaders and bad times. Duke is solid. It has first-rate students that are not that easy to infect with what you refer to as a cancer. If the performance of the Chronicle is any indication, the majority has the intelligence and good sense to avoid being turned into cannon fodder for political activism. I bet that the good professors there know it and focus on providing them with the best education possible.

Soc.Sc.Prof.

Anonymous said...

Inman,

"Are you suggesting that good scholarship is a function of the field of study,... that a "belief system" underlying a particular field is considered when defining good scholarship?"

No, I define good scholarship exactly as you do in the rest of your post. Empirical fields have the additional requirement that one cannot make up the data to fit one's beliefs.

mac said...

Dear Soc.Sc.Prof,

I agree that the ship has been turning away from the shoals,
but I have to agree with Polanski
that there are lots of holes left to patch, and there are plenty
of storms still on the horizon.
(Yeah, enough boring metaphors..I know, I know.)

BTW, my "colorful" language (thanks for that!)
is sometimes spot-on:
the satirical course I described
earlier in the day (8:03 am)
aren't all that bizarre, at least compared with the
actual course offerings:
I based them on their own courses
and proclivities!
Colorful? Yup. Satire, colorful satire.

But here is where we disagree:
on the relative importance of
seemingly minor oddities and
eccentricities, found in the cellars of higher education.
Perhaps you are a sociology professor?
You study movements, perhaps?
Here's my point, upon which we disagree (agreeably, I hope.)

Because the 88 are so widely found,
distributed all across academia -
(Ward Churchill, for one)-
it's not safe to say that any institution is "solid" any more.
They are all under seige, and some are more vulnerable than
others.

It follows:
Little movements often become big movements: the Great Cat Massacre
of Paris (1730s) was a portend of the French Revolution,
mostly because the family cat got better treatment in one printing
house than the workers!
It was disgusting, for sure, but it
was arguably a response to
inhumane working conditions,
leading, over time and with the widespread abuse of workers,
none too (individually) grievous
to singularly begin a revolution,
especially to a national revolution.
And to the "National Razor."

And then...

Who would've thought the French Revolution would be so bloody that
it would slaughter its own authors?

Anonymous said...

I was late to the profile this week.

Wow! The president of Duke ought to be deeply ashamed to employ these "scholars" (even if he isn't)

I still look forward to a profile of one of the 88 who is a legitimate academic from a discipline not overtaken by corruption.

Anonymous said...

It is fascinating that the Soc.Sci. Prof (above) pins his hopes on the survival of institutions as if they were living organisms with biological systems to cope with infections by parasites or bugs of 88ers. He is in an institution of higher learning himself and has a pro-institution point of view. Those of us on the outside, looking in, are necessarily utterly appalled by the gibberish generated as scholarly work, and by the policies/politics of professional groups such as the MLA and AHA; we are well aware this disease has infected almost all such institutions. Good scholarship by the good faculties will assuredly not drive out the drivel-generators; they are tenured, and are cloning themselves by whom they hire at the asst prof level. The private schools, like Duke, are more, not less, vulnerable to the 88 disease than taxpayer-funded schools. But look at Ward Churchill-he survives! Though the U Colo president is gone. It will take a social revolution to undo the tyranny being foised upon us by the gibberish speakers/writers.
M.D.

Anonymous said...

Steven Horwitz sez:

"I think we just disagree on the degree to which obfuscating jargon is created intentionally and rewarded by the scholarly institutional structure in the humanities and social sciences. That's an empirical question, as far as I'm concerned. "

And Alan Sokal answered it experimentally. "Theory" = "bullshit."

Anonymous said...

steven horwitz sez:

RP:

"...around here, it often seems like anyone who suggests that gender is a useful category is automatically a crappy scholar and a hater of white, "

And 95% of the time we're right. It isn't good to assume anyone talking about gender is an idiot, but i's a real problem one has to be on guard against.

Anonymous said...

steven horwitz sez

"... the problem with much of the "studies" is that they approach whatever empirical material they find with bad theories.... The G88 types usually make use of some form of Marxism/ post-modernism/post-structuralism. That is, suffice it to say, crap. And with a crappy, often implicit, theory, the odds of either finding or interpreting well the relevant empirical evidence is much lower."
And since they're peddling crap, they're more likely to objuscate by using lots of jargon, and claiming that anyone who thinks they're full of it is just to dumb to understand. Many of us who have been around a university and had to deal with this crap, when we're reading an article, as soon as we see one or two words of the characteristic jargon of the above theories we classify it as bullshit and move on to something else. Yet somehow entire departments devoted to producing work based on "bad theories" continue to be funded.

"but one certainly can demand empirical evidence and a cogent narrative that places that evidence within the reality-based community."
Not if one is a university administrator, it seems. The "scholars" KC has been focusing on should be as embarrassing to Duke as having a Department of Astrology would be. Why aren't they?

Anonymous said...

" I seriously doubt that the majority of the Duke faculty are faux scientists/scholars -- it IS a great university after all. I am convinced, however, that those who are real scientists/scholars there want no part of discussions based on questioning the proffesoriat's morality, intelligence or political beliefs.

Soc.Sc.Prof. "

Well that's kind of too bad, because the problems with the Listening Statement were that it was immoral, stupid, and motivated by evil politics. And if they don't like the way the discussion is going now, wherre the heck were they a year ago?

Why did none of Duke's faculty have any sort of "not in my name" response? Their silence has called into question their own morals, intelligence and politics. Sorry, but them's the breaks.

Anonymous said...

" My bet is that most of them do not think of their apparent public silence as a sin of omission.

Soc.Sc.Prof."

Well it was. A huge one.

The 88ers violated many specific rules of the university and all the ideals of their profession.
If the majority of professors had quietly pursued official action against them the silence would be fine. But the total lack of action is intolerable. Faculty like to make a big deal about being "self governing." In this case they have shown they are not up to the task.

The lawyers understand that if they want to continue to be a self-governing profession they need to take their own garbage out, so they disbarred Nifong. If the professoriat doesn't start to take their own garbage out, someone else will eventually do it for them. That someone else may or may not care what sort of collateral damage they do.

Anonymous said...

"What you cannot do -- because it backfires -- is attack professors for their presumed belief systems. Your presumption might be wrong, "

KC seems to be doing a pretty good job of documenting exactly what the belief systems of his targets are.

So I agree one shouldn't atack a "presumed" belief system. One should only attack a genuinely known one.

"and good scholarship is not the exclusive domain of some belief systems. "

Many belief systems can produce good scholarship. But some belief systems (e.g. Marxism/post-modernism/post-structuralism) are almost guaranteed to produce crap.

Anonymous said...

That's the reason I got the HELL out of Duke history back in '86. Nothing but a bunch of ideology-based fable-makers, masquerading as authors of importance. As least I had a fellowship so none of my money went to support those morons.

Anonymous said...

I'm not getting into the debate over the Group of 88 because I am no longer at Duke, having graduated in 2005, but it seems to me that most of the people complaining about these faculty members hadn't been at the university for the four years I was there when sexual assault was one of the biggest issues on campus. Faculty are supposed to be behind the students but everyone makes mistakes and, in this case, mistakes were made in large part because the prosecutor led us all to believe something had actually happened.

But most of these comments seem to just be about the nature of academia, that often encourages narrow specialization. What makes studying gender any more narrow than studying sports or studying the history of pets? If people have problems with academia itself, that's one thing...I'm a graduate student now and I have a lot of problems with it. But to accuse these scholars of particular irrelevance is frankly ignorant. And because some people seem to be concerned about potential brainwashing from these professors, let me just say: Professor Olcott was a mentor of mine and I neither study Mexico nor gender and she never pushed her politics onto me. Say what you will about her participation in the Group of 88 (although what happened to free speech) but she is not indoctrinating students.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 250 of 250   Newer› Newest»