Well, if you hadn't noticed yet, most of this blog is a fraud with its extensive quotes and half-baked ideas [I hope you appreciate the 'distancing' from myself here! :-) ]
Priorities: Of course, it's important to re-iterate the importance of scholarship-that's what you're supposed to be doing, isn't it?-and of detailed, nuanced argument. Especially with the barbarians at the gate, mullahdom around the corner; especially given the appeal of bread and circuses and the quick fix, the bottom dollar. Also, you want to rail against the semi-literates, the really dangerous ones with their easy generalizations and caricatures-and that includes looking honestly at yourself as well for once.
But, secondly, you want to talk about the arrogance of academics in a dispassionate tone. I mean, yes, that's better, I mean, is there a point where specialization degenerates into a trivial pursuit? Why this suspicion of one-sidedness, endless revisions, "theorists"? That's what I loved about Celia, Jonah, and Turab (to a lesser extent..sorry old boy)...an intelligence that doesn't take itself too seriously, that isn't opaque, is still amateurish...second-best, if you like.
I guess what I find most disconcerting, though, is a sort of hostility to other people..yes, it really is that, I think. Turf wars. As if one could only talk to one's tribe, as if the plebs. really don't or can't 'get it'. Russell, Berlin, maybe Nietzsche himself...weren't they all generalists who would be ripped apart by modern scholarship?Analysing and dissecting things to death.
None of that is important. What is, is the ability to speak with a human voice.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
With all due respect (and respect is due) to scholarship, it will be a sorry world when culture/art/thinking is the preserve of professionals only --- hail to the honest amateurs & dilettantes!
(thirdly) the boring scholar/amateur dichotomy is often used to dismiss the stupid cold inhuman scholars as having no clue on humanity so the generalists can continue sticking to their lack of diligence, laziness in thinking etc so as to maintain one's comfy prejudices whereas this isn't an excuse for neither the dilettante nor the scholar.
Yes, I think that's very true..it is often the case, as you say. However, if one moves away from the extreme portrayal of the 'cold inhuman scholar' -which is itself often just a way of stopping the discussion-I think it is possible that there is *some* truth to the view in *some* cases.
For instance, in economics there are , no doubt, some wonderfully intelligent people who come up with quite 'sophisticated' models and who use high-powered mathematics. But, from what I've seen, it is sometimes just a way of appearing intelligent and re-stating things in a highly obtuse manner. Other times it is useful, of course.
And whilst there will always be a distance between the terminology and structure of thought in analysis and that of day-to-day living one can, I think, at least pose the question of whether there is an unnecessarily heavy reliance on abstraction and what the ramifications of that might be.
So, if one talks in terms of 'human capital, say, or if one assumes one can sum up people's utilities-as if there was only one source of value- can this, does this, contribute to a 'cold' view of what it is to be human?
I think you get to the heart of it when you say 'laziness in thinking'. For me, at least, it really depends on what one calls 'thinking'. I wouldn't be surprised if pretty intelligent people have condoned or supported all sorts of atrocities (from the Nazis to the Bomb to fundamentalism).
On a more mundane level, people can be highly intelligent in one way but still be mean, petty, or nasty in their personal lives. I'm sure you'd agree?
Anyway, that's my two-cents...why I've always had this slight scepticism towards it. So, it's not so much about "dismissing" scholars but asking questions about specialization, the level of theorizing, who one writes for (and how to do so), the balance between revision and transmission. Personally, I don't see these as boring questions but, rather, questions that are central to academia itself.
oh yes, also wanted to concur with you on "lack of diligence". This is a much better way of putting it than "easy generalisations"
i agree.
Post a Comment