Re: this is a tragic situation now the comedy

Responses below:

Yocum Daniel GS 21 CES/CEOE wrote:

>The field is suspect because there is poor to no measurement of the value of
>the individual work done. Create checks and balances internally and
>externally for the individual work and the field will become better for it.
>Daniel
>

Eh...what would these look like? You're asking for literary
interpretation, for example, to be guided by objective standards? I
don't think that's possible. The closest thing to it is scholarly
consensus (when possible).

This comes down to the reader thinking for themselves, again. If you
read real live professional literary criticism (not just talk about it
along the lines of the caricature in your head), you'll usually see
evidence presented for the purpose of making some kind of point. The
individual reader has to decide if the evidence warrants the
conclusion. Those who disagree can publish their own rebuttals. It's
happened quite often.

Let me give you one example. Back in the late 60s, early 70s one
scholar wrote a biography of H.D. that claimed Perdita Schaeffer (H.D.'s
daughter) was D.H. Lawrence's son. She was almost a bit obsessive about
the idea. Turns out some H.D. letters turned up later in which H.D.
specifically said something along the lines of, "Thank God I didn't
sleep with him" (talking about DHL).

Now this whole thing isn't about ideology, it's about historical fact.
And the facts proved an idea wrong. Happens all the time.

>The same could be said for humanities if there were standards to point at.
>If there are no standards then it does become swirling ideologies bumping
>around, and it seems that the denser molecules dominate, fine, but admit it,
>the field of humanities at the major universities have identifiable
>dominating molecules, but don't blow smoke up my ass by saying that isn't
>the case.
>

What the heck do you mean by "identifiable dominating molecules"?

> What makes it more critical here then an engineer is that many
>practitioners in the field of humanities at major universities have an
>intent of changing society through their work, fine, let's get this out in
>the daylight. Let us see how the thoughts and work of the classroom make
>contact with the larger world. And then we can start the real critique.
>Daniel
>

Again, this idea of "secretly wanting to change society" comes up, just
as stupid an idea as it was the first time.

What kind of "contact with the larger world" are you talking about?
What specific shape would this take? Isn't it up to the students to
make that contact in their writing? You want to legislate this, rather
than let people come up with it on their own?

>What is a good idea? What is a bad idea? What is valid knowledge? It
>takes more than thinking and reading to know, it requires contact with that
>public. If the public has no role or say then lets cut the cord. The
>Humanitist can dwell with in his chosen halls of academia but his academic
>based critique becomes illegitimate when used to influence the public forum.
>One way or the other. It is a part of the market place or it is not. If it
>is then bring it. Regardless of how good a read it is, if it is absurd
>where the shoe hits the pavement then it is absurd and the reason for any of
>its influence becomes meaningless. If the intent is to engage the public at
>all then experts correcting experts is not good enough.
>Daniel
>

That's fair -- let's do this with all disciplines, then. For that
matter, all fields. This problem runs deep across all areas of our
society. The military is one of the biggest hogs -- how about I have
individual say about how the military spends its money? I mean, in
detail. And what about the ideology of the generals running it. Don't
you think that should be made public?

Fact is, humanities depts. aren't the big money spenders. We don't need
syncro-cyclotrons or atom smashers. What good does that do me? I'd like
to advocate that the funding to that be cut.

Jim

-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
Received on Tue Sep 30 12:58:47 2003