[csaa-forum] no (conciliatory) capitulation
Ben Hourigan
mail at benhourigan.com
Mon Feb 28 13:38:04 CST 2005
Just a quick response to the last bit:
> 3. you are right on the last point: asking others is a
> productive way to obtain information, granted.
> however, is the reason why you chose winschuttle
> because, as you say, he is 'the most infamous
> characters on Australia's intellectual scene'?
In a way, yes. And also because I was reading _The Killing of History_
at the time (and still am: I never got around to finishing it) and was
curious to see what else he might recommend in a similar vein.
Blasphemy as it is to say such things here, I find many of his
criticisms of modern continental philosophy (I'm not talking about
Marxism here) and the work it inspires apt. Having said that, I also
find absurd such moments as when, in the introduction, he lashes out at
those who offer courses on rap music (the citation of random, allegedly
ridiculous research as evidence of the lunacy of the 'New Humanities'
is a tactic we're probably all familiar with), not for any
philosophical reasons, but simply because it's rap and 'obviously' rap
isn't a fit subject of academic attention. But writing, like
disciplines and people, can be internally diverse, and we can use our
critical faculties to sort the wheat from the chaff. Just because
Melleuish, Windschuttle, Devine, Bolt and, no doubt, others, say some
or many things we disagree with doesn't mean they couldn't also bring
forth nuggets of truth or wisdom on the odd occasion (just that we
might find it improbable). Those of us who have the time to read their
work carefully ought to be ready for those moments when and if we see
our views and interests intersecting with theirs, just as our critics
ought to be open to discovering that there's something in Cultural
Studies that they find valuable.
Ben Hourigan, B.A. (Hons) (Melb.)
mail at benhourigan.com
http://benhourigan.com
More information about the csaa-forum
mailing list