[csaa-forum] But wait, there's more

Tue Mar 1 12:26:04 CST 2005

in relation to bolt, mellu. and others,

these critics are wrong (a dirty word i know): they
are wrong, not because of their positions as
neo-conservatives (there’s nothing wrong or right
being conservative, or radically leftwing), but in
their simplistic caricatures, strategic misreading,
and forceful attacks. this is not to suggest that the
‘new’ humanities are correct and beyond criticism;
they certainly aren’t. but debates, as this list
attests to, are explicitly evident, and are an
important and necessary internal function of these
disciplines.   
these critics’ logic is combative, aggressive or
‘hawkish’; they despise (as they have said in relation
to anti-war protesters) ‘weakness’. if we offer any
conciliatory gesture, show any disciplinary
limitations, these critics would seize upon them and
use them to support their argument (as we have seen
andrew bolt do). these critics will never change or
concede their position because they believe they are
*right* (in both sense of the word). 
these critics need to be fought on agonistic (if not
antagonistic) rather than reconciliatory terms.
however, in agreement with catherine, responses must
be (in this public sphere) measured and unemotional,
refrained from personal attacks, ad hominem logic and
academic language, otherwise these critics will use
them (again as bolt has) to demonstrate the
irrationality, vindictiveness and ‘elite-ness’ of
academics. clear concise arguments (and ironic humour)
are these critics’ biggest weakness. the more
responses, coming from a range of different people
with a range of different perspectives (which do not
have to agree, or pursue the same objective), the
better. and i think that the people we need to
convince are not the students but the wider (voting)
community, because:
these attacks *do* have material effects. although i
have no empirical evidence, i based this on personal
experience: in a conversation a few years ago with a
friend about the howard government’s (specifically
senator alston) attacks on the ABC my friend (who is
definitely not a conservative) believed the ABC was
leftwing, but couldn’t offer any evidence. my point
is: the more these attacks occur, in a wide range of
different media, the more they become ‘naturalized’
and ‘common sense’. and when the conservative
government wants to privatize the public broadcasters
(a proposition a number of howard ministers and
rightwing jocks have suggested), or introduce
government intervention into universities to relocate
funding away from specific disciplines which are not
in the ‘national interest’, any opposition will have
little electoral power. we have already seen this
problem in the last election with the government’s
increased majority, and now (or soon to be)control of
the senate (even after all the criticisms of the
government, the protests against the war, and the
exposure of the government’s manipulation of ‘truth’;
granted mark latham didn’t help, but this rise of the
right, and increased republican majority, is also
evident in the usa).
these attacks will never end, and neither should our
responses.

cheers tim

--- Catharine Lumby <catharine.lumby at arts.usyd.edu.au>
wrote: 
> Thanks for the suggestions on the Bolt- sporting
> personality analogy. I 
> think Jane is totally on the money about Sam Newman.
> I was thinking 
> Lleyton because Bolt runs on hostility and, from
> where I sit at least, 
> he seems to be obsessed with making strange
> insulting gestures to  
> invisible enemies.
> 
> I figure there's got to be a way to respond to the
> mindbending hostility 
> that comes off the neocon agenda without buying into
> it. Making silly 
> comparisons is my form of distraction at the moment.
> 
> But to get serious about it - it is incredibly
> depressing to have the 
> work we all do - academic or applied -
> misrepresented so publicly. I see 
> this happening to people in the humanities all the
> time. The problem 
> isnt that someone is  disagreeing - it's that far
> too much commentary is 
> animated by bad faith, professional jealousy or
> plain ideological 
> warfare. Hence my pro athlete analogy - it's as if
> the whole thing is a 
> game. But then that shows exactly how much I
> *really* know about footy - 
> diddly squat obviously!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Danny Butt wrote:
> 
> >On 2/28/05 1:53 PM, "Jane Armstrong"
> <J.N.Armstrong at exchange.curtin.edu.au>
> >wrote:
> >
> >  
> >
> >>Sam Newman - nuff said
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Touché - I thought of Fatty Vautin, but wasn't sure
> if it was cool to be
> >mentioning League players given Catharine's inside
> work there :) [which is,
> >btw, a very cool example of academic praxis, and
> maybe writing columns in
> >the Australian can get you opportunities like this,
> if so go for it.]
> >
> >Anyway, make sure y'all catch the Saccharin Metric
> Guide to the Humanities,
> >which contains a number of very useful insights on
> this thread:
> >
>
>http://hypertext.rmit.edu.au/~Mccrea/archives/2005/02/the_saccharin_m.html
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________
> >
> >csaa-forum
> >discussion list of the cultural studies association
> of australasia
> >
> >www.csaa.asn.au
> >
> >change your subscription details at
> http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum
> >  
> >
> > _______________________________________
> 
> csaa-forum
> discussion list of the cultural studies association
> of australasia
> 
> www.csaa.asn.au
> 
> change your subscription details at
http://lists.cdu.edu.au/mailman/listinfo/csaa-forum 

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com 