File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9707, message 106


Date: Thu, 24 Jul 1997 12:05:55 -0600 (MDT)
From: deaun moulton <deaun-AT-unm.edu>
Subject: Re: PLC: Fish


On Wed, 23 Jul 1997, George Trail wrote:

> >
> >This seems sophistic to me a cover up of what is really an attempt to
> >protect the status quo.  I don't have any problem with folks trying to
> >protect the status quo, mind you. That's politics and politics isn't a bad
> >thing.  I don't even have a problem with folks who go ballistic (oops,
> >postal) over words that seem nonsensical to them.  You should hear me on
> >"proactive."  It does seem that arguing over the content of the term
> >misses the point which is the change in the structure of the university
> >which mirrors a change in how we consider legitimate "knowledge" to be
> >produced and taught.

> What? What? Mom, that guy called me a sophist. Mom. Hell,where's a
> moderator when you really need one.  Then again, what does "really an
> attempt" refer to, Fish's objection to interdisciplinary studies?  My
> rendition of Fish's objection? Quien sabe?


sorry, bad editing.  I didn't intend to call George a sophist.  I meant to
say that Fish's argument sounded like sophistry.  mea culpa.  By the way,
ad hominem ain't my style.

> Let us say it is the former. Fish holds a position in the Duke English
> department and I believe an endowed chair in their law program. He doesn't
> seem to have much that needs protecting. 

Protecting the things one holds dear is the point of defending the status
quo, isn't it?  He may not be in danger of losing his position, but the
value of those positions maybe in question...or he may find that the
organization of the university, despite his own settled position, is not
to his liking.  As you say, critical theories have taken over his field(s)
and the blows against the idea of tenure take aim at "academic freedom."
These are not insignificant threats.

I can't disagree that there is a great deal of fashion in a lot of the
'posts-' and 'inters' and 'multis.'  Nor can I disagree that fashion
attracts not only attention but money.  This is part of the reason I
suggested that Fish's rhetoric was part of a political agenda....in this
case to impact the allocation of resources by making the fashionable seem
less deserving.

> The big word in academe is innovation. Anything that is innovative and
> multi or inter of one sort or another gets a good chance at funding. People
> have committed themselves to "reshaping," "restructuring," "rethinking," as
> a principle, all to the delight of the floating professional administrator
> class (Wa'al, our work is done here [they have taken to traveling in teams
> and so use the "our" a lot] so we are gonna apply these principles at this
> school that just offered me [us] a pile more money. You don't want to match
> that? Naw, didn't think you would--innovation pisses people off you know,
> so ya gotta keep moving. If we could get rid of this "tenure" deal then we
> might be able to stick around. But new blood is always better, and always
> more expensive.So we'll be headin off down the road.)

Hmm, I think of this more as an effect of the commodification of the
academy.  You know, where professing isn't a vocation but a means to fame
and fortune...


deaun.

deaun moulton
deaun-AT-unm.edu

I think I started this but I'm wondering if it is germane to the list.
thoughts?

cdm  


   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005