File spoon-archives/phillitcrit.archive/phillitcrit_1997/phillitcrit.9712, message 203


Date: Wed, 31 Dec 1997 00:16:01 -0400
From: Stirling Newberry <allegro-AT-thecia.net>
Subject: Re: PLC: Cultural Studies


At 6:04 PM -0800 12/30/97, Kyle Norwood wrote:
>I think that Stirling's parody and Metin's comments on
>antthropology/sociology/cultural studies may rest on a misconception
>about how academic fields usually form.  Sure, there's a lot of
>overlap in the subject matter of the humanities and the human
>sciences--but then, there's a lot of overlap in the subject matters
>of biology, chemistry, and physics.  It seems to be that new fields
>emerge because they have new methods and paradigms, not new subject
>matters--though I'm sure there are exceptions.


The point of the parody was not that a "new discipline" had arisen - but
that the definiton put forward for it was not of a "discipline" - but of a
faction or ideology.

One can draw a conclusion in physics and have it hold in chemistry and
biology. And yet, *objectively* according to the *credentialed* expert on
the subject - the same is not true with *cultural studies* versus some
other form of thinking.

In otherwords - cultural studies is not a paradigm or discipline according
to the definition - it is a faction, a party, a religion - and to stray
from its avowed intent is to become a heretic - not a true practictioner of
"cultural" studies.

If this is the direction that intellectual life in the university is
headed, and it seems to be, it is small wonder that the credibility of the
humanties and liberal arts continues to sink.



Stirling Newberry
business: openmarket.com
personal: allegro-AT-thecia.net
War and Romance: http://www.thecia.net/users/allegro/public_html




     --- from list phillitcrit-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005