In Today's Salon...

[Jessie Ferguson]

> ...interesting article on the present state in academia on writing 
> history and a defense of the objective paradigm.

oddly, i was just reading this article (i never read salon-- and what kind
of wretchedly pretentious name is that?)...  i get powerfully frustrated
by the factionalism this kind of thing evinces-- maybe it's inherent in
journalism, in these tendentious pieces, you know?  does it really do
anything for the cause of objective knowledge to claim that, well, i can't
but exaggerate but something like "x's book comes as a welcome respite
from the kind of neo-foucauldian cant propounded by [set of "respected"
tenured social theorists]"?  for one thing, it's not the kind of system
this implies; for another, factionalism does nothing to overhaul what
traces of such a system ARE evident in academia.  the first example, about
the french furniture book, seems only assailable in its claim to be
history as such-- so it's not history, but it's also not
"incomprehensible" and "useless."  taken to extremes, one might call for
the eradication of literature entire...

and i nearly did some real damage to my innocent monitor upon reading that
bit about undergrads seeing foucault as an ally against their bourgeois
parents, i mean, REALLY.  what do others make of this?  i'm notorious for
being inarticulate in anger, so anyone up for arguing me into the ground
is more than welcome. 


nora