tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post8022567271225056201..comments2023-10-30T12:26:15.822+01:00Comments on Research as a Second Language: ยง8Thomashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-53615177406211177412015-06-08T07:45:33.460+02:002015-06-08T07:45:33.460+02:00I think the anti-school attitudes among educationa...I think the anti-school attitudes among educational researchers and composition instructors is mostly aimed at the "authority" side, which your model predicts because, especially in those fields, we're talking about a quite left-leaning population. On the right, the anti-school argument is less about the "the very idea" but more about the "current state" of things. I guess that's always what it means to be "conservative". It's because "the liberals" have "destroyed the university" that schools are no longer places of learning. That said, there are of course libertarians and home-schoolers who would argue that the very idea of a place you go to be told what the truth is is repressive.<br /><br />Yes, do write that blog post, Andrew!Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-87097766182493022082015-06-08T04:25:49.709+02:002015-06-08T04:25:49.709+02:00Thomas:
I wonder whether "against the very i...Thomas:<br /><br />I wonder whether "against the very idea of school" has a political dimension. People on the left can oppose school because much of it involves submitting to authority, and also school (especially higher education) is traditionally for the upper class. People on the right can oppose school because teachers represent a bit of organized leftism (school teachers in the U.S. are organized into powerful labor unions, and university teachers are mostly on the left and supply intellectual firepower for the left) and also because the school curriculum is vaguely liberal (in the U.S. sense) in that it tends to promote liberal values such as tolerance, sharing, environmentalism, etc.<br /><br />The above paragraph is not so coherent and I'm sure you can find lots of exceptions, but I think there's something there.<br /><br />Hmm, this one's worth its own blog post...Andrew Gelmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02715992780769751789noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-25554843305356778982015-06-05T19:24:38.644+02:002015-06-05T19:24:38.644+02:00Interesting, thanks. When I planned the paragraph ...Interesting, thanks. When I planned the paragraph I had a vague memory of Bourdieu's point, and the truth is that I was surprised to find that quoting him would require me to mention also Austin. I looks like I need to to put in something like, "Austin, <i>who also took a dim view of the "scholastic" attitude</i>,..."<br /><br />Thomashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04858865501469168339noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10721624.post-3034134951008059862015-06-05T11:37:09.644+02:002015-06-05T11:37:09.644+02:00This paragraph misrepresents the relation between ...This paragraph misrepresents the relation between Bourdieu's and Austin's viewpoints. In specific, it is most naturally read as stating that Austin was (or is) the target of Bourdieu's jab at "homo academicus". In fact, Austin is his ally. What Bourdieu points out, in affirming Austin's viewpoint, is that the Austin's skepticism of scholasticism could be supplemented by an account of the specifically social conditions of scholasticism. Here's Austin on skhole: <br /><br />"I say 'scholastic', but I might just as well have said 'philosophical'; over-simplification, schematization, and constant obsessive repetition of the same small range of jejune 'examples' are not only not peculiar to this case, but far too common to be dismissed as an occasional weakness of philosophers." (Sense and Sensibilia, p. 4) Presskornhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03480116067878605339noreply@blogger.com