5 ms·
>Grievance scholars isn't a real label I agree essentially, its a meme created to debase the humanities. And I'm not too worried about the legitimacy of this
by ml3v 8y ago
>Grievance scholars isn't a real label
I agree essentially, its a meme created to debase the humanities.
And I'm not too worried about the legitimacy of this viewpoint from within the academic community.
What is dangerous is that people who are only marginally invested form a dangerous and disingenuous opinion of large fields of research on the basis of "SJWs are annoying".
> On Pearl
Obviously a counterexample within the context of STEM.
What this guy hates about the humanities is that it challenges the status quo.
The point I'm trying to make with this relates to communities and the perception of criticism.
Foulcaut would say all the humanities are capable of is to criticize modern institutions.
> I'm just talking about the modern context.
When we say "greivence studies",
This is a phrase this guy came up with, to obviously target a subset of the humanities with a left leaning adgenda (i.e. womens studies, african american studies, and whatever gay studies is called), and target a low quality journal to confirm his preheld belifes.
It's not a useful idea to try to understand discourse or solve any problem within the humanities, but an disrespectful attempt to mar whole departments.
The choice of the label Grievence scholar is deliberate.
If to critically understand anything is impossible, all you're doing is complaining.
> Marring whole fields of study
This is the intended response.
Not to expose flaws in the paper to publication pipeline.
So people could point and laugh.
It doesn't help that STEM people love to do this anyway.
Until you bring up research fraud in their respective field, and how dumb did that made them all look.
In bio this happens all the time, most often at the top of the research hierarchy.
- whatshisface 8y ago>I agree essentially, its a meme created to debase the humanities. Associating "grievance studies" with the humanities might be a little too broad, after all the ultimate villain of modern critical thought (Colonial-era affluent Englishmen, probably), loved and generously funded the humanities of their day. To cast the claim in the strongest light I would say that it simply refers to the minority of people that, under the flag of helping, have made horrible accusations towards innocent people (a brief review of the literature will turn a few of these up, after all there's nothing stopping them from being published). In the most pessimistic light, "grievance studies" would just be, as you say, a conservative action word belonging right next to all of the similar liberal action words. The fact of the matter is that it is probably being used right now in both ways, by different camps. Edit to respond to edit in the parent comment: >but an disrespectful attempt to mar whole departments. The claim that "whole departments" deserve to be marred is exactly what he's saying, and a lot of people agree. In this comment thread, I saw someone call the group of people (which out of respect for your argument against using the term I will not name) a "gangrenous foot." There is no word-mincing going on when someone calls whole departments gangrenous feet.
- Udik 8y ago>>> Grievance scholars isn't a real label >> Grievance scholars isn't a real label > I agree essentially, its a meme created to debase the humanities I think you're agreeing with the quote of your own comment.
- barry-cotter 8y ago>>Grievance scholars isn't a real label >I agree essentially, its a meme created to debase the humanities. Stop trying to associate humanists who care about literature and art, and social scientists who care about truth, with political activists who have academic cover.