> Yes, Is the inverse that in "less oppressive" countries, the first method is deemed useless and the second is rewarded i agree with that too! Having broad, b

> Yes, Is the inverse that in "less oppressive" countries, the first method is deemed useless and the second is rewarded i agree with that too! Having broad, but ultimately not usefull knowledge is kinda rewarded in my country (France), it allows you to participate in multiple idle discussions without deep thoughts. And also, idle discussion is typically a case where i will superficially search wikipedia to confirm or disprove a thought we had. And your following sentence is why i also don't like the term "structure of oppression". Social control describe the situation way better, and you don't have to imagine "oppressors" who don't really exist as such. The society as a whole control itself, via different methods (social pressure, traditions, hierarchical pressure mostly). Sometime you can design oppressors, but its the tip of the iceberg. I like your idea of subverting the meaning of hunter and busybody, that would be a killer in a philosophical book or a novel, i doubt this is the case here, but it seems we are reading this very differently. I was not engaging with the postmodernism bit of your commentary because in my experience, anglo just don't understand it and conflate it with Frankfurt's school neomarxism. For good reasons, most postmodernists authors are obscure on purpose (or not) and the translations are even worse. And for at least bad reason: Ayn Rand couldn't read. And most postmodernists authors are idiots too, which does not help. But some were right on at least one thing (and i have a very "meta" example): the label "postmodernist", at least in the anglo world, has now more meaning that postmodernism itself. Once again, the only definition of postmodernism is one you do by negative, as it only is defined by what it reject, and one of its main aspect is "we reject metanarratives". Since it seems the author try to find a meta-narrative here, i'll posit that the author is not postmodernist at all and you should find another ideology to disqualify them.