As a researcher in business and psychology I often get the feeling that many of my colleagues have a political leaning to the left and are clearly influenced by the ideas of post modernism and neo marxism. In sociology and social psychology this is in my view clearly evident. I have a deep fear that this is something that might have a negative effect on the field of social science. What are your views regarding this? Has the left totally taken over the social sciences? Is there still a room for scientist of divergent ideas or are they more or less kept down by the majority? Your views please?
Interesting question Henrik. The trouble is that the term 'post-modernism', when used by people who are neither philosophers nor sociologists, has become an empty term used to deride critical social science. It reminds me a little bit of the way that the term 'Marxist' is now used by the American Centre-Right media to designate any politician with a strong redistributive platform - including people like Corbyn and Sanders, whose policies in no way propose to dismantle the Capitalist economy.
In a similar way, people like Jordan Peterson use "post-modernism" as a slur. Peterson's online lectures on the "damages" of postmodern academia clearly show that he does not really understand what the concept really means. He just throws Marxism, cultural Marxism, critical theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism, into the same bag.
I haven't read Bloom and I didn't quite understand in your previous post what he defines as post-modernism. I suppose that most detractors of so-called post-modernism object to one or more of the following broad approaches in social science (all of which have at best a loose connection with actual postmodernist philosophy):
1. The notion that contemporary societies are fundamentally shaped by, and continuously reproduce, dynamics of domination, exploitation and repression. Language is an important vehicle for this (see below).
2. The idea that people's behaviours, preferences and notions of what is True largely derive from deeply rooted narratives and linguistic structures that (mostly) unconsciously shape people's minds. These narratives and other linguistic structures are socially constructed - i.e. they do not reflect some fundamental truth of 'human nature'.
3. The idea that racism and other malevolent forms can inhere not just in individuals' consciousnesses, but also in institutional structures and collective representations that are ostensibly value-neutral.
4. Methodologically, the belief that knowledge about society is found through qualitative forms of social analysis, like for example discourse and narrative analysis, grounded theory, ethnography, etc. Social analysis relying on logical-positivism and mathematical inductivism are viewed with suspicion.
Now the funny thing is that Most/all of these elements existed in social science decades before postmodernism as a social theoretical movement came to the stage. I also suspect that real postmodernist thinkers would probably object to the first element in the above list, since postmodernism is at heart an approach to knowledge that questions any inherent connection between belief systems and the world as is. Be that as it may, the point I'd make here is that the "Leftist takeover" of some social science has little to do with the (mostly imagined) popularity of "post-modernism". Many social scientists are Left Wing not because they discovered postmodernism but for a variety of reasons.
LIkewise, I would question whether your colleagues in social psychology and Business studies manifest a "post-modernism"-inspired Lefty-ism. As a discipline social psychology remains firmly moored to logical-positivism and statistical inductivism. And similarly, I don't see how your Business studies colleagues could be Left-Wing. There's some good research on business school curricula and teaching that actually shows the opposite. Perhaps you meant to say that your colleagues are Left wing and/or influenced by postmodernism in a purely private capacity? This is definitely the case in economics - the discipline in and of itself is criticized by sociologists for being methodologically uncritical and right-wing; yet the majority of American Economists in the US are actually on the Left side of the political spectrum. See for example:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11127-006-7509-6
So I guess one would need to understand what you are concerned about more precisely.
- Is it the feeling that most social scientists (or specific disciplines therein) are politically Left-Wing?
- Is it the feeling that most social scientists are specifically 'postmodernist' Lefties?
- Is it the feeling that social sciences DISCIPLINES tend to reflect/defend Left-wing views of the world?
- Is it the feeling that social science DISCIPLINES tend to reflect so-called POSTMODERNIST epistemology?
More generally, methodological and epistemological pluralism is generally a good think, so to the extent that there is a "takeover" as you say, that's probably bad. That said, from what I see in sociology, which perhaps is the most "non conformist" discipline in the social sciences, the "take over" by "postmodernism" is far from reality. The top journals in the discipline mostly favour articles employing standard statistical methods. The arguments in such studies do not usually take serious account of narratives, hermeneutics and historicity - all of which would be amply found in so-called postmodernist research. What IS true, however, is that the vast majority of sociologists have Left-wing political views. And I'd guess that most research does seem to align itself with Left-wing concerns (e.g. women's rights, equality, racism research, migrant issues, etc). I'm not sure what the consequences are of this on the general state of the discipline. The damages I've seen have to do with the harshness of debates taking place between more radical social thinkers and their less radical (though still largely left-wing) colleagues. Perhaps the answer to your question is that politics and the media in most countries already give disproportionate space to Centre-Right and Right-wing thinking, without ever allowing serious discussion of more genuinely left-wing stances. Hence, the Left positioning of social sciences is kind of a corrective.
Post modernism definitely shows negative effect on the field of social science. We can not avoid too. Urbanization, industrialization are common scenario in competitive world. We need to trade off between them otherwise it will hamper our social life in a more devastating way.
How exactly do you conceptualise the connection between Marxism and postmodernism, the latter one usually having an explicitly anti-Marxist thrust?
Marie. Thank you for an interesting and multi faceted question. There are divergent opinions but in general post modernism and leftist thinking go hand in hand.
The debate is between those who regards historism as for example Bloom in his 1987 book, The Closing of the American Mind. Culler in traced in detail the ascendancy in academia of postmodern concepts, from the structuralism of Levi-Strauss, Lacan, Foucault and Jack Derrida. Later, these academic theories became loosely referred to as postmodernism, but it did not transform the general culture and politics until the early1990s.
Postmodernism and relativism soon became dominant in social science. Bloom included Marxist Criticism as one of the postmodern methods in the interpretation of literature and the debate is raging now more than ever with thinkers such as Jordan B Peterson being stark critics of the current narrative in social science.
Perhaps it is also in the nature of sociology as a field of study to take vantage point in the society/ Group but we also need counter-weights, if not I would argue it is no longer science but rather something else. But to rephrase the question: How many right wing thinkers can be found in sociology? In my experience, not many and that is sad. The same as in business studies not many left wing thinkers can make their voice heard. Homogeneity is a danger to science and something we should avoid. Best wishes from a tired Henrik :-)
If science is dominated by one group of thinkers with a certain political keaning I would say that is scary....
Henrik G.S. Arvidsson
"Postmodernism and relativism soon became dominant in social science". This is probably true, at least in my field, social or cultural anthropology. I also agree with your rejection of relativism. But this has not so much to do with left/right or with Marxism. Actually Marxism is not relativist but the opposite.
For a Marxist critique of relativism, see Vivek Chibber (2013): Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital. The author shows how postcolonial theorists, one of the most prominent postmodernist schools, substantiate relativism in a misreading of Marx.
Moreover, postmodernism is not exclusively owned by the left. Especially the new right wing movements ("Alt-Right") draw heavily on postmodernist relativism. An early example is Alain de Benoist and his cultural relativism. One could argue that contemporary phenomena like "alternative facts" etc. somehow enforce postmodernist-relativist claims in reality.
Marc Husband
I am sorry, I did not get your point. What fear do you mean? Could you clarify?
Many thanks.
Interesting question Henrik. The trouble is that the term 'post-modernism', when used by people who are neither philosophers nor sociologists, has become an empty term used to deride critical social science. It reminds me a little bit of the way that the term 'Marxist' is now used by the American Centre-Right media to designate any politician with a strong redistributive platform - including people like Corbyn and Sanders, whose policies in no way propose to dismantle the Capitalist economy.
In a similar way, people like Jordan Peterson use "post-modernism" as a slur. Peterson's online lectures on the "damages" of postmodern academia clearly show that he does not really understand what the concept really means. He just throws Marxism, cultural Marxism, critical theory, structuralism, post-structuralism, and postmodernism, into the same bag.
I haven't read Bloom and I didn't quite understand in your previous post what he defines as post-modernism. I suppose that most detractors of so-called post-modernism object to one or more of the following broad approaches in social science (all of which have at best a loose connection with actual postmodernist philosophy):
1. The notion that contemporary societies are fundamentally shaped by, and continuously reproduce, dynamics of domination, exploitation and repression. Language is an important vehicle for this (see below).
2. The idea that people's behaviours, preferences and notions of what is True largely derive from deeply rooted narratives and linguistic structures that (mostly) unconsciously shape people's minds. These narratives and other linguistic structures are socially constructed - i.e. they do not reflect some fundamental truth of 'human nature'.
3. The idea that racism and other malevolent forms can inhere not just in individuals' consciousnesses, but also in institutional structures and collective representations that are ostensibly value-neutral.
4. Methodologically, the belief that knowledge about society is found through qualitative forms of social analysis, like for example discourse and narrative analysis, grounded theory, ethnography, etc. Social analysis relying on logical-positivism and mathematical inductivism are viewed with suspicion.
Now the funny thing is that Most/all of these elements existed in social science decades before postmodernism as a social theoretical movement came to the stage. I also suspect that real postmodernist thinkers would probably object to the first element in the above list, since postmodernism is at heart an approach to knowledge that questions any inherent connection between belief systems and the world as is. Be that as it may, the point I'd make here is that the "Leftist takeover" of some social science has little to do with the (mostly imagined) popularity of "post-modernism". Many social scientists are Left Wing not because they discovered postmodernism but for a variety of reasons.
LIkewise, I would question whether your colleagues in social psychology and Business studies manifest a "post-modernism"-inspired Lefty-ism. As a discipline social psychology remains firmly moored to logical-positivism and statistical inductivism. And similarly, I don't see how your Business studies colleagues could be Left-Wing. There's some good research on business school curricula and teaching that actually shows the opposite. Perhaps you meant to say that your colleagues are Left wing and/or influenced by postmodernism in a purely private capacity? This is definitely the case in economics - the discipline in and of itself is criticized by sociologists for being methodologically uncritical and right-wing; yet the majority of American Economists in the US are actually on the Left side of the political spectrum. See for example:
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11127-006-7509-6
So I guess one would need to understand what you are concerned about more precisely.
- Is it the feeling that most social scientists (or specific disciplines therein) are politically Left-Wing?
- Is it the feeling that most social scientists are specifically 'postmodernist' Lefties?
- Is it the feeling that social sciences DISCIPLINES tend to reflect/defend Left-wing views of the world?
- Is it the feeling that social science DISCIPLINES tend to reflect so-called POSTMODERNIST epistemology?
More generally, methodological and epistemological pluralism is generally a good think, so to the extent that there is a "takeover" as you say, that's probably bad. That said, from what I see in sociology, which perhaps is the most "non conformist" discipline in the social sciences, the "take over" by "postmodernism" is far from reality. The top journals in the discipline mostly favour articles employing standard statistical methods. The arguments in such studies do not usually take serious account of narratives, hermeneutics and historicity - all of which would be amply found in so-called postmodernist research. What IS true, however, is that the vast majority of sociologists have Left-wing political views. And I'd guess that most research does seem to align itself with Left-wing concerns (e.g. women's rights, equality, racism research, migrant issues, etc). I'm not sure what the consequences are of this on the general state of the discipline. The damages I've seen have to do with the harshness of debates taking place between more radical social thinkers and their less radical (though still largely left-wing) colleagues. Perhaps the answer to your question is that politics and the media in most countries already give disproportionate space to Centre-Right and Right-wing thinking, without ever allowing serious discussion of more genuinely left-wing stances. Hence, the Left positioning of social sciences is kind of a corrective.
I agree that is also the problem that we tend to confuse the terminology but lets say that there is a very strong leaning to the left and leave the definitions of the terminology for now, I tend to agree with Peterson but yes I think he is a very intelligent and knowledgeable man but sometimes he speaks unstructured and in a way that is good because you get an insight to his thinking but it can be confusing. But lets rephrase and use the word left leaning instead. Take an example. In Sweden, gender studies has become very popular, in Norway it is more or less not considered science. In Sweden 99% of those who does research in to gender studies already have their minds made up, everything is about structures, patriarchally related issues and the same researchers also stand on the barricades screaming political slogans and openly show their hatred towards men... No not all of them but lets say it is not uncommon. So if we have a field of science that is so dominated by one political ideology, doesn't it lead to group think and in the end because of the lack of on open discourse one can even question if what they are doing is science. So yes the definition issue can be problematic and it was something I anticipated to a certain degree when posting this but lets use left leaning instead to make things simpler. Best wishes
Ps as an economist I would say the leaning tend to depend on what field of economics you are in too. If your field is political economics for example the chances of you being right wing is smaller than if you are in to business economics. This is because right wing economists in general are less interested in the public sector and also the definition of left and right differs between the EU and the US. What is considered left wing in the US is more or less right Wing in my native Sweden and in the US the main conflict is not really left vs right but perhaps more liberal vs conservative. Most US economists if not 99% believes in a deregulated market etc but when it comes to health care, spending etc we all differ. Most economists agree that high taxation is something really bad in the long run but fiscal policy is also a regulatory instrument so the view regarding taxes in a certain situation might not necessarily reflect the persons political views... Taxes can be an instrument used to cool down or stimulate the economy and it also have a connection with the inflation issue and the policy regarding inflation vs unemployment.
Thank you Henrik for these clarifications. I agree that the meaning of Left and Right differ enormously across countries - it's a point I neglected to make and which, as you rightly say, complicates the analysis even further.
It's interesting what you say about economics. Especially what you said about 99% of economists believing in a deregulated market. Is this also the case in Northern European countries? Do they believe that all industries should be privatized?
To your main point: I think that the example of Gender Studies is a very interesting ones. I did not realize that in Norway GS is not even an accepted discipline. I would respectfully interrogate what you mean by 99% of all Swedish GS scholars "have their minds made up, everything is about structures, [and] patriarchally related issues".
If you mean that 99% of academic GS scholars believe that gender inequality is (at least in part) cased by structures of patriarchy, then yes, that's perhaps true (though I would question the percentage. I'd say it's more like 80-90%) - although I'm far from being an expert. But then again, I'd make two provisos to this:
1. Every social scientific discipline has a few more or less accepted basic (paradigmatic) assumptions within which it operates. To people from the outside, these assumptions are seen as opinions, whereas from within the discipline, they are more or less taken for granted. From what I've seen, the vast majority of economists operate within a set of assumptions that include methodological individualism and rationalism (with a few recent "corrections" to the models introduced by behavioural economists). The building blocks of the economy are seen to be individuals and their self-serving utilitarian preferences, the latter being only revealed through actual measurable choices (i.e. revealed preferences). Then there's also the tendency to equate value with prices unproblematically, with marginalist interpretations of value taking centre stage.
Now, I'm sure that not all economists believe in all of these assumptions, but if you look at each one of these assumptions individually, I'd guess that a significant majority of economists take them for granted (or at most pay theoretical, but not methodological, lip service to their critiques). Even more fundamentally, the majority of economists take for granted that the only legitimate way to produce economic "knowledge" is via generalizable statistical inference methods.
My point is that more than a set of political opinions, these assumptions constitute the economics discipline and the way that it operates. Would you say that economists have " their minds made up" about rational actorhood, marginalist value analysis and logico-positivist tatistical epistemology? From the vantage point of many sociologist, all of these assumptions are considered extremely ideological (and therefore political). But from most economists' point of view, these assumptions are just common sense. They are not seen as political.
The same can be said about Gender studies. Structural patriarchy is common sense, and it is within this commonsensical framework that research and academic debates take place. This leads me to the second point.
2. Even so, I would not characterize GS as a field in consensus. Yes, most GS scholars believe in patriarchy, but the debates among them can be fierce. Some are in favor of male-female/female-male gender change, others are vehemently opposed to it. Some regard GS as part of a wider anti-capitalist struggle, while others counter that it's more about identity struggles. The point here is that patriarchy is a very broad concept that allows for plenty of internal debates. We should not assume that GS scholars have all made their minds up.
That said, I appreciate that one could argue that GS would benefit from allowing representation to other forms of feminism, which don't operate within the assumptions of deep-rooted patriarchy (e.g. so-called "liberal feminists"). I can't say I disagree with that, though I'd only add that the fact that these alternate paradigms receive a voice in other disciplines (e.g. in economics and to some extent in sociology). So to the extent that there's not enough academic debate between these two camps - this is mostly due to a failure of interdisciplinary engagement between disciplines rather than a failure of any one discipline. A similar situation exists in economics - most heterodox economics scholarship takes place in sociology and geography departments. I'm not sure how eagerly mainstream economists actually engage with their heterodox colleagues. But at least orthodox economics does not drown out other voices and approaches within the broader field of knowledge.
Thinking about it more carefully, perhaps the real problem you've touched upon here is that there's not enough interdisciplinarity within the social sciences. Economists operate within their assumptions and paradigms, sociologists do the same, and not enough cross-fertilization takes place. This is primarily damaging to undergraduate and graduate students. Most graduates in a given social science discipline will typically not be aware of alternative approaches in other disciplines. Economics graduates are not required to take courses in political economy and Marxist thought. Most anthropology graduates do not know how to develop models and analyse macro-level data. The cloistering of academic learning ends up producing graduates with limited critical depth. And when these graduates are suddenly confronted with social-analytical approaches that contradict the paradigms into which they were socialized during the BA/MA, they automatically label these as 'loony' and 'biased'.
I would say when you study business it is an indoctrination in market liberal thinking but as I said if you are in the field of political economy you will probably lean more to the left than if you are in to business economics like me.. Im also in to psychology and sociology so Im a bit of a cross-over artist :-) I think when it comes to social science...and especially sociology there is a reason why people lean to the left, it might have something to do with the fact that people with certain traits or views are attracted to different disciplines. My issue is not that there are left wing people in science, just to be clear! I prefer people of all convictions since the discourse will be more interesting. The problem with social science right now is that it is so dominated by a people with certain views. This has led to a total reification of the discourse in my opinion. This is why I think Jordan B Peterson is refreshing. He says the things that most others are afraid to say and for that I admire him. As a lecturer...well Im not a fan since he tends to be quite unstructured but his way of teaching or discussing is also interesting on the other hand. I agree with you regarding the critical depth. I think the discourse needs to be open and we need to make science a place where all views can be heard and accepted, we dont have to agree on everything. I have very strong opinions about gender studies for example but I still respect those involved in that field and I can find it interesting to follow their discourse. As you might guess Im a right wing conservative but in my view it would be boring if all others shared my view of the world. Infact I would be bored. I have read Marx and I do not believe in the idea of putting groups against each other, that polemic is just flawed because we all belong to a myriad of groups, often with conflicting interests. But back to the issue... I think it reduces the legitimacy of the field of social science that it is so dominated by the left, and yes I would have felt the same if it would have been dominated by right wing people like me. We need a balance and an open discourse. Best regards H
Marie Grasmeier ,
The reference to "fear" may be clarified for you in the following excerpt from the article about Dr. Jordon B. Peterson, who is objecting to "political correctness" legislation in Canada:
Bill C-16
Main article: An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code
On September 27, 2016, Peterson released the first installment of a three-part lecture video series, entitled "Professor against political correctness: Part I: Fear and the Law."[8][92][21] In the video, he stated he would not use the preferred gender pronouns of students and faculty, saying it fell under compelled speech, and announced his objection to the Canadian government's Bill C-16, which proposed to add "gender identity or expression" as a prohibited ground of discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act, and to similarly expand the definitions of promoting genocide and publicly inciting hatred in the hate speech laws in Canada.[a][93][92][94]
📷Peterson speaking at a Free Speech Rally in October 2016
He stated his objection to the bill was based on potential free-speech implications if the Criminal Code is amended, claiming he could then be prosecuted under provincial human-rights laws if he refuses to call a transgender student or faculty member by the individual's preferred pronoun."
Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Peterson
Your thoughts are not impossible. Try to keep in mind that WE did not get out of Africa - thousands of years ago, thanks to post modern concepts and ideas.
Lou
Well regarding bill C 16 Im against all regulation of speech. I watched the Canadian debate with horror and in this case I fully side with Mr Peterson. If we regulate which words a person must use, the Orwellian society is not far behind. Also for me, post modernism has nothing to do with getting out of Africa, and by the way: what is wrong with Africa? Not post modern enough? Most African countries have their issues but I done really relate them with post modernism :-)
@Henrik
From the outset I would like to state that I believe Peterson is disingenuous on this issue of postmodernism in the social sciences. He shuts down discussion on the issue, demonizing those who disagree. To the point he argues if you read these theories you are on the side of mass 'communist' genocide. Totally rediculous, and hardly in the spirit of rational discussion.
I think the right wing panic that has arisen regarding politically correct culture has co-insided with the technological and new social environment we now inhabit. Our ability to spread messages , penetrate public discourse has exploded with social media, so there is a chaotic information war at play in which hateful and emancipatory ideas are present. The extremes of PC culture are evident as well as the right wing hate which 'the left' is trying to counteract.
Although I do believe strongly in guarding against tyranny and threats to freedom of speech. I think that this has been overblown. considering this from the other side of the coin, outright racism and murder are protected in the name of patriotism. As we have seen, to bring to light Churchills views of other races or to question the intentions of our military in illegal wars is to be ostracized as unpatriotic or treasonous. Citizens freedom of speech in these quarters are limited massively. I do not hear voices from the right in condemning or panicking about tyranny on this point.
I woukd say regarding Peterson that the keft have effectively killed the discourse and for every action there is a reaction. It is a discussion thst is well needed. I think we need people who are willing to put them self at risk and nake their voice heard. The left has totally taken over social science and that is a terrible thing. When I talk to some of my friends in the field they are so indoctrinated in one way of thinking that they have become blind. That is not good for science.
@Henrik
I'm not sure what you mean? Social sciences are inherently leftist. I am not sure if you are aware of this but they are routed in social and psychological theory which intend to critique and improve society. Most build on critical emancipatory theories.
There are little, or no right wing theories in this area because the right do not see the issues which critical theory highlight, if there was a prominent right wing voice there would probably be no social sciences. If thats what you are suggesting then fine. But these mechanisms have been put in place to guard against tyranny, they have self reflexive critique built in some that practitioners are always questioning their own bias. post modernism is covered in many of the social sciences and really is just a philosophy which presents a way of looking at the world. How this is applied is very different to what you probably believe. No one is encouraged to radically act if that's what you are worried about. they might just become conscious of oppressive factors in society and adjust to become anti discriminatory. If you are suggesting that the theories are wrong, state your case. If you believe that people should not become more consciously aware tgen that is a issue on your part. Postmodernist theory is also covered in media and communications, why no critique here?
Jordan Petersons analysis is bizarre, and I am becoming increasingly suspicious of his intentions. He states that the left should be 'gone after with full force'. He tried that with Zizek and showed himself as a fool, not really understanding the basics of Marxism and exaggerating the influence of radical Marxists. He has actively ducked out of debate on the topic which is very strange as he asks his followers to attack at every opportunity.
So you mean that the only ones who has the right ideas is the left? ;-) That sounded not so very scientific and very much like a political statement my friend. Peterson, No he is not bizarre..he is a very sane voice in a discipline that sadly lost its sanity :-(
Notwithstanding any genuine critique of “postmodern” social sciences (however one defines it) I do agree that 95-99% of the attacks against so called postmodernism direct themselves not against the core arguments and assumptions of any one Theory/discipline, but rather against click-bait events like college activists denying platforms, or some celebrity announcing a change of personal pronoun. Actual Intellectual engagement of RW thinkers with “postmodern” social sciences is extremely rare and, when it does take place, it usually involves some form of biological determinism, mathematical behavioural reification, and historical presentism.
Id also highlight something important implicit in what Mark Husband has said, which is that the Right is in many ways as postmodern as the Left. The fake news and alternative facts discourses championed by RW populists are extremely postmodern in the way that they insists on questioning every accepted (and politically inconvenient) fact and form of expertise.
@Henrik
No not at all. I'm not sure what right wing social sciences would look like. You could get rid of social sciences and just try telling people to 'tidy their rooms' , this might sort out society. But I'm doubtful. You might be right, maybe the left are not successful in making changes to society? What would you suggest?
What I would say is the left encourage reflection, equality, compassion and human flourishing which surely can't be bad values, right? These are the elements of the dangerous doctrine that we spread.
You could point to a specific point about postmodernism, or the left that is a major issue for you, and have a discussion from there? I am open to that completely.
Nancy Ann Watanabe Henrik G.S. Arvidsson
Thank you for explanation, Nancy. Regarding Peterson's problem: I am absolutely not familiar with Canadian law, but is it perfectly legal in Canada to insult people? I mean, I cannot just call some random guy on the street a s** o* a b***h on the grounds of free speech, do I? What is the difference with deliberately using wrong pronouns etc.?
There is a difference. To regulate what I must say and what I cant say. If I call you something really bad and say I want to do really bad things to you. Yes that is illegal and it should ben. C16 however is dangerous because it promotes a leftist agenda that tries to change the way we speak and think and that is dangerous some people lists about a hundred pronouns and that shows that things has gone too far. There are two sexes, man and woman and I should not be forced by any law to say or think differently just because some one else wants to force me. The left tries to find all sort of excuses and make the issue more complex than it really is. It is actually quite simple. I dont allow you to change the way I speak or think. Especially ny forcing me to use words I dont agree with. The question comes down to freedom and in this I fully support professor Peterson. If such a bill was to be introduced in my home country I would refuse to ever teach, conduct research or have any relation with such a government ot country. For me it is so simple. It is not just about academic freedom but also about freedom of thought and human rights. You are free to call your self what ever you like but you have no right to force me to call you Zod in your name is Henrik, and if there is a law that forces me then my pronoun would be ^*$,/*÷¥#*÷,%*%₩+#$*"*/*#?"?/,=&@*:,$,#¥'kene$*♡¤¡□♡\◇▪︎《¿\ and then maybe you will see how dangerous a law like C16 is. The day such a law will be introduced in my country, you will never again see me on RG but in a protest together with professor Peterson.
Marc..nothing against social science but I have something against the total domination ofnleft wing narratives...Im in to social science my self and what I see now scares me. Just look at this discussion. The discourse is totally reified. Sorry for the spelling. Answer whilst driving ( red lights). Best wishes. H
Use what's needed to get the job done in away that agrees with social norms in your enviroment. Think about it later.
Lou
If everyone agree with the norms how do we then move forward? If we would agree with the norms of the 18th century, women would not have the right to vote, and we will still be living more or less in the dark ages. Science would in many respects be under the influence of the church. It is trough the breaking of ideas we move forward and not trough the acceptance of dogma.
In reply specifically to this by Henrik G.S. Arvidsson :
"There is a difference. To regulate what I must say and what I cant say. If I call you something really bad and say I want to do really bad things to you. Yes that is illegal and it should ben. C16 however is dangerous because it promotes a leftist agenda that tries to change the way we speak and think and that is dangerous some people lists about a hundred pronouns and that shows that things has gone too far. There are two sexes, man and woman and I should not be forced by any law to say or think differently just because some one else wants to force me."
There is a question of the accuracy of the statement highlighted in bold. I myself am an applied physiology graduate, fomer registered nurse and now post grad sociologist. The statement as written is presumptive of a truth that is very much over simplified.
There are two sexes yes. However these have been categorised as male and female. Theres also an over lap of the physicality between these two epistemic ways of knowning the human animal. There is a middle ground. which of course we have medicalised and criminalised in various ways. I am talking of the Intersex conditions and DSD as currently listed in the international classification of diseases 11 tth edition. The oft heard critique of DSD when pointed to in relation to a debate on gender identity is its rarity. But this misses the point at hand , which is its existence as a category of "wrongness". Ergo we have had three categories for sex for centuries. male, female and wrong. In recent years it have become evident that what was once thought wrong is actually less so, being more a case of biological diversity and overlap than error. Thus our current situation with regards to gender identity is not born of a lack of knowledge and scientific application, but an expansion of both. The Binary classification of sex never has been a great fit for explaining the realties of a sexed human condition, and therefore with this greater knowledge comes the issue at hand with gender. A binary system can only have 1's and 0's. People however come in much more than two discrete variables, so why then should society persisting categorising them as such?
(for reference one need only look at the issue of homosexuality and arguments of first cause, suggestion of its pathologisation etc. most of which stem from theologically derived position that rely on binary separation of man and women and "mixing of kinds" as wrongness or badness.. something Conrad has wrote about at length (badness to sickness)
"The left tries to find all sort of excuses and make the issue more complex than it really is. It is actually quite simple. I dont allow you to change the way I speak or think. Especially by forcing me to use words I dont agree with"
There are many words one cannot or should not use these days that were once in common use. One need only look at racial history to see this, or current day America. We are not asking you to change the way you think. We only ask that you do think. Hegelian thought on epistemology and the metaphysics of being might be a good read for you. You are also of course free to disagree, yet JS Mill would suggest we (those who would counter your argument) are duty bound to critique your reasoning such that we might each collide with our own error, and in so doing approach a truth. Legality of pronoun use is I feel an over stepping of the cultural use of honorifics, but in time a societal change may come. and at that point, will you hold steadfast to outdated ideas of who you believe others are whilst simultaneously asking of them that they respect your autonomous identity?
As the saying goes. fools and dead men alone have unchanging opinions.
"The question comes down to freedom and in this I fully support professor Peterson. If such a bill was to be introduced in my home country I would refuse to ever teach, conduct research or have any relation with such a government ot country".
Then you only punish yourself and those who might learn from you. Which furthers your argument how?
"For me it is so simple. It is not just about academic freedom but also about freedom of thought and human rights".
Yes, but why is it that your academic freedom seems to be beyond challenge and change when that of others is vilified and belittled? freedom for and from whom and to what end?
"You are free to call your self what ever you like but you have no right to force me to call you Zod in your name is Henrik",
Interesting. The examples you give are not gendered but one might assume you are referring to cross gender name changes? People change their name all the time. But it seems it is not the name change that is the issue here but the implied recognition of legitimacy of an affirmed gender if one was to use the changed name. For example it Steve became Susan... you seem to suggest that using Susan would imply that you have acquiesced to the gender change, whilst presumably if Susans friend had changed their name from Jonny to Jacob you would have no issue. Thus this name change indignation begins to appear as a straw man for the metaphysical scepticism inherent in your postionality on gender identity.
"and if there is a law that forces me then my pronoun would be ^*$,/*÷¥#*÷,%*%₩+#$*"*/*#?"?/,=&@*:,$,#¥'kene$*♡¤¡□♡\◇▪︎《¿\ and then maybe you will see how dangerous a law like C16 is"
Dangerous? no. Miguided? perhaps. what is dangerous however is holding tightly on to outdated and outmoded definitional structures that no longer adequately describe our lived and scientific realities. This results in much real world suffering and harm to those who have atypical sex and gender identities. I'd wager this is of greater import and impact than your faux indignation at having to reconfigure your ideas of how the world is and what your place in it might be the result of.
"The day such a law will be introduced in my country, you will never again see me on RG but in a protest together with professor Peterson"
Well then on that day, perhaps you may get the chance to speak with some of those with whom you vehemently disagree. After all what you're missing here is neither intellect not ability, merely context.
I wish you well.
Liran Morav and Sarah Ellis Sarah nice detailed answers!
....I have found that some on researchgate are asking&responding to questions like these to game their stats ;)
Ingrid .. and I found that some on the left is trying to belittle others in order to scilence them... this is how the left is controlling the narrative. By intimidation and fear. I totally dont care about stats. If you dont have an opinion on the issue pls refrain from personal attacks on people you know nothing about. Best wishes Henrik
replying to Henrik G.S. Arvidsson
"and I found that some on the left is trying to belittle others in order to scilence them... this is how the left is controlling the narrative"
Suggesting that you may not be engaging with an argument in good faith is not a personal attack, more an observation of the arguments presented and your defence of them. It hardly amounts to an ad hominem. A weak argument is a weak argument no mater who presents it. As for the the left working via "intimidation and fear", this would seem a little bit like a generalisation, or perhaps even an ad hominem of an entire group, that would presuppose a homogenous driving force to left wing academia. A principle which I am sure any right wing academic would baulk at applying to themselves. Hardly a tenable position.
Furthermore, since you have asked rather pointedly that Ingrid Holme not comment on this thread further despite her very valid and open contribution that you seem to have taken as a personal attack, it would seem it is not the leftist predisposition in this thread that are attempting to silence anyone. Merely yourself?
As a friendly retort then, offered in the spirit of Seneca's letters to his friend Lucilius, I cordially invite you to critique the arguments put forth by myself and Liran Morav in earlier answers, since we had the good courtesy to engage with your arguments rather than your opinions.
There is at least on my part no fear, and no intimidation either meant or felt. Merely an invite to engage in an open and honest debate where you critique the arguments at hand, rather than complain that they do not agree with your own?
As ever I wish you well and I look forward to your reply.
Hi. I was responding to the last comment about stats. Perhaps I missed yours and I will reply to it tomorrow. Im out driving. If I missed to reply or missed readi g someth it was not my intention. Best wishes.
Henrik G.S. Arvidsson I'm very sorry if you feel that my comment was a personal attack. I would be very sad if anyone were genuinely intimidated or fearful after reading my comment.
It is a fascinating issue in so far as realists could point out that I did not name you, nor did I include any reference to you as a person or academic.
A postmodernist would perhaps point out that my word choice had created an inferred connection, but this was between the post and those answering.
I suspect all academics would point out that my answer was slightly off topic, and so I'll just add that I have found 'Sexing the Body: Gender Politics and the Construction of Sexuality' by: Anne Fausto Sterling very useful in teaching 1st year sociology -esp when students have little familiarity with biology.
Im not fearful Im just sick of the left and their attempts to scilence the opposition. Sorry for the short answer..out driving. Best regards
I'm very sorry to hear that you (feel you) have been silenced, and would be genuinely interested to hear from you concretely how this has manifested in your intellectual/academic career. Who in "the left" silenced you? how? Did the "silencing" take the form of argumentative disagreement? ad hominem attacks? whataboutism? Denial of platform? If you look at the news culture of the last 40 years, it is quite evident that it is critical-left ideas that are - and have continuously been - ridiculed, silenced, ignored, misrepresented, and marginalized in the mainstream press of most countries I know. Yes, the likes of Zizek and Chomsky (who by the way disagree with each other quite profoundly, yet are grouped together as "radical/postmodern left") are ever so often interviewed (always by liberal media platforms) - but the basic frameworks and ways of discussing anything from the economy to foreign policy to migrants are frustratingly non-critical and mostly largely status quoist.
From what you say, however, it sounds as though the critical/radical/postmodern Left is hegemonic and oppressive - with you being one of its victims. Concrete examples and elaboration would be very helpful here.
After reading the missing questions my thoughts are more the relevance than the arguments it self. I understand your narrative and I respect it. In fact I have no problem with people being left wing. Your argumentation makes me think of Nietzsche and his idea of the herd moral. It is actually almost quite interesting. The herd mentality is dangerous. I wrote this post as an experiment more or less and I was right. The herd mentality means that there is almost impossible to question the mentality of the herd and sadly this is what is happening to science. I asked a simple question but in return I got rhetoric...that can also be interestering and I thank you for the insight in your reality. I really do. But that is in my view not the interesting issue. What is interesting is how people can put down so much energy to build a narrative that defends their own hedgemony. I dont thinl there is another branch of science that is so dominated by an ideology. I come from the world of business ans for me I dont think in terms of politics. I always encuraged the students to think for them selfs ans to weigh arguments ans theories against each other..eg Rogerian psychology vs social constructionism etc.. that is how science becomes interesting and evolve ans yes by reading your posts I really understand how you think and I respect it but I dont agree. The thing is that science only moves forward when there is an ooen discourse ans not when one group of scientists are heing bullied ans pushed out. Jordan Peterson was ( almost) right when he said he was probably the only right wing man in social science.. it doesnt scare me thst he said it buy thst he is basically right.. maybe there are three or four of us but the majority is doing a really good job when it comes to scaring most of us in to scilence....that is the scary part. Best wishes Henrik.
Regarding sexes.. forgot..biologically there are two sexes.. if our race should evolve and a third one should appear, I would accept it but until then I tend to agree with Professor Peterson. You can call yourself whatever you want but you should not be allowed for force me to change my language and as a consequence my way of thinking. So yes I fully agree with JP and since you now know my standpoint I can keep mu post relatively short 😇 Best wishes H
Henrik G.S. Arvidsson Hello! So, I appreciate the time in your reply.
Here is a philosophical break down of your points:
"After reading the missing questions my thoughts are more the relevance than the arguments it self. I understand your narrative and I respect it. In fact I have no problem with people being left wing"
Great to hear. The relavence in my posts would be that they were a critique of your position that is somewhat based in a postmodernist view of categorisation and epistemic characterisations that are often mistakenly attributed ontological status in conservative discourse.
"Your argumentation makes me think of Nietzsche and his idea of the herd moral. It is actually almost quite interesting. The herd mentality is dangerous. I wrote this post as an experiment more or less and I was right. The herd mentality means that there is almost impossible to question the mentality of the herd and sadly this is what is happening to science"
Interesting observation. Nietzsche it seems was more of the anti realist, whereas I myself would describe my own position as a critical realist with regards to philosophical Ideas of reality, being and knowing. The consequentialism I would agree with since tis a central tenet of nursing and health care in general.
I would agree herd morality is limiting and in certain situations and contexts can be very very much dangerous. Yet ethics and knowledge each have one facet in common. The number of people that hold a given view in ether field is not indicative of said views worth or truth. So then I would ask of you why is it that you seem entrenched in what is at best a legitimised view point based on its widespread acceptance? (the binary narratives of sex) that is upheld by a flawed conception & minority view of post modernism? (As espoused by Peterson) and positivistic science (from the likes of Dr Soh or Professor Stock et al)
"I asked a simple question but in return I got rhetoric..."
Did you? or was it merely a philosophical critique of your position, delivered in such a way that you perceived it as such by virtue of an internalised confirmation bias? By your own logic, as written in earlier posts, if a person was to point something out and that then causes offence to, or is dismissed by the listener this is the listeners issue correct? Not a fault or the argument as given? One could of course argue Epistemic testimonial injustice here (disbelief) but I think we've covered that. There also seems a second contradictory point here. You would wish to have your views upheld, whilst challenging those of others and disallowing any legitimisation of upset or harm as causal from your own views, whilst simultaneously leaning into the harm caused by the views of others as reason why they are themselves to be avoided.
"...that can also be interestering and I thank you for the insight in your reality. I really do. But that is in my view not the interesting issue. What is interesting is how people can put down so much energy to build a narrative that defends their own hedgemony. I dont thinl there is another branch of science that is so dominated by an ideology."
I could lay myself open to an accusation of semantics here but science is its self an ideology. As are the Social sciences, economics, philosophy and other such disciplines, in that they are all examples of a collected and contiguous set of ideas. Ergo your own position is also "an ideology". (broadly speaking based on conservatism) So to critique things on the basis of them being a "single ideology" is to simply say "I disagree with this set of ideas", without ever stating specifically why in a way that backs up the arguments. This of course is trademark of Doctor Peterson, so I shouldn't be surprised. I must also commend you on the amount of energy you yourself invest into defending your own ideology, by continually suggesting alternatives are false, or unworthy of attention, but never evidencing why this may be so.
"I come from the world of business ans for me I dont think in terms of politics. I always encuraged the students to think for them selfs ans to weigh arguments ans theories against each other..eg Rogerian psychology vs social constructionism etc.. that is how science becomes interesting and evolve ans yes by reading your posts I really understand how you think and I respect it but I dont agree.
I myself have completed management courses and owned a small business. I therefore understand the differences in the thinking at board level and societal level. If one thing has been eminently proven in the US and UK of late it is that one cannot run a country like a company. And what is a country but a bordered society of peoples? A city writ large. Politics is "the affairs of the city" and in that endeavour one is always encouraged to weigh ones arguments and those of others such that one might approach a common truth or goal etc. The two things are different, but not and much as you infer. That said authoritarian, conservative and right wing governance does like to discourage any critical political thought since it may once again upset the status quo in which said authority is invested.
This last may well give the best insight into your issue with "social" sciences as being too "left leaning" Since socialism is central premise of social sciences. I.e. 'society' must exist. Conservatism could be said to be the sceptic on this point. Hence your troubles.
"The thing is that science only moves forward when there is an ooen discourse ans not when one group of scientists are heing bullied ans pushed out. "
I totally agree, but I'm still at this point waiting for your discourse , as this appears to be an introductory point?
"Jordan Peterson was ( almost) right when he said he was probably the only right wing man in social science.. it doesnt scare me thst he said it buy thst he is basically right.. maybe there are three or four of us but the majority is doing a really good job when it comes to scaring most of us in to scilence....that is the scary part."
Well I've just given you a wonderful platform from which to state your case and you missed the opportunity once again. merely restating your position rather than postulating an argument even when given the stage. I am therefore bound to ask what is it you wish to achieve? what do you want? what is your goal? Because when given the floor you fail to use it?
Stating that your oposition is wrong and censorious does not an argument make. And I confess myself disappointed, since you really haven't given me anything of any substance to critique besides that which has already been said.
in reply to your second message:..
"Regarding sexes.. forgot..biologically there are two sexes.. if our race should evolve and a third one should appear, I would accept it but until then I tend to agree with Professor Peterson. You can call yourself whatever you want but you should not be allowed for force me to change my language and as a consequence my way of thinking. So yes I fully agree with JP"
Once again you merely restate your position, and I have already dealt with problems and error implicit in your stance in my original reply. I need not repeat them here. Suffice to say the evidence does not back up your claims and your stance amounts to little more than holding onto one particular type of social construction that makes sense purely on its established existence and benefits to the social group in which you reside. I did, if you remember, concede the point that legislation in this issue is akin to using a hammer to crack a walnut.
In closing though I may offer this thought. Perhaps, since the social sciences are themselves embedded in society at large, and academia is not immune to the influences of the time and space place in which it operates, the left leaning penchant that you are critiquing is itself an effect of the shift to the right that is evidence in other public discourses? A resistance, if you will, to the ever growing authoritarianism that seems be dividing the masses from the political classes.
Food for thought eh?
I thank you for your best wishes, and I look forward to your response, but I do sense this might be drawing to a natural close, unless there is some solidity brought forth in your position from which I might build a rebuttal.
As ever I wish you well.
Well. You do everything but adress the core issue. One can write a 10 page essay but still not answer the core question. How does the total hedgemony of leftist ideas influence the field of social science? That was the question a very simple one that you should be able to answer with three sentences . Best regards
Sarah Ellis and Liran Morav thanks for the thoughts -really interesting and sound contribution to the discussion
Henrik, I think that maybe the problem is rather that you are asking a biased question that takes "the total hegemony" as an undoubted truth with which to begin your inquiry. It's a little bit like asking parents: "Have you beaten your children yet?" - a question that takes for granted that the parents will beat their children at some point. One could describe this form of asking question hegemonic, don't you think?
The trouble is not that Sarah and I failed to answer your "core question", but rather that we (or at least I) cannot answer a question that takes for granted things that are undefined and/or untrue. I'm sure you'd feel the same way if I asked you "What are the consequences of the total hegemony of neoliberal thought in academic economics?".
Plus as it stands, I already explained to you why the assumption of "total hegemony" in social sciences does not describe reality in a previous reply.
So what I'd suggest is that you first explain what you mean by "the total hegemony of Leftist ideas" - most importantly, what do you mean by "Leftist ideas"? Then we can discuss whether these ideas are, in fact, "totally hegemonic" and, if so, what the consequences might be. Either way, I highly doubt that the answer would fit in, as you say, "three sentences".
All this being said, I also noticed in your previous reply that you said:
"I wrote this post as an experiment more or less and I was right. The herd mentality means that there is almost impossible to question the mentality of the herd and sadly this is what is happening to science."
I mean, if your post is indeed an experiment in eliciting good-faith arguments, then I'm very happy I was able to help you. I'm not sure what exactly you can learn from the discourse you've triggered other than that social sciences are relatively polite individuals who are happy to engage with people whose epistemological assumptions they do not share. I haven't seen anyone here "silence" you or prevent you from "question[ing] the mentality of the herd". On the contrary, Sarah seemed very explicitly keen on you doing so.
My sincere thanks to Liran Morav and Ingrid Holme for your support of my arguments.
To take Liran Morav up on the last post, I would agree with much of what was said... and echo the sentiment of requesting specificity of enquires from Henrik G.S. Arvidsson
And to echo Henrik prior points, I whole heartedly agree that clarity and independence of thought is needed for progress, so if we are to make a better attempt at answering the question, then specificity in defining it would most certainly assist.
That being said on this point of :
"How does the total hegemony of leftist ideas influence the field of social science?"
I do believe I mentioned in a earlier post about social science dealing implicitly with the the ethics of society, via question of what kind of society we wish to create. This assumes two realties. 1) Society must exist 2) That it has some moral and ethical component to its structure.
On point 1) I suggested conservatism is the sceptical view of this reality (Margaret Thatcher famously proclaiming "there is no such thing as society" )
Which is itself a comment not just on the ontological reality of society, but by association on the on the ethical responsibilities or lack thereof, that individuals carry for said society. If society does not exist then this would of course be a zero, and we arrive at ideological individualism. (Neo liberalism)
'If everyone is responsible for their own selves, then no one is responsible for the other selves"
It would seem therefore that when comparing the two approaches, conservatism or socialism, it is the former rather than the latter that is hegemonic in nature. The latter could perhaps be characterised as collaborative, as evidenced by this very thread.
But heres the catch. To the hegemonic individualist collaboration becomes control. (or loss of) This it seems is the core of your complaint against "left wing" frameworks. And if collaboration becomes control, which in turn becomes "loss of freedom" this is then further subverted to mean "unethical conduct of the other" .
When writ large on macro and meso level this characterisation becomes derided as "nanny state" or "interference". At the micro level it would be characterised as "political correctness" or "an attack of free speech"
Indeed this latter point is evidenced in this very thread by your own point about the processes inherent in giving or taking offence. To a socialist "offence is given"(by the speaker) To an individualist "it is taken" (by the listener).
In closing, I would note that the issues contested between our respective approaches seem to be ones of ethics and responsibility, and onto whom the burden of each is to be devolved.
So how does the "total hegemony of leftist ideas" influence the field of social science?
It "does so" only when viewed through the twin lenses of neo liberal individualistic ideology and ethics. In much the same way that one might see things differently if one looked through a pair of binoculars from the wrong end.
Consequently, as you Henrik G.S. Arvidsson are (seemingly) a proponent of the conservative and individualist responsibility model, this would require you to take said responsibility for adequately defining your own argument before presenting it, such that we might collaboratively reply.
As ever I wish you well, and look forward to the response(s)
An interesting cry of anguish from Henrik, but I have heard it all before. In 1987 I wrote a rebuttal to an author whose article was published at my recommendation. Back then, Post-modernism etc etc had not yet become well known enough to be an ism. Very few outside France had read Foucault, for instance. There were a few 'marxian' authors about though, and the odd Althusserian. I did a content analysis of more than a decade of articles in the then journal of record in Australian Sociology and showed that about 20% of articles, at a stretch, employed some kind of Marxian terminology or conceptualisation.
It is scarcely 'postmodern' today to echo themes that go back to Weber and beyond, say to Dilthey and Rickert, or to many of the early sociologists, such as Durkheim. All were excoriated as dangerous radicals in their day. So my argumentum ad hominem for Henrik is that it is better to treat his offering as a cri de coeur than a real question. After all, he tells us that his question was flung out as 'click bait' on a long drive and he didn't mean it seriously. He was just experimenting on us in a postmodern way and with the 'dirty tricks' recommended by so many fashionistas of the would be avant garde who have clothed themselves in the 'post modern' without having any sort of background in European social philosophy.
Noe Henrik shows signs of intending to use the experimental results to foster the claim that the 'left', whoever they are, are ganging up on him. The real left wouldn't bother. This is not a serious forum for such discussions, although quite a few of the answers, evidently given in 'good faith', are admirable examples of apt and succinct analysis of the misconceptions that plague questions unattached from literatures, and specific examples, times and places.
Like a graffiti spray can, "postmodernism" is a label that can conveniently be dumped when one's misdeeds get caught. As a philosopher, I am certainly not kowtowing to the current trends. Neither is a fellow Canadian, Jordan Peterson, on whose ideas have written a whole book: Book MYTH, MEANING, AND ANTIFRAGILE INDIVIDUALISM: On the Ideas o...
As for "postmodernism," I recommend this excellent short essay by George Englebretsen:
Chapter Postmodernism is irrational
Henrik, I can't be bothered responding to your game (language, text and their means).
I don’t disagree with much of what has been written here but would offer a meta-analysis.
It is the job of the social sciences to examine society, to put it under the magnifying glass. The researchers will have their political leanings so (try as they might) that examination cannot be pure dispassionate science; it is bound to include criticism of society, at the very least by implication.
Who might carry out such research? That is who, in terms of their political leaning?
The traditional Burkean communitarian right, who know that hierarchies run the world, do not care much for social analysis. What matters is good order and that means obeying the rules. One has one’s place, one behaves in accord with one’s station, one does not speak out of turn and when one does speak it is in bureaucratese. Exaggeration? A bit, but it’s a recognisable description of, say, a university administration.
The individualist, free-market, entrepreneurial right want to take responsibility for their own actions. They have fame and fortune to pursue and what matters is winning. This is occasionally compatible with an academic career (probably in economics or business) but there are more direct paths. These people incline to go-getting rather than contemplation so analysing society is not a primary interest; they are glad to leave the university once they have their degree.
So that leaves the left to be the social researchers. And, unlike the traditional right and the free-market right, they are deeply interested in society. What matters to the left is fairness and equality.
It used to be that the left stood up for the downtrodden—the proletariat. Sociology was not social work but it leant in that direction for a qualification in social science was a qualification for social employment. As a result, social research was infused with criticism of society, at least implicitly.
Over the course of the twentieth century life for the lower socio-economic layers improved enormously. By the end of the century their life was a far cry from the slum-dwelling impoverishment of the beginning. Whether or not this indicates social research was successful (it was probably more that the noblesse oblige traditional right was the major driver), it means that the researchers’ original raison d’être had largely vanished. So other reasons have taken its place and the “discourse” has become very abstract.
Hence pomo, etc.
Philip.. If you dont agree with me fine, then do t respond. My fear is that without divergent opinions science will not advanvce..you can look at thinhs from a humanistic angle or a social constructivist one. Both are valid but with hedgenony comes reification and then discussion is dead and group think is a fact. Thise with divergent ideas are scilenced and left is only one group or as the Borg in star Trek would have put it " one thought and one mine" and then it is no longer science. I seen the tendences in this duscussion..if you dont agree , we belittle you and the mass will put you down. Just think back on Nietzsche and his ideas about the herd and herd moral...it is superior , isnt it? 😬😬😬
I think if you have real concerns you need to point out what part of 'postmodernism ' is the problem. What part of the theory? It's just
I wonder if these are real concerns or the concerns of Jordan Peterson parroted.
I am increasingly aware of the impact of his sweeping claims about 'the left' the homogeneous group, (funnily a way of grouping which is his main complaint with regards to the left). Group identity instead of the individual!
I recently commented on a YouTube video featuring Peterson recently, and someone genuinely replied , the left are '..trying to implement communism, with millions lined up and shot, or sent to re education centres to be tortured'.
I mean really! . it seems rediculous, but Peterson knows the effect of words and knows fine well what he is doing.
I don't know what he is trying to achieve but it's not rational debate. He regularly states 'the left ' should be gone after at every opportunity. What does this even mean and what does it mean to those as deluded as the author of the comment above.
So I would say yes, if you want rational discussion, state a point about postmodernism which you disagree and go from there. But don't fall for the 'boggy man left' discourse.
Henrik G.S. Arvidsson
"I seen the tendencies in this discussion..if you don't agree , we belittle you and the mass will put you down."
yes so do I.. you need only look back over your own comment to find such evidence. Like for example,, "if you dont agree with me then dont reply" (suggested self censorship.. very a very Orwellian use of a suggested foucauldian social control .. )
It seems it is not others ideas that you take issue with, but the critisism of your own. As I have already pointed out, that is in and of itself an intolerant hegemony. More so when the only justification for criticism of your academic opposition boils down to "but they all disagree with me and thats unfair"
Like many here I am loosing patience with your intractability, and sophist tricks. If you wish to live in a state of disingenuous ataraxic denial then so be it.
Groups think and the number of people that hold a view is not a reliable indicator of either the truth or morality of said view. we are not silencing you.. it just appears that you really have nothing much to say.
And stamping ones foot whilst shouting "no fair" however eloquently and dispassionately amount to little more than a stubborn refusal to accept the error with which one continuously collides. Your intellectual prison is of of your own making not ours.
Well Im actually saying the opposite. The hedgemony of the left leaves little room for other ideas. I fully agree with Dr Peterson on this issue. He argues that the ideas of post marxism and post modernism has taken over the social sciences.. I have nothing against post modernism or say but just look at this discussion..how many with a duvergent view can be identified? Im bery much familiar with the theories of post nodernism and neo marxism so my question is yet unanswered. If no discurse and divergent ideas... how can we call what we do science? This discussion actually proved my point.. there is no room for divergent opinions. I asked for a consequense analysis and in return I got a solid defence of certain political streams.. this sort of highlights the problem and by avoiding it we are undermining our own dicipline. Best wishes
Now Im tired.. Dr Peterson talks about Post Modernism and Neo Marxism...
In other words my question remains unansweres. It was a very simple ome that in not answeree by essays about post modernism but by a clear answer. To make it simple 🙂 Not so long ago. Everyone ..almost believed the earth was flat..those who had a divergent views were effectively scilenced..meaning killed, or they lost their platform..this is what the left is trying to do on the social sciences to any one with a divergent views..this happened to Dr Peterson and many others..most conformed..not because they agree with the majorith but because of fear stemming from what ever reason ..if no one would have spoken up about the shape of the earth ppl would still have believed it is flat..some people actually do. 2 this discussion actually proves my point spot on. The vast majority of researchers in the field of social studies have a left leaning.. I will not go as far as Dr Peterson and say neo Marxist but lets say left..My arguments are the same as Dr Petersons so no point in repeating then. 3 why do we need to write long essays regarding something that doesnt answer the question, Especially if the question can be answered within the lenght of 20 words. I used to be a talk radio host and the most negative feedback came when guests tried to avoid the question.. I always set out to make the guest look good so no traps or anything but from working on the radio I learned one thing.. always answer the question and not try to divert attention or spinn off somewhere.. it was a very simple question. Is a hedgemony of ideas good or bad.. if the argument is that it is good.. why dont we still believe that the earth is flat? Answer; because some brave people risked their life and spoke out.. we must accept other views and not tey to deplatform them..soo..is the Earth Flat or Round and why do we now agree it is round...not trough conformity..that is for sure..best wishes and I hope you have a nice day...my cat fell down the window yesterday so I will spend the day thinking about other things... 🙂 Best wishes Henrik
I believe social science is dominated by socialists/ Neo Marxist ideas and Post Modernism.. I never said I have a problem pr say that ppl like Marx or post modernism ( I do not define my self as a post modernist) I have a problem with hedgemony and that there is little or no room for other ideas.. if some one believes in a flat Earth.. I have no problem with that either..as you say my beef is with the hedgemony and the humanities is dominated by the left and not the right but if it was totally dominated by the right I would hate it just as much..Now I must tend to my cat who is at the hospital with multiple fractures.. best wishes H 🙂
@Larry . I think the Jordan Peterson ideological hegemony might be the issue. Peterson lumps post modernism , neo marxist, the left 'folks' in to one group, and by even considering these ideas and philosophies you are responsible for the deaths of millions of people in the communist projects. Quite frightened ideas.
Larry Carlson
and Mark Pearson I'll just leave this here as it reminded me of current debates but for the life of me I can't remember their name...something to do with red hats and a dislike of being sexually rejected regjected ;) https://www.researchgate.net/post/is_gender_studies_really_science" I was born in Sweden and there it is rather popular especially among women with left wing views. As a young student I took a summer course in gender studies and I quickly developed a very negative attitude towards the subject because I viewed it as highly politicised and polarising, the lecturer even radiated a form of hatred towards men, I actually found the experience highly unpleasant."
Ingrid.. sexually rejected? Im a married man..I can tell you that rejected is a word that doesn't describe me one bit. And yes I question the fact if gender studies is really science..but personal attacks and belittling of political opponents is something that I hoped we didn't do in academia but if we all can agree that personal attacks is ok so fine with me...:-) The whole narrative that is dominating social science today is to put group vs group and the idea that there is some male dominate structure where infant there is none....if you make that claim you are simplifying a complex issue and disregard the individual and his or her choices etc, meaning the individual is less important than the group. We all belong to a multitude of groups with sometimes opposing agendas. And Yes this lecturer showed her hatred towards men to the extent that even female students complained to the faculty and later there was a meeting and the head of faculty had to appologise...that was a long time ago, today no one had probably reacted because those ideas are so widely accepted...again...just read this thread and reflect...By reading most of the answered I more or less say my point was proven, not by me but by my opponents...Best wishes... and Ps Im a right wing conservative..since some one asked.
The problem for the radical left have always been its tendency to kill all sort of discourse, just look at the Soviet Union, Maos China, Cuba etc. An ism that cant take a debate without demonising its opponents ( Something that in the end leads to far worse consequences) is not in my book an ism worth taking seriously. Look how the far left is trying to control our language, CIS men, Pronouns etc. This is a way for the left to achieve a total hegemony and in academia they have more or less succeeded but luckily there are a few of us who will never fold. Theorising can be a good thing but it is a bad thing when you try to do it instead of looking for the answer, an answer that very often is right infront of you, like my question...It has still not been answered.. I even augmented it in order to make it less complex ( Even if I think the question was simple, you answer something from the vantage point of your own definition and if you are insecure you write that " As I understood the question" and then answer it... The left is very good at ranting and rambling and learn 5 to 10 slogans but to look for complex answers to issued where there is an ideologically correct answer is more difficult as this discussion has proven. I have also been very clear with not only my question and the reasons behind it but also that I accept people with divergent opinions. The problem however is that the same respect can almost never be found on the left side...and that is truly sad..best wishes.
Henrik G.S. Arvidsson Just to be clear -I wrote that your post reminded me of a group and I couldn't remember the groups' name. The group had something "to do with red hats and a dislike of being sexually rejected rejected".
This is not a personal attack. Your views do remind me of theirs. I am not suggesting that you share being sexually rejected.
Dear Henrik G.S. Arvidsson ,
I bow my head to YOU! The voice of an intelligent person, a scientist trying to give a BALANCED answer. I know firsthand what ISM is. According to my ideas, YOU are one of the few scientists who expresses an objective point of view (for me).
I recently read a statement by an Englishman.
Perhaps you will also be interested to get acquainted with him:
creeping cultural relativism;
asphyxiating political correctness
Source
https://www.rhodeshouse.ox.ac.uk/blm-covid-impact/blacklivesmatter-racism-and-legacy/
Dear Boris, thank you very much. I will read tonight. Right now Im at the animal hospital, my cat fell out of the window yesterday. Ingrid. ( Swedish?) Then I misunderstood you but I really feel in this case that people should be more open to the positions of others.. I believe there is an individual level and a group level and one doesnt have to exclude the others. Where we differ however is how we regard the groups. As a vessel for power and the relative strenght between different groups, hierarchy, men vs women etc. I dont believe science and politics should mix. I think it is a bad combination... we are all biased but if I know I have a strong buas regarding a subject I rather stay away from it..you will never see me writing an article about the gender gap for example even if my analysis goes deeper than the feminists and I see many more factors why women are paid less than just sex..I have also posted diacussions here where I raise the issue of gender discrimination, you are welcome to read my viewpoint..just lust look at my posted discussions..it was 2 days ago.. we humans are more complex than the politial personas that feminist theory sets out to portrait us as... Humans are kuch more complex than the left try to portrait us as.. but still I accept their viewpoint even if I dont agree and Im not trying to scilence anyone with a divergent view..that is the difference between me and the left. Best wishes H. Trevlig kvall 🙂
Dear Henrik G.S. Arvidsson ,
(Swedish): Jag önskar din katt återhämtning och god natt till dig!
Jag föddes och bodde 38 år i Leningrad (St. Petersburg, Ryssland). Nu bor jag i Israel, men besökte Sverige många gånger för arbete och vila.
Ahh..trevligt. Jag är halv judisk ( Mamma) och kristen pappa...Israel är vackert men varmt..:-)
Ja, het!
Jag talar gärna med en person på sitt modersmål med hjälp av Google-översättare! 📷📷📷 ):
Dear Larry Carlson
,I fully accept your comment regarding Google translator.
Sorry
BR
Boris
Dear Larry. What was written in Swedish was totally OT from the things we are discussing here. It was about mine and Boris´s background. It might be seen as rude and it that is how it was viewed Im sorry but it was not my intention to exclude any one from the conversation. I just ( Wrongly?) assumed my family background was of little interest to most..so no disrespect intended. I only have one point regarding the question and that is that it is terrible that a scientific discipline is dominated by one political perspective because it influences the research done within that field, especially when the discourse is becoming reified...Best wishes.
Dear Ingrid.. I seldom take things personal and if you have an argument that can neutralise mine use it...however in my view the most effective argument is the Rogerian one... But I like a living discourse this is mainly why I raised this issue..This is also why Im against hegemony... :-) regarding algorithms on RG..no idea.. Im a technical idiot...
Larry Carlson
Just wanted to say that the situation with the Gender Theory class was not mine -it was a quote from the question linked to.
Larry. Thanks for your reply. I will respond to you later.. I see I have missed to answer some ppl but not on purpose.. best wishes
@Henrik, when I go through the list of questions that you have posed, it's difficult not to concluded that they're not really meant seriously. "How do I win an argument with my wife" sort of stuff. Some of them are entertaining, some less so, but they're all sort of 'tongue-in-cheek'. The same with this one: many of your colleagues, you claim, "have a political leaning to the left", and the sentiment you promote as strongly as you can is the one that says: "that's an infringement of free speech", this is "neo marxism" [your words], and here "scientists of divergent ideas are more or less kept down by the majority". The title is both portentous and - forgive me - pretentious, since you don't actually provide evidence on any of these claims. ("Pretentious" in the literal sense that you're *pretending* as if you're serious, when in fact you're not.) Liran Morav is right: there's a bit of a confusion between *free speech* and *social science research* issues here. As there are, as far as I can see, in just about all of the questions that you have posed here on RG. You understand yourself, I think as a businessman, I have no reason to doubt your competence in commerce-type and economic issues, but the kind of psychology you need for marketing is the kind you need to sell stuff; it has nothing to do with psychology in any serious social science sense.
And I was right some people cant discuss without personal attacks.. This was a serious question.. the wife question was not and every person in their right mind would see that and respond accordingly. Mu grandfather taught me one thing. If I cant be respectful to my opponent then better not discuss at all so I will ignore your post because it goes against all I stand for. I wish you a nice evening. Best regards.
Here again this insistence that you're being personally attacked, when that is simply not true, whatever it is that your grandfather taught you. 'Criticism', 'critique', in science, is the normal state of affairs. (Goes back to Kant.) That's how science advances - one argument against the other. One examines an argument for its premisses, its logic, the evidence, the existing literature, the history of a discipline, then sees where the argument leads. Sine ira et studio. Not: 'you've criticized my views, so you've insulted me.' With all due respect, that's too easy. (Or another way of putting it: you're not taking those who read your posts very seriously.)
Well if you call me not serious and so on and on it is not serious and not worthy an answer... you will not see me going around accusing other people. If you dont like what you see..go somewhere else.. bye bye now...Best wishes.
Larry Carlson
I think you are right in the respect that different kinds of people turn to different professions so yes I think you are right, it is like the discussion about the chicken and the egg... and to clarify.. Im not a fan of leftist ideas, Im a right wing conservative but I respect the views of others., I love to discuss and I think we should do so but discussions tend to become more end more entrenched and sometimes even hateful..Just look at the whole Jordan B Peterson phenomena... I wouldn't say he is hateful but some of his opponents are...but most are not and then you can have a discussion...and discuss we must. I would have felt the same way if social science was dominated by hard line right wingers...it wouldn't be good either... Im so sorry for the late reply.. I had an accident here involving my cat who thought he had wings or something...maybe he is a future scientist? But a more hands on one..it ended with fractured shoulder, jawbone and a lot of soft tissue injuries so a bit chaotic here...but at least he is ok...Best wishes and I hope your summer is not raining away like mine...no skinny dipping here...not yet anyway..Henrik
Dear Henrik G.S. Arvidsson ,
From my experience, an open discussion often develops into mutual accusations and even HANDMADE! )::
Dear Boris I agreee and I also believe that even if people deeply disagree on all sorts of things one can have a discussion filled with mutual respect, it can be a hard discussion but as long as there is mutual respect and understanding it will be rewarding. I reacted to one or two comments here that I didn't find ok and from my perspective then it is better not to discuss any further with the person because there is no point. If ppl disagree...fine. I love to discuss but as soon as we try to expose or go personal, what is the point even talking? Some of my best friends are leftist...my ex wife for example.. we once even settled a dispute trough armwrestling..sadly she won but it was fun...:-) at least for those watching...not so much for me..my new wife is more intelligent and I don't know what is worse...but as long as you have fun! Best wishes... :-)
Politics is the realm in which - following the US model - one has the right to one's opinions, and the right to demand a hearing for these opinions, the so-called 'First Amendment' rights. That's what Freedom of the Press is all about. According to the liberal model, a political forum in which some opinions are marginalized are a threat to democracy and the 'open society' - in Karl Popper's famous formulation.
This here however is a forum for researchers and scholars, which has to abide by a different set of rules - if it is not to degenerate to one more social media outlet. My private opinions are irrelevant - what counts are scholarship, knowledge of the literature, professional standing, training and respect for discipline-specific methodologies and theoretical premisses, experience and history. This difference in 'discourse'-logics - between the 'logic' of politics and the 'logic' of research - has itself been an object of study, especially in the work of Jürgen Habermas. (Though in Western philosophy it goes back at least as far as the Greeks - vide the etymology of the word 'doxa'.)
So, what does one do with 'contributors' to RG who deliberately or for lack of knowledge confuse these two 'discourse'-types? These two 'logics'? Who pluck their opinions from the social media and then post some new 'question' every couple of days - which on the face of it sounds meaningful enough, but if one probes them seem to have no discernable function beyond self-promotion? Tomorrow there will be another trivial 'question', one more vacuous 'discussion', one more theatrical outrage because someone claims they haven't been sufficiently 'respected'. One definition of 'woke' is the spurious pleasure of having 'called out' someone for apparent or invented 'disrespect'. Psychologically it's an attitude that belongs on the school play-ground, it's a form of egoism we should have left behind with adolescence, it doesn't belong on this forum, this 'woke' mentality, and it's not in the least confined to just the 'Left' of the political spectrum.
@Hermann Gruenwald : that works fine, this attitude of 'value-neutrality' that you are defending - on condition that the topic being taught is of a technical nature. But the social sciences - broadly understood as dealing with some aspect of 'society' - if one is going to be serious about any of these disciplines, research isn't possible if one doesn't have a good understanding, at the very least, of the origin and history of these terms: starting with 'postmodernism' itself. (Since that is ostensibly what this thread is all about.) If you don't do that, i.e. if you don't immerse yourself in the history of this whole discussion (the literature is large), then you're just joining in the general anti-intellectualism that does nobody any good - least of all a research forum like this one. What I objected to, above, is the attitude that it's ok, on a research forum, to just polemicize against something, to be rude and at the same time, from level at which you pitch your intervention, making it clear that you do so without any special knowledge of or any special insight into the topic under discussion.
Henrik G.S. Arvidsson While I completely understand what you are trying to say, the situation in India at least is not so lopsided. This is because even though the academia is dominated by people favoring the leftist ideologies, there has been paradigm shift in power from the left to right-wing politics.
And this is where it gets truly slippery. Because in an attempt to compensate for their helpless, impotent and forgettable history of subjugation at the hands of Delhi Sultanate, the Mughals and later on the British, the fringe elements on the extreme right, egged on by the very idea of a 'Hindu Rashtra [Nation]' often take recourse to hooliganism and preposterous ways of so called 'right[ing] history'.
At the same time, the very fact that there has been a global right upswing in the political sphere goes on to show how the left has probably failed to live up to its own expectations and therefore armchair debating and ivory tower scholarship is all that they can boast of. It has now become a fashion in India to talk about Dalits, Muslims and women from the vantage point of air-conditioned seminar rooms of college and university campuses without any concrete or viable alternatives in place [the assumption still being that they are changing the world through this self-congratulatory exercise].
And yet, to present both sides of the coin, it cannot be denied that there is a serious dearth of intellectuals in the right wing camp. It is more about rhetoric, jargon, and ideological obfuscation.
On the other hand, people having a left leaning fervently defend their freedom of speech and expression, to the extent that words such as 'intolerance' become fashionable. The irony however is that the same people have a zero tolerance policy toward those in the academia who do not subscribe to their ideology as if every educated man should be by default a leftist!!!
Moral of the Story: I have serious issues with both the camps, and realize that my opinions do not matter in the larger macro-politics of the nation-state and I am under no pretension that I am changing the world through my research [perhaps greater dialogue, awareness, and sensitivity is indeed created in the academic circles but that is that]!!!
Still to answer your question I leave you with an alternative viewpoint on the leftist politics in India; not celebratory but critical, not an act of lionizing but an attempt toward finding a common ground if at all it exists or can exist.
Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QWmhhvJjQ1Y
Dear Henrik,
You are asking an interesting, but provocative question. To my opinion, in many cases, during the last 30 years, postmodernism was more connected to neoliberal thinking than to neo-marxist or left thinking. Of course, there are "Left liberal" or "Liberal left" ideas in the West - You are thinking about, but postmodernism mainly prevailed in neoliberal thinking, and it was an encompassing direction not only in economics, but other social sciences too. The sign of this decadence, I am sure, was the diminishing role of humanitarian sciences. We, in Central and Eastern Europe, could observe that very acutely, so speaking, not only theoretically, as often in the West, but feeling on our skins and everyday life. Your question, dear Henrik, in many aspects can be wrong methodologically. In order to be clearly understandable You have to define how do You see the right (the extreme right, the moderate right, conservatives, liberals, neoliberals), the left (radical left, traditional left). Also it is possible to use other titles and labels for political directions (as communist, socialdemocratic, etc.), but in any case Your posed question and explaining of it has to be more precisely formulated in order to embrace this problem.
Perhaps the general paranoia present in the world is getting to me, and I find myself wondering about the sudden proliferation of quasi-methodological questions here on Researchgate, wondering if this is trolling on a higher intellectual level? Are individuals playing games? Provoking hardworking people into spending time penning careful and thoughtful answers only to end up wasting their time because the question is not a serious one?
If that is the case, then it is a pity because for many students and academics this website is a very necessary place to find help, support, ideas, references and so forth, all the more so because of Covid19 induced isolation. All the more respect I have for serious colleagues in this discussion.
Yes, Lilian Hupkens , you are right. It is trolling and click bait.
I tried to have a real discussion about a real problem. Should academia be political? Is a tilt towards a certain ism or belief good or does it hinder progress? Kind of funny that always when you write things that can be seen as critical of leftist ideas or dogma..you instantly get accused of being a Troll etc. This is how the left silence the opposition and people doesnt feel at home in academia. I my self more or less left, lost intetest..totally! If one perspective totally dominatesba field and the discourse is reified..how can that he good? How nice is it to call collegues who doesnt agree trolls? I left and it seems it was the right choice. Reading answers like this only make me firmer ih my belief that certain parts of academia is doomed. Freedom of speech? Not unless you have the right political leaning. Sadly I dont and if that makes me a troll in the eyes of some then let it be so. Then dont ask your self why people leave. I left because Im sick of it..sorry for being blunt, but no one..I mean NO ONE! Should have to accept being called trolls etc for voicing their worries or opinions. I have an ill wife. Meaning..more important things to tend to than not being respected even at a human level for mu conviction. /Henrik
Henrik G.S. Arvidsson , please: you started a discussion about what you think is "postmodernism" not even knowing what is the difference between postmodernism and marxism and you were not even interested in learning. You sent me - and I guess others who joined the discussion - 16 (sic!) messages advertising discussions and publications not even close to my field of interest. I am sorry but I cannot but interpret this as having the sole purpose of generating clicks to boost your RG score. What is this if not trolling?
If you read my answers you should have recognised that I am not defending postmodernism but am interested in a factual discussion.
Talking about freedom of speech: nobody demands a law preventing you from posting clickbait or starting unsophisticated discussions here. Thus, it has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech.
Dear Marie! I know what postmodernism is and I think we just view it differently. What I can not understand is why the hostility? If you believe a discussion is unsophisticated, why take part in it? I learned one thing working as a talk radio host and that was to ask questions broad enough so people can answer them according to their views.
I can also ask a question or initiate a discussion that can be answered with just yes or no..that is of little interest to no one. If you do not agree with my views, that is perfectly fine. What I find slightly problematic however is the personal attacks and the accusations about being a troll and click baiting. Im neither a Troll nor do I clickbait since there is no gain from it. I like to discuss and exchange ideas on subjects that interest me. I get hundreds of shared articles and discussions every day. If I should react negatively to each one that is out of my field, I know nothing about or where I deeply disagree with the author I would find little else to do. If you don't agree with me...fine..
I like it when people have different ideas and ideas that are divergent from mine. What I dont like is insinuations like Troll, unsophisticated, clickbait etc. Trust me I have better things to do with my life! Also if you look at my question I wrote "and" between post-modernism and Marxism...I did in no way, shape or form say the two are the same. the word " and" has a function. What is dislike is again not the fact that you dont agree with me. You are more then welcome to disagree, in-fact in one way I want you to disagree. What I dont like is the personal attacks and belittling attitude. Im a businessman. I do marketing and click baiting if that is what you want to call it is a well known technique in some fields of business. However on RG I start little or nothing to gain..perhaps an interesting discussion or two. However I have never been involved in any click baiting on RG. I just dont see the point!
I think we can both agree that we disagree and that is perfectly fine, I actually like it as I said before since Im interested in the ideas of others. What I do not like is when things get personal, I initiated a discussion about academia and a specified field where a certain set of ideas have hegemony. I argued that is a bad thing and I also argued that it will in the end threaten the integrity and development of that field. Do we agree or not on that point?
I find it more rewarding to have a productive discussion using a good tone instead of making it personal. I deeply dislike some ideas but I would never attack some one from expressing their views. I might disagree but that is it. Accusing others of being unsophisticated, trolls etc is just terrible. I would never accuse you of such things and I prefer if you show me the same level of respect. Also yes! If belittling is systematic it is a question of "freedom of speech" because it is a well proven method of silencing people and de-platform them. Thank you and have a lovely day :-)
Best wishes H
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science
- Sociology