About
This is the personal website of Craig McFarlane, a doctoral candidate in the Graduate Programme in Sociology at York University, Toronto and a lecturer in the Department of Law at Carleton University, Ottawa. I also contribute to The Inhumanities.
Theoria
Recent Comments
- Δελτίο του Σαββάτου 26.6.10 « Τεχνηέντως on What’s So ‘Critical’ About Critical Animal Studies?
- Interesting CAS paper online « Deconstruction, Inc. on What’s So ‘Critical’ About Critical Animal Studies?
- Craig on OSPCA York Region Mass “Euthanasia” Stopped
- Jan on OSPCA York Region Mass “Euthanasia” Stopped
- Chris on David Noble vs. York University
- Bartholomew Ryan on Schmitt and Kierkegaard
- Weekly Round up, January 31, 2010 « The Inhumanities on The Concepts of “Human” and “Animal”
- Weekly Roundup – January 24, 2010 « The Inhumanities on Influential Texts
- Scu on “Puritan Streak”
- Craig on “Puritan Streak”
Categories
- Animals (76)
- Barbarians (8)
- Being Critical (7)
- Boneheaded (9)
- CFPs, Conferences, Lectures and Journals (49)
- Commentary (16)
- Dissertation (34)
- Election (4)
- Foucault (15)
- John Locke (3)
- Lanark County (11)
- Mandeville (1)
- Montesquieu (6)
- Music (17)
- Other (99)
- Pirates (5)
- Research Notes (89)
- Sociology (20)
- State, Sovereignty & Violence (63)
- Teaching (21)
- Thomas Hobbes (4)
Archives
- July 2010 (5)
- June 2010 (4)
- May 2010 (1)
- February 2010 (2)
- January 2010 (7)
- December 2009 (5)
- November 2009 (3)
- August 2009 (9)
- July 2009 (7)
- June 2009 (5)
- May 2009 (10)
- April 2009 (5)
- March 2009 (5)
- February 2009 (2)
- January 2009 (3)
- December 2008 (4)
- November 2008 (8)
- October 2008 (4)
- September 2008 (6)
- August 2008 (8)
- July 2008 (10)
- June 2008 (13)
- May 2008 (6)
- April 2008 (5)
- March 2008 (4)
- February 2008 (10)
- January 2008 (6)
- December 2007 (5)
- November 2007 (3)
- October 2007 (3)
- September 2007 (5)
- August 2007 (7)
- July 2007 (1)
- June 2007 (6)
- May 2007 (12)
- April 2007 (9)
- March 2007 (7)
- February 2007 (9)
- January 2007 (18)
- December 2006 (5)
- November 2006 (13)
- October 2006 (19)
- September 2006 (15)
- August 2006 (15)
- July 2006 (7)
- June 2006 (13)
- May 2006 (11)
- April 2006 (7)
- March 2006 (14)
- February 2006 (11)
- January 2006 (25)
- December 2005 (17)
- November 2005 (27)
- October 2005 (6)
- September 2005 (10)
- August 2005 (3)
RSS
Boneheads
This was written by Craig. Posted on Saturday, January 5, 2008, at 2:56 pm. Filed under Boneheaded. Bookmark the permalink. Follow comments here with the RSS feed. Post a comment or leave a trackback.
16 Comments
What is “bone-headed” about this? This sounds like more of the heavy on jargon and weak on substantive arguments that I claim characterizes much postmodernist work….
You really are a bonehead! And an ironic one at that. Bonehead is slang; not jargon.
Are you ‘postmodernist’ Craig? Why do people keep saying this?
I’m not sure what “postmodernist” means except insofar as it is used to dismiss one’s opponents – “He’s a boneheaded postmodernist who can safely be ignored,” for instance. As far as I can tell, “postmodernist” is primarily a word of abuse – but one dressed up in fancy words. If forced to identify as some belonging to some sort of intellectual heritage, I’d call myself a “Foucauldo-Lefortian” – neither of whom are “postmodernists.” But they are French, which is likely enough for most boneheads to dismiss them.
I should add: other thinkers who have influenced are likewise not “postmodernists” – Schmitt, Strauss, Durkheim, Clastres, Castoriadis, Derrida, Quentin Skinner, etc.
…and so then this blog trades in verbal abuse then? In any event, I can think of three colleagues of mine —all PhD’s from York, in fact— who are all influenced by several of those cited above *and* call themselves postmodernists.
If I may respond to a previous comment, no, I don’t think the term ‘postmodernism’ is itself used to dismiss others. (And, no, the fact that philosophers are French is not at all a problem you attribute to analytic philosophers: the problem is poor arguments (much work in the area looks like journalism about heroes).)
In any event, like virtually all post-friendly scholars, I also notice that you are not doing your Ph.D. in Philosophy. If you had, then you might have seen much of this for what it truly is.
Thom, I’ll reply in detail.
What is “bone-headed” about this?
Copying and pasting a passage from Kant and saying, “Look! Postmodernists!” is boneheaded, sophomoric and – yes – journalistic. All the tendencies in thought that you (apparently) claim to hate. (Indeed, it is par for what passes as criticism of “postmodern” thought among those trained in traditional philosophy departments – c.f., John Holbo’s “work” on Zizek at The Valve.)
This sounds like more of the heavy on jargon and weak on substantive arguments that I claim characterizes much postmodernist work….
That is quite a reading of a single word post, I must say! For what it is worth, given that precision is no doubt a virtue to you, “bonehead” is slang. American in derivation and it appears that its first use was in 1908. As such, it is clearly not “jargon” nor an “argument.” Your comment is just strange.
…and so then this blog trades in verbal abuse then?
As opposed to your own? That is, the blog where you make a post entitled “Kant reveals postmodernism for what it is” thus writing-off a number of your colleagues a priori – i.e., postmodernists are silly; some of my colleagues are postmodernists; they can be written off as silly. All without even reading a single word! (By the way, didn’t Kant say something about “self-incurred immaturity?” – a fine display, I must say.)
In any event, I can think of three colleagues of mine —all PhD’s from York, in fact— who are all influenced by several of those cited above *and* call themselves postmodernists.
Relevance?
If I may respond to a previous comment, no, I don’t think the term ‘postmodernism’ is itself used to dismiss others.
Your comment in the original post certainly indicates otherwise – as does the following:
(And, no, the fact that philosophers are French is not at all a problem you attribute to analytic philosophers: the problem is poor arguments (much work in the area looks like journalism about heroes).)
For what it is worth – given that precision is valued in this discussion – I haven’t imputed any position to analytic philosophers (which I’m told don’t exist anyway – much in the same way that post-modernists don’t, I suppose).
As for the list: Durkheim, Clastres and Foucault were not philosophers (all French). Schmitt was a legal theorist (but German); Strauss self-identified as a political theorist (German Jew); Skinner seems to identify as a philosopher, but I see him more as a historical sociologist (British); that leaves Castoriadis (Greek living in Paris), Lefort (French) and Derrida (Algerian Jew). All of whom were philosophers and none of whom self-identified as “post-modernists.” Castoriadis, especially, (like Foucault and, incidentally, Deleuze – but also Lefort) was quite clear about this.
In any event, like virtually all post-friendly scholars, I also notice that you are not doing your Ph.D. in Philosophy. If you had, then you might have seen much of this for what it truly is.
“Arguments” of self-evidence don’t go very far – maybe they do in the corners you frequent, but I find them rather unconvincing. But then, you began with an a priori position that “all people who I call post-modernist or who identify as post-modernist can be dismissed as silly – mostly because their academic habits are not my own.”
You are quite right: I’m not a philosopher nor do I claim to be one. I do, however, work on the history of thought, especially the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries and this requires that I keep up to date on the relevant history of philosophy scholarship.
As for the “post-friendly” thing – now it is you who are imputing positions. I am quite clear: arrogant boneheadedness (such as your copy-and-paste of Kant) is my enemy. Boneheadedness is not limited to those who self-identify as “postmodernists” nor is it limited to those who are reflexively opposed to “postmodernists” – as you amply demonstrate.
Wow. This response is really incredible. Do you actually believe I haven’t heard of, say, Durkheim or Foucault? Let me promise you that I have (and my journal, the Journal of Moral Philosophy, has published one of the best papers in recent years on Foucault, in fact). The relevance of having York colleagues is that I know graduates of your programme who claim they are postmodernist, in contradistinction to what you say. You have strong views: this can be good in some cases. I’d have advice before you went on the market, but don’t think you would listen or perhaps be interested.
Thanks for noting my post and best of luck to you: I wish you all the best.
Thanks, Thom – another great argument.
For what it may be worth in this discussion, Ph.D. means doctorate in philosophy.
I’ll also take that as a resolute “no” to my question, Craig. Oh, yes, and Skinner is an historian…; we might even say historian of ideas (especially political ones).
NotOften: the fact that a Ph.D. might mean doctorate in philosophy does not then even suggest that Ph.D. holders in subjects beyond philosophy have even adequate philosophical training. At least Craig admits to not being a philosopher, even if he persists in his inappropriate posts.
For another, I am accused of calling my colleagues “silly” which I have not done. In fact, my only disagreement with them is over the philosophical merits of their espoused postmodernism. I can promise you that our conversations are often fruitful and conducted in a collegial spirit, a spirit that seems absent here.
Well you can be exclusionary and made to feel self-secure as you may like – suggesting that only ‘philosophers’ are philosophical proper – but the other disciplines still get degrees in philosophy.
NotOften:
This is ridiculous. It is not “exclusionary” to say that people with Ph.D. in subjects other than philosophy are more often than not trained properly in philosophy, but fact. Thus, someone with a Ph.D. in Political Science specializing in International Relations (and having a minor in, say, American Politics) may have a “doctorate in philosophy” but it would be absolutely ridiculous to say that this degree “in philosophy” is actually a degree signifying philosophical competence.
Likewise, it must be obvious by now: I think your position is ridiculous. But I guess since I’m participating in a post entitled ‘bone head’ that references your blog, I’m not surprised. Let’s be friends!
That Ph.D. stands for “doctor of philosophy” is a non-starter – it is little more than a remnant from the late middle ages and early modern period. Strange that we’ve kept the designation when so much else has changed, but not significant in itself. Given that Ph.D. also includes “doctor” might as well start comparing ourselves to “medical doctors” (i.e., M.D.). All the same, I’m going to the oncologist (M.D.) and not the sociologist (Ph.D.) should I ever have cancer.
Having said that, it seems clear that Thom is, indeed, engaging in some disciplinary policing. If he believes that he is not policing his discipline, he might want to take a few moments to consider why others may see him as doing that. (And this brings us back to the discussion with Neil McLaughlin on sociology’s boundaries – a topic I want to return to. Has anyone received – or their library – the latest issue of Topia? I have a feeling that the article by Kurasawa and the response by Hayes will be of interest to the sociology discussion.)
Craig: your first comment made me spew my beer.
Post a Comment