Well, Obviously

Deep. Deep doo-doo. De-construct that!

EEEEWWW!! Something stinky has been released! ...being smacked upside the nose by a fresh steaming load of moonbat Guano this early in the day is a Monday ruiner.

Ahh, the sophistry of the postmodernist academic.
Note how all that vapid blather is ONE sentence flung at you. But Judith Butler is revered among the left.

Actually, if you deconstruct it - but who really wants to - it sets up a binary frame of two systems. One is rejected and one is accepted. The problem is, the basic axioms of both are not analyzed; they are just accepted as valid. And, this binary frame is old 1980's 'structuralism' vs 'functionalism' taught for years in the sociology depts of the left.

So- she's got her bad structuralism which is viewed as a timeless non-individual 'structure'or system. Then, there's 'functionalism' which adds 'context' (time and local space) and thus, inserts individual agendas. Then, she 'melds' the two, suggesting that an individual could 'take over' the structure.
That's all.

Trivial and empty. BUT - these people are the bosses of the academic world. In Canada, they run the federal agency that funds almost all of the research in Canada. They set the research themes, they review the applications - and that's why Canadian research is dead in the water.

In my grad school career, I took one course out of faculty - in Sociology. 90% of the readings resembled this paragraph. At first I was perplexed (figuring that not being a sociology type I somehow had missed the code), then angry at the waste of my time (ridiculous way to write - 20 page article could, basically, be condensed down to two relevant pages), then amused. After about two classes, I spent the rest of my time laughing at the idiots who took all this seriously. It was a fine “emperor has no clothes” experience.

"To ask what this means is to miss the point. This sentence beats readers into submission and instructs them that they are in the presence of a great and deep mind. Actual communication has nothing to do with it.”

I think it alerts linear and critical thinkers to the fact they are in the presence of a pretentious fraud who engages in exhibitionist cerebral masturbation.

In writing as in music more notes don't make a better composition .... unless you're Mozart!

""professional obscurantism and attempts to browbeat unsuspecting students....""

Haha .... when students are trained to produce crap the result is grads who are well trained to produce crap!

Worth noting .. certain Lib Bloggers who like to overuse poly-sylabic words for the sake of impressing the ignorant.

Bad Writing?

Huh? I obviously need more coffee.

Is there a problem with her sentence? Seems pretty clear and to the point to me.

WL Mackenzie Redux: "I think it alerts linear and critical thinkers to the fact they are in the presence of a pretentious fraud who engages in exhibitionist cerebral masturbation."

This has got to be the quote of the week!! Congratulations!

Darn, but this is one fine day. I woke up looking forward to a bbq with Steven Harper and now this wonderfull wit is added to my my ever lasting joy. Thanks to all you wonderful
commentors for your wakeup humour.
The satirical comment by mackenzie will be one I keep for a long time, it's fabulous.
thanks again.

ET: "But Judith Butler is revered among the left."

Well, among a segment of "the left". I deplore this kind of thing.

Hand me that left-handed fribbleblatzer, willya Joe? It's right there next to the smoke bender...

It's not the coffee Texas Canuck, because I've had two and still don't get it. Mackenzie pretty much sums it up for me. Thanks.

LOL!!!

Let me add my kudos to WL's "quote of the week".

Wow... what he said, I guess.

ET: "The problem is, the basic axioms of both are not analyzed; they are just accepted as valid."

From your much earlier and valued instruction, is this an example of "begging the question". Sincere question, not baiting you.

You are forgiven for your attempt at deconstruction :). It's 8:15 am in LotusLand and now I'm wide awake.

Her language is articulated, but not articulate.

Indeed: Kudos to the dead prime minister!

Also, I should like to note that Mojo got his mojo working with little comic-book drama:

"Hand me that left-handed fribbleblatzer, willya Joe? It's right there next to the smoke bender...".

Looks like sharp week is upon us!

One of my favourite books is "Intellectual Impostures" by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont.

It cites brilliantly written passages that appear to be devoid of any meaning whatsoever. They are almost, dare I say, poetic.

Sokal was the physicist who was responsible for the famous "Sokal Hoax", where he submitted a paper that was complete rubbish to a popular postmodern journal - and got it accepted. His purpose was to expose the impoverished intellectual standards of postmodernism, particularly when it comes to science.

Does WCB cover de-construction accidents?

"*Judith Butler is Professor of Comparative Literature and Rhetoric at the University of California, Berkeley. She is a “leading queer theorist” and has been described as “one of the superstars of 90s academia” and “probably one of the ten smartest people on the planet.”

So-o-o-o... I'm attracted to her for her mind. Is that the *correct* response?

Actually, the really *smart* people are able to communicate in such a way as to enable the majority of their listeners/readers to comprehend their message, and to form an opinion.

This cryptic offering by Ms. Butler is a steaming pile of horse manure being presented to the noviciates as filet mignon. They, in turn, are prepared to savor every bite. To the liberal groupie it's dinner, to the rest it's still a pile of horse s**t.

Google is amazing. First hit. I read this a few weeks back.

George Orwell, "Politics and the English Language," 1946

w3.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm

Front end loaders are articulated Wimpy. This is a steaming pile that needs a loader to move it to a land fill.

People like this are the reason there has been zero progress in Anthropology and Sociology for the last 30-40 years.

In writing as in music more notes don't make a better composition .... unless you're Mozart!

Absolutely. I don't know whether that scene in Amadeus where Mozart says that there are exactly the right number of notes has any historical support, but Mozart's music always has exactly the right number of notes, and always exactly the right notes. In a literary frame of reference, I would say the same of P.G. Wodehouse. Unfortunately, one has to be a towering genius to compose or write that way.

WLMR:

Within postmodern circles, to accuse some of using linear thinking is a very great insult indeed. One must be a nonlinear to join the avant garde.

I've never understood what they mean by that (like much of postmodernism), except that linear thinking appears to mean "rational" and nonlinear is, well, everything else.

Of course, some postmodernist also think nonlinear mathematics is something new and exciting, whereas in truth some of the best work was done by the ancient greeks.

Understatement:
"Actual communication has nothing to do with it"
Yes...make the reader think they are in the 'presence of something....ahhh...we aren't sure.'

Rabbit the difference between postmodernist non linear thinking and linear thinking when articulated is the difference between producing an abstract painting that appeals to whimsy and the ego of the painter as opposed to creating a functional device which people can rely upon to aid their existance.

Me No Dhimmi: "From your much earlier and valued instruction, is this an example of "begging the question". Sincere question, not baiting you."

I was the one who made the "begging the question" point, not ET. But I'm pleased you took it so well.

I take back my last post. I now understand nonlinear thinking. A quick google-search gave me the following:

In a Non-Linear era and within complexity, NLT (nonlinear thinking) advises that solutions will elude us if our thought process remains conventional and based on ‘post mortem based analyses. Successful solutions require that the ethical or intellectual idealism is REMOVED from the thought process: Because Right and wrong are relative to past norms and are no longer clearly identifiable across different age groups and cultures. The majority of OUR socio-economic problems are created less by event THAN “by the differences within the multiple and relative perceptions that cannot be judged by any specific standard".

Thanks Exile (but I believe ET covered this topic too). As Kathy Shaidle points out the phrase "begging the question" seems to be used incorrectly most of the time and should perhaps therefore be abandonned. I know I was certainly in the guilty camp!

In this instance, of course, there is a very low risk of an accusation of "begging the question" because everyone outside the academy is begging for relief from the question!

Its all irritating bollocks, WL. More of the "no There there" po-mo nurture-not-nature crap that's been clogging the Ivory Tower lo these many years.

Whenever I get faced with one of these people live I offer to test their "theory" of linguistic hegemony or whatever their flavor du jour is with a good nose twisting. If they can deconstruct that into a ham sandwich I'll concede the argument.

No takers so far.

Within postmodern circles, to accuse some of using linear thinking is a very great insult indeed. One must be a nonlinear to join the avant garde.

Can untutored schmucks pick up avant garde chicks with linear lines? Can you get anywhere with a non-linear line? Would you be chasing your tail?

This verbal bafflegab is a perfect example of the concept that if something is served up badly enough, the reciever will question their own capacity. The principle of charity causes us to assume that whoever is presenting the idea must know what they are talking about whereas in fact they may be completely clueless or dishonest or both. This problem finds its expression in the IPCC scientific reports. The reports are so badly done that a casual reader assumes that they, the reader, must be missing something profound. They're not; the reports are garbage.
I guess PT Barnum defined the principle succinctly, "There's a sucker born every minute.".

"pick up avant garde chicks"

Trust me, you don't want to go there. It aint worth it. Unless you want to kiss a gaulois soaked in absinthe.

"Well, among a segment of "the left". I deplore this kind of thing."

You're a legend in your own mind. Believe it or not, you are deep in bed with these idiots philisophically. And you'll either be right before them or after them in line when it comes to beheading the infidels.

Enjoy hell.

rabbit - I'd say that you'd have to jettison thought, reason, logic, analysis - everything, to follow that ridiculous advice.

By the way - that's NOT what 'non-linear' means. What the sophist is writing in that nonsense is postmodernist cultural relativism. And actually, postmodernism is extremely linear; the conclusion is based entirely within the perspective of the individual local observer. There are no 'models' to guide you. You hear/see something and you come to your conclusion.

The line moves directly from A, the source, to person B. And then, another person, C, sees A...and the line moves from A to C. So, you end up, in postmodernism, with a multitude of individual opinions. No truths. The postmodernists ignorantly call this non-linearity. It isn't; it's pluralism. Plural opinions.

What's lacking? A mediative set of habits, derived from reason and logic, that guides you in your interpretation. The author says that ethics and intellectual 'ideals' are rejected, trying to imply something reprehensible about ideals. What is rejected in postmodern relativism are normative standards (knowledge) - that enable you, the individual, to understand something. So, you learn that A is a poison and you, B, don't have to test it. You learn, from history, that good gov't involves the people; you don't have to 'invent the wheel' with each generation.

Linear functions simply mean a straight line of communication from point to point. Postmodernism is linear!

Non-linearity is more complex; nothing to do with plural conclusions, but with different types of information coalescing into a single conclusion.
So, long-term species knowledge (DNA) plus short-term and local information (temperature, chemicals) will coalesce to generate an embryo. That's non-linear complexity.

Jeez, Doug, what's the matter? Is there someone out there who doesn't share your political views? Is that intolerable to you?

Obviously, in a contemporary context, all of that goes with saying. To even bring it up, would be superfluous.

" marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.’"

This what I've been saying all the time!

Sheesh, you people!

It just occured to me that an *observation* like the subject one offered by Ms. Butler may be similar to tasting the wine at an expensive dining establishment.

When the sommelier pours the small portion of the beverage for the tasting and approval, how many actually send it back. How many are really sure that it isn't supposed to taste like that?

How many are actually sure that Ms. Butler isn't accurate in her analysis? ;-)

Hmmm bears a startling resemblance to the commentary of Dr. Dawg;)

I think this would make a great folk song. It really works when set to the music of "Puff, the Magic Dragon".

All together now:

"The move from a structuralist account
In which capital is understood
To structure social relations in
Relatively homologous ways
To a view of hegemony
In which power relations are
Subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation...

Oh, Puff the magic dragon...

This is taking "Baffle 'em with BS" to new heights.

we can mock this sophist nonsense as much as we want, but remember, this is the dominant mindset of the social sciences and humanities in Canada.

This is the mindset that runs our research in these areas in Canada - and since Canada doesn't have private foundations - all research is funded by the govt centres. And the gov't centre is FILLED with these types. They set the research themes; they set the review boards; they oversee it all. Again, that's why Canadian research is dead as nails, lacking innovation, exploration and dealing with irrelevant themes.

How about
The Economic consequences of the size of nations'. That got 96,500 of taxpayer money

Methods of moments with many moment conditions'. 45,000

The geopolitics of late modernist exile' 31,000

The heuristic basis of consumer choices and brand preferences. 68,500

The ethics of human rights and security since 9/11; a feminist moral analysis. 47,500

Hunters, bears, masculinity and the politics of identity in Ontario and France. 37,000

Global change to women's union membership. 127,000

This is Canadian research - trapped within a perspective of the 1980's.

Silicon Valley Jim says: "....Unfortunately, one has to be a towering genius to compose or write that way."
Re; Woodhouse's written and Mozarts musical composition ..... Yes to match those giants would take someone of great stature!

I'm thinking that if more authors of lesser stature were to emulate the giants in thoroughness without embellishment for it's own sake we would see less of the bullshit piled high type of thought and writing!!

This reminds me so a saying we use at work when dealing with accountants and their logic. "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle 'em with bullshit!"

I don't believe Mozart added notes to his compositions simply to baffle and annoy the audience while making himself feel superior. Every note had a purpose, and was required for the effect desired by the author.

That's called "genius". This claptrap is effluvia.

It seems Ms Butler had the same insight as Calvin (of Hobbes fame): "I realized that the purpose of writing is to inflate weak ideas, obscure poor reasoning, and inhibit clarity."

The sentence makes such perfect sense that someone should please saw off my legs.

This is simply a classy leftist way of saying that we are oppressed by the capitalists because we're stupid, lazy, resentful victims of our own making.