"Western" meaning North American, I take it. Nothing crappy about European Humanities.

M.

Is the UK part of Europe?

I agree, from my limited and largely anecdotal knowledge, that the situation in European universities and colleges is not so dire as it is over here, but there was a period of creeping American influence at least in UK universities, although this may have abated. It seems to me to be a cultural issue: not so much the ideas but the implementation of ideas within a particular framework. Matha noted in the previous discussion that the French educational system was quite conservative, despite having produced so many radical thinkers. This is a cultural difference between French and American academia, and indicates why the same radical ideas might have a different impact in different countries.

> Is the UK part of Europe?

It's more of a US state! Which means a European could become its governor one day. :-)

hhp

Is the UK part of Europe?

Everyone apart from the UK government seems to think so. I've come across a few strange research projects in the UK but nothing too scary.

the same radical ideas might have a different impact in different countries.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, John. I would go further and suggest that there is a lack of proportion and definitely not enough scepticism in the American handling of French philosophy. Baudrillard, for example, is considered a bit of a nut by a lot of French scholars.

Also, I'm half-way through Eco's book on the search for the perfect language and the way he describes it, European Academia has been absorbing all sorts of craziness for centuries. America doesn't have enough experience yet, maybe.

M.

Excuse me but aren't the American bashers painting with to broad a brush. There are vast differences between Americans. Those nut cases in California elected an actor to try and fix the economy. I'm from Manhattan and you could never lump us with lets say Texans. Its just apples and steak. Dan

What American bashers? Where?

M.

You're either with us or against us, dawgie.

hhp

Thats my point, here in Manhattan we have Columbia University do you think they have the same academic focus and agenda, as say Michigan State? Of course not, so lumping everybody into one convenient group is just wrong. If you have specific examples to prove your points, then more power to you. Educate me on your facts, not your opinions. Dan

Dan, what are you talking about?

> Are you saying that as ....

?
Where've you been, dude.
http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/11/06/gen.attack.on.terror/
And terrorism is only a scapegoat. S-11 was probably Pearl Harbor all
over again. Hey, it works like a charm when Forest Gump is a national hero.

> despite all our best efforts to homogenize everybody.

Yes, like when Benjamin Franklin applied his ruthless assimilation strategy against immigrant Jews.
Or when the first governor of California launched the genocide against the native population.

--

Joe, you can't effectively discuss these things with people from other societies without some experience outside your own society.

hhp

Saying that American Academia is not sceptical enough about French philsopy or that it's too young to absorb radical ideas in a balanced way is hardly an insult.

Matha, people generalize to much, you probably think everyone in America is like George W Bush. We're not! I ride my bike in Central Park (its closed between 10-3 to cars during the week, so cool) there is this rider Randy who says to me "All New York (city) women are bitches" I said "Randy how can you say that." "Not ALL the women in New York are bitches."

Those nut cases in California elected an actor to try and fix the economy.

No, the voters in California elected a very presentable front-man for a bunch of strategists who are going to try to fix the economy. We do the same in Europe but we're not honest enough to admit it.

m.

> hardly an insult

Insult levels are relative - surely we've all learned that by now here on Typophile.
Come live in the US for a while, and you'll see that any dissent is indeed considered insulting.

The deep intolerance in the US is not one of skin color or language - it's an intolerance of political thought: you're an outcast unless you think the US is right. I haven't visited a single other country like that, and I've been to about 30.

> we're not honest enough to admit it.

What makes you think people here admit it?

--

Daniel, overall trends are more relevant than exceptions.

hhp

You are wrong if you mean, that people in New York City just toe the line politically just the opposite. The largest group in NYC right now is Dominicans and the fastest growing group is Mexicans and the Asian population has exploded here in Manhattan. All diverse groups with different morals, values and opinions. HHP then give concrete examples of these trends, not opinions, facts.

> All diverse groups with different morals, values and opinions.

But all United Under God (the Dollar).

--

I cannot "prove" experience. You'll have to convince yourself.

hhp

Daniel, as you and I know, half or more of the US is opposed to the way Bush is conducting the war in Iraq, and a very substantial minority vehemently opposed the war in the first place. Also a leading Presidential candidate, Howard Dean, opposed the war and is raising millions for his campaign and is number one or two among the opposition.

All this flatly contradicts Hrant's statement that you are an 'outcast' in America if you disagree.

But I know from experience that it is useless to give facts to Hrant. He will not address the facts, but just start insulting you and of course me because of this post. Be prepared.

Stop twisting what I say. You should run for office.

hhp

BTW, why didn't you confront John when he agreed with me above?
Makes me sick.

hhp

Dammit, there are two Johns here.

Which one of us agreed with you on what and where? Makes me dizzy.

It doesn't matter unless you think I'm lying.
But I realize now that it was in the "parent" thread. Hudson, 12:24 PM.

hhp

[ducking for cover as I enter the thread]

Has anyone read Alan Bloom's Closing of the American Mind? It's somewhat dated by now, but does it have any relevance to this entire discussion? Frankly, I've not read it - I picked up a copy in grad school and it's been gathering dust since. I'm thinking it might be the time to break the spine finally...

As far as the current discussion goes though, I'm sure that Dan's right - that there are exceptions in various institutions throughout America - but in my mind Hrant's insight that overall trends are more relevant than exceptions is a good one.

I, fortunately or unfortunately, spent two years at the University of Chicago and I wouldn't count it as one of the "exceptions". Seemed plagued by quasi-French-intellectualism. Of course that's a blanket statement which isn't meant to discount everyone there - Jim McCawley (r.i.p.) was perhaps the most amazing thinker I've come into contact with. Always seemed to eschew whichever current trends and styles happened to prevail. After all, who needs Optimality Theory or Minimalism or Government & Binding, when you can have The Syntactic Phenomena of English :-)

I must say that I'm disturbed at myself for feeling I have to put disclaimers like that after my (obviously) generalized comments.

Matha, people generalize to much, you probably think everyone in America is like George W Bush.

Don't worry, I don't think that. I work with a lot of Americans and would probably get my arse kicked if I generalised about them.
It's the Parisians and the Irish I generalise about.

M.

FOR FARK'S SAKE HRANT, NOT EVERYTHING IS ABOUT YOU! Or who you hate! Or who you think is out to get you! Stop turning every type thread into your own personal screed. We know what you hate. You remind us constantly. Do you think you're covering any new ground here?!

This thread is about the state of affairs in universities. I was originally talking about American schools cos that's what I'm familiar with. Experiences elsewhere are welcome.

quasi-French-intellectualism...

Thank goodness we don't have any of that in France. That would be the last straw.

FOR FARK'S SAKE...

That's those Colombian blokes, isn't it? Kidnap your arse at the drop of a hat.

I have to resort to yob-speak because it's the only kind of English vulgarity that can get past the Typophile Censortron. THIS is just how pervasive anti-Americanism is. :-)

I have to resort to yob-speak

Actually, I reckon the Queen of England probably pronounces it 'Fark' too. You're a bit posh really.

Use Dublin expressions. Guaranteed to get past all known censorship software. And not posh at all.

Top Three
1. For Jayzus sake
2. I will in me Arse
3. Bollix

M.

>quasi-French-intellectualism.

Yeah, perhaps that's ambiguous. It's meant to be a poor reflection on the 'use' or 'interpretation' of the writings of the French (as far as U.S. students go). Not, of course, a cheap shot at the quality of the French post-structuralists. My own personal feelings/preferences aside ;-)

>I will in me Arse

What? Could you use that in context, for my poor Yankee self?

My Boss: Photocopy this pile of documents for me while I go to lunch

Me: I will in me arse! Do it your feckin self!

Hrant, I didn't take up John H.'s comment as I didn't have time, and this thread isn't about it. But I will comment.

Non-Americans pontificating about America - and I include John Hudson here - often miss large parts of the picture.

It is perfectly true that the American mass entertainment media pander to the lowest instincts of people, including flattering the average consumer by assuring them that everone more intelligent or learned is contemptible in some way or other.

But they sometimes also rise above such pandering and do wonderful stuff. And, more important, America is not to be identified with the American mass media.

Many parents and teachers are constantly waging intellectual battle against the debased tone of the mass entertainment media. And there are huge communities of thoughtful people that totally ignore such drivel. They are vibrant and vital and behind the most dynamic economy in the world.

Judging America only by the mass media is like those people outside the US 50 years ago who used to think that we were full of cowboys, Indians, and rich people in mansions - because that is who was in the movies.

Of course there is anti-intellectualism here, and it is a despicable American tradition.

A pretty accurate assessment was given by Alistair Cook, who observed the US through British eyes for most of the last century. He said that in the US there was a constant struggle between forces that were powerfully creating a better society, and forces that were causing the decay of civilization. The last time I heard him on TV (5 or more years ago) he thought that the forces of decay might be getting the upper hand.

I think it is a pretty near thing.

>>quasi-French-intellectualism.

>Yeah, perhaps that's ambiguous

Not at all. I meant what I said literally. Radical French ideas seem to be taking over in US Universities but have had little or no impact in France.

M.

>the forces of decay might be getting the upper hand.

Sounds like Europe too.

> Non-Americans pontificating about America ....

How convenient...
But what about me?

> Many parents and teachers are constantly waging intellectual battle against

And they are losing. You are losing.
The first step to winning is admitting you have been wrong all this time. Genocide is not exactly the best basis for a new country...

hhp

>have had little or no impact in France.

Matha, outside certain Academic fields, such as English especially, they are regarded as a joke in the US also. For example a physicist as a joke wrote a paper about the conduct of physics for one of the radical journals on 'rhetoric'. He was careful to imitate the language of the French radicals, and also to make sure what he said was complete rubbish, as the English say.

The joke paper was accepted, and led to a big furor - or I should say tempest in a teapot.

On 'Closing of the American Mind', yes Nathan I did read it. It has some rubbish intellectual history in it, and I don't generally agree with Bloom. But he was right about the evils of relativism, in my opinion. And the French radicals, as I understand it, take relativism as their starting point. -All the fuss about this on another thread here confirms this.

All the fuss about this on another thread..

But it was educational fuss. And fun.
I don't think we've heard the last of it yet, William.

Matha.

>But what about me?

I and Daniel have already cited facts refuting your extreme and ridiculous views.

Why you ignore reality in spite of living here, I could speculate on, but you have said you don't want me to analyse you, and I respect that. But I could

Thanks Matha. Looking forward to your reaction to Popper!

>has some rubbish intellectual history in it

Yeah, I read some reviews that said Bloom was somewhat over-the-top and histrionic - and hence entertaining if not rigorous. I'll have to give it a read anyway.

>take relativism as their starting point

That's how I've understood it as well. Not my cup of tea, if I'm honest.

>All the fuss about this on another thread

Read the fuss - didn't feel like getting involved. Being a southern boy by raising, I'm too shy and courteous to get into the ring with you cityfied folk ;-) Interesting read though. And I, too, am thinking about giving Popper a shot - despite the whole Wittgenstein/poker thing...

>they are regarded as a joke in the US also

Not to be argumentative, but that wasn't my experience in grad school. Granted, I'm talking about a school that has a program in 'The History of Culture' - whatever that is. And the closest I got to the natural sciences was the linguistics department and working at a psychology research institute.

But I still find that people eat up things like Mark Wigley's Sexuality and Space (unadulterated rubbish IMHO) and Robert Venturi's Learning from Las Vegas (of the same caliber) - just to drop two names.

[shutting up]

>the whole Wittgenstein/poker thing...

'Wittgenstein's Poker' is a brilliantly written book. Unfortunately the authors don't fully understand the incident that is at the core of the book.

Don't let conventional opinion in the US (Wittgenstein was great, Popper was a crank) put you off.

At one time University of Chicago had scholars on all sides. If the French radical influence has taken over it would be very sad.

I know there is also such influence in sociology and history, but I don't think it is so dominant as in English. I didn't think there was much influence in psychology. About linguistics I don't know.

William: Non-Americans pontificating about America - and I include John Hudson here - often miss large parts of the picture.

I do hope I wasn't pontificating, and my agreement with Hrant regarding American anti-intellectualism was heavily qualified by observation of other cultures within the USA. I don't think I said much more than what you report Alistair Cooke saying: 'the forces of decay might be getting the upper hand'. Only a fool would assume that mass media youth culture represents all American culture, but it is important to guage the extent of its impact, which is very considerable. But we're getting away from John Butler's original question regarding academia.

Yes, English departments seem to be the worst afflicted, but as reported in the previous thread, even disciplines like geography have accepted the critical theory approach to epistemology. Yes, we all had a good chuckle when physicist Alan Sokal's hoax 'Transgressing the Boundaries: Toward a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity' was accepted for publication in a humanities journal. I was less amused last year when Igor and Grichka Bogdanov successfully published four physics papers that peer reviewers admitted were incomprehensible and probably nonsense. But that was in France. Over to you Matha.

> I and Daniel have already cited facts refuting your extreme and ridiculous views.

You're not fooling anybody but yourself, little man.

hhp

>Wittgenstein was great, Popper was a crank

Seems like that was the authors' opinion in no uncertain terms. I'd agree that it was well-written, but it does need some amount of salt during reading. Frankly, I'm a Wittgenstein 'fan' - I've read quite a bit and understood much less - but not of the sort that thinks all things 'un-Wittgenstein' are shite. I need something new, so I'm quite looking forward to Popper.

>University of Chicago had scholars

As far as the faculty, I was quite impressed. My comments are mostly based on the student population (grad and undergrad - I had little interaction with post-docs). I just wasn't all that impressed by a lot of the thinking. I'm sure I impressed very few people myself. I don't think that UC has turned into a lesser school, but I also feel that 'French radicalism' has made its inroads and isn't going away anytime soon.

>I don't think it is so dominant as in English

Agreed. I was a fine arts major [the shame, the horror] - and the presence of it was thick. So I feld to the linguistics department as much as possible. And psychology/anthroplogy where it was much less. It's become pretty common for 'artists' to fob off their work as some sort of meaningful cultural analysis. Mostly without content - just a giant exegetical playground that we can well do without. Powerpuff Girls have become our Venus of Urbino.

I blame it on Duchamp :-)

>do hope I wasn't pontificating
No you weren't, sorry. Your statement was pretty balanced. I got overheated from Hrant's provocation.

One thing I think you overdid, though:

"kids, in particular, are encouraged not to think, by their peers"

In American high schools there are typically different groups and the kids mainly take their group of friends as their reference group.

I have had my three children go through American High Schools over a period of 11 years, up to 3 years ago. I don't really think any of my kids felt these pressures very strongly.

I know among groups and some schools the pressures are there, but it is misleading to make it a blanket statement. Also academically less accomplished kids may put up a front of indifference or hostility while actually envying the academically adept. And many kids figure this out.

I don't know what exactly the truth is here. Anti-intellectualism is an important problem to be combatted - and from what I read this is particularly so in the Black community. But it needs to be understood to combat it, and it is not necessarily all it seems on the surface.

>some amount of salt during reading.

Well, since you encourage me I'll be blunt. Wittgenstein made philosophy into a pointless academic game. As I understand it - and you doubtless know more here - the linguists didn't find him particularly innovative in so far as he got on their territory.

The authors of 'Wittgenstein's Poker' in my view did a great disservice to Popper by assuming the conventional view of Wittgenstein as great, so Popper couldn't be right. Incidentally, I think the two authors probably disagree because there are contradictions left the text.

Also by not understanding rightly the poker incident they ended up accusing Popper of lying, which really is not so plausible if you understand really what was going on.

Popper is the real thing - a powerful, innovative thinker on important issues. If you read those amazing essays in 'Conjectures and Refutations' you will see what I mean.

>kids, in particular, are encouraged not to think, by their peers

William, as long as that's just a gross generalization (I assume most comments on internet discussion boards are of that type) then I actually agree with Hrant (or John? who said that?) on that one.

I tended to hang out with the smarter kids rather than the jarheads in school - but over-all I felt that the pressure to be dumb was there, even if it was intangible and slippery.

In high school, they want you to be a football star; in college they want you to study buisness, law, medicine, etc.

If nothing else, as a kid I found that schools actually made it hard to excel. My mom had to pick me up at middle school, drive me down the road to the high school, wait for an hour, then drive me back to middle school - all so I could take geometry. they don't even offer the opportunity for kids to move ahead - everyone's expected to be the same cow in the same corral. In high school I had to take night classes at a community college, just because American high schools don't offer enough maths. [edit: darn it's hard to be a nerd in this country]

The problem is deep and, as you rightly say, not necessarily all it seems on the surface.

Oi. Cross-posted.

>'Conjectures and Refutations'

I'll be picking that one up this week. Thanks.

[disclaimer: I'm not a real linguist, but I play one on the internet]

I don't think that linguistics got much from Wittgenstein. Certainly not from the whole 'picture theory' bit. But the later stuff - the 'ordinary language' stuff - has it's impact. Even if every linguist isn't proclaiming the name of Wittgenstein.

I don't think much from the early 20th century has much impact on contemporary linguistics - not even the 'proper linguists' like Bloomfield and Sapir. Transformational synatx and generative semantics didn't really come about until the 1950s - and that's more or less the [general] model for what people are doing now.

The ideas of people like J L Austin are pretty well respected and, as far as I'm aware, they deal with similar things to later Wittgenstein (e.g., Philosophical Investigations). It's still the whole 'ordinary language' idea. And, like Austin's book says, they're both dealing with how language really works, and how we do things with it. But those ideas are all from around the 1950s - the birth of modern linguistics.

That's my understanding, for whatever it may be worth.

Incidentally, I enjoyed Wittgenstein's Poker, but I did feel like Popper got the crappy end of the stick. "LW is a charismatic & powerful thinker full of prescient thoughts while EP is a snivelling twat clutching the skirts of Russell." Somehow I doubt it was quite like that :-/

Stanley Cavell actually has an essay about another philosophical argument - this one between Austin and Derrida (ordinary language vs. infinite slippage or whatever). Shamefully it's another book I have on the shelf and haven't read. Might be a real gem in this conversation.

On anti-intellectualism in American high schools:

Well, on this point I'm prepared to admit that I am wrong about how dominant the anti-intellectual attitude is - but not quite yet. I would like to read more about it, because it doesn't correspond to my experience or that of my children.

If you were in the South - the South does have a reputation for not having the greatest of schools.

My point is if you have friends who are academically good and you have mutual respect with them, the carping of others doesn't affect you much.

If you went to U. of Chicago you were first rate academically, and you may have had the misfortune of not having peers in your high school.

My son, for instance, went to a magnet high school for science, such as exists in some major urban areas, and they had as much math as almost any kid could handle.

On Wittgenstein (and Austin):

It may be that some stuff that they said in linguistics was valuable, though I haven't heard what it is. Their idea that by analysing ordinary language you would disolve philosophical problems was wrong, and that is the heart of their philosophy.

Incidentally, I am not denying that Wittgenstein was a genius and powerful writer. It just that he was fundamentally wrong, and is a dead end path in philosophy.

>I would like to read more about it

Good call. I should too. Speaking merely from personal experience isn't a very powerful or compelling method.

>is a dead end path in philosophy.

Point taken. At this point, I believe that if I was a philosopher instead of a painter-cum-printer-cum-linguist-cum-journalist-cum-typographer I wouldn't think that Wittgenstein was as interesting as I do. Though I do still think that Wittgenstein and Austin had some ideas that influence how we understand the semantics of everyday language today. Something I'll have to think/read more about surely.

Very much orthoganal to the discussion, but a short, interesting and surprisingly entertaining read: Geoffrey Hill makes good play with Austin's ideas in his essay on Ezra Pound and the culpability of poetry, 'Our word is our bond' in The Lords of Limit.