I was thinking a lot today about language and the precision—or lack thereof—in much of our communication. Thanks to bloglines, which occasionally digs up interesting posts related to “sociology” for me (here in quotes to designate it as a keyword, rather than for scare purposes), I came across a post that attacks the perceived misuse of language by liberals and academics.
Taking the learned professoriate down a peg or two is a favorite hobby of some, as I guess there is great satisfaction in proving them to be out of touch, incompetent, and otherwise ignorant of the real world. But while I readily acknowledge that some academics wrongly use their knowledge of a relatively narrow (and perhaps obscure and even boring—but certainly not in my case) field to claim jurisdiction over many fields of knowledge (the post in question takes gender scholars to task for trying to pull rank in etymology, for instance), I don’t think there is any kind of strong case that this characterizes the broad world of academics.
The post begins with the idea that the words of academics have no more weight than those of anybody else, which in plenty of situations is undoubtedly true. (Though his etymological example has, I think, more complexity than he allows.) But he moves from this proposition to the idea that academics are essentially corrupt, supporting arguments that they know to be false, a jump that only seems possible by misreading or misrepresenting the evidence at hand.
In this case, and this is where the issue of language comes into play, the author suggests that because some academics overreach, not only is the academy intellectually bankrupt (the author has particular scorn for sociology; “of course” Todd Gitlin is a sociologist) but Michael Moore is also full of shit. He does this, as far as I can tell, by eliding the most significant point of Todd Gitlin’s review of Fahrenheit 9/11, which is not to haughtily mock “beer-swilling Red State denizens” (as Doug H. suggests is a main avocation of academic types), but to lament the poor state of political discourse in America. According to Gitlin, we cannot engage in politics—and in particular, cannot even get attention for politically-charged issues—without cheap shots, propoganda, sensationalism, and insinuation. When Gitlin celebrates Moore as the “most compelling, useful filmmaker of the 21st century,” it is with a “so far” and a great sigh of regret that it takes unscrupulous demagoguery to generate attention to issues that are critically important—for those on the right or the left. Gitlin identifies Moore’s film as important, but not any damn good, and that’s the difference between what Gitlin actually wrote and what Doug H. calls a “laudatory review.”
Doug manages to avoid being accountable to his own early premise, that argumentation is based on more than abstract qualification. It also takes an appreciation of precision of meaning and an allowance for complexity, but he leaves neither for Gitlin.
[ Update: This conversation is continued in a newer post. ]
disingenuous theory is given credence by the number of ‘hits’ it gets from venues of mass dissemination – a prime breeding ground for Sociology by-the-seat-of-the-pants, wherein he who posits the most claims the most legitimacy…...
— goesh Jul 9, 05:11 AM #
— Alan Jul 9, 11:03 AM #
My point being that casual observation becomes as valid as professional observation, given this vehicle of expression. Perhaps many folks are only able to live in a quantitative state of mind, and Sociology cannot at this point in time be taken out of the classroom, at least from a theoretical perspective of presenting the discipline. One can reference a set of ideas and propositions, and attach legitimacy visa-via the sheer numbers of people that share that blog. And that probably makes Doug H.’s commentary laudatory.
So to answer your question, your analysis is both critical and far from being disingenous but you do not have the clout to hold the soapbox. I would suggest, sadly, that Gitlin is referencing far more than the political arena.
— goesh Jul 13, 06:25 AM #
Why should anyone’s views be “unvalidated” by a lack of massive response? What “clout to hold the soapbox”? It’s thoroughly unclear what you’re trying to say… Speak English, dude. Meaning, tell it simply.
— passer by Jul 21, 03:27 AM #
>In this case, and this is where
>the issue of language comes into
>play, the author suggests that
>because some academics overreach,
>not only is the academy
>intellectually bankrupt (...) but
>Michael Moore is also full of
>shit.
I’ve read Doug’s note very carefully. Nowhere does he proposes the causal link that you refer to. No becauses there. That MM is full of shit is an independent fact (fully ascertainable w/o a connection to college professors.) What he (Doug) actually says is:
”...it illustrates [why?] I bailed out of higher education after just four years of college. So many of its arguments are built on shadows and innuendos of association.
Which may be why [i.e. being given to argumentation built on shadows and innuendos of association] Michael Moore and the college professors seem to agree with one another so well.”
?
What DH imputes the professors and MM is a shared predilection for playing fast and loose with facts and neglecting good logic (contrary to what most of us automatically expect from college professors—as well as, though independently from professorial habits, from documentaries) so long as the use of these “methods” further their agendas. That’s my reading of what DH says in his note there.
I don’t think DH misreads Gitlin’s evaluation of MM (which seems to be what you’re implying above)—G and DH seem to fully agree on MM exegetically.
However, DH disagrees with G’s own approval of MM’s work. He’s aware that this approval is qualified: the “so far” nuance isn’t lost on him. He disagrees not out of ignorance of, but despite it. He disagrees with G’s belief that MM’s influence (regardless of the quality of his film) is still positive, not evaluation of MM’s film per se.
— passer by Jul 21, 04:26 AM #
Holding the soapbox costs roughly $25.00 a month, and with it, the Creator of any Public Sociology gets a one-handed audience and apparently a voicless audience as I hear no applause or booing – but then who really knows what Burawoy had in mind with that phrase, Public Sociology.
— goesh Jul 26, 04:04 AM #