Corruption of Thought

Kamala Trump

Kamala Trump

Verified User
Or, Why all professional economists are fascist shitheads

or

The Co-Production of Knowledge and Power:
A Postmodern Critique of Tenure

http://enculturation.gmu.edu/1_1/brown.html
[7] Accordingly, the creation of knowledge cannot be understood apart from the institutions that legitimate knowledge claims. Knowledge is not simply discovered. It does not itself make manifest true, legitimate, or useful. Rather, knowledge claims are sanctioned by legitimizing institutions, such as mass media, courts of law, and professional/technical organizations, among many others. In academe, the tenure system and its attendant methodology, publication by blind peer review, stand as the most important legitimizing institutions. Without receiving legitimation through the discursive practices entrenched in academic fields, "scholarly" knowledge does not exist. It is only through the writing of papers, the submission of those papers to reputable journals, the rewriting of those papers to the satisfaction of the editor and reviewers, the publication of those papers, and the citing of those papers by other researchers that scholarship is legitimated. It is that a scholar's participation in these practices is requisite to the creation of scholarship that demonstrates the interdependence between knowledge and institutional legitimation.

[8] On the surface, it appears that the creation of knowledge is a causal path to power. That is, the scholar must produce scholarship and legitimate it through publication before s/he is granted the power of tenure. Foucault, however, maintains that knowledge and power cannot be separated as cause and effect--or even as antecedent and consequent. In the case of tenure, the decision to legitimate knowledge is equivalent to the decision to grant power. When those in power make the decision to publish some bit of scholarship, they are not only deciding the position of the scholarship, but also of the scholar. The two decisions are not separated logically or temporally. Furthermore, the researcher's motivation (the quest for power through tenure and promotion) precedes the creation or even the conception of knowledge. The striving for power has always already shaped the production of knowledge.

[9] In most four year colleges and universities, there is a typically tacit rule: "publish or perish." Under this rule, a scholar pursuing tenure must publish some predetermined number of books, articles, and/or reviews before the various personnel committees, comprised of other tenured faculty, allow the applicant to join their "club": "It's like we [the tenured faculty] have this exclusive club, and if you can pass our initiation, you can get in. But if you don't pass it, and sometimes all the rules aren't clear, then you can't get in." At first glance, this system seems reasonable enough. After all, a scholar who contributes to knowledge within an academic field is probably preferable to the scholar who makes no such contribution. Further, it is also reasonable that the people most competent to preside over tenure decisions are those who have been through the process and who can decide based upon their own experience.

[10] However, this process of seeking and acquiring tenure through publication may have a chilling effect on the kinds and quality of knowledge that is produced. That is, within the current tenure system, the most salient feature of knowledge is that it is rhetorically appealing to the accepted "experts" who make the decisions to publish scholarship and to tenure faculty. Scholarship that is not rhetorically appealing is not published and therefore fails either to produce knowledge or power. This system requires untenured faculty to conform to existing models of inquiry, to ingratiate "experts" by citing and imitating their work, to submit to substantive and stylistic revisions suggested by reviewers and editors, and so on. To deny these effects of the tenure system is to ignore that the fundamental nature of scholarship lies in its rhetorical appeal to other scholars.
Click to expand...
 
For a post-modernist nothing exists. And nothing should exist. They want the emptiness of nirvana. I just wish they'd get some balls and admit they're Marxists without the guts to push for change. Weak bastards.
 
Hey now if you ask someone whose livilhood depends on a good economy how the economy is going. How do you think they will respond ?

Like asking a real estate agent if now is the time to buy :D
 
Diuretic said:
For a post-modernist nothing exists. And nothing should exist. They want the emptiness of nirvana. I just wish they'd get some balls and admit they're Marxists without the guts to push for change. Weak bastards.
Click to expand...


You're thinking of nihilists. That what the internationalists fascists are. They want people to embrace the future they have planned for them.
 
While I am not sure what the poster's reason or even interpretation of tenure is, are all things relative including knowledge. Are we to grant flat earthers, astrologists, white power racists, religious fanatics a say because 'power' is created in a system of checks that does its best to make sure the qualified are given positions in which security grants great freedom. Think Chomsky, Sunstein, or Churchill? Do we want our institutions of learning filled with Behes? Actually nuttiness is ok and Bob Jones is there for nuts. Not fair you say, hmm...

And knowledge is power but today we live in a media world in which objectivity trumps knowledge. Consider Hitler today seated on Fox across from a death camp occupant telling the occupant they never had it so good, while Fox fades to commercial and 'fair and balanced.....'
 
midcan5 said:
While I am not sure what the poster's reason or even interpretation of tenure is, are all things relative including knowledge. Are we to grant flat earthers, astrologists, white power racists, religious fanatics a say because 'power' is created in a system of checks that does its best to make sure the qualified are given positions in which security grants great freedom. Think Chomsky, Sunstein, or Churchill? Do we want our institutions of learning filled with Behes? Actually nuttiness is ok and Bob Jones is there for nuts. Not fair you say, hmm...

And knowledge is power but today we live in a media world in which objectivity trumps knowledge. Consider Hitler today seated on Fox across from a death camp occupant telling the occupant they never had it so good, while Fox fades to commercial and 'fair and balanced.....'
Click to expand...

Or imagine the Military industrial complex fascists making money out of thin air and telling people it's just good business. The University system today only allows statist fascist totalitarian internationlist views in. Everything else is labelled with some sort of ism and dismissed. Stop being a suckup.
 
http://www.alternet.org/rights/68399/

An interview with author Naomi Wolf, whose new book, "The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot," may confirm your worries about democracy in America.

If you think we are living in scary times, your worst fears may be confirmed by reading Naomi Wolf's newest book, The End of America: Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. In it, Wolf proves the old axiom that history does repeat itself. Or more accurately, history occurs in patterns, and in order to understand where our country is today and where it is headed, we need to read the history books.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc"]YouTube - Talk by Naomi Wolf - The End of America[/ame]
 
Oh yes. The illuminati created history books in which they disguise their role in shaping world events. I won't be reading those.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top