______
Judith Butler can rot in hell:
One of the primary creators of this unintelligible academic rhetoric, Judith Butler, is best known for her theory of gender performance central to her 1990 book “Gender Trouble.” Yet in recent years, one cannot be sure that even Butler understands her own writing as she elaborates her theory of gender performativity in one interview only to entirely disavow this theoretical notion in another. Butler went on to win the “Bad Writing Contest” award in 1998 from the journal “Philosophy and Literature” for her 1997 essay, “Further Reflections on Conversations of Our Time,” published in Diacritics as she had been skewered within academic circles for being incoherent and nearly impossible to understand. While Butler’s reply in The New York Timesattempted to redeem her as a scholar, for many readers, her defense only proved the point that such obtuse language communicates nothing and creates an impenetrable hierarchy within academia requiring the parroting of dense jargon, which has helped to “forge an academic subculture whose own common sense is impervious to change by outsiders.” Even by the late 1990s, this form of academic masturbation was widely critiqued despite humanities programs from North America to the U.K. and Australia moving ahead in the creation of courses like “Invented Languages: Klingon and Beyond” and “Arguing with Judge Judy.”Some view academia as being guilty for having created an elitist sphere of group think, where the incomprehensibility of language does not permit questions or variations in analysis.
I was lucky enough to avoid all this shit. I was a non-traditional student back in the mid-1980s to 2000, but I escaped all that bullshit.
_____
Of course Cosmo isn't liberating or progressive. It is analogous to Playboy. One magazine objectifies women, while the other one teaches young women how to be objectified. They are two sides of the same coin.
_____
No comments:
Post a Comment