Where good taste, clear and distinct ideas, and graceful modulations tend to be viewed with lowering suspicion.
This is a deconstructive analysis of straw. #
Labels: academia, deconstruction, New York Times, Stanley Fish, theory
posted by Tom Matrullo at Thursday, May 08, 2008
I was delighted to read Fish's piece last month, not only because of the Clint Eastwood down home-itude of it all, but also because of my love/hate relationship with postmodernism (that is, I love to hate it).Clearly I didn't read it with the informed intelligence that Kia brought to her critique. While I was reading Fish, I slapped my knee and said, "Yeah, you tell 'em, Stanley." Reading Kia's critique I felt betrayed by Fish for his having brought home too much of the Bacon.Regardless, one of these days, when I am done with my Elizabeth Moon sci-fi obsession perhaps, I will read Cusset's book because I am sure I can find within it much to reinforce my own prejudices and preconceptions. And, in the end, my lack of intellectual rigor is a blessing because I can, for example, appreciate both Bruno Latour and Alan Sokal without much concern for contradictions.
The movie might be out by then - we can look forward to a review, if not a cameo, from the good professor.Or maybe two.12
Post a Comment
Disclosure: policy and performance
The filters we weave
How the Brain Learns to Read
Home on the bantustan - or why ownership can't be ...
The Inspector will see you now
love what you've done with your cognitive reductio...
bloodlines of legitimation
The NYT understands Politics as JSTOR comprehends ...