When, how, and why did academia go off the rails in terms of the quality of its scholarly output and its positive contribution to society? Did it occur with the student revolts of the 1960s and the rise of the New Left or does it have an earlier origin? Does the policy of "publish or perish" contribute to the decreased quality of academic output? Is there any way to fix it?
Article, pic, and vid related.
youtube.com
"Black Anality" glq.dukejournals.org
I want to fuck Ana Foxxx's anus.
>Did it occur with the student revolts of the 1960s and the rise of the New Left
Basically yes. Before that, universities were actually quite conservative, as the universities had their origins in training clergy.
Did the expansion of the university system in America post-WWII also facilitate that transition?
>lol how dare they analyze muh porn what could you possibly hope to learn from dissecting media
They didn’t, you’re just too stupid to understand anything produced at a university after 1930.
I'm uncertain why a conservative would be upset about a paper on the negative sociocultural consequences of anal sex.
The first step of repairing the family dynamic is repairing the parental sex dynamic.
Are you just pissy because they used the word "feminist"?
Are you seriously claiming the above is worth anyone's time? It's just mental masturbation, how is analyzing "black anality" in a pseudo-intellectual fashion anymore productive for humanity than literally jacking off to a black woman's fat ass?
It is just decadence. People no longer need high standards because there are fewer consequences to failing to do so.
This swings both ways. Both Jennifer Nash and her target audience will never suffer any (visible) penalties for being wrong. In fact Nash may benefit materially from topics chosen for their shock value rather than academic value, no one wants to listen to some boring analysis of crime and poverty in the inner city which might actually help the black community.
Of course they generally do suffer, by fostering irrationality they will go on to make irrational decisions, they will be inefficient in whatever profession they move on to and in their own personal life choices, they are wasting valuable and debt ridden time in college. This will happen indirectly in a myriad of small ways that are not easily visible or small enough for them to dismiss as an outlier if they are ever forced to accept their errors.
Epistemic knowledge is how academia functions, I can’t fault one particular researcher for doing what every researcher in every discipline does and creating a new term to describe what they’ve found. The actual research itself is a standard media review, no sense being so anally devastated over it user.
Brainlets enter humanities programs en masse and shit out a bunch of trash that isn't worth reading dressing it up in pseudo technical language and purple prose.
>projection: the post
Humorous interpretation of the research, user.
>the absolute state of modern academia
1960s, Herbert Marcuse, and the New Left ruined it.
>in porn, black anal reigns supreme
>this portrayal is reified both inside and outside the culture
>this portrayal is intertwined with older negative sterotypes of blacks
>the acts in the culture are humiliating, objectifying, sterilizing, guilt ridden, and self perpetuating
>this has consequences on cultural expression
What, exactly, did I miss?
But which black porn actress has the best anal scene?
What exactly is the appeal of anal, considering the proper hole to stick it in is just centimeters away?
Me too user
The author isn't particularly wrong and it's an interesting subject I suppose but then she insists on being a snowflake and create a bunch of words and framework that isn't really necessary.
Try reading the abstract out loud without feeling like a fucking idiot. The fact that someone received a PhD to write such drivel is as good an example as any of the dreadful state of modern academia. It suffers from a serious lack of credibility.
It's not that people are too stupid to understand it, it's that postmodern cultural criticism is pseudo-intellectual, unfalsifiable nonsense. You can tell it is just an academic circle jerk by the way they analyze culture.
An ordinary critical reading of and response to something like Shakespeare, for example, would focus on what exists in the text, create an argument about what he may have meant by something, and provide more supporting evidence from the text to prove it. A postmodern critique would typically make assumptions about the authors intent based on "power structures" largely theorized in the 1970s without any supporting evidence aside from other unfalsifiable nonsense it is based on to suggest that the author, as an individual, held such thoughts.
t. brainlet
most scholarly output in any point in human history did and does not last more than a few decades.
It's a living. There's a lot of researchers and academics, a lot of potential topics, but not a lot of interest or sense in the majority. You only decry today's academia because it is what is most familiar to you, as opposed to obscure dutch physiocrats.
There are people on Veeky Forums that think this is quality research.
Have you even read the paper or are you just making assumptions? Because there is no way you can comment on the quality of the research from the god damn abstract
>literally and metaphorically dirty
>toxic, non-productive and non-reproductive
>wasteful
I don't see the problem, that describes blacks perfectly
t. never been to university
At least the physiocrats thought they were making progress in a field. This is just academic onanism.
>you need to have been to university to see through postmodernism
Did dutch physiocrats?
Not that poster but needlessly producing "terms" that are mere description is publish and perish Pomo soca to a tea
As posts like
show -ironic or unironic intent aside- these are real ideas that color modern American conceptions of black people. Grouping together observations and giving the trend a definition is the start of an academic dialog. Race relations, particularly black race relations, is one of the most pressing issues in American culture so I don't see how you can call discussing one aspect of it pointless.
She probably isn't right, but I'm sure Nash sees her work as contributing to progress in mending inequality
Deriving large scale descriptions from the accumulation of petulant descriptive studies is the central conceit of US liberal scholarship, leading to "decile" and "quintile" class studies. These aren't even Black Jacobins. Now maybe there's a text to start with.
From the abstract, Nash seems to engage with and directly challenge the predominate scholarship. She doesn't just invent a term but lends it specific explanatory power in describing other areas of black culture.
I have not read the paper so I can't comment on its merit, but the general idea doesn't seem unworthy of investigation
No. Exactly the opposite. Post modern readings devalue the "author" as imaginary and seat the text as a text in a social hypertext. Structuralist readings are typically modern.
You want romantic lit crit. Byron. Shelly.
>What exactly is the appeal of anal
Forcing another man to the ground. Tearing his pants off. And showing him who is boss of this gym.
I think you meant anal with a woman. Which is pointless.
Marcuse's on Soviet marxism was CIA funded and quite good.
>nash seems to engage with and directly challenge the predominate scholarship
That's the thing, the abstract just reeks of her choosing the topic based more on the fact that it is shocking than exploring something that's actually meaningful.
a) lingering stigma makes it kinky
b) butt muscles can clench
Have we reached a point where CLR James is considered a beacon of proper scholarship?
Scholarship, proper scholarship, is a slow dialog that is built between scholars. Not postcolonial revisionism charged with politics (as interesting and engaging as it is)
>Drawing on an archive of online, widely accessible black pornographies, I develop the term black anality to describe how black pleasures are represented as peculiarly and particularly oriented toward the anus,
Op cit.
That's the thing, this thread just reeks of OP choosing this paper based more on the fact that it is shocking than exploring something meaningful about modern academia.
Why don't I criticize you yourself for not producing great works of scholarship
Black Jacobins was great, great works of scholarship are great, but not all scholarship is gonna be. Most of it is just gonna be, well, decent to mediocre, like most neo-platonism. They ain't plato, I tell you what.
as soon as you start letting women and non-whites into an institution it goes to shit inside thirty years.
see also: the American government
It's obvious that this is a thinly veiled /pol/ bait thread but that's ultimately irrelevant to what I said.
I don't get your point?
I say she doesn't JUST invent a new term. Obviously, she invents a new term it's the title of the paper
We reached that with Carr's "what is history?"
>slow dialogue
nah nothx it's explosive texts a-la Mahan that move world-historical affairs.
>Before that, universities were actually quite conservative
you are completely speaking out your ass. Universities have always been liberal leaning, from Renaissance Italy to the unification of Germany to the Modern era.
>you are completely speaking out of your ass
Do you think that might have something to do with the fact that the person you are responding to is a nigger, and therefore his ideas of sexuality are revolve around the anus?
You know you're right. I apologize.
you do make a valid point that this does seem intentionally shocking. But it seems neither you or I have read the paper so commenting on its quality or use is a bit pointless
If we move away from this particular paper, I will wholeheartedly agree that competition within academia and the constant retreading and retreading of the same old sources has produced a disgusting amount of needlessly shocking and controversial poor scholarship
Normally your supe stops term spam in first year of you research degree.
The presence of a poster who can't distinguish term from description is why your US universities teaching programs stink.
>Normally your supe stops term spam in first year of you research degree
it has its origins in continental scholarship tho
in any case, it's not as if previous scholars, even in the proper anglo tradition, were above making up dubiously defined terms and using them rather loosely and numerously, especially when it comes to less exact topics.
Eh, you're probably right. I generally assume the worst with these kinds of papers, since talking about really base stuff like buttholes in a sophisticated way always just comes off to me as "Look at how smart I am, talking about this thing that everybody thinks is base and gross in a really academic manner". It is unfair of me to assume the worst though.
You mean French sociologists. And it was much more common in us sociology. French, Soviet, German, UK historiography survived this shit. Weak liberal disciplines with insufficient marxism or torydom is the key. Liberal scholarship is at fault.
minnesotareview.dukejournals.org
>In this semimanifesto, I approach how understandings of quantum physics and cyborgian bodies can (or always already do) ally with feminist anti-oppression practices long in use. The idea of the body (whether biological, social, or of work) is not stagnant, and new materialist feminisms help to recognize how multiple phenomena work together to behave in what can become legible at any given moment as a body. By utilizing the materiality of conceptions about connectivity often thought to be merely theoretical, by taking a critical look at the noncentralized and multiple movements of quantum physics, and by dehierarchizing the necessity of linear bodies through time, it becomes possible to reconfigure structures of value, longevity, and subjectivity in ways explicitly aligned with anti-oppression practices and identity politics. Combining intersectionality and quantum physics can provide for differing perspectives on organizing practices long used by marginalized people, for enabling apparatuses that allow for new possibilities of safer spaces, and for practices of accountability.
/leftypol/ WILL defend this
>Stark also argues that by “deprioritizing” privileged people, “safer spaces” could be created. She gives the example of “deprioritizing” herself.
>“For instance, I, being white, should not be in all spaces, positions of authority, or meetings,” she said, because her presence could “stall” movements towards progress.
>Stark concludes her paper by hoping that the apparatuses of oppression change.
>“Perhaps with the additional alliances of these thought structures and terminologies, apparatuses can shift toward differing energy gatherings that help to enable space for difference from/for/by difference,” she wrote.
>french sociologists
I wouldn't exactly call folks like Baudrillard and Deleuze and such sociologists. I mean, they weren't part of sociology departments, nor are they taught except as one theoretical approach among others.
>Soviet scholarship in the social sciences being good
r u srs
Before I am corrected, I am wrong, Baudrillard really did teach sociology.
Yes I'm serious. Might want to read some of the historiography. R Markwick, Kolakowski, the Lukacs children etc.
Secondly I defended soviet scholarship from needlessly multiplying terms, not from other flaws.
As far as the French, try Strauss, Althusser, Poulantzas. Not every problem is a post modern problem. Widen your time horizons.
>WILL defend this
Not relevant to Veeky Forums. Why should we care what under read undergraduate in underamerica care?
>& Humanities
I'm still not seeing why we should care about the opinion of undergraduates in relation to literary criticism, mathematics, film studies, philosophy or theology.
You aren't seriously defending sophomoric conducts?
>Kolakowski
>Lukacs
>soviet
>people were taxed to fund this
JUST
U
S
T
>Markwick
>Kolakowski
You're getting really loose with the definition of soviet scholarship, bruv. Is it by soviets, or on soviets?
>Lukacs
Alright, an actual soviet, but one man does not make a discipline.
Are you saying this article is beyond criticism because it's published?
Where was Kolakowski trained? In a soviet style academy. And as far as Lukacs, well who got out of the Yugoslav embassy in 1956 without so much as appearing in a white book?
Markwicks primary work is on soviet historiography.
I am the poster who said supes should beat term spam out of candidates before the "quals" equivalent.
And what would you say are the defining aspects of soviet historiography
Resistance to partiinost, partiinost and a detailed attention to social and physical sources.
Also, and obviously, reviling is a form of attention to be heaped on bourgeois liberal methods when they achieve disciplinary supremacy.
Then why did Partiinost exist as the overarching state of affairs for decades?
I'm grasping at straws here, and in any case you mentioned such as being a defining aspect, along with resistance to it.
I suppose I'll give this Markwicks fellow a read, the reviews seem quite agreeable. I must thank you for the reading rec.
Because they killed people in the 1930s for innovative Marxist historiography, because the Zhadanovishchina reinforced it, because it was easier to get an appointment, and because being a samizdat historian was deeply frustrating.
Youre generalizing so much your obsevation is worthless. Universities could be bastions of conservatism or could be “liberal” but it was entirely dependent on the time period location and spirit of the age.
>simultaneously playful and serious
>It provides a substitute to the "Western intellectual tradition"
A social construct or construction concerns the meaning, notion, or connotation placed on an object or event by a society, and adopted by the inhabitants of that society with respect to how they view or deal with the object or event.[citation needed] In that respect, a social construct as an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society, gas the kikes race war now, but may or may not represent a reality shared by those outside the society, and would be an "invention or artifice of that society".[2][need quotation to verify]
A major focus of social constructionism is to uncover the ways in which individuals and groups participate in the construction of their perceived social reality. It involves looking at the ways social phenomena are developed, institutionalized, known, and made into tradition by humans.
In terms of background, social constructionism is rooted in "symbolic interactionism" and "phenomenology."[3][4] With Berger and Luckman's The Social Construction of Reality published in 1966, this concept found its hold. More than four decades later, a sizable number of theory and research pledged to the basic tenet that people "make their social and cultural worlds at the same time these worlds make them."[4] It is a viewpoint that uproots social processes "simultaneously playful and serious, by which reality is both revealed and concealed, created and destroyed by our activities."[4] It provides a substitute to the "Western intellectual tradition" where the researcher "earnestly seeks certainty in a representation of reality by means of propositions."[4]
>an idea would be widely accepted as natural by the society
>gas the kikes race war now
kek
Do they publish that kind of shit in China?
Yes, because it shows that behind all the PC bullshit in society people still view blacks as freaks they happen to live with, and the difference between how white and black women are displayed in porn represents that.
Use your head.
>China
>serious academics of any kind
They're too busy rewriting their own history books.
>the difference between how white and black women are displayed in porn represents that.
Except that aside from fetish shit, most black woman/white woman porn is very similar in content, including the amount of anal sex involved.
Do you have any statistics to back that up?
Also there's the assumption that white anal and black anal is treated differently in porn.
I'm not searching out anal porn, so no I don't. Just saying that there's plenty of mainstream porn featuring black women that doesn't fetishize their asses any more than similarly endowed white women. It's an issue that most people aren't looking for and therefore don't even notice. Her claims are unfalsifiable unless SHE can provide statistical evidence to back up her claims. Does she?
How do we stop it?
>OP doesn't have any published scholarship
>criticizes someone who has published original ideas in prestigious academic journals
LMAOing @ your life
>prestigious
No
>unfalsifiable
Read Kuhn and Lakatos. Trust me.
>prestigious
>how
By focusing on trivial bullshit instead of the greater picture. Back in the day, you learned about the ancient greeks, romans, and the virtues of man.
Now you learn about the history of bathroom stall art in downtown newyork during the autumn of 1985.
>Back in the day, you learned about the ancient greeks, romans, and the virtues of man.
>Now you learn about the history of bathroom stall art
~t. never been to college
He's right if he's referring to what kind of trivial irrelevant bullshit gets published nowadays. You're right that something that minor isn't usually brought up in lectures, though.
I'm not him. I have a post-graduate degree.
In the early 20th century, university education was focused on the Classics.
I went to college and took the history of music expecting to learn about the greats like mozart and beethoven, we did learn a very tiny smidgeon about them, but the rest of the class was spent learning about literal whos, we spent a month on Mozart's sister, and a month on some literally whomstress in the medieval times who wrote a couple pieces to be played in mass
these niggers cant just teach the greats anymore because thats sexist or some other -ist, they have to find some special snowflake shit and zoom in on it with a microscope to pretend it was the norm
I'm sure 1000 years from now we'll be learning about how 1950s america was diverse or some shit
>universities were very left wing until recent
Yeah that’s why you had all those students starting revolutions and riots in a post Napoleon world
First of its some form of -ism
Second you go to university for advanced knowledge so why would they cover the already known people, and you did music not classical music
but Repressive Tolerance was ground zero for SJW shit