I have read articles that have been published in sociology journals. I am not relieved.
Grievance Studies Hoaxed
-
Horkheimer and crew would be really disappointed if they knew what kind of research and theory the “critical theory” label is used to describe today, some of it directly opposed to their goal of uniting philosophy with social research to increase wellbeing and inform politics. For example, the fact that Habermas’s Theory of Communicative Action gets thrown in the same box a deconstruction of cismale masculinity is sad and ironic.
-
We should try to *explain* why we’ve found ourselves in a situation where someone can publish a paper in a decent journal on “dog rape culture” etc.
This post will be disliked by some because it argues that those who most despise grievance studies (as they should!) are also partly responsible for its existence. The goal of the post is to inspire reflection, not blame.
Some possible causes:
1) Instrumentalization of reason: We have perfected methods for analyzing and discussing facts, and facts are viewed as the only relevant dimension of human experience, or the only aspect of experience that we can talk about with any certainty and validity. If you can’t quantify it, it shouldn’t be discussed, or, rather, it can’t be discussed on a rational basis. In other words, positivism - in the sense that natural scientific assumptions and methods are the only viable methods for social science - is partly responsible for its own worst nightmare: the worst of cultural studies. There are many causes of reason’s instrumentalization and these have been discussed by sociology for a long time, including Weber and the Frankfurt School.
2) Moral relativism: The rest of experience (morality/politics, aesthetics, emotions, etc.) is left to the whims of the private self. For example, political issues are left to individual taste and if anyone has an objection to one’s taste, the reply is the reply of The Dude: “That’s, like, your opinion, man.” When social scientists investigate value-laden issues, which we all likely do, they may want to evaluate them and suggest policies to address them, but they have no rational basis to do this. Thinking has been reduced to describing and counting the facts. This is fertile ground for the development of irrational politics inside and outside the social science. Those who strive for value-neutrality will reply, “These political questions are none of our business.” But that response is one of
...See full post -
I didn't find the article that outlandish. The notion of consent is not merely a human(e) one. Also, as was discussed on other threads, some people identify as otherkin, making their perceptions and interactions within the species they identify with as important as understanding non-confirming sexual identities. To the extent that canine is one of the largest populations within otherkin, it makes sense that sociological work would focus on this population.
-
“I didn't find the article that outlandish. The notion of consent is not merely a human(e) one. Also, as was discussed on other threads, some people identify as otherkin, making their perceptions and interactions within the species they identify with as important as understanding non-confirming sexual identities. To the extent that canine is one of the largest populations within otherkin, it makes sense that sociological work would focus on this population.”
One of the points implied above is that the question of whether dogs “rape” each other, for example, is a *conceptual* and *evaluative* question. The social sciences necessarily must deal with these realms yet no longer has the training to do it well.
You only have empirical questions after you conceptualize and theorize. Nowadays you just find the definition that fits the accepted measure. Yes, one can pose the question: can other species can rape. But answering this question adequately requires a form of thinking that the social sciences tried to abandon: philosophy.
We lack the thinking and methods necessary to judge interpretive concepts and theories. That’s the problem.
(The biggest irony of that paper, if it is supposed to satire social constructivism, is that social constructivists are the last group who should accept the idea that dogs have a “rape culture”. The related irony is that that paper wouldn’t be a hoax if someone had operationalized “dog rape”, counted instances, and then ran a regression. The people who wrote the book that argued that rape is an evolutionary adaptive behavior argued animals can “rape”. One of the criticisms from constructivists is that this argument is conceptually junk.)
We also need philosophy to judge whether or not the given question is important.
That’s what I’m driving at: we need philosophy to judge the adequacy of our concepts and evaluations, and importance of our questions.
The resu
...See full post -
Kudos to "Avalonian" at the above Daily Nouns piece:
Avalonian · October 3, 2018 at 10:36 am
In this case, I think the hoaxers radically misidentify the import of their hoax. Surely the fundamental problem with many of the articles isn’t that they conform to some full-blown constructivist metaphysical theory, and Justin’s done a good job of showing why that’s a silly target. Surely the key issue is that the claims themselves are often absurd, illegal and.or unethical. I think this conversation has the potential to get seriously derailed by this framing.Look, in response to a policy which blatantly violates Title IX, and which proposes violating the basic rights of straight-white-males in the classroom “by declining to hear their contributions, deriding their input, intentionally speaking over them, and making them sit on the floor in chains”, here is what Hypatia reviewers–three of our colleagues in philosophy–said:
“This is a solid essay that, with revision, will make a strong contribution to the growing literature on addressing epistemic injustice in the classroom.”, and
“I like this project very much. I think the author’s insights are on target,” and
“This is a worthwhile and interesting project.”
And the authors note that “No requirement for revision took issue with” this specific set of classroom proposals. No reviewer said: “The project is worthwhile, but these proposals violate basic legal and ethical standards.”Surely this is the issue, right? That when right-wing conservatives accuse the left of being morbidly consumed by hatred for Standard White Dudes, we on the left really should be able to truthfully say that they’re entirely mistaken? And apparently, well… we can’t?
-
I have read articles that have been published in sociology journals. I am not relieved.
Now that the spirit is out of the bottle, I am quite sure there will be hoaxes also in sociology. In fact, it could well be that fake papers are already in the system, just not yet revealed. So, yes, you, me, and everyone else in the enterprise should not be relieved.
-
What this highlights is there are many people at universities effectively stealing a living writing this junk. The fact certain fields have endless debates out these philosophical and non-applied subjects merely highlights there's quite a bit of bloat in the system.