of my claim that social actions are guided shared social expectations ken said:
>No two expectations are the same.
and then he went on later to whine about sexism in the academy:
And yeah, especially because
>you are female. Several of my friends who have taught
>classes and run the dissertation gambit have been targeted
>by students and faculty because they are women. {... more of the same]
> And damn, more students
>use exclusive language (deliberately!) now than they did a few
>years ago.
oh quit your belly aching. so what? everyone has different expectations, right? so some people expect the uni to be objective and fair and treat people according to talent and ability, and others expect the uni to treat people according to their social position. tough luck. different strokes for different folks eh? and so what about language. who cares if students use exclusive language. who are they excluding anyway? they're just words, what does using man to stand in for humans, people have to do with anything? are you saying that language can shape how we thinka nd then how we act? is that it? huh. well so, you said yourself that everyone has different expectations and apparently the variety is endless. so, using man promotes one set of normative ideals, human another. different strokes , different expectations. so i say that students should do [oops is that a normative ideal? dunno] whatever they damn well please.
freedom for all, anything goes. no norms, no restrictions. this gender neutral language stuff is just a norm imposed on people against their will to constrain their natural behavior. how insane. what kind of freedom is that? what a load of hooey.
actually, ken, you've convinced me. you're entirely right! this example of students blantantly ignoring the normative expectations of the academy is a fine examples of the fact that there's no such thing as constraining institutions that check our freedom to do whatever the heck we want. obviously i was wrong. despite the fact that the normative ideal of gender neutral language is firmly embodied in texts that use gender neutral language, embodied in rules and regs that use gender neutral language, and so forth these students have natural inclinations to do otherwise. so forget the whole institutions and normative expectations shape our behavior bizzo. i was just plain wrong.
btw, how did you get so indignant about this issue? [i do love it when you get all righteous on me ken. you're my hero]. so where did you get this idea that women should be treated equally? huh? i mean look all around you. women get treated crappily all over the university, what would make you *expect* something else? eh? why on earth would you hold these folks around you to different expectations and standards of behavior? how can you possibly judge this treatment as unfair? where do you get ideas of fairness from? do you make them up? did someone tell you? who?
damn, we make such a good team!
>You're kidding.
what do you mean by kidding? are you talking about a baby goat. hmm one o them thar deals where a noun becomes a verb i guess. mayB like the verb to fuck became an adjective and noun?
>Who's social life? Mine? I don't think I need
>life to be simpler.
did i say anything about your social life? i don't care if you're getting laid or not and i'm sorry that the simplicity in your life lately means that you aren't getting laid but hey we live too far apart. we can only dream. mayB cybersex?
> I don't think. We are taught that life needs to be simpler,
well if you don't think, then how was "we" taught? who's we anyway? who teaches this? i just bought a box of life yesterday. mikey likes it you know.
> we are told that we need
>life to be simpler, "Keep is simple stupid."
god, ken, can't you proof read once in awhile. i don't know if i should bother continuing this conversation. you are obviously at least a little lazy if not stoopid.
> as stupid, lo and behold, they respond in stupid ways.
stupid is as stupid does. life is like a box a chocolates. actually, that box of life didn't taste like chocolate at all.
> Tis, a great myth
i've never heard of the myth of Tis.
>rightness [son],
my son is always wrong. sometimes he's never right. no, no wait. according to him, mom is always wrong and she's never right. i am only ever left.
>and truthfulness [spirit].
ahhh yes! some spirits. time for a trip to the liquor store for some j&b, "the water of life" you know and def doesn't taste like life or chocolate.
tho, the single malt scotchs have a bit of chocolate bitterness to them sometimes.......
> As for a priori's - you've logged
>time with Ockham and his razor.
no, i'm afraid i don't work for Ockham. who is this ockham? does he havea razor he could spare because i do need to shave my legs. how'd ya guess? is this a new razor like the mach3 and did they spend a lot of r&d money on it?
>is right, and the simpler of two
>explanations is probably the correct one... this doesn't mean
>that it is good (for us).
what does good mean and who is us? and what on earth are you talking about simpler and two choices. geez ken, would you quit talking about the sorry state of you sex life. someday i'll teach you how to be a real stud and have a wider array of choices. no time today.
>The truth may be, in fact, true, it might
>even be objective, but this doesn't mean that it is good.
yes, i believe that the X files has the corner on Truth: it is out there.
("you can
>have any colour car you want, as long as it is black").
who are you quoting? perhaps these are scare quotes? if so, then why are you highlighting what you're saying. or, is it that scare quotes are to put it under erasure.
>Someone mentioned to Lacan that Foucault was doing
who are lacan and foucault? and why aren't you telling me this someone's name. is this a real person? who is it? why are they anonymous? who are you protecting?
>All there is only perversion.
what is perversion?
> Foucault forgets
would you pls tell me who this dude is?
> what
>psychoanalysis remembers:
who is psychoanalysis? did this person know something and then forget? gosh i do this all the time. senility i think. how old is this psychan person anyway.
>that it is only in neuroses that
what is neuroses?
>Hysteria questions this,
who is hysteria?
> not in perversion / trangression.
ken, your love life is starting to bore me.
> Someone has a grand
do you think someone could lend me 500 clams?
don't you love it? don't you wish that all conversations operated this way with each of us asking the other about the meaning of every single word, or purposefully misinterpreting or always playing. no need for rules. aren't you glad language isn't a socialfrigginstitution? it's so dang constraining isn't it?
>They dictate practices.
[that's why i have to spend a couple of days explaining all the ways in which i diverge from most profs classrooms because my practices are thoroughly controlled by the institution? ]
> Certain behaviour in class is unacceptable (and
>should be!). And plagarism?
[guess you need institutions to reinforce these shoulds eh? and why is it that every single uni in north america actually has written rules that gen'ly say plagiarize and you're out--and yet there are very few cases of that. why is this? why is it the norm for first yr students to plagiarize?]
>No two expectations are the same.
[yep. tis true. on the other hand no one would expect that i take a seat onone of my students lap. no one would expect that i would expect a student to teach the class. everyone would expect that i make it to the majority of my classes. everyone expects that i teach sociology and not business law, that i write on the blackboard and not the floor, that i don't hand out A's to the students who bring me coffee or who i date or who smile nice at me]
Keeping it simple results
>in a kind of watered down "good boy, good girl" school ethic.
empirical problem: students have never been universally good girls and boys. the birth of the modern university has always involved student rebellions, strikes, protests, stoning profs, taking off from class on a whim, actually beating up profs, taking over the chancellor's home, etc.
such a loveable pud you are. you're putting hugely restrictive def. on what i'm talking about. you know full well that laws, with the force of the murderous state behind them, don't dictate behavior, so norms don't dictate. they guide. they delimit possibilities re what is expected. they are also NOT static. they change. furthermore, institutions are not guided by monolithic, uncontested, non contradictory norms. so, the institution of schooling is guided by the older liberal arts model of schooling and the german research model of the research university and both are subjected to the logic of the market.
you know perfectly well that you would not want to teach this fall in a classroom where students interrupted you constantly, brought boom boxes into class and cranked the volume, that you expect them to come to class and, if not, that they have the motivation to learn on their own, you expect them to ask questons but not every minute. blahbedeblah.
>It was a quote. Dialectic of Enlightenment is broken into three
>parts:
trinitarians?
> myth and enlightenment, kant and juliette, and the
>culture industry (the chapter on anti-semitism was added
>later). Their argument is this: normative economic models
>and commercialism (exchange and utility) have colonized
>science, science, in turn, has colonized the processes of
>morality, and art has been commodifed by both.
i know what the argument is. i think they aren't dialectical enough. furthermore, they argue that the rationalization process becomes unmoored from the capitalist mode of production and takes on a life of its own and they find no space for the possibility of rupture. bleh.
In effect, the
>three spheres that Weber distinguishes have been completely
>fused in a lethal model. This is why Horkheimer and Adorno
>rely on an emphatic model of reason, the fusion of the
>spheres demand a critique of the fusion - which can only be
>done with a reason that is critical and practical - and engaged
>in all three spheres simultaneously.
yeah. but neither one avoided doing social research andi argue that all of their work is social research--the interpretation of culture using culture and cultural artifacts as the object of study.
This is why Habermas
>must systematically undercut every aspect of their analysis.
>Habermas *needs* the three spheres to be distinct (however
>counterfactual this is).
they are distinct but conjoined. market./state/civil society. they are triune, not tripartite. furthermore, they are distinct only upon analysis, though we can see trends. this is his appropriation of ideal types [see frank hearn's "the dialectical uses of ideal types]
Habermas then relies on the power of
>the reconstructive sciences to confer validity to the
>normativity of all forms of communication oriented by an
>attempt to understand.
however, you are relying on the monolithic homogenization of all science as scientism, so once you broaden your def. of science then you can no longer condemn habermas for utilizing science.
aside from that, are you suggesting that we can't tear down the master's house with the master's tools?
This normativity is then used to
>separate, thematically, the three spheres. His argument is
>circular, a very nice and complicated tautology.
yup.
kelley barbie