i don't know who said that? in the social sciences this nonsense is frowned upon. ethnography in sociology is waaaay marginalized. feminist thought too. habermas is ridiculed as is critical theory in general. and i ain't getting too far, i'm sure, with pubs on habermas, feminism, or my ethnographic research. the ASA just had a big war because an elected member of the editorial committee for its flagship journal resigned his position. he was elected largely because a significant proportion of the ASA membership agreed that the flagship journal was too narrow in terms of the subject matter and methods featured i much of what it published. [99/9% positivist quant and historical work; burawoy is a critical theorist, critical ethnographer who critiques both positivist and traditional ethnography and grounded theory]. When the editorial committee's nominations for candidates to the editor's positions were rejected [with no reasoning given] and the editor's position was filledby people handpicked by the head honchos at the ASA , this is suggests to me that, at least in one discipline, there are some serious differences as to what is fashionable, what is respectable, what will get you jobs.
now, i'm not saying that the marginalized methods and theories in my discipline are any less influenced by the powers that be. anthonyt giddens made one helluva name for himself rejecting positivist, hypothetical-deductive research and traditional social theory. but look what he's doing now! the ratfucker. i simply reject these characterizations of academia as some sort of monolithic, univocal machine that operates in the interest of capital in some sort of straightforward way.
that said, i've read ange enough to know that this isn't what she's up to per se.
At 07:07 AM 10/27/1999 -0500, Steve Perry wrote:
>
>kelley did protest:
>
>>while i agree with
>>ange's characterization which, at least in my
>>experience, is the standard
>>stuff of training in the social sciences, the academy >can't really be
>>characterized as a factory in which its workers
>>mindlessly conform, as
>>absent contradictions, fissures, ruptures, than we can >or would want to
>>characterize any other factory and its workers.
>
>Right. One size does not fit all. But that hardly
>diminishes the point. As some principled soul on the
>list--i forget who--said a while back in reproach
>to one of my periodic efforts at shooing the
>pomo lemmings toward the sea, "hey, lighten up,
>they've got to talk this nonsense to get jobs."
>and it's true, isn't it? witness those academics
>who came out of the woodwork to whisper their thanks
>to sokal and bricmont for *fashionable nonsense*--
>they sounded like '50s reds (or pre-stonewall gays)
>who'd been too frightened to venture out of the
>closet.
>
>