>>it's structural. it's not a matter of moral purity. were they to,
>>individually, buck the system that would only mean they wouldn't get
>>tenure.
Of course, I wholeheartedly agree that it's structural. Note my remarks about the system of incentives and disincentives. >Nonetheless, I am at least slightly surprised by the degree to which my left and left-liberal colleagues refrain from expressing aesthetic and political distaste at the compromises they are forced to make. But I suppose my surprise stems from the fact that my training and my experience as a grad student was unusually inter-disciplinary and free-floating. I spent more time reading books by and patterning my own research after unaffiliated left intellectuals such as Mike Davis. Never, ever peeked at a copy of American Sociological Review or American Journal of Sociology -- didn't have to and definitely didn't want to. And now my splendid (but financially impoverished) days of being a mock unaffiliated left intellectual are over.
>>leaving aside the fact that i think mainstream methodologies, by
>>themselves, are part of the problem, i think there IS a role for doing
>>research read only by a narrow faction of interested, academic others. it
>>can be translated by people using that research to build arguments. it can
>>be used in meta-theories. it can be used as the basis for popular articles
>>and books. there's a division of labor.
Again, I wholeheartedly agree, although I think engrossing, high-powered conversations that require a certain level of intellectual sophistication can just as easily be had with uncredentialed left scholars as credentialed left-liberal academics. Perhaps even more so, through such fora as left-wing maillists. I've learned as much or more about environmental Marxism, historical sociology, political sociology, political economy, etc., etc., etc. from lurking and participating on left-wing maillists as from direct interchange with "tenured radicals." Such an experience kind of undercuts my conviction that I am accomplishing anything other than padding my c.v. when I contort and suck the life out of my research and writing just to get published in a specialist journal.
>>this is one of the reasons why I reject carrol's arguments here. everyone
>>is not going to be pounding the streets doing activist work. some people
>>are going to do other things: journalism, research, donating money,
>>building think tanks, holding workshops, attending them, being models to
>>others in their work/faith/social communities. being an activist tends to
>>require a certain lifestyle and not everyone can obtain those lovely
>>conditions for the entirety of their lives.
Yet again, I second your views. There is inevitably a division of labor. I'm just chafing at my niche in it, although I have no hankering to be an activist either. What I really want is for all these fuddy-duddy idiots to get off my back so I can write articles and books in a similar vein as Mike Davis. This probably means accepting career insecurity, but so be it.
Well, since this is degenerating into an "all about me" confessional, I'd better end it here.
Ciao,
John G.
_________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail