|
|
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
nomadjack wrote: | I've worked in academia teaching politics for twenty years at 4 different unis including 17 years at Melbourne. In that time I've come across less than a handful of Marxists and about the same number of true socialists. The vast majority have been moderate to centre-left in their own politics. Progressive yes, but far from revolutionary. For the most part they also don't give a crap about the politics of their students provided they turn a critical eye to their studies and the ideological framework, theories and events examined. That being said, their is no tolerance for racism, sexism or homophobia, and neither should there be. The idea that arts faculties in this country are bastion of Marxism or ideological conformism is laughable given the diversity of thought and beliefs amongst staff. Marxism is barely even taught in a meaningful way anymore with little attention given to political economy or political sociology. If you want to talk about group think and conformity I'd suggest you take a look at commerce faculties and the teaching of business and economics. |
I am sure there are relatively few unreconstructed Marxists. That rebranding had to take place as the skull and gulag count marched toward the sky.
However, your acceptance that the “vast majority” of Arts academics are “progressive” is illustrative, as the term has deeply encoded, historicist (often Marxist) assumptions within it. That the vast majority of Arts faculty academics should be anti-Conservative is just the point. Ideology works best when it enters so deeply into consciousness that you can no longer see it working to shape your understanding.
Your comment that “there is no tolerance for racism, sexism or homophobia, nor should there be” is one where we might all agree - if we could define these terms similarly.
However, you will soon find that these terms do not mean equality in moral worth, in freedom and in dignity, but have far more tendentious uses. For example, questioning of the facts and motives of the “Black Lives Matter” campaign, or criticism of Islam or immigration, soon raises a suspicion (and even outright allegation) of racism. So it goes, on many matters touching gender and sexuality, from child-rearing to gay marriage. Behind such attractive ideas as anti-racism, anti-sexism etc, lie the anxious searchlights and fidgeting guardtowers. It was so thirty years ago, and as I look at the curriculum, texts and attitudes reported by my two children presently studying history and literature, it seems worse now. I should note that the two children are hardly conservative malcontents ; like most of the young, they are fish swimming happily downstream in the academic waters provided, though slowly I see them beginning to ask real questions of the current. _________________ Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Sun Nov 05, 2017 8:34 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ indeed, Stui, I worked in the health care industry for a time, and nursing needs an apprenticeship for four years, not a university education followed by an apprenticeship on full pay. As an example of wasted resources, it’s up there among many.
I don’t know about Australia, but in the UK most would say that the standard of nursing care has fallen substantially since nursing became a degree-qualified subject, and deaths in the custody of nursing has been the subject of several large scandals and public inquiries. I once spoke to the head nurse of the NHS and she opined only that a degree was “necessary to raise the status of the profession”. Which was “undervalued because it was seen as women’s work”. It is worth thinking about the priorities implied in that statement. I am sure that, on the media, she’d have insisted that it raised standards of care, regardless of evidence. But in private, she knew what it was really about. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mugwump wrote: | ^ indeed, Stui, I worked in the health care industry for a time, and nursing needs an apprenticeship for four years, not a university education followed by an apprenticeship on full pay. As an example of wasted resources, it’s up there among many.
I don’t know about Australia, but in the UK most would say that the standard of nursing care has fallen substantially since nursing became a degree-qualified subject, and deaths in the custody of nursing has been the subject of several large scandals and public inquiries. I once spoke to the head nurse of the NHS and she opined only that a degree was “necessary to raise the status of the profession”. Which was “undervalued because it was seen as women’s work”. It is worth thinking about the priorities implied in that statement. I am sure that, on the media, she’d have insisted that it raised standards of care, regardless of evidence. But in private, she knew what it was really about. |
In fairness to her, raising the status of the profession is claimed by some (many? most?) to lead to raising the standards. The argument is that more children wish to enter said profession, so the quality of the people entering rises.
The same has been said for teaching, for example. (e.g. "Education standards are high in country X, despite the salary being low, because country X respects teaching.") |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
K wrote: | Mugwump wrote: | ^ indeed, Stui, I worked in the health care industry for a time, and nursing needs an apprenticeship for four years, not a university education followed by an apprenticeship on full pay. As an example of wasted resources, it’s up there among many.
I don’t know about Australia, but in the UK most would say that the standard of nursing care has fallen substantially since nursing became a degree-qualified subject, and deaths in the custody of nursing has been the subject of several large scandals and public inquiries. I once spoke to the head nurse of the NHS and she opined only that a degree was “necessary to raise the status of the profession”. Which was “undervalued because it was seen as women’s work”. It is worth thinking about the priorities implied in that statement. I am sure that, on the media, she’d have insisted that it raised standards of care, regardless of evidence. But in private, she knew what it was really about. |
In fairness to her, raising the status of the profession is claimed by some (many? most?) to lead to raising the standards. The argument is that more children wish to enter said profession, so the quality of the people entering rises.
The same has been said for teaching, for example. (e.g. "Education standards are high in country X, despite the salary being low, because country X respects teaching.") |
It's a reasonable point, but I don't think there was a noticeable lack of quality in nurses who entered the profession before it required a degree, and I think the equation of work-ethic and professionalism with degrees is dubious. The qualities required in a good nurse, I think, are basic intelligence, common-sense, a lot of compassion, and a high work ethic/tolerance for the unpleasantness that can issue from the morbid human body. I don't think those really gain much assurance from degree qualifications.
In the case of the head nurse, if raising care standards was really what it was about, I think she'd have phrased it all very differently and shown a different thought process. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
Post subject: | |
|
nomadjack wrote: | I've worked in academia teaching politics for twenty years at 4 different unis including 17 years at Melbourne. In that time I've come across less than a handful of Marxists and about the same number of true socialists. The vast majority have been moderate to centre-left in their own politics. Progressive yes, but far from revolutionary. For the most part they also don't give a crap about the politics of their students provided they turn a critical eye to their studies and the ideological framework, theories and events examined. That being said, their is no tolerance for racism, sexism or homophobia, and neither should there be. The idea that arts faculties in this country are bastion of Marxism or ideological conformism is laughable given the diversity of thought and beliefs amongst staff. Marxism is barely even taught in a meaningful way anymore with little attention given to political economy or political sociology. If you want to talk about group think and conformity I'd suggest you take a look at commerce faculties and the teaching of business and economics. |
The handful of Marxists run these places. All three of them came out from under Robert Menzies' bed to take over the universe by stealth. I know this to be true because a handful of Nazi nutters say so - and I always believe them because ultra-right-wing ideologues (no - there's no such thing - they're all just "centre-right" when you ask them) have no hidden agenda. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Pies4shaw wrote: | nomadjack wrote: | I've worked in academia teaching politics for twenty years at 4 different unis including 17 years at Melbourne. In that time I've come across less than a handful of Marxists and about the same number of true socialists. The vast majority have been moderate to centre-left in their own politics. Progressive yes, but far from revolutionary. For the most part they also don't give a crap about the politics of their students provided they turn a critical eye to their studies and the ideological framework, theories and events examined. That being said, their is no tolerance for racism, sexism or homophobia, and neither should there be. The idea that arts faculties in this country are bastion of Marxism or ideological conformism is laughable given the diversity of thought and beliefs amongst staff. Marxism is barely even taught in a meaningful way anymore with little attention given to political economy or political sociology. If you want to talk about group think and conformity I'd suggest you take a look at commerce faculties and the teaching of business and economics. |
The handful of Marxists run these places. All three of them came out from under Robert Menzies' bed to take over the universe by stealth. I know this to be true because a handful of Nazi nutters say so - and I always believe them because ultra-right-wing ideologues (no - there's no such thing - they're all just "centre-right" when you ask them) have no hidden agenda. |
Don’t know what’s got into the vodka over in Red Square, but those who want to see balance instead of the well-documented bias in arts faculties are now “Nazis”. Mielke, send the Stasi vans to the car wash ! Beria, repair the fences, warm up the gulags and call Vyshinski ! We've got custom ! The good old days will come again..... _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
Post subject: | |
|
nomadjack wrote: | If you want to talk about group think and conformity I'd suggest you take a look at commerce faculties and the teaching of business and economics. |
That's the salient point because it puts things in context. The social sciences are a veritable smorgasboard of schools of thought and theories compared to those conventional fields, so the reality is in many ways the complete opposite of the complaint. Broaden the context further to consider other social groups such as companies, churches, and families, and the social sciences suddenly look like intellectual diversity heaven. _________________ In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ in the face of clear evidence that Arts faculties are biased to the Left, what do we hear ?
1. It’s pretty much true, they’re just not revolutionary far-Left (which was a sensible and informed enough comment from Nomadjack, but then, no one said they were, at least not in this thread).
2. Only “Nazi nutters” and “ultra-rightists” believe that to be true
3. Compared to churches and families social sciences are quite diverse. (!)
4. Business schools are worse (a scarlet herring, but even then only doubtfully true, within the necessary scope of their field).
If the arts faculties were dominated by the right to the extent that they are by the Left, I’m sure we’d get the same dispassionate analysis. _________________ Two more flags before I die!
Last edited by Mugwump on Tue Nov 07, 2017 2:48 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
Post subject: | |
|
Two |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006 Location: Essendon
|
Post subject: | |
|
Mugwump wrote: | ^ in the face of clear evidence that Arts faculties are biased to the Left, what do we hear ?
1. It’s pretty much true, they’re just not revolutionary far-Left (which was a sensible and informed enough comment from Nomadjack, but then, no one said they were, at least not in this thread).
2. Only “Nazi nutters” and “ultra-rightists” believe that to be true
3. Compared to churches and families social sciences are quite diverse. (!)
4. Business schools are worse (a scarlet herring, but even then only doubtfully true, within the necessary scope of their field).
If the arts faculties were dominated by the right to the extent that they are by the Left, I’m sure we’d get the same dispassionate analysis. |
A couple of points on this:
Firstly, I haven't said anywhere that Arts faculties are biased to the left. I said that the majority of staff I have worked with (politics and international relations; and sociology) are moderate to centre left and progressive in their own politics. I can't speak either way for the broader Arts beyond this.
Secondly, I'm not sure why you find this surprising or out of order? Despite your underplaying of the level of diversity of thought within the Arts, it is still very much the case that it is an arena characterised by a continuous contest of ideas. As with all parts of academia, in this contest at any one time there are 'ideas in good standing' and ideas on the margins. At this point in time, a fairly moderate form of progressive politics may hold sway, although it is not what I would characterise as a single, unified body of thought. From the 1930s-1970s it was conservative politics that dominated the field. The same dynamic operates across other disciplines (see for example the extended dominance of neo-classical economics which you don't seem to take issue with?)
More broadly, I'm not sure why you find the 'dominance' of progressive politics across the Arts so surprising given the broad thrust of post-enlightenment thought has been in this direction? Why are you surprised that conservationism has largely been pushed to the margins along with socialism as an ideological influence? Both have been found seriously wanting in the battle of ideas and I would argue this is reflected in their standing. |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
^ thanks for the reasoned reply. Compared to some other contributions, your comments are well worth engaging with. I think the essence of this debate is whether ideas considered moderate and “progressive” now, would have been considered highly radical a generation or two ago, and whether these rather radical choices have really been beneficial for human welfare.
You are right that you did not accept that arts faculties are biased to the Left, merely accepting that most arts faculty teachers are “progressive” in their personal politics. In my experience, these are not as separable or neutral in effect as you feel they are, especially given the natural leftward lean of Arts students. Nor do I think that the “contest of ideas” is the lofty, dispassionate and apolitical process that you suggest. The Knopfelmacher case in Sydney University in the late 1960s, for example, or the denial of an honorary doctorate to Margaret Thatcher at Oxford in the 1980s, suggests that varieties of “no platforming,”, and the political bullying and exclusion of those with Conservative views began long ago (how we may view Thatcher is not the point ; such doctorates are given to far more marginal figures).
I’d question your assumption that it is natural for academics to lean Left, because the modern Left expresses the values of the Enlightenment better than sceptical, evolutionary Conservatism can. The “progressive”, humanist path has often led, in the latter half of the last century, to the politically-determined truth, to the gulag and the re-education camp, rather than to the moral equality of persons under the light of open inquiry. I look at the twitter mob and sense this spirit rising again, on both sides, to be sure, but more disturbingly from the outraged Left of politics. Trump’s supporters do it, of course, but they are mostly ignorant and probably biddable. It is far more disturbing to see it rising, on the Left, among the educated. It has the whiff of Robespierre and the republic of virtue.
Lastly, it’s debatable that “neo-classical economics” is dominant in economics faculties. I cannot claim to know hundreds of academic economists, but I have met more than a few at various dinners, where their political views seem relatively balanced in terms of Right vs Left. Most believe that markets allocate resources most efficiently, but they accept a substantial role for government in regulating and dealing with market failure. Since 2008, the issues of debt and trade imbalances and intranational inequalities seem most prevalent, with no dominant analytical paradigm.
Business school professors tend to be more conservative, as one might expect. Business is very prone to groupthink about politics, which it sees only in terms of its instrumentality for itself. However, they accept almost all of the bien-pensant assumptions of the age : the self-evident superiority of “diversity”, the undesirability of national borders, and the idea that companies should “do good” rather than just please customers and shareholders, and pay their taxes in a competitive market. They vote right, but think pretty incoherently, for the most part.
Thank you, at any rate, for the measured and sensible reply. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
swoop42
Whatcha gonna do when he comes for you?
Joined: 02 Aug 2008 Location: The 18
|
Post subject: | |
|
The Arts are dominated by the left because they are vocations that in the main don't meet the interests of the right.
Left wing - Individuals who seek out learning so that all can prosper.
Right wing - Individuals who seek out learning so they and their kin can prosper.
Left wing - the greater good of all.
Right wing - me first.
I wouldn't have thought it's that hard to understand and it's just a consequence of why we can place groups of people into one area or another in the first place.
Without this clear distinction in ideology we wouldn't have a need for multiple political parties representing the different values of how people choose to view the world and their place within. _________________ He's mad. He's bad. He's MaynHARD! |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
Post subject: | |
|
Quote: | Left wing - Individuals who seek out learning so that all can prosper. |
Yep, I'm sure someone who's spent 4 years studying lesbian dance theory will be making huge contribution to our prosperity. |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003 Location: Andromeda
|
Post subject: | |
|
Presuming that you’re not defining ‘prosperity’ very narrowly, and thus inadvertently proving part of Swoop’s point, don’t you think society gains from art? (Obviously no such course as you describe exists, but modern dance does serve a function in moving the art form forwards. We can laugh at it, and some of it is crap, but ultimately people thought the impressionists were a joke too – sometimes it takes a while for the cultural establishment, let alone mass culture, to catch up with new forms, and universities provide a rare place in which such exploration can be fostered.)
For what it’s worth, I don’t totally agree with Swoop’s formulation: I think it applies to some extent to the socialist/capitalist divide (and its respective modern-day progressive/neoliberal iterations), but I’d be hesitant to make such claims about conservatives, many of whom might be just as motivated by their own desire for public good. And of course we know that progressives (and faux-progressives) can be just as selfish and careerist and not more.
In short, ideologies do to a large extent shape our paths in life – whether that be, say, an arts degree, a business school or studying investment banking – and it’s not wrong to see patterns in the way people think politically and the areas of life they gravitate towards. Hence, it makes sense to me that university arts degrees attract more progressives than conservatives (and those who continue on into academia are probably slightly further to the left on average). Nevertheless, I think it’s wrong to derive any generalisations from that. As NJ says, you get people from all walks of life in the tertiary education sector. _________________ All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007 Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
swoop42 wrote: | The Arts are dominated by the left because they are vocations that in the main don't meet the interests of the right.
Left wing - Individuals who seek out learning so that all can prosper.
Right wing - Individuals who seek out learning so they and their kin can prosper.
Left wing - the greater good of all.
Right wing - me first.
I wouldn't have thought it's that hard to understand and it's just a consequence of why we can place groups of people into one area or another in the first place.
Without this clear distinction in ideology we wouldn't have a need for multiple political parties representing the different values of how people choose to view the world and their place within. |
You need to read about proper conservatism, assuming your view of the world is slightly wider, and more thoughtful, than that post suggests. If your world view is that narrow, I guess new information won’t help you. _________________ Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You cannot download files in this forum
|
|