Hi Chris; Enjoyed reading your article - though a few responses.

There may be a 'broadly left' bias in some Humanities departments - but I believe much if that would comprise of post-modernists, identity politics advocates; and a good number of small 'l' liberals and 'Third Way' advocates etc. (and the 'Third Way' is pretty well Centrist in many respects anyway) So Marxism, critical theory, radical (let's say Rawlsian) social liberalism - all need representation too.

I also think that pluralism needs to be meaningful and authentic at all levels of the public sphere. So for instance the Left - including the radical Left - needs more exposure in print media and talkback radio. And perhaps Conservatives need a reasonable level of representation in Humanities departments?

Basically all historically important schools of thought should be taught; and arguably conservatives should assist in the teaching of conservatism - and socialists in the teaching of the range of Left thought. But the other way also: so students are exposed to truly critical perspectives from each side. And no-one should have to fear poor marks just because their tutors/examiners etc don't agree with what they have to say...

Further: Bolt seems to think Marxists are 'over-represented'; But how many departments teach Marxism these days? And 'cultural Marxism' is a furphy as Marx's central arguments are economical... And post-modernists celebrate the 'margins' whereas orthodox Marxists seek root and branch change. So the post-structuralists, post-Marxists - are not Marxist in the usual sense - if at all...

Thanks Tristan.

Agree with what you say about the need for a variety of views in the press. Would doubt any sane person would disagree with that.

But, not sure whether the diversity that exists in the humanities in Australia, at least from experience, is good enough.

Sure, many are successful at producing lots of articles, but I have met few that appear capable of putting all the pieces together in the way I would expect from a top class humanities scholar.

To be honest, I don't either, but the difference is I admit it.

In fact, I think the whole model for funding the research of humanities is a bit of a joke from both a self-interested and public perspective. Could be my next article for OLO down the track.

It's funny, isn't it, that even among those who genuinely hunger for knowledge and certainty, there is more evidence of argument and division than there is of consensus.

Surely, if we we humans were following a rational, logical progression of thought (about any matter) we would, if our processes were without flaws, end up at the same position and reach the same conclusions!

Alas, this is not the case.

In many fields, psychology, philosophy,etc. we find devotees that follow this school of thought or that or borrow a bit here and a bit there.

Of course the human brain is a treacherous thing. It pulls us this way, then that, until all that's left is confusion or madness!

Tristan
"So Marxism, critical theory, radical (let's say Rawlsian) social liberalism - all need representation too."

Something that's untrue does not "need representation" in university faculties, and we have just established that Marxism is untrue, that you cannot defend it, and that you are guilty of intellectual evasion in what you are arguing, as are all socialists.

Notice how no-one who claims Marx's contribution was "economic" will dare to defend that blatantly stupid claim from total demolition?
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16050&page=0

Furthermore Marx's influence reaches throughout the humanities because all of the schools of thought you mention share the *assumptions* which you share, based on Marx's garbled economics, that individual freedom and private ownership - capitalism - are intrinsically exploitative and unstable and unfair, and the worst thing in the history of the world; and that the state has the responsibility to fix it up. Rawls' theory of justice is nothing but an ex post facto rationalisation of this marxoid premise.

Indeed Marx's influence in the humanities was so profound that many people considered conservative or favourable to capitalism, hold to key assumptions in Marx's orthodoxy, such as Keynes's view that the business cycle originates in unregulated capitalism - (conveniently ignoring government's monopoly of money and credit) - and Milton Friedman's idea that government has some kind of presumptive competence to economize the supply of money!

These trace straight back to your religion of blind state-worship based in Marx.

The true class analysis of government funding of universities is that the state, being built on a legal monoply of force and fraud, has need of the services of intellectuals to justify its existence, otherwise the exploitation and slavery that you advocate, would be all too obvious to its victims.

Even in Marx's own terms, government funding of humanities cannot be anything but propaganda for exploitation.

It is unjustifiable and should be abolished.

Chris, surely you understand that your piece reflects your own bias. Just where is that centre line? I’m sure there where many students who thought the professors you thought were lefties, they thought were right wingers.
The fact that most people who study the humanities and science in general tend to lean to the left reflects, probably reflects the general injustice and selfishness of our culture.

Is it really surprising that people who believe the government should redistribute wealth to support the less productive tend to work in government-funded institutions, with no clear economic goals or any means of measuring their productivity? I think self-selection is going on here.

For my part, I selected myself out of the public service thirty years ago, after I returned from an overseas holiday and discovered that everything I had worked on in the six months preceding my departure had been shelved. Given the resources required to prepare that material, that put my productivity well into negative figures. It was either resign, or bury my self-esteem.

But as long as the taxpayer can be tricked into supporting them, there will be people who are happy to take others' money for doing little or nothing of value, and institutions that allow them to do so.

Cobber the hound.

Good point, I actually thought about that when writing piece. All I can offer as a defence, is that good research can draw on points across the political spectrum. I still have faith in the Australian experience to feel that good ideas are not the monopoly of the left or right.

To be honest, I think my main source of improvement in recent years, if I am to have an opinion about my work, is from criticism on OLO and even reading more from a variety of think tanks.

Jon J

I have also thought about your experience.

After being in work at unis for 5 years solid, I am now unemployed.

Like most people accustomed to the good life, albeit I was mostly a casual for the period, it has been a bit of a shock.

But now I am free to write what I want, whenever I like. I will return to my labouring roots if need be, and write because I like to. All of my Quadrant pieces and an academic article were achieved when working as a labourer.

I also believe the funding model for humanities research can be improved and rationalised. I think funding is going to be cut anyway, so why not have a debate on how the standard can be improved with fewer resources

This essay is also related to the essay by Peter Jorm re the role and the demands of governments and industry re the purposes and functions of universities. And the essay on Nature too.

But what kind of knowledge is realy allowed in our "universities" or mind factories. These two references depict and describe the situation
http://firmstand.org/articles/separation_of_church_and_state.html
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel17.html

Which also raises the question of who is or are the real power elites in the Western world. Or WHO really make the decisions as to who is going to live or die. WHO are ALL very much on the right side of the culture wars divide.
WHO decides which country or region will become the next sacrifice zone under the unstoppable logic/momentum of the industrial Mega-machine.

C Wright Mills addressed this topic in his his classic book The Power Elite.
The topic is also addressed in the book by David Watson titled Againt The Megamachine: Essays On Empire & Its Enemies

Theodore Roszak also addressed the topic of knowledge, power and the function of the Academy in his many books, especially in The Dissenting Academy, Where the Waste Land Ends, and World Beware.

Also google the topic The Pentagon & The Universities.

Then as always there is the work of Henry Giroux.
And a relatively new book by Charles Derber titled Sociopathic Society, which could be sub-titled the legacy of Ronald Reagan and the Captains of Industry as described in the book Captains of Consciousness by Stuart Ewen

That having been said in my opinion most/all of those on the right-side of the culture wars divide are very firmly on the side of the REAL elites as described C Wright Mills, and apologists for Empire too - "there is no other way" being their mantra.

All human progress has it's foundation in disagreement and debate, although at the end of the day and as the cornerstone of all research, nothing is better than the truth!
Any research based on a false premise is doomed to fail.
Truth is the only basis for a truly fair and egalitarian society.
Therefore we should always embrace the truth, even if it brings with it, howls of derision or some element of personal discomfort.
One recalls a pair of Noble prize winning medical researchers from WA, who postulated that stomach ulcers had their foundation in unfriendly stomach bacteria.
One also recalls how the medical fraternity, almost to a generic man, howled with derision!
Well, there were billions being earned from treating the problem with antacids and endless resales!
A result that pales into complete insignificance with the billions now being earned by big pharma, with HIV antivirals.
Even though, there is a possible cure, that could be found by combining current arthritis treatment and leukemia chemo.
It seems the Chemo can kill the disease, but the dose is too toxic for most. (We cured the disease but lost the patient.)
All levity aside, reportedly, efficacious outcomes seems improved with much smaller safer non lethal doses of the chemo, with the inclusion of a fairly common and also already approved arthritis or rheumatism treatment/medication.
Given both medications are already approved, all we now need are a few HIV positive,( with virtually nothing to lose,) volunteers and some researchers, not hamstrung by big pharma and their pecuniary interests?
Another noble prize anyone?
And the prize money and or the future capital inflows/royalties, wouldn't hurt any uni's fiscal position either!
Rhrosty.

JKJ wants to label socialism as authoritarian - but wants to destroy the public sphere and bury pluralism. The result would be a barren society devoid of insight or criticism. Barren technocracy buttressed by a mutation and distortion of liberal ideology; narrowed down to the point where it applies only to ECONOMIC liberalism. Liberal democracy demands CHOICE. But JKJ is so convinced HE is right he sees no place for diversity of exposure to a variety of ideas.

At least socialist thinkers like Eric Aarons attempt to ENGAGE with the Austrian School - in Aaron's case a book on Hayek - "Hayek versus Marx". JKJ reminds me of Rosa Luxemburg's criticism of Lenin and the Bolsheviks... That the mistakes or a real mass movement are infinitely more valuable than a supposedly 'infallible' central committee.

JKJ thinks HE is infallible. Hence pluralism goes out the window... (and with it meaningful democracy)

I certainly agree all influential schools of thought should be taught. I’m not sure they all need to be represented. Some really influential thinkers laid the foundations for later ideas that no-one really espouses today. You’d be hard-pressed to find a self-described Kantian, Lockean or even Hegelian nowadays, but their intellectual DNA has shaped many subsequent ideologies. I also support the idea that there should be a diversity of positions and perspectives represented in humanities departments.

However, a good teacher should be capable of explaining fairly the strengths of ideas they oppose and the weaknesses of the ones they espouse. Complete impartiality may be unattainable, but this remark saddened me: “There was no way I was going to risk poorer marks just to debate lecturers over supposed knowledge certainties.” In my experience, lecturers do give credit for well-constructed arguments, even if they disagree with them. It sounds like the problem is as much with the quality of your teachers, as their ideologies.

Rhian,

yes I think it a lot to do with quality of teaching which also comes down to each knowing the strengths and weaknesses of their positions, as you suggest.

For example, when I did aust history, I never felt comfortable enough to offer my concerns with multiculturalism. The concept was presented as beyond challenge, as being 100% right. While I also support it, I would have liked to express my concerns about getting the balance right.

there was never an indication from the teaching that this was even possible.

Did get a HD though, but would have liked to have tested the essay question much more.

Now I was in my early 30s, so how would an 18-20 year old go.

That is my whole point about quality humanities. Have extensive debate that address all the points and concerns in society. A normative position should be able to address concerns, without having to ignore them.

Your experience sounds identical to mine, Chris. I too did a BA in the Humanities, then a PhD, and then went on to teach for a number of years (I am still teaching).

There is a lot of conformity in the Humanities in a few key areas: gay marriage, multiculturalism, asylum seekers, capitalism, Australian/European history, feminism, race. Never speak too far out of line on these issues, otherwise you will be marginalised and you can kiss your academic career good bye.

The stringent conformity on these issues makes a mockery of what the Humanities is supposed to be about: critical thinking, researching, and good writing. When it comes to these topics, the very thing that makes the Humanities unique (critical thinking) is to be suspended! I found that researching and writing outside the university altogether is a much freer experience.

In my experience the 'groupthink' is too deeply embedded, and therefore reform cannot occur from the inside. Only outside pressures will reform the Humanities, and this will most likely take the form of funding cuts. Unfortunately, "progressive" academics only have themselves to blame. They forgot that the academe is a place of critical thinking and took it to be a political arm of Labor and/or the Greens.

I unaware of any conservative thinkers being used in the Humanities. Maybe Durkheim? But he is the butt of jokes to the Marxist and post-structuralist thinkers. Post-structuralism has pretty much taken full control of how all issues are to be viewed. Added to this is the inherited Marxist view of an oppressor and oppressed class, and that the oppressed class is always innocent and just, while the oppressor is the cause of all misery. This is where all the 'victim' groups become centre stage for Humanities academics. You get gay cheer squads, non-white ethnic/race cheer squads, socialist cheer squads, anarchist cheer squads, feminist cheer squads etc.

@Tristan, just as a matter of interest, how many public advocates for Marxism can you name -- outside of China and North Korea -- who are employed somewhere OTHER than the public service? I doubt very much if the worldwide number would reach four digits, maybe not even three.

JJ: Marxists for today... - off the top of my head - let's see....

Structuralist Marxists - let's see - Wallerstein for instance;

Historians: E.J.Hobsbawm - but he's recently deceased; Ralph Miliband's son, Ed is now leader of the British Labour Party...

Peter Beilharz at Latrobe is an expert on Marxism - especially Gramsci, Trotsky, Revisionism and Orthodox Marxism, Fabianism, modern mainstream social democracy inc in the ALP... I'm not sure if he still considers himself a Marxist - but like me he considers it an inspiration a times... He's also involved in Thesis Eleven (a radical journal)

There are also radicals influenced by Marxism in the Journal of Australian Political Economy, Marxist Left Review, New Left Review, Links Journal, Arena Journal and Arena Magazine

The small Leninist organisations have their own intellectuals... For instance Alex Callinicos in Britain...

Economist John Quiggin is influenced by Marxism - but is "not a revolutionary" - hence "Marxism without revolution'....

The SEARCH Foundation in Australia continues to promote social debate and originated in the Marxist tradition... But today accommodates a relatively broad spectrum: David McKnight, Eric Aarons and others...

Sheri Berman is now a democratic revisionist - though recognises the historical importance of Marxism.... Christopher Pierson has moderated a bit I think - But is still a democratic socialist and an authority on Marxism...

There's Terry Eagleton as well in Britain; Robin Blackburn...

Oh I forgot the post-Marxists - Mouffe and Laclau; As well as Slavoj Zizek; Then there's Critical Theorists like Jurgen Habermas....

So there are a few that make a living from books and films. But most of those you list seem to be subsisting largely or entirely from the public purse.

Chris,

I enjoyed this essay, just as I have your earlier pieces in Quadrant. I think Rhian expressed my view best: a good teacher should be able to set out well the intellectual force of any system of ideas, even if he/she disagrees with them. That's what good teachers are like.

It is so long since I was teaching at university, but then (the 1970s) we also had people who pushed a line and were dismissive of ideas that were not part of their orthodoxy. Maybe it's worse now. I simply don't know.

But I don't think that what you write about is only a modern phenomenon.

Tristan,
I see no harm in Marxism being studied in universities as long as the lesson of history are learnt.
1. The ideology has lead to more premature death than any other known to man.
Nazism and Fascism were offshoots of socialism.
Hitler started by getting control of the National Socialist Workers Party.
Mussolini started by getting control of the Italian Socialist Party.
Add Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao- the dead are counted in hundreds of millions.

2. Centralising economic and political power in one person's or group's hands soon consumes judicial power, making absolute power inevitable. As all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely,the repression of tyranny is inevitable.

"To be honest, I think my main source of improvement in recent years, if I am to have an opinion about my work, is from criticism on OLO and even reading more from a variety of think tanks. "

"Posted by Chris Lewis, Thursday, 27 February 2014 10:18:34 AM"

This statement demonstrates a level of bravery and courage, that some of the other authors of articles lack to a large degree.

Some have spat the dummy and no longer contribute to OLO. because of the critical thinking criticism of their precociously held beliefs.

Chrsi Lewis, you’re “…critical of Australia's humanities due to a bias to the left, an aspect[?] which still exists today”.
I congratulate you on being able to extrapolate your anecdotal experience into a critical analysis of the humanities generally. My survey of the Humanities during my tertiary career has been much more limited, and my findings suitably uneven. Even so, while the opinions I’m exposed to could be described as politically correct, I’ve come across little I’d call left-wing.
I would argue that the left-wing “bias” you allude to is actually nothing more than a propensity to think critically, as opposed to thinking conservatively (not thinking). Yet such critical thinking generally stops short of being left wing and like all other institutional sectors academics are concerned most with securing their positions, and preferably promotions. The exceptions are those who have transcended beaurocratic gravity and anoint themselves the genuine article.
Your perceived left-wing bias is merely acknowledgement of the patent evils and elisions presided over by conservative “thinkers”—an institutional feint rather than any genuine radical commitment.
Reading on, I can’t help thinking the truth is that you yourself are possessed of a right-wing bias; you seem to think it quite a coup to be published in the reactionary rag Quadrant (which I subscribe to for cynical amusement). I haven’t read your other publications you mention but your subject matter amounts to a litany of conservative cliché’s, with nothing approaching ideological critique or idealistic defence.
The reality, born out by recent elections and various conservative policies (supported more or less by all sides), is that Australia is a majority right-wing constituency, gradually shedding a shabby skin of political correctness.
You were right by the way to disagree with your lecturer (if you’ve represented him/her fairly; the working classes are traditionally the grassroots of xenophobia.
If I may say so, it seems to me you will never attain the kind of perspectivism you lay claim to while you see the world as it is as the inevitable backdrop of society and its government policy.
Universities teach people to think--to feel superior.

Thanks Chris; good article.

I'm a cynic with considerable applied experience in human nature.

The best societies do not wander off into idealistic visions which require superhuman capacity to work.

The failures or inadequacies of the human condition must be recognised by society with sufficient checks and balances to allow freedom but not anarchy.

Alternatively with too much constraint a society rots from within and like the Berlin wall collapses.

A successful society resides in the psychology of individuals. My experience in psychology showed me that positive reinforcement was more successful than negative but without consequences the behaviour itself becomes a negative consequence. That applies to governments as well as individuals. People forget that governments are people.

For that reason a minimalist government is always the best circumstance. Power corrupts and absolute power etc.

Thanks Don and Wolly.

The piece i wrote for OLO was inspired by Tristan and Bolt. I just wanted to suggest that arguments from across political spectrum, as can hopefully be expressed by the diversity of the humanities, can be so more effective through research that is much more thorough and less driven by one's own bias.

There is enough evidence that may illustrate negative and positive aspects of recent policy trends, but how each argument is presented will depend on a thorough examination of evidence. A coherent piece that incorporates much info from many players and perspectives will likely come across as more scholarly than something more representative of bias.

For example, one academic suggested Howard undermined democracy; i suggested that the evidence pointed to a high degree of pragmatism. It was not my problem that many academics were out of touch in terms of community opinion. I did this despite being a Labor voter from 1996 to 2007.

And given my own serious shortcomings in terms of knowledge, that is my point about wishing a better study experience at universities. For example, when I supported govt intervention for manufacturing in my undergraduate days and Honours year, I am sure I would have been much wiser today if perspectives against protection were more stressed and better explained.

I am not saying that industry protection is wrong or that there are easy policy choices; I am merely saying that uni should have left me more informed. in other words, the uni curriculum should match the depth of diversity evident in debates in the wider community.

I often I feel like a bit of a dummy in terms of how little I know about subjects. That is why I learn from the views and knowledge expressed on OLO and elsewhere. I realise how little I do know and will never pretend to be anything more than someone both struggling and constantly learning. As I suggest, better scholarship of policy issues only comes from extensive reading of the chosen issue. Even then, I may still get things badly wrong.

Chris
I find myself more scathing then aristocrat of humanities departments., Only I believe right wing think tanks have deliberately emasculated the humanities. The increasing elevation of Post modernism/structuralism tames the revolutionary potential of the humanities. Making it incapable of challenging the capitalist hegemony and only capable of special pleading for those in some way excluded within the existing paradigm.

The small gains obtained by this special pleading are inevitably granted by the capitalist hegemony and thereby further entrenching its legiimacy. This is the other side of the successes coming from identity politics and political correctness, for example.

. What makes Marx revolutionary and unique was not his specific theories but the framing of an economic narrative which enables alternative economic theorems to be imagined.

Make no mistake, it is just these questions which are most missing in our universities and it is these questions which threaten the capitalist reign.

Look, don’t worry about it. A few lefties hiding amongst the ivy in our sandstone academic castles is nothing to get paranoid about – although right-wingers still manage to do so in spades.

The right is doing very nicely, thank you very much. It has the entire western media in its pocket, plus the publishing world, advertising, cinema and much of the arts. And of course, it goes without saying that the entire global business and financial sectors are totally in bed with the right and joined at the hip. It was ever thus.

And take heart from the fact that, globally, one lefty-type regime … oh, sorry – brutal dictatorship … after another is being brought down and their countries are being laid to waste by a cabal of pathologically right-wing spook agencies in order to make those countries more comfortably exploitable to western right-wing interests.

But if all the left-wing lecturing staff of Humanities departments across all the universities of the western world have to be swept out the door so that students with a right-wing worldview don’t have to think before they write, then so be it.

any studies on humanities that fail to acknowledge the corrupt nature of man just leads to idiotic outcomes. More problems are created than solved by the social engineers who have little answers for problems that their doctrines demanded. The public education system is one of the finest examples of this. Failure to see their own corruption blinds them to any reason.

As long ago as 1956 in his Rede Lecture, CP Snow suggested that “Two Cultures of Scientific and Humanities studies we failing to communicate”.

The process of “socialization” of subjects by Humanities Academia has been accelerating ever since. These include the sciences, history, geography, literature, maths and modern languages which have all been subjected to equally drastic socialization or dumbing down.

There is also evidence that “socialization” is occurring in many other domains including but not limited to; journalism, politics, environment, industrialization and food production.

“The process of socializing these subjects adopts a strategy of “narrative theory” which treats the sciences, economics, philosophy, literature etc., as simply a different mode of story telling and therefore opened up many subjects by rhetoric to “interpretation” or the creation of objective truth”. (Tallis)

“For good or ill, the major intellectual and social events of recent centuries, has been the progress of science and the transformation of the world. This has produced much anxiety and possibly some vocational envy amongst the humanities academia and the products of their doctrine, the political elites”. (Tallis)

In a comprehensive series of essays called “The Corruption of the Curriculum” written during 2007 by authors such as Frank Furedi, Shirley Laws, Michele Ledda, Chris McGovern, Simon Patterson, Alex Standish, Robert Whelan and David Perks. The conclusion of these authors, all of whom are experienced teachers, “is that the curriculum is being drained of intellectual content in favor of promoting political issues such racism, the environment and gender”.

In his essay, The Eunuch at The Orgy, Raymond Tallis observes, “Humanities academia is naturally unhappy to recognize the centrality of mathematicisation of nature to our culture, to be reminded of the importance of the unattainably different level of rigor and sophistication prevailing in subjects they don’t understand”.

It is perhaps now more important to recognize “what” has been done to our education systems and the negative effect this has had on our socio-economic fortunes. Beyond this it is blindingly simple to identify the “ideological culprit”. Which is the “progressive collective”.

Runner - great point
Killarney - I am not wearing right wing capitalist rose glasses. However, what remains of the humanities today is but a shadow of itself. I don't think either chris or myself are wanting the humanities student to be indoctrinated with economic rationalism, that already pervades virtually every discipline - as you rightly state.

Rather, we need to see comparative economic studies together with comparative policitical studies. Unless, humanities students can atleast understand and articulate some coherency in economics they will too readily be dismissed as irrational dreamers.

This is not to delegitimise the postmodern schools or the literary theorist but on the contrary to enable these schools to become relevant not only at the margins but to strike fear into the very heart of the capitalist illusion.

In other words, revealing hidden oppressions whilst ignoring the overt only serves to legitimise the status quo.

Yebiga,

Yes, that is right. You understand what I am saying.

While I may be more a supporter of liberalism than others, and oppose collective ideologies, I am saying that good scholarship must have a greater grasp of the issues that count (especially the economy).

I remember being despised by some in my environmental class when I challenged one student’s assumption we could live well on industries much less exploitive of the environment. Given that the wealth from forestry was a tiny amount of global trade, I was merely asking are you prepared to accept a much lower standard of living. In other words, don’t just say something for something’s sake based on idealism, work hard to learn all the evidence needed to convince readers of the need to change or temper our ways.

All I am saying is that the left needs to lift its game by mastering as much evidence as possible. When the environmental lecturer, now some sort of professor, also admitted she knew almost nothing about economics, I wondered how this could this be the case in a university in the 1990s. With such weaknesses in teaching, given she had no basic awareness even of political economy, how could humanities students be expected to provide some sort of intellectual expertise on issues if they only discussed half the story.

As a liberal democrat, which for myself means support for limited but effective govt and support for freer trade within reason, that does not mean that good scholarship cannot emerge from the left or right to provide analysis and ideas that can be taken up by both sides of politics. As I observe, there is evidence of positive and negative aspects of recent trends.

When I have a dig at the humanities, I am merely saying you are not good enough. Lift your game.

I would also say that centre-right think tanks can also lift their game.

We all can

You're a good man Chris; too fair to the lefties but then its instinctive to be more patient with screaming kids.

The left, now revamped as progressive:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/progressive_is_the_new_label_of_the_ashamed_left/

The progressive is not interested in unbiased, objective teaching or science, the hallmarks of good teaching; the progressive, to hell with that, leftie, is only interested in advocacy of its position.

Any method will be sufficient for the leftie because they are infused with Noble Cause syndrome where the end justifies the means; we saw the corruption of science in the AGW scam with the revelations of the emails and the blatant admission by leading AGW 'scientists' that it was acceptable to lie and exaggerate; a couple of quotes well illustrate this:

“We need to get some broad based support,
to capture the public’s imagination…
So we have to offer up scary scenarios,
make simplified, dramatic statements
and make little mention of any doubts…
Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest.”
- Prof. Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
lead author of many IPCC reports

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony…
climate change provides the greatest opportunity to
bring about justice and equality in the world.”
- Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment

“I believe it is appropriate to have an ‘over-representation’ of the facts
on how dangerous it is, as a predicate for opening up the audience.”
- Al Gore,
Climate Change activist

Lefties do not teach; I have direct experience of this; I have 4 degrees and diplomas and the bias coming from the lecturers had nothing to do with actual disputes with the evidence; the bias came from the application of ideology to the data and facts.

I despise the left; they are inherently oppressive, I believe because they simply think they're better than everyone else.

YEBIGA says, "What makes Marx revolutionary and unique was not his specific theories but the framing of an economic narrative which enables alternative economic theorems to be imagined."

Now have I got this right Yebiga? You are telling us Marx had a good imagination, as we would expect in writers of fiction?

cohenite,

When I tutored at unis, i always made it a point to begin the term by sharing my view that there is no right or wrong answer on the issues we are learning about.

Whether left or right, or labor or liberal, argue what you like, but please do the readings and provide ample evidence. Who was I, still a student of politics, to tell people different.

The Bolt article is interesting. I would describe myself as centre-left, if I had to. I know we need to be much more competitive, but hold my belief that all aussies should have access to a decent health service and education system. In other words, we should all have opportunity to progress. But this view may also be shared by many liberals and national party people and supporters.

But, we all have different views on different issues. Take work-for-the-dole. I support it, but I recognise that there may be some problems with an over-reliance on such scheme. Again, it is up to left and right sympathisers to debate so we can get balance right.

But no, many academics blasted the policy as divisive and unnecessary, despite the overwhelming majority of Aussies supporting it, including a majority on benefits.

Logic would tell anyone that society is going to get tougher if there is fewer resources to throw around, but we can become more competitive and fair at same time. This will be test of Australia in coming years.

So-called right wingers are also progressive at times, so anyone who views one side of politics as progressive (Labor bias), loses me immediately.

That was the whole point of my first Quadrant piece, How the Opposition makes a difference. for example, I noted how the Coalition came to accept medicare rather than merely wipe it out.

A good idea or analysis which can show how a policy can work, or that needs to be addressed like now, is just that.

The bottom line is that liberal democracy is best served by pluralism.

This means there should be a mixture of most perspectives at our universities, and even taught in secondary curriculum. The aim should be imparting critical capacities and ideological/political/values literacy.

Both affirmative and critical perspectives need to be taught whether we are talking about Marxism and its successor schools; or all the various historical streams of Social Democracy; or whether we are talking about 'compassionate conservatism', big 'C' Conservatism, Neo-Conservatism; political liberalism, social liberalism, economic liberalism etc.

But some of the right-wing commentators here seem to want a "one dimensional society"; and would wipe criticism from the face of academia. Some of them seem to want to trash the Humanities and Social Sciences all together.

Again: meaningful democracy involves pluralism; and Pluralism involves comprehension of a broad and representative range of values systems and critical intellectual frameworks.

We need to educate people to be informed citizens participating in a democracy of both breadth and depth. 'Education for the labour market' is not enough. Even pursuing academic excellence is not enough. Because even those who do no excel academically can still acquire crucial life skills - including as active and informed citizens.

This is the problem with the Conservative agenda for education; for instance as promoted by Kevin Donnelly. They want a curriculum which is 'purely celebratory' and frankly Ideological.

But I think Donnelly appears a moderate compared with some people here...

JKJ: The true class analysis of government funding of universities is that the state, being built on a legal monopoly of force and fraud, has need of the services of intellectuals to justify its existence, otherwise the exploitation and slavery that you advocate, would be all too obvious to its victims.

I actually agree with you here.

Rhian: “There was no way I was going to risk poorer marks just to debate lecturers over supposed knowledge certainties.” In my experience, lecturers do give credit for well-constructed arguments, even if they disagree with them.

C.l.: when I did aust history, I never felt comfortable enough to offer my concerns with multiculturalism.

Aristocrat: There is a lot of conformity in the Humanities in a few key areas: gay marriage, multiculturalism, asylum seekers, capitalism, Australian/European history, feminism, race. Never speak too far out of line on these issues, otherwise you will be marginalised and you can kiss your academic career good bye.

I have never been to Uni. I finished school in 1961, did Junior (G10) & failed. However I have made up for it slowly over the past 55 years. with an Engineering Trade & Certificate 111 in Business, IT & Electronics. Somehow I have always been surrounded by Professors of some description. One thing I noticed about the Professors is that most of them couldn't tie their own shoe laces. I guess that's where I came in because I'm SG2+, or able to do & retain anything. My job, to fix everything they #u(k#d up. But enough about me.
Cont.

cont
Life experience is a good teacher. One of my neighbours was an Environmental Scientist Professor at James Cook & married to my cousin whose father was a ridigee dige. "Red on the Bed." As a good ex Catholic school boy we had many great discussions on Communism & what it could offer the world. The professor led many Environmental Campaigns. He told me that if his students didn't attend, so many demonstrations, with him they would be failed.

My now neighbour is also an Environmentalist but not so "Hard Core" & while not so good in the handy department he's learning. My son did a business degree at Griffiths. At his graduation the Guest speaker was introduced as the most prestigious Son of the University. We listened to a list accolades. He did his speech & it was then I remembered what it was that was troubling me about this chap. Every Corporation he had been head of had gone into receivership. Three in all.

When I was finished doing my Certificate in Business at T.A.F.E. (all right, don't laugh.) The CEO of the Corporation came to the after dinner celebration. I asked him why it was that we learn all this stuff but none of it is actually used by the Corporation. His reply, "Because we have a business to run, that's why."
Cont.

Cont.
One of my wife old best friend did her degree, ?. She became a Women's Councillor at Women's Shelter. Her entire demeanour changed though that course. From a nice Lady to a fully fledged Boiler suite wearing Feminist & & ALL men were evil.
.
One of my diggers in the A.R.E.S. was also doing that degree. He put an ad in the paper for people that had been suffered Domestic Violence. I replied & we talked. I gave him many leads of men who had suffered similarly. This was to be his final paper. He handed it in & was told quite bluntly that if he submitted "THAT" paper he would be failed. as only men were violent & all women were victims. He came to see me crying & had to redo the paper. I told him, 'just change the gender." He did & passed.

So Rhian, Aristocrat & C.L. you are right. You either conform to what the Teacher wants to hear or fail. It's a great system we have, eh.

"The bottom line is that liberal democracy is best served by pluralism."

No.

Democracy, the Western model, is best served by preservation of the democratic structure and the checks and balances which preserve individual rights and freedoms.

It is obvious you are confused about what constitutes a democracy of the Western model.

It is NOT majority rule. The Western model enshrines minority rights with egalitarian enfranchisement, equality before the courts and the principle of Habeus Corpus, separation of powers [which the old commie Bjelke Peterson did not understand], freedom of association [which is why the bikie laws are wrong], freedom of expression [which is why Finkelstein was so wrong] and the seperation of church and state [which is why Islam is such a threat], among others.

These mechanisms and principles ensure as far as possible that personal freedoms, the ultimate and only real pluralism, is protected.

But what happens when an ideology which contradicts the Western model uses the rights provided by the Western model to attack that model? Islam is the obvious example with its persistent and concerted demands for Sharia.

But Marxism too opposes individual rights by putting the individual second to the state.

By espousing pluralism and using pluralism to justify the right of Marxism to enjoy the rights of the Western model I can see no difference between what Islam is doing, using the freedoms of the West to entrench its anti-West position [“We will use your democracy to destroy your democracy.” – Muslim cleric Omar Bakri Mohammed], and what advocates of Marxism are doing.

In other words both the Muslims and the Marxists are using the pluralism of Western democracy to subvert that pluralism. Fortunately the Marxists are not as violent as the Muslims [as least in the modern era] but the similarity is there

Cohenite,

I am pretty much 100% with your summary:
‘The Western model enshrines minority rights with egalitarian enfranchisement, equality before the courts and the principle of Habeus Corpus, separation of powers [which the old commie Bjelke Peterson did not understand], freedom of association [which is why the bikie laws are wrong], freedom of expression [which is why Finkelstein was so wrong] and the seperation of church and state [which is why Islam is such a threat], among others’.

Tristan, it is this political framework that allowed unions and universities to flourish as part of the development of pluralist society, but no actor should ever assume an entrenched position within society. You have to earn your place and your influence, assuming that the fundamentals of society are fair.

Just as unions must have relevance if they want to increase numbers, along with political parties trying to win more support, so lecturers should also compete to promote best practice teaching or to secure funding for a course.

Whether someone is a marxist, liberal or whatever means nothing to me. Only the quality of teaching, perhaps shaped most by a healthy western perspective, aiming to expose the student to ideas and to get them to think critically, should be the criteria. Obviously, each course cannot take on every theory, so a general overview of each major stream of thought can be provided.

Sure, I have a bias to the Western political system. But why not. It is precisely this bias which promoted education to allow a variety of perspectives to flourish.

No. I would say that a humanities course should not depend on equal representation of people with different perspectives. It should only depend on quality teachers who deliver quality courses. Now that resources are scarcer, hopefully better scholars and teachers can rise to the top. But who knows.

I am going to take up how to promote quality humanities research in this era of relative austerity in my next OLO piece

"I am going to take up how to promote quality humanities research in this era of relative austerity in my next OLO piece"

Good luck Chris!

Cohenite:

Ok - free speech, free association, separation of church and state - we're in agreement that far whether you like it or not.

I agree with minority rights also.

Hence Rosa Luxemburg: "Freedom is always, and exclusively, freedom for the one who thinks differently.” And also: “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.”

Checks and balances - Yes I agree with that too. Which is why I *don't* advocate blanket nationalisation. And why I believe in separation of powers. But on the other hand surely monopolism and oligopolies are a threat as well? And surely a democratic MIXED economy could accommodate a variety of financial power centres without such blanket centralisation/monopolisation - so those checks and balances would remain... The added competition could even be beneficial; and natural public monopolies would also further efficiency.

You also say Marxism puts the individual second, and that "Muslims and the Marxists are using the pluralism of Western democracy to subvert that pluralism."

In response - The Stalinists certainly did this wherever they were for the better part of the 20th Century. But you cannot pin that on the Western Marxists, Austro-Marxists, democratic revisionists, Euro-communists etc. Take the Luxemburg quote again; Or what about Karl Kautsky? Look to his works 'On the Dictatorship of the Proletariat", and "Terrorism and Communism." And note that these Marxists prioritised INDIVIDAL self-realisation through participation in culture... At a time when workers were largely excluded...

And if you can disprove that Marxist Social Democracy was a force for liberty and democracy in Germany pre-1914 pls do so. But if you do a little research it will dawn on you that early Marxism really did maintain a nexus of democracy, equality and freedom. If you look to Eduard Bernstein's critique of Ferdinand Lassalle you will also see that even early on these democratic Marxists were critical of over-dependence on the State....

Chris

'I would also say that centre-right think tanks can also lift their game.'

No. That's empty pomposity. Right-wing think tanks (forget 'centre'-right - they don't exist) don't have to lift their game at all. They can and will continue exactly as they are. Unlike the left, they are completely embedded with the hegemony and so do not have to struggle to exist or to justify themselves. They have plenty of money and access to the major political and financial players, who are more than happy to keep THEM happy.

Your concept of objectivity and pluralistic democracy, while allowing for plenty of self-righteous illusion and pretensions to maturity, does not exist. This is because the political landscape in which the left and right operate is outrageously unbalanced in favour of the right.

Jayb

That yarn about the crying guy and the domestic violence paper is a load of porkies and you know it.

Killarny: That yarn about the crying guy and the domestic violence paper is a load of porkies and you know it.

Actually, no it not.

They were a very man hating vicious lot at James Cook all the Text books they were studying from stressed how evil all men were. Left Wing, feminist & biased in the extreme. As the only male at a dinner, I was asked what it was like to be an A$#ole by one of the women doing the Councillors Course (I don't know the real name of it) I gave as good as I got that night, which was a lot but I'm great at retort, so it was a fun night. Well, for me, not my wife, unfortunately. That crewcut does suit you luv.

Tristan Ewins "But some of the right-wing commentators here seem to want a "one dimensional society"; and would wipe criticism from the face of academia. Some of them seem to want to trash the Humanities and Social Sciences all together."

Well, first there would actually have to be conservative thinkers/texts/philosophers used in the Humanities and Social Sciences for that to occur. The post-structuralists have a stranglehold on it at the moment, and I don't see them letting go any time soon.

Can you name any conservative philosopher/thinker that is used in the Humanities and Social Sciences? I can think of only Durkheim and perhaps his follower, Talcott Parsons.

Well Said Kilarney

If you google "attack on the American free enterprise system"
you will end up reading a confidential memo by a US Justice Powell, written in 1971

In this memo, he outlines a chilling plan to avert the tide of what he perceives to be communist forces in the US.

The strategy outlined for conservative forces to marshal their power and control the Media and the content in Universities.

The memo offers a fantastic insight into the early development of a plan which would come to its full power over the course of 20-30 years and entirely supplant the organic free impulse of our society and transform it into a grotesque oligarchical paranoid delusional nightmare we have today.

Bolt has a good post on how the left is stacking the ranks of the university academics:

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/university_is_the_last_refuge_of_the_failed_labor_minister/

That list doesn't include the potential criminal Gillard and Rudd of course has been given a sinecure at Harvard as an expert on China; they'll love him after his description of them as rat.......!

Kilarney and yebiga are just old commies who will peddle their disgusting ideology until the other comrades shovel the dirt over their hero's graves. Nothing to see there with their quaint little conspiracy theories and capitalist bashing nonsense.

Killarney is however particularly amusing when he pushes the tired old barrow about the right being flushed with money compared to the comrade heroes of the left.

That, like all left positions is just a lie. For instance who are the biggest political donors in the US; that's right the unions:

http://washingtonexaminer.com/it-turns-out-the-evil-koch-bros.-are-only-the-59th-biggest-donors-in-american-politics.-can-you-guess-who-is-number-one/article/2544025

And this is being echoed right throughout the West; the stinking left has all the money whether it be for the scam of AGW or super funds [dominated by the unions and when the renewable scam runs out of taxpayer funds won't the super funds which invested in renewables be crying] or the media dominated by the tax payer funded hard left abc.

The fact is Gramsci's march has been successful and the left have infiltrated all the institutions of the West and like parasites are eating it hollow.

That still doesn't stop the old commies from mouthing the usual canards about the rich evil right. A leftie couldn't lie straight in bed.

A sharp rise in the number of right wing think thanks occurs in the 1970s and 1980s.

Reagan and Thatcher execute and legitimize a sharp right turn to economic rationalism. The concentration of media ownership accelerates and the quality and breadth of content inexorably coalesces to the inanity of celebrity and sports culture.

In our Universities, the western canon is emaciated and replaced with the incoherent whining of postmodernism.

By the year 2000, the oligarchical forces were so drunk with their complete success, they would with total impunity force a fraudulent election win for the Presidency of the United States, invent a fraudulent war against invisible forces, invade countries to secure their resources, dismiss human rights conventions and openly justify torture, implement illegal global surveillance and threaten any serious dissent with the removal of basic civic rights.

While the public is happily distracted with Celebrity and Sports, our brightest students are pursuing MBAs or trying to decide whether the author, reader or the text is dead

YEBIGA,

I marvel at your ability to take a batch of meaningless rhetoric and platitudes and string them together into something that you seem to think makes sense.

I have read and reread your last post and cannot find any content whatsoever. How do you manage that?

Is that what you call “narrative theory”

In 1976 the income of the top 1% accounted for 16% of total income
In 2012 the income of the top 1% accounted for 26% of total income

The possibility of extracting this kind of data has been possible since the early 1900s. Since, the top 1% has fluctuated within this range of 16% to 26%. For most of the last 100 years, this number has hovered just under 20%

The last time it got to 26%, we had the great depression.

I am not suggesting this is a rigorous analysis but I believe it does highlight, in a simple way, what I believe is a serious and potentially fatal imbalance.

Yebiga, every lie ye make is biga than the next one; the so-called growing wealth gap caused by the greedy capitalists:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/no-the-rich-dont-pay-a-fair-share-of-tax-they-pay-all-of-it/story-e6frgd0x-1226841174461

And what proportion of the Australian and indeed every Western nation's budget goes on welfare?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-09/interactive-budget-2013-where-will-your-tax-go/4682404

Just under 35% on direct assistance with much more on indirect assistance.

The idea that the workers are being oppressed in the capitalist paradise is such a lie.

Marx never envisaged a communist evolution occurring in a largely agrarian country like Russia, China or Cuba

Rather he and even the likes of j.Schumpeter believed a mature capitalists system, with large oligopolies like our own would more than likely evolve into socialism.

The owners of BHP, Coles, CBA merely possess certificates, pieces of paper. The management running these entities may also own pieces of paper. They are disconnected from private property and this clerical abstraction makes them something entirely different to an entrepreneur.

In fact these large oligopolies become enemies of private ownership by individuals. This is your socialist revolution by stealth. These clerks manipulate government, media and education.

We live in the socialist nirvana without even being conscious of it.

jayb

‘They were a very man hating vicious lot at James Cook …’

What an objectively mature and devastatingly insightful observation. Any more where that came from? … Ah, yes. Unfortunately, there are ...

‘… all the Text books they were studying from stressed how evil all men were. Left Wing, feminist & biased in the extreme.’

OMG! Imagine my shock! Not by the comment, mind you … only its mind-blowing originality. This must be the first time in the whole history of the world that someone has actually said that feminists think all men are evil. And remember, folks … you read it first on OLO.

‘As the only male at a dinner, I was asked what it was like to be an A$#ole by one of the women doing the Councillors Course …’

Oh, really? And if such a question was asked of you, was it because you happened to be born with Y chromosome or because you were behaving at dinner like a complete cretin on paternalistic arrogance overdrive and spoiling everyone’s meal. My common-sense-O-meter is moving in the direction of the latter. In fact, it’s almost blowing a fuse in the process.

‘I gave as good as I got that night, which was a lot but I'm great at retort, so it was a fun night.’

Yeah, right … Translation: ‘I behaved like a complete creep and earned everyone’s utter contempt but I was too dense … or maybe drunk … to notice.’

Well, you have made it obvious what side you bat for, luv.

Killarney: And if such a question was asked of you, was it because you happened to be born with Y chromosome or because you were behaving at dinner like a complete cretin on paternalistic arrogance overdrive and spoiling everyone’s meal.

Y chromosome. She made it very obvious that she was with my wife's friend. (she hadn't gone over to the dark side at that stage) No the Night was a complete Boilersuit affair & they were interested in my wife. They questioned her intently about how badly I treated her & they could help her. If I was being nice to her it must be my way of controlling her. We've been together for a little over 30 years neither one of us has ever felt the need to bash or control the other. We must be different to what is taught in these Courses. Although... "She who must be obeyed" does rule the roost. Aah....Ha. Hmmm.

Killarney: Yeah, right … Translation: ‘I behaved like a complete creep and earned everyone’s utter contempt but I was too dense … or maybe drunk … to notice.’

Don't drink, smoke & the wife says I'm not to go out with bad women. Sorry luv. One should always act in a manner consummate with ones fellow travellers, don't you think. They wanted to play, I love to play.

Killarney: OMG! Imagine my shock! Not by the comment, mind you … only its mind-blowing originality. This must be the first time in the whole history of the world that someone has actually said that feminists think all men are evil. And remember, folks … you read it first on OLO.

Yes it's hard to come up with something original. It would have been original if I would have said that they were all fine Ladies of refined distinction, but they weren't. the Fisherman's wife comes to mind when thinking of the language.

Now back to the subject.

I have noticed here, reading back through the posts, that there seems to be some sort of mutual admiration society going on. All based around name dropping. So far 39 in all. 8 of these fellows were born last century, 16 before 1945 & 22 soon after.

I've had a bit of a skim through some of their writings & I've come to the conclusion that there is little in originality in any of them. The same set of ideas or arguments just put in a different form to avoid Plagiarism, I guess.

The people that were born in the 18th. Century have no relationship with todays world. It would be like quoting Da Vinci theory of flight as being entirely valid. Even those born before 1945 writings on the human condition bear little relevance in the 21st. Century.

Writers after 45 & still alive may have something to contribute but are stuck in following & using past Century thinking & applying it today. Marx, Durkheim, Gramsci, Law, Kautsky & Berstein lived in a different age. One of huge Class differences & Religious practices. A way of thinking about the World & it inhabitancy that has changed so completely that they would not recognize it as even being Earth.

I dream of our History, Sociology, Literature, Politics and Philosophy students all familiar with Joseph Schumpeter's CAPITALISM, SOCIALISM and DEMOCRACY.

Whilst, on the one hand this is a foundational text for economic rationalism, it remains so only by a singular perspective. Schumpeter's book is not an evangelical love song to capitalism but provides a detailed critique of Capitalism and Socialism.

Now left leaning or postmodernist students armed with Schumpeter's work would present a formidable intellectual opposition to the prevailing economic rationalism. Business student is rarely a very reflective personality and confronted with his own cant turned against him/her would either be forced to further depth or as I expect skulk out of the room.

The postmodernist identity obsessed, anti-imperialist would now possess are an understanding of how the world works and with this more responsible world view would become far more capable at transforming society in accordance with their compassionate mission.

I know it's a crazy dream.

YEBIGA you really don't like people who study something useful do you? Something that might actually help a productive society become more so.

No indeed, YEBIGA prefers students study a subject that only offers a living by sucking at a taxpayer's teat.

YEBIGA my dream is a world is one where everyone is paid what they are worth to the rest of society. Those involved in the humanities would be those raggedly dressed bunch sitting on a park bench chattering.

Right, Has been; And while we're at it let's tear down all the libraries; ban History and English in secondary schools; stop 'wasteful' and 'expensive' elections; And let's centralise all the media in a single monopoly - to save on 'wasteful expenditure' on 'non-productive' activities. And then we can do like Hitler did and force the unemployed into big projects in the form of 'labour conscription'. (ie: work for the dole) Oh right - Abbott's already doing the LAST of these... Again he's not a Hitler - But he'd probably feel more comfortable, say, seeing himself as a modern day Franco....

Hasbeen: YEBIGA you really don't like people who study something useful do you? Something that might actually help a productive society become more so. YEBIGA prefers students study a subject that only offers a living by sucking at a taxpayer's teat.

I agree entirely Hasbeen. Anything that is useful to Society is priced way out of peoples means. Engineering, Electronics, Science, Medicine etc. The Humanities produce nothing but, as you say, are a drain on Society. Their navel gazing is 200 years out of date & not relevant in todays world. I guess Society is changing too fast for their discipline to keep up. Studying notions someone had 2 to 300 years ago & applying it to the 21st. Century is a nonsense. Interesting to read but of no real use. A part from that, the Humanities have been taken over by biased special interest groups that believe that their cause is greater than everyone else's. They spread dissent in their own interest.

Jayb; So I guess you're saying capital and labour, state and civil society, class structure and the division of labour "no longer have any application" today? And that philosophical materialism versus philosophical spiritualism 'is not of any relevance". (which must by why religions have billions of adherents; and militant atheism has a growing support base in the West....) Who are you to judge the philosophical and social scientific traditions of humanity going back hundreds of years? (evidently without even understanding them)

To say there is no place the humanity to reflect upon its condition; and to seek a better existence; This is what Conservatism has come to in this country...

But if you want to have it that way then I suppose we would do away with the study of Edmund Burke as well?

While we're indulging flights of fancy, my dream is of a world where we're all more or less equal in terms of wealth and want, thereby liberating our genuine distinctiveness and allowing "individuals" to truly flourish--what the Greeks called eudaimonia.
It's a sick joke that what we have, what the liberals celebrate as individualism, is nothing of the kind. The Liberals vaunted "freedom" and "individualism" is delusion, their very opposite. Witness some of the comments above, from the pathetic dupes of the system, ideologically enslaved, unable to conceive that there's anything wrong with this world, let alone of "better" one. As if all was just as God intended; as if it was sustainable; as if it was conscionable or morally defensible; as if the system's minions were one tenth possessed of the wisdom they congratulate themselves on possessing; as if they were more, each one them, than obsequious little jokes and an offence to what they might have been. All truly is vanity when so many can gloat with self-satisfaction at the destruction and misery their complacency begets--all the while denying it, or not caring a toss, or indeed blaming the misery of others on them! (It's cynically amusing that left thinkers go on dreaming of a universal ethics based on the "other"! Meanwhile the right goes on blaming them, ridiculing them (the hated other, the spoiler) for their scruples! for their want of opportunity, or for their want of viciousness!
Well we're not all entrepreneurs in this wealthy country, damn few of us are and the rest who've raked together their pathetic piles have nothing to congratulate themselves on and no right to despise anyone.
Sadly, in this world an education in the Humanities teaches us only how bad things are, teaches us that ignorance reins, supreme and oblivious.

T.E.: So what does a Humanitarian do other than Navel Gaze & share his Navel Gazing with his kindred spirits. Does it actually have any influence on the world in General or even in bits of the world? What practical benefit does it offer the General Public?

Oh, Edmund Bourke 1797. Pre 1800. (Name drop. 40)& how did he actually his writings actually benefit the world & how do they fit in with the 21st. Century?

T.E.: So I guess you're saying capital and labour, state and civil society, class structure and the division of labour "no longer have any application" today? And that philosophical materialism versus philosophical spiritualism 'is not of any relevance".

Never said anything of the sort, but your Discipline doesn't have any effect on them. All you can do is observe & try & fit what's happening to someone's 300 year old writings, somehow, after the event.

T.E.: Who are you to judge the philosophical and social scientific traditions of humanity going back hundreds of years?

One of the people who pay you to gaze at your navel for no return. Humanities is really a bad investment.

T.E.: (evidently without even understanding them)

Isn't that what drug addicts say when you question them on taking drugs?

T.E.: To say there is no place the humanity to reflect upon its condition; and to seek a better existence; This is what Conservatism has come to in this country...

If there was some actual benefit that came out of your studies I would support the Humanities but the fact is there really isn't. Dilemma, some people say I'm conservative, some activist. I can be either anytime I want to & sometimes both. Question, Question.

T.E.: But if you want to have it that way then I suppose we would do away with the study of Edmund Burke as well?

Study all you like for interest sake, but he's not relevant in the 21st century. He lived in an era where the Church governed everything anybody did or said so his writings had to conform within those limits.

Tristan by all means, gaze at your navel all you like, just do it in your own time.

Your gazing will be about as useful as people who breed racehorses. Very interesting to people who bet on them, but a basically useless activity. However they, unlike your lot, don't expect to get funded by taxpayers to indulge in their interest.

Better than you, they have established an industry indulging in their hobby. Are they smarter than you, or not as arrogant as to believe their hobby is important to everyone.

Even more importantly, race horse breeders don't have some fool idea that their chattering makes them somehow superior to the majority. At least they have some proof that their ideas on horse genetics has a basis in science by their results, where not one of you can point to any proof of a single thing you promote.

In fact I think it fair to say that in humanities failures in both education & the rehabilitation of criminals, we have solid proof that you are mostly talking garbage.

Do be careful to disguise your arrogance a little, it is not becoming.

In simple terms there are only two areas of study the Sciences and the Humanities. One increases our understanding of the natural world, the other advises us how to manage ourselves.

At present, the humanities are dominated by Business Studies. Imagine, in the midst of this overwhelming glut of stuff and waste, we are focusing our children on how to best increase demand for more stuff and more waste.

As exampled by many posters here, Man's brute survival instincts resist civilizing. Our society continues to seduced by the alpha male adolescent. This stunted version of humanity sits in all the seats of power in our Governments, in our Public and Private companies.

Naturally, the semblance of what remains of the real humanities has donned the garb of the aggrieved female: post modernist and theorists.

Ah god save us. Clowns to the left of me Jokers to the right

Yebiga you really are hallucinating now:

"Our society continues to seduced by the alpha male adolescent. This stunted version of humanity sits in all the seats of power in our Governments, in our Public and Private companies."

Adam Bandt.

Every male in the ALP.

Clive Hamilton.

Hell, the more I think about it the snivelling beta drongo is everywhere.

Are you a 'male' Yebiga?

As I said
The minority response to the dominant alpha male is the aggrieved feminine
I think adam plAys the role well

My our gender should be irrelevant don't you think

"My our gender should be irrelevant don't you think"

The left never fail to astound me.

The left are lock stock and barrel behind AGW and the spin-off concepts of nature knows best, sustainability and the rest of this garbage. Now sexual differentiation is the basis of nature and how organisms reproduce, at least in the 'higher' animals and organisms; agamogenesis may exist in the single cell species but we'll leave Green politicians out of it.

So, if you advocate nature strongly then you'll have to accept men and women, mums and dads and the rest of it. So yes, your gender is relevant.

As for feminism in Marxism I do not subscribe to the prevailing view that Marxist was a cross-dresser.

Gender is of course very relevant in infinite ways.

Not sure it matters what the gender is of anonymous posters to a political thread. For a moment, I considered specifying this limitation on my previous post but dismissed it on the grounds of it being unnecessarily pedantic. Seems I was wrong.

I hope this helps you to anchor your focus.

You couldn’t want a better display of why government funding of the humanities should be abolished than comments in this thread.

Tristan says
“some of the right-wing commentators here seem to want … to trash the Humanities and Social Sciences all together.”

I didn’t say the humanities and social sciences should be abolished; I said government funding of them should be abolished.

Thus you have failed to distinguish:
• as a matter of political economy, between the existence of state and non-state action
• as a matter of logic, between A and not-A.

You’re displaying a failure to understand the basic distinction – between public and private control of the means of production - on which all of Marx’s thinking depends, and all of his devotees, and which all political debate is always about.

But how can Tristan – who discourses so learnedly about humanities and social sciences – be so dumb as not to understand its most basic concept? Perhaps it was an accident?

But no, it’s not an accident, because he does it again later:
“To say there is no place the humanity to reflect upon its condition”

I’m afraid this can only be explained by:
• stupidity
• dishonesty, or
• something else.

Which is it, Tristan?

PS It’s not about me being “infallible” (ad hom), it’s about the fact that you’re not making sense in your own terms.

Yebiga displays the same grade of error:

“What makes Marx revolutionary and unique was not his specific theories but the framing of an economic narrative which enables alternative economic theorems to be imagined.”

In other words even though Marx’s theory is wrong, it’s still useful as theory.

In other words, there’s no such thing as truth.

According to Yebiga’s theory, economics is nothing but telling stories: “narrative”.

But obviously, if an economic “theorem” is self-contradictory and fallacious, it’s worthless as theory – and we’ve already established that no-one including Yebiga can or will answer for Marx’s economic theory.

Chris
“When I tutored at unis, I always made it a point to begin the term by sharing my view that there is no right or wrong answer on the issues we are learning about.”

In other words, there’s no such thing as truth, logic or reality.

For example, if someone had said that full socialism – public ownership of the means of production – would make society more physically productive than capitalism, you would have said there’s no way that we can know whether that’s right or wrong?

Squeers and Killarney are also operating at the same level of complete confusion, double standards, and self-contradiction. Obviously if you use the term “right wing” to refer to:
1. totalitarian socialist dictatorships, AND
2. libertarian anarcho-capitalists,
then your theory is nothing but completely garbled nonsense.

All
Every single line that the leftists have written is riddled with these kinds of basic errors: endless circularity, defending Marx while contradicting him, contradicting themselves, vapid presumptions of moral superiority. When challenged they go straight to ad hominem, and meaningless slogans like “narrative”, “ideology” and “right wing”.

And always the underlying assumption: that the solution to every problem is greater concentration of arbitrary power in central government to violate people’s liberty and property rights: ever the path to the bliss of socialism.

When charged with being totalitarians they deny it, but when you ask by what principle people have a right to their property as against government, they go quiet. So they’re lying.

No-one can be as dumb as these people are pretending.

Marxism spreads this kind of blatant stupidity and dishonesty – there’s no such thing as truth - throughout the humanities and academia, and from there throughout the State and society.

As soon as you pinkos resile from a conclusion in favour of full socialism, as soon as you admit that the only thing stopping socialism from descending into genocide and mass starvation, is the dreaded – gasp! - individual and economic liberty that you fear and loathe, then you are contradicting yourself and Marx, and you no longer have any justification for *any* of your socialist premises. Got that?

* * *

If the true function of the humanities were to develop and spread understanding of the human condition, obviously theory that’s demonstrably wrong – and therefore all political socialism - would have no place in it.

But if the humanities function so that a group of privileged sycophants can live at everyone else’s expense, by making themselves useful to the most powerful group in society – the State - propagating open-ended justifications for their arbitrary exercise, and abuse, of power – then that has perfect explaining power, doesn’t it?

JKJ: If the true function of the humanities were to develop and spread understanding of the human condition,

The Humanities is dominated by a select group of elite people that, for all their studies of people as far back as Plato, Aristotle & Aquinas. Maybe Seneca or even Plutarch's, Symposiacs, or John Locke's, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding, or his Letter on Tolerance (ND, 46) (Reading is one of my hobbies.) have produced no visible or practical difference to how the ordinary common people or even the Ruling elite think about the world . (I know, Bad English. One single sentence.)

So, what direct influence does the Humanities have on the Ruling Elite? How do the Humanities directly affect the Man in the Street?

The Ruling Elite do what their Masters tell them to do. Even the PM is governed by his Parties Hidden Faces.

The Ordinary Man in the Street doesn't even know what Humanities are.

The people who study Humanities think of themselves, Smugly, as Elite. (Well I think so anyway, but it is a view shared by many Ordinary Men in the Street.)

Tell me, What gifts do Humanities bring to the table of practical reality & of what benefit is there for me or people like me?

If the true function of the humanities were to develop and spread understanding of the human condition then it has failed.

Dearest Jardine
One of the key fathers of 21st Century Capitalism , Joseph Schumpeter in his seminal work "Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy" praises Marx for the unique manner in which he attempts to frame the economic players and forces within Capitalism, however erroneous, he considers Marx to have made a unique and important Contribution.

I doubt you would find a single Economist today who does not hold Schumpeter with a degree of reverence.

I am a great believer in self education but we should expect you to have a basic familiarity with at least the ideas which inform the status quo and which you at least appear to defend.

Condemning Marx is a perfectly reasonable position but it would aid to our understanding, enjoyment and even agency should you bring some added knowledge to the discussion and temper the all too familiar and dull stereo typical harangue. It would perhaps be therapeutic for you to remind yourself that the cold war is over, both the USSR and China have surrendered their Marxist ideology. When I think of the terrors you must have experienced prior to 1989 and the collapse of the USSR, I filled with the deepest compassion for your condition.

A little familiarity with economic theorist would, I believe be invigorating. Otherwise, your contributions however emotionally sincere, can hardly possess their intended force.

The Humanities and Social Sciences need to go back to basics. If they concentrate on helping students develop critical thinking skills, writing skills, analytical skills, argumentative skills, and research skills, then it will be of use. Unfortunately, students are exposed, and perhaps indoctrinated, with a bunch of perspectives; usually left-wing "progressive" ones. The mistake the Humanities and Social Sciences have made is to conflate "progressive" views - radical opposition to capitalism, white males, Europe/Australia/America - with critical thinking.

"however erroneous, he considers Marx to have made a unique and important Contribution"

A unique and important *erroneous* contribution?

Listen to what you're saying!

Spare us your appeal to absent authority and think for yourself for a change.

You are only confirmed what I have said: that Marxism has spread throughout the humanities the belief you keep displaying, that there's no such thing as truth, there's only "ideology"; and that it doesn't matter if your argument is illogical, self-contradictory and factually absurd, you are equally entitled to assert it as a basis for policy.

Marx was wrong and EVERY SINGLE LINK in his chain of reasoning was wrong. We have already established, and here are proving again, that you cannot defend a single proposition of Marx's theory.

But if I am wrong, what proposition can you defend? (See how I don't just circularly presuppose that I'm right and run away from disproofs, as you do, but show how I can be disproved and invite disproof?)

Answer the question: what proposition of Marx's, that forms a link in his chain of reasoning, is not wrong?

You don't seem to understand that if the foundational propositions are wrong, the whole theory is wrong, and it doesn't matter who or how many think otherwise.

You are trying to argue that, as economic theory, the Invisible Pink Unicorn, and Santa Claus, and magic pudding, and the law of marginal utility, all stand on an equal footing. They are all just different "narratives", different ways of "framing" a "discourse".

"I doubt you would find a single Economist today who does not hold Schumpeter with a degree of reverence."

It's not about "reverence" you fool.

Obviously since you're so confused that you think Hitler stands for personal and economic liberty, you are not in a position to talk down to me about economic ignorance.

JKJ apparently hasn't heard of the business cycle, of monopolisation, or the division of labour. It seems he believes alienation does not exist - and he probably doesn't even understand what it means. He probably sees class struggle as a destructive force - though it is a force that has brought about labour rights, progressive tax, the social wage and welfare state etc. But JKJ probably also believes these are all 'aberrations' from 'the perfect free market'. THAT IS the same 'perfect free market' than ends in monopolism, intense exploitation and inequality, homelessness, the working poor, a stratified health and education system that does not provide equal opportunity; and even sees human life as something that should be "subject to market force" with regards private health care...

Tristan says about JKJ:

"It seems he believes alienation does not exist - and he probably doesn't even understand what it means."

Well I believe in Alienation; and here is my favourite part:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKNc1nORBz0

So are they Marxists or not?

Well at least you have a sense of humour! :-)

Talking about Humanities. When I'm wrong my wife will fight me to the death, when I'm right she goes silent. Guess I must have been right. (-;

No, when I said to students that there is no wrong or right, I was merely urging students to express their ideas in line with their interpretation of the evidence rather than parroting my or other opinions.

Would I ever believe that a great society could be achieved by socialism or a faith in govt 100%? Absolutely not.

Dearest Jardine - in need of sedation

What Marx foresees is within this early capitalism, something in it which tends toward monopoly and oligopoly. It is Marx who first coins the term creative destructiveness. He praises capitalism for its amazing achievements in energising and transforming society for the better.

Marx does not submit any revolutionary blueprint. He has nothing to say of politics or how a communist society is to come about. His is an economic theory. His predictions ask what follows capitalism?

The creative destructiveness of capitalism, he predicts, will turn on itself.

Thus it is not a simple question of where is Marx right. He is wrong on almost all scores.

However, our current stage of capitalist evolution does appear on many levels to have past its zenith. Our older industries are today dominated by larger public companies with oligopoly powers: banks, media, supermarkets, miners, auto manufacturers. Capitalism is already very different. Today's shareholder is entirely disconnected from the company he owns. The entrepreneurial spirit is replaced with professional management teams, who are as likely to lobby government, buyout its competition, or runaway to another country as they are to simply improve their product/service.

The recent GFC has left economists of all persuasions shaking there heads at understanding how to make economics work. The current derivative market is 10 times the size of global gdp. The consequences of a major correction are immeasurable. The financial crisis are occurring regularly andthe next is always much larger then the previous. In recent years countries like Spain and Greece are experiencing a depression. Last time the world had a depression we had the Second World War.

In these circumstances, the question where to for capitalism is natural to ask. And this is the question Marx first raised. And whilst Marx may have been wrong in every other way, that question, is now being asked in every country. By asking that question, Marx's historical relevance remains and the ignorant ramblings of a rabble rouser like Andrew Bolt - exactly who is Andrew Bolt - means not a jot.

sorry chris, but your university life experience reflects a lack of academic rigour, i have been critical of your so called academic work on the HIP scheme, in that you apportioned responsibility to the funder of the program without any theoretical foundation for such a conclusion. Taking your hypothesis to its logical conclusion Banks who provide finance have a vicarious liability for the negative externalities for recipients non-compliance with the law.

Your paper rehashed newspaper articles and this lack of academic rigour was exposed when verifiable empirical evidence was produced that contradicted your central premise, you simply dismissed this because it contradicted newspaper reports of views of industry participants with vested interests.

You failed to understand the constitutional responsibilities of the differing levels of govt, making hay of warnings from state regulatory bodies who chose to do nothing themselves, the industry apart from South Australia was totally deregulated. The bodies making so called warnings were the very bodies tasked with protecting worker and community safety who sat on their hands

Slasher1, could you précis that into one short understandable paragraph, please. The gobble-gook a bit hard to take for us ordinary folk.

I notice that the Pseudo-elite have snubbed us ordinary folk since we pointed out their worth in the real world.

YEBIGA,

beautifully put. I'm with you 100% I did my doctoral research on Marx and post-Marxists, and while I take issue with their dogmatic materialism, Marx's prognoses on capitalism continue to prove correct.

Yebiga: Marx's prognoses on capitalism continue to prove correct.

Or your particular slant on Marx's prognoses on capitalism continue to prove correct. Selective part's of it may & parts of it may not. It all depends on your own particular leanings, doesn't it?

Jayb,
It's much easier to argue there's no such thing as truth than it is to establish the bona fides of anything, simply because the medium of all thinking, language, is cultural construct, complete with all its aporetic inconsistency. We can thus argue that everything is born of bias, as you suggest.
However I differ and have little time for slides into relativism.
I can point to areas of Marxist theory that smack more of doctrine than the historical or empirical evidence which was Marx and Engel's goal. On the other hand I can also acknowledge the logic of libertarian thinking, however confined. I even think there's room for compromise between the two poles, just as I think there's room for compromise between materialism and idealism. The whole problem is that neither side is willing to compromise on their principles, which have as much validity as truth. The challenge for all of us is to think critically about out "own particular leanings".

The learned Cohenite serves as exemplar; I image he'll be modifying his stance on AGW now that our best scientific minds say it's "unequivocal". Or will he hold fast to the "truth?"

Squeers

"Marx's prognoses on capitalism continue to prove correct..."

That's because you're using unfalsifiable propositions, at every step assuming Marx was right even though openly admitting that he was wrong, and completely confusing the most basic categories such as private and public, you fool.

You're a perfect example of a brainwashed Marxist - openly contradicting yourself while pretending to know how to redesign the entire world!

Yebiga
Ditto. Your alleged economic contributions of Marx are unfalsifiable generalities, merely assuming he was right in the first place, while you admit he was wrong - while your fail to distinguish between public and private ownership of the means of production. Durr. Not even Marx was that dumb.

You're both only proving my point. You admit that Marx's economic theory was erroneous in its central claims. For any person not completely stultified by an irrational belief system, that means you reject it and keep looking for theory that you keep *trying to falsify, but can't*.

But having admitted Marx's theory is critically wrong, you then want to insist that it's valuable as theory(!), and justifies the wholesale violation of people's rights to freedom and property without limit, even though this contradicts your own respective theories of the state *and* of Marx.

Complete stupidity, and this idea - that as soon as we come to human affairs, all of a sudden we enter into a logic-free zone - is exactly what Marxism spreads throughout the humanities and academe, media and government.

The reason academe is drenched in Marxoidism, is not because it has any insights to offer that are not halfwitted circularity. It's because Marxism gives an endless pretext and licence for the parasite statist class to attack and exploit the productive class. The pretext doesn't have to be true - as long as it pays Squeers to raise six children in suburban Australia while hypocritically arguing in favour of policies that kill millions of the world's poorest, on the ground of capitalism's supposed exploitative unsustainability!

You guys get the Craig Thompson prize for ethical theory.

Wonderful timing, Peter. Thank you for illustrating the point.
As I've had occasion to quote before, "a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds".

We are amazed at Squeers devastating riposte: an open embrace of the "there's no such thing as truth or logic" of the Marxist communist socialist fascists.

Then obviously there's no justification for any policy on the basis of your ideology is there Squeers?

Thus we have reached agreement: government funding of universities in general, and the humanities in particular, cannot be anything but above-market perks for a class of cheerleaders and high priests for the parasite political class, and should be abolished immediately - starting with Squeers' job!

Good to see you back Jardine
The trouble with that diatribe is that your mixing Marx with postmodernism. Now I have no problem with you hitting post modernism around the park. But postmodernists, strictly speaking, are opposed to Marxism. In fact, it is the advent of communist Marxist inspired USSR, together with the Facsists in Germany which inspires postmodernism to reject modernism and adopt a rejection of pretty much all thought and culture, including the Enlightenment.

It is however, true, that somehow many post modernists retain a soft spot for Marx and reserve the little reasoning they are capable of summoning predominantly against the Enlightenment. Although, when cornered try to slip out of that commitment as well.

So Jardine, I support entirely your antipathy towards postmodernism but Marx is not that. Indeed, there are no Marxists in our universities or even amongst our unionists. Those of us who still find value in Marx are essentially revealing a kind of nostalgia for a more innocent time. For however wrong headed Marxism may be, it is a far more honest ideal than the one we have now embraced.

Your confused rants are indicative of the dire state of the humanities in our culture. To confuse things as you do, and your disdain for any authority, any basis in reality , just as you implore me to think for myself, thoroughly defines our adolescent culture.

Your intent is pure and to be preserved, but to play chess you at least need to know how the pieces move

Squeers
I thank you for your kind words.
However, I must express my strong rejection against this relativist argument. This relativism seems to me central to the acceptance and success of postmodernism, post structuralism and all those literary theorists

Relativity is an old skeptical argument, which came to be resurrected on the back of Einsteins theories. I mention this because when considering time and the speed of light across infinite space, as Einstein does, relativity makes sense.

We on the other hand, us humans, all live on one planet. The human condition is but in small degrees different to apes. As for one human to the next, we are of one experience. Relativism is a gross exaggeration of petty fashionable differences. By exaggerating those small differences relativism cements our ancient bigotries and prevents progress. I know this is the exact opposite of what its proponents believe but unwittingly or not this is its product.

Whilst, we all may have a unique story, no human story is so unique that it cannot be. Understood by any other human. it is on the basis of our similarities that we are required to make truth decisions. And in time they may well be wrong, and. then we are tasked to make a new truth decision. Relativism surrenders this sacred human quest and regresses us into fear of error and the validation of stupidity.

Relativism will cite examples of defending the truth of the oppressed but forget that with the self same argument you justify the holocaust, school shootings or any outrage. For the shooter has their own truth too.

It is this illogical nonsense which has just destroyed the the humanities a why Jardine is not entirely wrong.

slasher, I take your opinion on board to counter others who have another opinion of HIP article. that is the nature of research, some agree and some disagree.

For what it is worth, I admit I am not that good a scholar, although I try hard, but there maybe plenty of humanities academics that are probably worse given their considerable bias.

As article suggests, I could have been much better with a more balanced education at university.

Yebiga honey

"The trouble with that diatribe is that your mixing Marx with postmodernism."

No I'm not, and nothing you have said has established that assertion whatsoever. I'm well aware of the differences; and also the influence of Marx on much postmodernism.

Much of it indeed is the kind of garbled fifth-hand Marxism on display in the humanities and in this thread, such as:
- employment is intrinsically exploitative, no need to think about this point
- capitalism makes the poor poorer, ditto
- socialism would make the workers and poor better off, ditto
- the state magically creates wealth from nothing at no cost by its compulsory redistributions, ditto
- ("society" = the nation-State, and the nation-State = "society")
- there are no legitimate limits to state power, ditto
- no need to think about any of these assertions, any critique proving them wrong is just unmasked as vicious bourgeois "ideology" (ad hom, ignoratio elenchi).

In fact, exactly what you and Squeers and Tristan et al keep assuming in every post over and over again! EVERY SINGLE POST every single one of you just assumes what's in issue. By calling my argument a "diatribe" you imply a) it's false, and b) you're right. But that's exactly what you've failed to establish by any reason except circularity and slogans like "exploitation" as if the mere mention of the word disposes all issues in your favour.

Even in the dark ages they knew about the existence of Aristotle. But you guys are a throwback to before logical thought was even cognized, before the possibility of rational theory was even distinguished from mere narrative. You guys are anti-theory.

"Those of us who still find value in Marx are essentially revealing a kind of nostalgia for a more innocent time."

You can say that again - unweaned infancy. Unfortunately when it's backed by industrial-scale lethal force, it's not so cute.

"For however wrong headed Marxism may be, it is a far more honest ideal than the one we have now embraced."

We're agreed he's wrong. You haven't established any reason why he's “more honest”: you’re back to assuming he’s right again, without reconciling that assumption with your own critique.

"Your confused rants ..."

Mere back-bite. You have not established any confusion on my part. I have on yours, which has gone unanswered. You might care to answer my numbered questions which prove you wrong?

"are indicative of the dire state of the humanities in our culture."

Mere back-bite. But now you agree there’s no reason for the government to fund the humanities.

"To confuse things as you do..."

Mere back-bite. I've shown reason why you're confused which you
a) agree with, and
b) can’t and don’t refute.

You haven't.

"and your disdain for any authority"

Misrepresentation; lie. You haven't shown any reason whatever for anyone to have authority to aggress against person or property.

All
Both Marxoidism and postmodernism teach that Tristans, Yebiga's, and Squeer’s et al's technique of the circular incantation of assumptions, slogans and jingles is economic theory; and has an equal claim as a basis for policy.

In reality, socialism and socialists are still causing genocide, only the victims are dispersed, and the deliberate economic ignorance of the socialists prevents them from cognizing it as the result of their own policies to destroy capital, the basis of human society above the level of subsistence.

That’s why government funding of the humanities should be abolished.

So far as universities provide consumption goods – the enjoyment of education etc. – it should be funded by those who get the benefit. And so far as they provide production goods – make society more productive etc. – still they should be funded by those who get the benefit.

The leftists are just arguing for middle-class welfare to promote their own interests, paid for by exploiting the workers – at the cost of spreading an anti-rational, anti-human doctrine that unlimited subjection to power is the basis of the good life.

YEBIGA,
perhaps I was too cryptic, but I did say, "I differ and have little time for slides into relativism".
I'm also impatient with post-modernism, but poststructuralism is the logical comeuppance of Marx's derivative consciousness.
Your point that "the human condition is but in small degrees different to apes" makes the point admirably, in that our verbalised truth claims then logically have no greater validity or extension than the behavioural logic and instincts of our cousins. If we insist on some a priori justification we must account for it, thus even insistent Marxists like Zizek (who calls Marx an Aristotlean)seeks an (anti)foundation in the aporia of subjectivity and the illusions of jouissance.
Of course speaking like this only begets ridicule from some of the idiots here who dismiss as verbosity anything they don't understand.
While I sympathise with your impatience for postmodernism (and I'm critical of it too in as much as it amounts to a mode of prevarication and rationalisation), it is the very dogmatism of Marxist materialism, historicism, structuralism etc. which has incited philosophical postmodernism.

JKJ, the fact that you cleave so obstinately to free market logic as humanity's saviour, appointing capitalist economics a devastating evolutionary role, explains your hatred of the humanities but does nothing to validate its rightness. It is in fact anti-humanism in practice, rather than theory (which is so often the preoccupation of marxists).
I would, and have already suggested (and canvassed elsewhere) propose definite humanitarian policies, which don't rely on dogmatism from left or right.
Always a pleasure..

As a Layman to the Humanities. I would like to thank you all for the last 3 pages especially (JKJ/CL/YEBIGA/Tristan/Squeers.) It has shown me what your particular discipline is about. It's, "Much Ado About Nothing."

Why should the Taxpayer have to pay for this nonsense? This type of study is more attuned to an old British style "Gentleman's Club." An easy chair, a cigar & a glass of Cognac & the Jeeves the Butler.

Show me anywhere where your studies have benefited the World.

YEBIGA: Relativism will cite examples of defending the truth of the oppressed but forget that with the self same argument you justify the holocaust, school shootings or any outrage. For the shooter has their own truth too.

Typical deflective argument yebiga. Means nothing.

JKJ: In fact, exactly what you and Squeers and Tristan et al keep assuming in every post over and over again! EVERY SINGLE POST every single one of you just assumes what's in issue. By calling my argument a "diatribe" you imply a) it's false, and b) you're right. But that's exactly what you've failed to establish by any reason except circularity and slogans like "exploitation" as if the mere mention of the word disposes all issues in your favour.

As I said, circular argument without any meanings. Old Mens Club stuff.

JKJ: So far as universities provide consumption goods – the enjoyment of education etc. – it should be funded by those who get the benefit.
True. Old Men.

JKJ: And so far as they provide production goods – make society more productive etc. – still they should be funded by those who get the benefit.

What benifit does the study of Humanities, other than your enjoyment of education provide to the Masses. So far there is nothing but argumentative confusion here.

JKJ: Thus we have reached agreement: government funding of universities in general, and the humanities in particular, cannot be anything but above-market perks for a class of cheerleaders and high priests for the parasite political class, and should be abolished immediately.

Sounds like a plan.

there may be substantial cuts for the humanities in coming years, some justified.

But I think public funding universities, including for humanities, will be around for a long time yet.

Abolishing public funding for the humanities would be a minority view, but good luck to those advocating it. I defend their right to do so, but doubt they will ever win the day.

But do you guys really want public servants and business managers to have no exposure to the humanities? Do you really want them all to adhere to the economic orthodoxy of the day?

CL: But do you guys really want public servants and business managers to have no exposure to the humanities?

Short answer. Yes. The Humanities are only good for Professional Students & old men to argue about in the Winter of their life. What I see of the Public Service in Government now is many senior PS Managers who do nothing but get paid to stuff up. (Yes Minister) So much for their knowledge of Marx, Engels, Burke, etc,. Just watching the PS at the Senate Enquiries is enough to make a grown man cry.

CL: Do you really want them all to adhere to the economic orthodoxy of the day?

Sounds like a plan. In the 21st. Century change happens every few years. Governments have to be adaptable not stuck in some 200 year old theory ruts, which no one can agree on anyway. (as shown by the present examples on OLO.)

As it is now what's happening to the Economy depends on who is in Government & who is making large donations (PC for bribes) to whom.

Nothing to do with airy fairy 200 year old theories. I think Humanities people give themselves an air of imagined importance way beyond their relevance.

ok, so you have suggested that humanities and public servants are useless.

Who then would you rely on to run a liberal democracy? Business executives alone, or those sponsored by business?
Who?

Also, who would you read. Just Andrew Bolt? Quadrant?

Just interested in your sources of wisdom. After all, business and Quadrant also employ and publish humanities scholars.

For example,

The Academy warmly congratulates Professor David Walker FASSA FAHA, who has been named the inaugural BHP Billiton Chair of Australian Studies at Peking University. The new Chair will foster engagement with Chinese researchers, students, government and the community; raise the profile of studies of Australian society, history and culture; and provide academic leadership to a network of more than 30 Australian Studies Centres in Chinese universities.

Professor Walker is currently Chair of Australian Studies at Deakin University and Visiting Professor in the School of Foreign Studies, Renmin University, Beijing. He has extensive experience in the development of Australian Studies programmes in PRChina, India, Japan and Indonesia. He has written extensively on Australian social and cultural history and is the author of Anxious Nation: Australia and the Rise of Asia, 1850-1939, UQP, 1999, winner of the Ernest Scott prize for History in 2001.

http://www.humanities.org.au/News/News/tabid/109/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1719/David-Walker-appointed-BHP-Billiton-Chair-of-Australian-Studies-at-Peking-University.aspx

Al I am saying is that in the real world, even big business gives importance to the humanities.

I doubt whether a healthy and vibrant liberal democracy would exist without a humanities contribution, albeit I don't believe that universities, with a left wing bias, should be the only source of contribution.

Squeers says:

"It's much easier to argue there's no such thing as truth than it is to establish the bona fides of anything, simply because the medium of all thinking, language, is cultural construct, complete with all its aporetic inconsistency. We can thus argue that everything is born of bias, as you suggest. However I differ and have little time for slides into relativism."

Well good for you Squeers; both this sort of relativism which seeps from the egregious garbage tip of Foucault and its converse the Whorf-Sapir hypothesis ignore the objective reality.

Unfortunately Marx is also conflicted and demonstrates the chasm between fine theory and reality. Marx will always be subverted by tyrants and unlike the predicted so called inevitable decline of capitalism, will always degenerate to a dictatorship.

It is also regrettable that you equate Marxism which is as true as any Utopian schemata with the failed idea of AGW which is as testable as any scientific 'theory' and has been repudiated by overwhelming actual evidence against it. Although on second thought since Marxism has been tested many times with always catastrophic results the comparison between Marxism and AGW is apt.

But anyway as long as examples of crony capitalism, which really is a by product of failed Marxism, are wrongly used to show capitalism's inevitable decline this conversation will be meaningless.

CL: All I am saying is that in the real world, even big business gives importance to the humanities.
CL.: The Academy warmly congratulates Professor David Walker FASSA FAHA, who has been named the inaugural BHP Billiton Chair of Australian Studies at Peking University.

So BHP Billiton is paying Walkers Salary. Do you think BHP Billiton hasn't given Walker a Capitalist agenda? Like the Guest Speaker at my son's Graduation. He was put up as the epitome of what great business people should be & he was responsible for Three Companies going broke one after the other. Of Course all the CEO's etc got a good pay out. ;-)

CL.: He has written extensively on Australian social and cultural history and is the author of Anxious Nation: Australia and the Rise of Asia, 1850-1939,

So he has written a few books based on other books he has studied & written by authors who studied other old out of date books, ad infinitem. Does or has anybody written anything original in the last 20 years that would pertain to a highly mobile 21st. Century. I don't think so & if they did it would be shouted down by the present intelligencia anyway. We won't have any rocking the boat.

CL.: I doubt whether a healthy and vibrant liberal democracy would exist without a humanities contribution.

I would say that the humanities inteligencia is one of the groups responsible for the mess the World is in at present. You are claiming responsibility for the views of Governments throughout the World. The World Governments are failures & are JUST holding together economically, therefore your discipline must accept responsibility for the mess.

Indeed Marx's influence in the humanities was so profound that many people considered conservative or favourable to capitalism, hold to key assumptions in Marx's orthodoxy, such as Keynes's view that the business cycle originates in unregulated capitalism - (conveniently ignoring government's monopoly of money and credit) - and Milton Friedman's idea that government has some kind of presumptive competence to economize the supply of money!

In all honesty, I don't believe Jayb or Jardine are even remotely genuine.
Why do we need the humanities? I don't know, why do we need government? Why do we need laws?

To ask questions like those above requires a severe level of ignorance or sedation.

Well, lets consider why we need any number of courses.
What exactly does a marketing student learn? What does a business course give you?
There is a degree now designed for financial planning, which for $10,000 you can complete in a couple of weeks through private trainer? I have worked with loads of IT techs who have gone on to obtain MBAs - you would not permit a single one of them to run your milkbar.

These business courses are out of date by the time they are designed. They don't teach anything but indoctrination, which most any old Jardine could pick up within days of starting a new job.

To question the validity of studying the humanities is to question the value of being human. It reveals a mind entirely entranced by the prevailing valueless culture.

Tell me Jardine and or Jayb
What if anything do you value? You ask me to think for myself, well here is your chance, oh brave one.
What do you value. - I can't wait - take some time to provide something you won't regret typing.

Squeers
"the fact that you cleave so obstinately to free market logic as humanity's saviour"

that assumes (three times) that you're right in the first place without any justification why = stupidity

"appointing capitalist economics a devastating evolutionary role"

meaningless jargon, assuming you're right in the first place = stupidity

"explains your hatred"

mind-reading, misrepresentation, bitter ad hom, fallacy = stupidity

"... of the humanities"

completely confuses private with public ownership of the means of production - and this guy's got a PhD in Marxism! - stupidity

"but does nothing to validate its rightness"

ignores the reasons I have just given, does not answer them, gives no reason in favour of his own argument, just assumes he's right without any reason = stupidity

"It is in fact anti-humanism in practice"

a mere insult, no reason given, no connection to the argument or issues, assumes he's right = stupidity

* * *

Remember under all this jargon and haughty insult, what Squeers is saying is it's "anti-human" for the workers to be permitted by their political overlords to keep what they have earnt by their work. They should be forced by threats of imprisonment to pay for Squeers to learn and teach that sh!t at their expense. That's what he's arguing.

"I would, and have already suggested (and canvassed elsewhere) propose definite humanitarian policies, which don't rely on dogmatism from left or right."

You are lying. You have been specifically asked what form of government and what form of policies, and you have gone quite, run away, and re-appeared running the same bitter hateful incoherent slogans.

Squeers is showing what a PhD in the humanities from Australian universities does. There. Are you satisfied now that the workers should be forced to pay for that amazing intellectual standard and benefit to society?

It's nauseating hypocrisy.

Chris
If people don't want it, why should they be forced to pay for it?

All
You see, what Squeers and Chris and other academics have learnt, is that you can get paid to spew out a stream of slogans and jingles and illogical assumptions. The work is easy, it’s clean, there’s no heavy lifting, no-one would voluntarily pay them to do it. And what they say doesn’t have to be true, or make any logical sense at all, in fact it can be known to be blatantly incorrect, and anti-rational and anti-human and even positively genocidal, like killing millions of people in the third world so conceited academics can feel good about alleged global temperatures.

But so long as the slogans, jingles and assumptions, insult and abuse the very idea of liberty and property, so long as they preach open-ended justifications of unlimited government power, the State has use for them. This is because the state is itself a monopoly of the violation of liberty and property. To justify the protection racket, they need high priests to preach that Pharaoh can do no wrong, that He makes the rivers to flow.

Libertarians teach that that's all bullsh!t, so obviously the State doesn't want to propagate that! That's why Marxoidism infests academe: it's teaches uncritical hypocritical lying self-contradictory State-worship.

Now if you go back and read everything that has been said by the leftists in this thread, you’ll see that perfectly describes what they’re doing.

For example, Tristan, Chris and Squeers have all argued, or rather assumed, that the humanities *wouldn’t exist* if it wasn’t for government. They are just crawling up the arse of their political masters, simple as that.

Of course, if the socialists were about human liberation, why would they all be preaching that the ordinary people have no right to the fruits of their labour but what is left over after their political overlord class have taken as much as they want, and spent it on propaganda and lies?

The fact these guys are talking hypocritical bullsh!t, and the fact they are so passionately defending, not “the humanities”, but GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF the humanities is not some kind of strange coincidence.

JKJ,
you're a fundamentalist libertarian whose plan for humanity finds its closest analogy in evolution, where apex predation is the norm and a neofeudalist dystopia emerges. If that isn't anti-humanism I don't know what is.
I've engaged with you at length before and don't intend to repeat the folly; your doctrine is impervious to argument.

Squeers
Jouissance - is there any chance Jardine or Jayb will at least google the word?
For in their defence of the prevailing vacuity, I have hopes that this one word offers them some hope of self awareness of their pitiful condition.

Jouissance - how well it depicts their emotional adolescent triumphalism. They need read nothing, just sit at their screens, trousers at the ankles, one hand on the keyboard, and a repeated masturbatory satisfaction is assured.

Only ask them to articulate what they themselves value and they are struck dumb.
For in truth Jouissance does not readily permit of serious self reflection, it requires incensant masturbation to keep it at bay.

Instant self gratification, celebrity, sports, status and insatiable consumption - these are the values they cannot articulate. To avoid confronting their own vacuity they will apply any and every desperate diversion.

It is precisely this unreflectiveness which the humanities can and do expose and entirely explains their enmity. For if they were to really look in the mirror, they are in fear of turning to pillars of stone.

They're caught in the matrix.

Your entire post is ridicules. You know what they say about Goannas don't you.

Jouissance, "Oh! It hurts so good." Good'n nuff f'r ya. See, I've got a sense of humour. ;-)

Now back to you previous post as this one is not worthy of an answer or retort.

YEBIGA: I don't believe Jayb or Jardine are even remotely genuine.

Oh yes I am.

YEBIGA: Why do we need the humanities? I don't know, why do we need government? Why do we need laws?

Are you suggesting that Humanities are up there with Government & Law making. I don't think so. Humanities is a "Snobs Hobby." For people who would otherwise be useless at anything else, like tying shoelaces. As you mentioned jouissance, "My Humanities feel so good it hurts." See, & it does have a relationship with Goannas.

YEBIGA: To ask questions like those above requires a severe level of ignorance or sedation.

Quite the opposite, intelligence (134, consistent over 50 years) & awareness. I know, 134 isn't all that great but it is still well above the average.

YEBIGA: What exactly does a marketing student learn?

Easy, how to lie to people & make it sound good & how to prey on peoples fear.

YEBIGA: What does a business course give you?

Nothing, As my old CEO said, "We don't use that stuff because we have a business to run." Aah... Political Correctness & how to suck up to the boss & pass the buck.

YEBIGA: These business courses are out of date by the time they are designed. They don't teach anything but indoctrination,

Yep! I agree with you there. Includes Humanities by some hundreds of years.
cont

cont
YEBIGA: To question the validity of studying the humanities is to question the value of being human.

The value of being a Goanna. You can use both hands.

YEBIGA: It reveals a mind entirely entranced by the prevailing valueless culture.

What studying the Humanities reveals a mind entirely entranced by the prevailing valueless culture? What an utter load of crap. It reveals a mind entranced with studying outmodes ideas, picking one that reflects your own values & defending its value the exclusion of all others.

YEBIGA: What if anything do you value?

People that can actually produce something tangible.
People that can look at & solve a problem, or offer a number of "prac table & workable" solutions.
Political Incorrectness.

YEBIGA : take some time to provide something you won't regret typing.

The Meercat Solution, "Didn't even have to think about it,"

Yebiga
“What if anything do you value?”

I value people’s freedom to live their life as they please without being subjected to force or threats of anyone else.

I value a society of maximum peace and freedom, minimal force and threats, no fraud.

Freedom has its legitimate limits: it doesn’t means freedom to aggress against person or property.

A right means what you are justified in using force to defend. There’s no justification in using force or threats to aggress against the person or property of others.

This means the only justification of force or threats against person or property is to stop people using aggression or fraud to get what they want. That’s why I am not a pacifist.

I don’t care who forcefully stops aggression or fraud, and that’s why I’m not an anarchist.

I recognise that the good things in life and society – friends, family, food, clothing, shelter, the arts, learning, transport, communications, entertainment - come overwhelmingly from people’s voluntary interactions, and not from bashing people, or physically seizing people and locking them in prison, or threatening to.

Government means the group directing the State, and the State is by definition that group in society who claim a legal monopoly of the use of force or threats against person or property.

All the democracies originate from pre-existing monarchies, and all the monarchies originate from pre-existing armed gangs. The State is a coercion-based monopoly of coercion. Once the foundational monopoly is established – force – the State can demand obedience based on threats (“jurisdiction”), extort tribute (“taxation”), take over the commanding heights of society such as roads, rivers, money, schools etc, and hand out favours to its dependants and privileges to its thugs, sycophants and cheerleaders.

Built on the ethical double standard “I can hit you, but you can’t hit me”, the State can openly carry on what itself declares to be criminal behaviour for anyone else. Hence the endless double standards: extortion/”fiscal policy”, counterfeiting/”monetary policy”, murder/”execution”, mass murder/ “defence policy”, child abduction/”assumption of care” and so on.

Being a legal monopoly of aggression and fraud, the State offers the ability to live at others’ expense by force and fraud, *which is illegal in market transactions*. Thus it naturally attracts parasitic and predatory behaviour. (And thus Squeers has it back-the-front in accusing libertarianism of “predation”. Aggression is what libertarianism opposes by definition, it’s what Squeers is arguing in favour of, and notice he gave no reason for his dishonest allegation?)

In the final analysis, all that government has on offer is the use or threat of force. That’s it. Government does not add any knowledge or resources or selflessness or capacity that are not already available in society, and obtainable by consensual transactions if people really want either to have or to provide them.

The claims of the statists to justify aggression over and above what is necessary to defend liberty and property are ethically and economically FALSE. The use of force or fraud does not make society
a) fairer, or
b) more productive,
and ALL the arguments of the statists to that effect are wrong.

This is not some kind of strange coincidence. The State has a permanent need for legitimation, because of its double standard that extortion and fraud are serious crimes for everyone else, but supposedly create public welfare when done by the State.

The State forms a natural symbiosis with the intellectuals, because the market rate for their services is low, precisely because few people would *voluntarily* pay much for the services of, say, a professor of Marxism or postmodern deconstructionism. The intellectual class prostitute themselves by providing justification for the State. For example “economists” teach that the economic disorder spread by the State’s skimming manipulation of the supply of money and credit is caused by ‘unregulated capitalism’, even though the supply of money, the price of credit, and the licensing of banking activities, are all government monopolies. “Educators” indoctrinate children with assumptions that the State is a kind of economic selfless Santa Claus. And so on.

The intelligentsia function to promote economic ignorance, such as Squeers latest offering: that freedom from aggression against person and property is “predation” and “anti-human”.

It’s true that the state provides benefits, but so does burning your furniture. Above the level of repelling aggression, the belief that the State provides *net* benefits always falls back to mere economic illiteracy. All arguments for the state above the minimum necessary to defend person and property, without exception, consist of the simple illogic of valuing a quantity on one side of an equation, and not accounting for it on the other: an irrational, superstitious, mid-brain, belief that the State magically creates benefits out of nothing.

That’s all you’re doing.

That’s why, as we have seen, all your arguments rely on the bald assumption that the State provides net benefits, and when challenged, merely endlessly repeating the assumption, and so on, larding your fallacy with insults, misrepresentations of anarchism and nihilism, and how-dare-you-question-authority type argument. That’s it. That’s all you’ve got.

In all our arguments, you’re arguing for socialism – on the basis of the nation-state, in other words, national socialism. When asked what are the legitimate limits of government, you have no answer, because you don’t believe in them or can’t identify them. Self-identifying “progressives” and “centre-left” are just, economically speaking, totalitarian fascists properly so-called.

That’s why, when I advocate abolishing GOVERNMENT FUNDING OF the humanities, you automatically think that means abolishing THE HUMANITIES.

That’s because like Mussolini, you believe:
“…[The] only liberty which can a real thing [is] the liberty of the State and of the individual within the State. Therefore, for the Fascist, everything is the State, and nothing human or spiritual exists, much less has value outside the State.”

That’s why, when someone mentions the value of freedom, your eyes glaze over, your head spins on its axis, smoke comes out your ears, and you squark “masturbation!” “ideology!” “predation!” “narrative!” “postmodernism!” “adolescent triumphalism!”

But human freedom remains morally and pragmatically superior to coercive central planning every time, which is why, unlike you, I openly invite disproofs and get nothing but endless fallacies, lies and abuse in return.

Squeers
You are lying. You have been repeatedly asked to make specific alternative government or policy proposals, and you have ONLY EVER indulged the kindergarten-level tactics I have just described.

All
What better argument for the abolition of state funding of the humanities could you want than the display of abusive intellectual and moral infantilism put on by its advocates here?

Translated into real policy, these legions of moronic marxoids destroy Australian industry, promote every kind of corruption and predation on the productive classes, and kill huge numbers of people in the world ever year – the opposite of the values of a liberal democracy.

Jardine
After reading your latest posts, I will concede your sincerity and respond accordingly.

A few years ago, after following the US presidential elections I became Interested in the Ron Paul campaign, which naturally led me to read quite a bit about libertarianism: Hayek, Mises, etc. Let me say, as far as your intent is concerned I am not going to argue.

As for my personal value system, it is entirely informed by a faith in the enlightenment values which under pin the best of what is our constitution and is probably best epitomised by the US constitution: freedom of speech, protection of individual rights, separation of powers, individual liberty, freedom of religion, etc. Although,, as good and powerful as that constitution may, the US has increasingly betrayed it.

I also believe, fundamentally, that for the enlightenment t to occur and thus for these constitutions to occur, it was essential that the body of literature from Ancient Greece to the present day is not only be preserved but is studied and added to.. This literature which details the best of human achievement is the humanities.

But no matter how much I came to agree with libertarianism, I could not escape certain nagging doubts about whether it was past its use by date? Permit me to reiterate, Libertarianism to me, is the free interchange of dynamic forces, it is the pure honest foundation which has empowered anything of any value in every country. Even within a communist country / empire like the USSR, to function and meet the essential needs of its citizenry some level of the libertarian idea needed to exist - for central planning simply can't do the job.

But the times they are a changing. We discussed something like this previously on another thread. Your looking for the enemy of libertarianism in the wrong place. The over educated post modernist long ago gave up any agency. The true enemy to libertarianism and even capitalism is neither the government, Marx, the humanities nor postmodernists - the enemy is the mega oligopoly. Your angst is directed at symptoms not causes.

Jardine, not that I care that you lump me as a socialist, and defender of the state, but

I do not hold the belief that the humanities must be funded by govt; I merely point out it is and probably will be for a long time. Hence, this article was about the bias now.

I have long urged a humanities field that includes non-govt sources. In fact, I am working on an academic article now to show why the centre-right think-tanks are important, especially because of the bias. I would actually like such think-tanks to provide academic articles to improve the standard.

In an ideal world, I also have much more faith in the non-govt sector and the role of the individual and community.

But, I, myself, cannot describe politics as a libertarian (albeit this as also a broad church), always bagging the state as the culprit.

Change comes slowly, and that is why I recognise the strengths and weaknesses of both sides of politics, and various theoretical positions, but describe policy change through the interaction between with key players.

The fact that I now support the coalition at the federal level(since 2010), and realise the flaws of statism, proves that I do try to think about the issues. As I said, i take most comments from OLO on board, even your insults.

But, say with my writing of a book on the Abbott govt's first term, I go into the task with an open mind. I hope it succeeds, but can only describe the journey and wait for the results that results from societal interaction. In other words, I try to take my own views and values out of it

Also, my pitiful role in the humanities comes from my own time as I am not presently part of universities, albeit I would probably take future work should the opportunity arise. We all need to work.

While my efforts on OLO are rightfully criticised by different people at times, every one of the OLO articles was produced in my own time. In fact, various academics have told me they count for nothing, given their love affair with supposed excellent and superior academic articles.

Yes, it is good to hear you support the Humanities, although without govt funding. I already thought you held such a view.

I have no problem with that possibility, but it is a question for society and debate, a bit like funding for the ABC.

My own belief is that involvement and competition between all key societal players in terms of academic articles will lift the standard immensely.

I got published after 20 years experience as a labourer, so I assume there are much better educated and smarter people in society and business that could do a better job.

JKJ, the word “freedom” for you is an empty slogan. As if you understood it qualitatively, as if freedom might spontaneously emerge once government is abolished. You’re not an anarchist you say, on the other hand you, “don’t care who forcefully stops aggression or fraud”—as if a latter-day Robin Hood might save the day. Your vision is romantic and utopian, far more so than Marx, who apropos Feudalism acknowledged, “the fact that it is always the bad side that in the end triumphs over the good side”. Your neo-Feudalism would regress humanity to the viciousness that preceded the bourgeois era.
What you fail to mention is the rule of law (however compromised), which transcends “pre-existing monarchies” and “monopol[ies] of the use of force”. You would put Marx on his head by making private property the basis of civil society—as if man can own the reality which owns him, or secure this most prized illusion. Private property, beyond what is reasonable, in a world of finite resources, is a luxury as well as a conceit.
Yet Marx’s egalitarian vision is too fantastic from our present perspective—and our planet could never go the distance. My solution, in the interim, elegant in its simplicity, is a wealth and assets cap, imposed on every individual from the top down; enough private property to indulge a modest illusion and enough capital to maintain it; wages suspended upon reaching the limit, which can only be maintained. It would mean the end of most luxury goods and services, of entrepreneurship (and the birth of imagination, creativity and invention for their own sakes), and indeed the magic pudding (capitalism) which we delude ourselves can never run out. Surplus capital would be maintained as surplus, with no incentive to go on piling it up provisioning society and providing its security. Employment too would be plentiful as those who reach their limit drop out. While those going up are incentivised by equally modest welfare.
Maintenance and corruption prevention are as always the biggest problem.
But I won’t go on, as I’m doomed to be ridiculed anyway..

Jardine
Watching the 2012 US Republican Party Presidential Debates, the fear of and bias against Ron Paul by his opponents and both by CNN and FOXNews was palpable. I have no doubt had he received an even hand from the MSM he would have won the Republican pre selection, comfortably.

What is clear to me is that a libertarian Ron Paul presidency is anathema to the prevailing oligopolies. Had he somehow won pre selection, the resources of the mega rich US corporates would be thrown behind Obama. Had he overcome even that hurdle, he would be assassinated. Libertarian policies are not minor changes, they are disruptive and transformative. They are a set of beliefs which remain true to the ideals of free enterprise and whilst it directly threatens government jobs, it no less threatens oligopolies and their market dominance - not to mention the very special position currently enjoyed by Banks.

I see no possibility for libertarianism to gain power and implement its program. Rather, I see the current system merely cherry picking parts of the program to enable its own agenda and with the objective of inevitably discrediting libertarianism.

Sadly, barring some global catastrophe, we are stuck with big and probably even bigger oligopolies. And as I have said elsewhere, I see very little difference between the workings of a CBA, BHP, News limited or a Coles to that of a Government Department. One way of looking at it is that What a single politburo in the USSR failed to achieve, is now increasingly done by the boards of our Public Companies.

The humanities you rail against is not a humanities worthy of the name, as it has deliberately been eviscerated into its current ridiculous impotence. It fills me with the greatest sadness. Aside from the pure Sciences our universities are there now purely to indoctrinate and prepare graduates for corporate life. There is even no argument about this.

Jardine it appears you are the optimist, where as I see the options available to us as all dystopian varieties of Mega Business and Mega Government.

Yebiga, Chris, Squeers
The problem is that while you think you stand for enlightenment and humane values and human freedom, in reality, you keep advocating open-ended government attacks on people’s liberties and property based on mere power, without any principle to limit them, because that’s what the issue always is between us.

And the reason you’re doing that, is in turn because you have imbibed so much marxoid doctrine in the academy that you’re not even aware of it, or you think its nostrums are just part of the unquestionable fabric of reality, such as the marxoid belief that capitalism is intrinsically exploitative, or that “monopolisation” (no definition) is intrinsically bad, or the assumption (no explanation) that the state is some kind of benevolent institution with competence to allocate scarce resources to their most valued ends.

So you’re actually deep in Marxism and all its totalitarian tendencies without realising it, or erroneously thinking your theory is ethically and economically superior although based on Marxist premises that you yourself disclaim.

Yebiga
“naturally led me to read quite a bit about libertarianism: Hayek, Mises”

Did you read any original works by Mises or Hayek? Or did you read *about* them second-hand by non-libertarians?

“freedom of speech, protection of individual rights, separation of powers, individual liberty, freedom of religion, etc.”

These are libertarian values. The only reason we have them is because libertarians in times past opposed all the arguments you have been opposing to mine.

“the US has increasingly betrayed [those standards].”

Based on arguments in favour of arbitrary power that you have been advocating.

“But the times they are a changing.”

The times are always changing.

That fact doesn’t mean that the truths which are common ground between us, cease to be truths, and that all of a sudden coercive central planning is morally or pragmatically superior.

“Your looking for the enemy of libertarianism in the wrong place.”

No I’m not. Anyone advocating the violent overriding of liberty is an enemy of libertarianism, and the worst in our society are the self-preening self-called “progressives”, for the reason I gave in my first two paragraphs of this post.

“The over educated post modernist long ago gave up any agency.”

What do you mean by “agency”?

“The true enemy to libertarianism and even capitalism is neither the government, Marx, the humanities nor postmodernists –“

The true enemy to liberty is anyone advocating force or threats against consensual peaceable activities, of which by far the wost offenders are the government and the marxoid postmodernists and green Nazis.

“the enemy is the mega oligopoly. Your angst is directed at symptoms not causes.”

*Nothing* you have said has established either proposition; nor given any reason for state funding of the humanities; nor reflected how that’s causing the problems that you criticise in the humanities.

Notice you haven’t
a) defined “mega oligopoly”
b) explained why it’s bad
c) distinguished what’s bad about it, from things you concede good and necessary in social and economic life in general, and
d) given any reason why it’s “the enemy” of liberty, if it’s the outcome of voluntary transactions and mutual benefit, nor
e) given any reason why the mega monopoly of government would be any solution.

Again, without being aware of it, and thinking you stand for the opposite, you’re making Marxist doctrine the basis of your political philosophy.

But go back to the Greeks. If you do nothing more than apply the principles of logic to what you and others are saying, the very least benefit, is entitle you to conclude something’s wrong if an argument rests on self-contradiction. Okay? Fair enough?

We have seen here that none of those who claim the salvageability of Marx’s theory can defend it without relying on the parts of the Marx’s theory that they themselves concede to be erroneous http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16050&page=0

“Oligopoly” is just another marxoid bogeyman, as is “monopolisation”. Obviously if you can’t sustain your argument without falling back to Marxist premises that you concede are wrong, then you’re contradicting yourself in arguing that oligopoly is the enemy of liberty.

Tell you what. If you will start a thread explaining the case against “mega oligopoly”, taking care to answer my five questions a) to e) above, I’ll explain why it’s not a problem.

Or alternatively, please take the time to read Rothbard’s detailed exegesis here:
http://mises.org/books/mespm.pdf
Chapter 10 – Monopoly and Competition – page 629.

“I see no possibility for libertarianism to gain power and implement its program.”

Well there was a time when people could see no possibility for the abolition of slavery. Then within quite a short time – (thanks to those who never ceased arguing the case for liberty ahem!) - it was abolished throughout most of the world – except the socialists keep arguing it’s good to the extent labour is coerced by the state, which is what you’re defending here!

In practice, the possibilities for the progress of liberty depend on how many people *understand* that the arguments of the statists are false. So we can never advance that possibility by acquiescing in slavery or being silent.

But even if we knew definitely that murder or rape could never be gotten rid of, that would not excuse them, and so I choose to put forward the arguments for liberty regardless.

“Rather, I see the current system merely cherry picking parts of the program to enable its own agenda and with the objective of inevitably discrediting libertarianism.”

No doubt you are right, as concerns the non-libertarian parties. But again, that is no reason to acquiesce, still less to add one’s voice to theirs.

“The humanities you rail against is not a humanities worthy of the name, as it has deliberately been eviscerated into its current ridiculous impotence.”

Well that’s no reason to to argue in favour of state funding of the humanities, or ignore the state's role in prostituting them, is it?

“Jardine it appears you are the optimist, where as I see the options available to us as all dystopian varieties of Mega Business and Mega Government.”

Then you’ll be pleased to know that there is a better alternative, and that the reason you were not aware of it, is because of fundamental errors of economic theory that JUST HAPPEN to have been inculcated in you by state-funded humanities faculties drenched in Marxism and marxoid postmodernism.

Pray answer Rothbard’s argument.

Squeers
It’s very easy to demolish your kindergarten-level arguments.

But obviously there’s no point discussing it unless you concede from the outset that
a) self-contradiction invalidates your argument
b) your argument can’t take the form of assuming you are right in the first place, and answering any challenge by repeating the assumption
c) failing to distinguish between private and public ownership of the means of production invalidates your argument.

Do you concede these or not?

Ok Jardine
Lets handle one thing at time,
Freedom of expression through media diversity and ownership is a foundational belief of the enlightenment values. It is. Enshrined in the US constitution and was likewise protected in our legislature.

Over the last 40 years, here and abroad, diversity and ownership has shrunk. Laws to protect from any single entity owning a newspaper and a TV network in the one Capital City here - revoked.

Now as the great defender of libertarian principles why does this not offend you?
What completely amazes me about you Jardine, is that you are smart enough to see the vacuity in our current humanities but this far more fundamental force the media and its increasing narrow inanity appears to escape your perception.

The narrative you present, and I know you love that word, is of someone entirely manipulated by the media. In other words, you think what Murdoch wants you to think. For you to target your angst at the powerless and impotent teachers, Marxists, lefties - what is wrong with you man.?

On one side, there is a media owned by billionaires daily bitching about penalty rates, welfare cheats, the unemployed. This same side which called for the selling off of every public asset. The same people who casualised us, made us contractors. Man everything they wanted has been Done. This is not the land of the long weekend anymore, office workers are working 60 hr weeks not 40 or 36. The unions have been marginalised and eviscerated, strikes are illegal.

And you are pissed at Marxists!

Ok - let me get this right, we sack 300 odd humanities professors, sell off the ABC and then what - freedom? Diversity will just spring up.

You seem to think that the mirage, the noise of post modern nonsense, political correctness, identity politics, multiculturalism is running this country. I have doubted your sincerity because it staggers me, you are clearly mentally capable but this is the Andrew Bolt view of the world, the shock jocks, the Murdoch and his advertisers agenda

Hi Chris Lewis,

I agree with much of your thoughts. Yet I disagree with your belief that "the left as those who strive for a fairer society without adequate regard for the complexities that may complicate or explain policy possibilities or limitations".

Basically you say that the LEFT are good people with good natures and intentions but perhaps too idealistic to be practical.

However I am one who has thought much about this issue, deep and wide, and I am of the belief that the LEFT can be either gullible young people naïve and uneducated who have "Herd/Pack mentality" OR older more seasoned people who can be quite direct and active in their behaviour which I have learned often involved lies, extreme prejudice and outright Nazi-religious type closed-mindedness and fervour.

I would note that it seems you may share these sentiments as you said that . . .

"at university, I played the game to get the best marks I could. There was no way I was going to risk poorer marks just to debate lecturers over supposed knowledge certainties” . . .

This would indicate that a person who you felt might mark you down because you don’t agree with their opinions was some of the teachers in the universities.

A person who can do such a thing must be highly unethical, criminal even and extremely unreasonable and even a bad person, not fit to teach our kids.

If you suspected that your teachers were such people then you must feel that the Left can be extremely bad and unethical, criminal even when pushed or confronted.

As I ALWAYS claim, this shows again that the LEFT are a "religion" of nuts, yet to fully deciphered and dissected.

Jottiikii

I don't think they were criminal, although I did work for a former monash lecturer who went to jail when a federal MP.

I just think that the left, and even right, if we are to refer to such terms, would be much wiser if the standard of debate at university was much better in terms of teaching and content.

I can only speak for my own experience, but I was hardly impressed by my experience at uni as a student.

Perhaps I would have been if I went to uni at 18 rather than 32 which meant I had much more life experience.

Yes the problem is the "Quality" of the teachers.

But the way to deal with the issue is in need of clarification.

One needs to first understand where the Left-wing teacher (hypothetically one who might be willing to mark down those who disagree) is coming from.

Like a strict religious person, when the deepest beliefs held to be absolute Truth by a religious person are mocked and pressed to extreme breaking point their entire existence is threatened, everything they think they know and believe in and think to be important.

Usually as history has showed again and again, to push religious people so harshly can result in violence and untold political strife.

I believe that IF we come to understand some of the more fervent Leftists to be of a similarly "religious" mindset based on no argument or reason BUT only irrational belief of a HERD mass which the individual leftist feels must cling to lest fear that he will be crushed into some sceptical abyss.

Simply, such a person lacks the intellectual capacity in practice to think around this problem.

Now, if we accept that the Leftist is a "religious-type" thinking style then it is no wonder that when pushed with strong arguments by students, such a leftist teacher might crack, become extremely upset and offended and react with viciousness and unfair mistreatment - that is, by marking their papers down some.

I admit my own shortcomings as a scholar, which suggests I am open to informed opinion from a variety of perspectives.

But here are a few gems I have heard from academics who were professors.

1)I don't think Aust will be that affected by the GFC; reality 5% budget deficit next budget and deficits since.

2)the coalition is finished for two decades after Abbott elected was leader.

3)when doing my phd, why do I want to do it, is it a wog thing.

Maybe she did not like me because I questioned term 'social democracy'. I felt the term was 100% collectivist whereas liberal democracy to me offers some balance between individual and collective impulses.

4)he is a good guy, he is a social democrat.

Hi again Chris Lewis,

I appreciate the respect and interest you have to not just respond to most comments but also to have an interest to respond, most authors seem to be above lowly little people who post comments.

Anyway, I want to clarify my position on Leftists as being extreme, religious like and highly irrational, even a bad bunch of people.

Most of my reasons for this opinion come from how Leftists tend to act and treat people.

For example, the average case will have 100% of the time something goes wrong involving westerners and non-westerners (especially third-world peoples) the Leftist will NEVER consider the possibility that anything but the "White", "westerner" is fully and entirely responsible for whatever it is. For some reason the "coloured" masses of the world are never considered to be able to be criticised or debated with by a Leftist.

It is almost as if they must assume ONLY white people have any agency thus responsibility and further that the "others" (e.g. indigenous Australians) are NEVER pressed for answers to problems or never asked to explain WHY and never asked to act different in future,

In fact only in the most extreme examples such as the Taliban's cruelty will any Leftist even speak ill of a non-white.

Ask yourself why the refugees killed in Manus Island by natives rioting and mocking the natives' culture, did Left media forces immediately lay blame with the Australian government policy that rejected them forcing that nation to take the refugees. Why didn't the Left tell the Natives who killed the people to back off, grow up and stop being violent?

To not even involve them in the discussions, like also with Indonesia regarding Australia and refugees going through Indonesia our nation NEVER directly involved Indonesia as anything remotely resembling an active agent involved and able to make decisions that affect the outcome.

Instead the Left blames our government for actually not taking ALL refugees instantly so that none are left to be in Indonesian hands etc.
Why not scorn Indonesia for cruelty and barbarism?

. . . continued . . .

Domestically a good example is found with how Left constantly bombard and harass the Christian church and clergy etc. yet NEVER do they EVER dare to confront Muslims (or any other religion involving mostly non-whites) over their mistreatment of women and gays due to religious scripture the same as Christians.

Even the Christians the Left attack are carefully targeted to be ALWAYS whites westerners.I have never seen a Greek-Orthodox church or function etc. attacked like the USA ministers etc.

Our society instantly attackes and ridicules even sacking a prominent person from a position IF found to have engaged in such behaviour (e.g. John Brodgen sacked from NSW Opposition leader because he referred to Bob Carr's wife as a Asian"mail order bride"); whereas a leader of an entire Lebanese Muslim community in Sydney can openly in religious speech refer to a scantily clad western women as being "to blame" if a man decides to rape her since he says such a women is like "raw meat for a wild cat". That comment and dozens of others were NEVER mentioned in media by anyone except a few "right-wing" journalists etc. and even they were scorned as racists to bringing attention to the issue.

This is clear mistreatment of people for reasons of race and culture and ethnicity. I CALL this RACISM.

Non-whites are never made to explain their actions and apologize for bad behaviour. Half our nation is non-whites, non-western descended YET we are forbidden from debating openly with these groups since through Leftist force our nation seems to fear that these cultures are not able to reason or have a civilized discussion.

This is evidence that the Leftists (who are most extreme at defending these groups) MUST assume that the non-whites peoples of the world are somehow "subhuman", "incapacitated" and "malformed" perhaps even "disabled" (e.g. downs syndrome) because most people tend to not scream at the disabled person if they break a glass etc. as we all assume that they do not know better and are not capable of any more.

BIGOTS!

the fact I chose to study the humanities does not mean my opinion is anything special. It is just one opinion of maybe 16 million that decide Aust govts.

yes, many academics will never say anything bad against ordinary people or other nations; it is always the elite fault's or the coalition, or the US.

Well, we should have fair dinkum debate about all issues. Too many academics confine themselves to their own isolated world, but nothing should be immune from debate.

That is what my wish of Australia's humanities. As i suggest, a thorough debate should accommodate aspects of policies associated with the left and right and representative in the community.

I don't wish to have a humanities sector that agrees, but I want scholars that can address various concerns that exist in the real world, whether it be from a left or right perspective

Jottiikii:
"the LEFT can be either gullible young people naïve and uneducated who have "Herd/Pack mentality" OR older more seasoned people who can be quite direct and active in their behaviour which I have learned often involved lies, extreme prejudice and outright Nazi-religious type closed-mindedness and fervour"

Good grief is there no end to this kind of garbage opinion!

There is no blasted Left in Australia. The left intelligentsia is a poor excuse for the proletariat and the whole movement amounts to nothing more than political correctness. It just so happens that so-called left-wing critique makes sense and should be considered on merit, rather than caricatured and demonised by ignoramuses.
I'm also tired of being called a Marxist, which I'm bloody well not, though I agree with Marx's critique of capitalism. My experience is similar to Chris Lewis' modest self-appraisal; I've been a blue collar worker since I was 14, then a so-called "mature-age student," and now I'm a poor-man's academic making a crust on the odd contract and my own small business.
It's just simplistic calling the Humanities left-wing. Take history; the post-modern critique isn't a "black armband" view or leftist; it's based on the recognition of bias and imperial fictions, which Windshcuttle and Quadrant shamelessly try to defend. Similarly, Literary critique is based on the same recognition, of the hegemonic nature of aesthetics--which have no empirical foundation. So-called leftism is merely the deconstruction of conservative constructions on reality. It is the right that's full of self-serving lies and delusion, and sadly its propoganda exerts enormous influence on its ignorant constituency.

The further problem with academia in my view is privatisation, competition and the dumbing-down that's designed to get maximum numbers into courses--many of these students having no right to be there based on merit. And sadly, the humanities is the repository where underachievers are more likely to fudge their way through.
Universities should be publicly funded, but the bar raised considerably.
On the other hand, unromantic history should be taught in school. Though it's in the conservatives interests to keep the masses patriotically credulous.
Wake up to yourselves!

Squeers "It's just simplistic calling the Humanities left-wing. Take history; the post-modern critique isn't a "black armband" view or leftist; it's based on the recognition of bias and imperial fictions, which Windshcuttle and Quadrant shamelessly try to defend. Similarly, Literary critique is based on the same recognition, of the hegemonic nature of aesthetics--which have no empirical foundation. So-called leftism is merely the deconstruction of conservative constructions on reality. It is the right that's full of self-serving lies and delusion, and sadly its propoganda exerts enormous influence on its ignorant constituency."

The problem here is that the post-modernist/post-structuralist movement will not turn its critical eye upon its own valuations. They only ever, as you point out, criticise conservative values. Therefore, the criticism mounted against the Humanities and Social Sciences is justified. It has become a political arm of the Greens, Socialist Alliance, and a section of the Labor party.

Until the post-structuralists begin to deconstruct and criticise their own moral projections, all the criticisms here will be entirely justified.

Aristocrat,
if you consider the implications you'll see that your position makes no sense. It's not a matter of contending ideologies. Conservatism stands here for the status quo. It's not left against right, it's progressivism against the establishment. It's not even a progressive agenda, it's a progressive critique. Conservatism is old money, but the so-called "left" is not new money; it has currency itself in the dock (but please don't reify my metaphors).
If anything, what's designated the left is far too reflective; it interrogates itself to the point where its relativism is self-defeating.
"the criticism mounted against the Humanities and Social Sciences [I wouldn't dignify it with the term criticism]" is reactionary, nothing more. It is unselfreflective and inflexible, and unless you have a peerage and an interest in the establishment, you are but the dupe of its sophistries.
Our so-called "left" indeed is not radical at all, but merely a symptom of our society's schizophrenia, its super-ego.
Hegemone is not merely a word we bandy about; it's the reason you don't get it..

You can spare me the condescending tone, Squeers. I have a Ph.D from the Humanities and I teach in the Humanities. Therefore, I have full knowledge of how it operates.

You're appear so embodied in the slogans and perspectives of the Humanities that you can't see it from the outside. One thing you should have learnt during your Ph.D (you did mention you have one, didn't you?) is to examine phenomena objectively, or at least aim to. You should have learnt critical thinking skills. These skills can, and should, be applied to all perspectives - left, right, progressive, conservative. But the Humanities and Social Sciences do not; they only ever turn their critical eye toward anything remotely conservative or right. Ask yourself this: why should 'the establishment' be opposed? Humanities, like a true science, should first and foremost aim to understand, not oppose. Opposing is political, not educational. Ask yourself this also: what is the need to oppose the 'status quo'? Again, opposing it is political, not educational. You've put these motivations as your first principle i.e. radical opposition before understanding.

Students should be taught to understand all the various elements that go in to making our (and other) society/culture/civilisation. Moreover, even before this, they should be taught reading, writing, thinking, and researching skills.

Aristocrat,
I can only respond to what you say, and there was nothing in your post to indicate you had a grasp of what I'm on about. There still isn't.
One can get a PhD in just about anything, so that in itself doesn't indicate much--indeed I've seen some very soft ones indeed. Mine was anything but, yet I don't think it counts for much on its own.
Your posts tell me it's you who's taking a partisan position, whereas my posting history here indicates my independent position. I'm not fomenting for either side, but find fault with both. This is plain above. My position is against the current dystopia, which is not a construct of the left, however I'm also critical of the left's failure to have any real impact upon it.
But since you have nothing interesting to say, and your last is sheer nonsense--the Humanities have as much conservative scholarship as radical, probably more!--I'll keep my condescending tone to myself.

Squeers, if I am misunderstanding your posts, then that may be more of a reflection of your written expression (you were taught to write clearly and concisely in university, weren't you?).

Please point out where I have been partisan. My criticism has been consistent in that academics ought to turn their critical eye on their own "progressive" valuations, rather than solely on conservative ones. Also, please state what conservative scholars are taught in the Humanities and Social Sciences. The only thinker I know of, as stated previously, is Durkheim. Yet, he is hidden away into small sections of Sociology courses (which is dominated by Marxist inspired 'conflict theorists').

I don't have time or inclination to do your petty-fogging bidding. The Humanities incorporate a great many disciplines and the respective scholars attack and defend all political persuasions. To say that the Humanities has a left-wing agenda is nonsense. If you want to sample some of the other persuasion, try Quadrant, or any number of the thousands of journals.

Squeers, if "The Humanities incorporate a great many disciplines and the respective scholars attack and defend all political persuasions", then you should have no problem naming which conservatives are defended.

Plato is not only conservative but essential in understanding anything at all about ourselves. The enlightenment further frames our modern values, the state, our legal system even our morality. The political/economic conversation from Hume, Smith, Paine, Rosseau, Marx, Shumpeter, Keynes and others provide some of the essential detail for any student to even begin to understand the key concepts which determine our contemporary world.

Complimenting the above rather dry material are a variety of novelists and philosophers which have made pivotal contributions to understanding modern man: Dickens, Orwell, Conrad, Mann, Camus, Kafka, Neitzsche, Heidegger and many others.

Unfortunately, the humanities have largely departed from the above tradition which at least attempts to focus on rational causes and instead has become focused on symptoms.

One way to demonstrate this difference is that between Neitzsche and Foucault. Fred's canvas includes the entire spectrum of power, its very nature within each of us. Foucault on the other hand is looking for how power manifests and oppresses one group or another, whether its inmates in prisons, asylums or a gender..

The whole post modern, deconstruction trip descends into these valid and even interesting investigations which expose all manner of hidden oppression. But as I said, these are symptoms. The humanities have effectively become entirely about these symptoms as the rational tradition has been abandoned.

The end result is that those indoctrinated by this symptopia, like Squeers and Aristocrat, are incapable of logically framing the human condition absent oppressors and victims. Where the humanities once offered solutions and inspiration to the entire spectrum of society and thought - the descent into symptoms and victims has eviscerated its agency. It can offer nothing to society as it almost triumphantly celebrates not knowing how society works aside from the manifestation of oppression.

Now, Now settle down children. Play nice, as my old Nun used to say.

Name drop (42) Robard.

I see the "OGC" (Old Gentlemen's Club) is out in force, Pages 18-22. Studying their Navels & mumbling in their Brandy. Much ado about nothing.

I was lucky enough not to go to Uni., judging by the conversations here, & what I have observed over my last 68 years.

My thoughts on the Subject of Humanities is, that if one wants to Study the Humanities then you pay for it yourself. Providing the only remuneration for the Teachers. The Government should not have to subsidise what is after all, "A Hobby Subject."

What Qualifications have I got? Trades; Fitter, Turner, Boilermaker, Electrician, Electronics, Computer Tech., Woodwork ( I designed the Chippie Course for TAFE.) Cert. Business 11, 20T. Forklift, 25T. Overhead Crane, 25T. Mobile Crane, Any Articulated Vehicle, Heavy Vehicle Licence, Weapons Instructor, Tactics Instructor, Qualified in Tactics, Echelon, Administration & Logistics, Signals, Map Reading & Air Photography, Security & Control, Mil. Law to WO2. A couple of other things I won't go into. Now retired.

What do I do now apart from annoy people like you lot. I read old works of Art; Aeschylus, Herodias, Carus, Erasmus & many others. Something I have been fascinated with from a kid reading about the Old Greek & Roman Gods.

At the moment I am putting together "The History of the World Timeline" It started out from the " World History with Atlas" by Webster's Reference but found it missed a lot, so I now have Collins, Cambridge, Pears, Scientific Articles, Wiki, etc to cross reference & add any missing bits I find.

This is a Hobby, just like your study of Humanities is a Hobby.

At least what I did in life was useful to" People" in the great scheme of things. What does your particular study do? Not a damm thing, but lead to circular argument over nothing, as seen here over, "My PhD is better than your PhD."

YEBIGA,

You had me going; for a while there I thought you had a modicum of intelligence, but all you have is a daft notion (or rather it has you) you couldn't possibly hold if you were even modestly conversant with the thinkers you feign to know.
I'll leave you all to your fantasies, which despite my efforts are undisturbed.

On the contrary my dear Squeers
I am intimately familiar with the authors i cited because they constitute the true essentials of any humanities course. Those also inlcude the classical greek works mentioned by Jayb. In other Words the dreaded western canon which has been betrayed by the worst kind of academic sophistry.

To aid me with understanding how the humanities have become corrupted - and to counter the accusations of ignorance which routinely are the sole pathetic retort by todays symptomologists i exposed myslef to the theorists: the works of Adorno, Althussa, Baudrillard, Foucault, Derrida, Lacan, delueze/guattari, Zizek, Lyotard and others. All who in their unique way are misanthropic.

Thus, whilst I may exhort Jardine to snap out of his narrow ideology, or disagree with jayb vehemently, I cannot accuse them of being dishonest to themselves. Whereas, chris, aristocrat and yourself are what might be called a 4th generation language - in computer speak - the binary codes and the basic programming which operates reality are a mystery to you. Contemporary humanities have invested themselves almost exclusively to this higher layer of abstraction. This would be largely ok, if like in computing there was a functional proof that the higher language actually added value.
As it is, no such proof is possible and rather what we have is a series of disconnected insights which offer effects without causes, an eternal present with no history. The very essence of the humanities - the human condition - absent.

It is unpleasant to hear, because to accept this is to reject a very heavy investment. It must fill you with great anger with yourself and all those around you who have fed this mendacity. But the conclusions I draw are self evident, they are not mine, they emanate everywhere.. Throughout history, time after time, human progress is punctuated by stupidity. We are right now stuck in the middle of a great punctuation of stupidity. In all our stuttering steps forward the humanities have played a key role in leading great transformations from the renaissance, the reformation, the enlightenment.

I hope this conversation doesn't stop here. OLO's not known these days for insightful conversations - and having spent time on twitter in lieu of being aggravated by the normal fare on this forum, it's uplifting to stumble upon YEBIGA, Squeers and Aristocrat indulging a philosophical bent.

I can't join in because I'm uneducated on such matters.

Jayb mistook you for me, YEBIGA, when I trounced off in a huff...I have to say I'm flattered by that.

"....We are right now stuck in the middle of a great punctuation of stupidity...."

Great line!

YEBIGA "The end result is that those indoctrinated by this symptopia, like Squeers and Aristocrat, are incapable of logically framing the human condition absent oppressors and victims."

Nothing could be further from the truth. One of my sole missions is to remove this particular lens from Humanities and Social Science courses.

YEBIGA "Whereas, chris, aristocrat and yourself are what might be called a 4th generation language - in computer speak - the binary codes and the basic programming which operates reality are a mystery to you."

Gotta love how you place yourself as the objective mouthpiece for reality, but then supply absolutely no evidence for this assertion. Rattling off a bunch of names (who I have spent some time studying) doesn't constitute knowing reality.

Jayb, we get it, you didn't study in the Humanities, you don't want to study in the Humanities, and you want to deny others to study in the Humanities. There's nothing for you to add to the discussion.

Thus whilst university students study identity politics
Right Wing think tanks apply the true skills of the humanities to persuade with reason - however false - to overturn enlightenment ideals - one at a time.

Whilst, humanities students dispute the death of the author or the text
Right Wing think tanks have persuaded the community that all public assets should be sold off

Whilst, humanities students study the ills of colonialism, indigenous dispossession, the evils of white history
Right wing think tanks have persuaded the community that the unemployed are welfare cheats, refugees are terrorists, torture is ok, wars are ok

Whilst, humanities students study the society of the spectacle, delueze and guattaris psychobabble
Right wing think tanks have persuaded the community to accept an ever increasing concentration of media ownership, and the assent of oligopolies. Office workers routinely working 60 hr weeks.

In other words, contemporary humanities has excused itself from every significant development for the last 35 years. This is an unforgivable betrayal. The right wing think tanks have not excused themselves into psychobabble. They routinely dip into the wisdom of the humanities to obtain their own ends. They will read Hume, Smith, Adams, Emerson, Neitzsche, Machiavelli, the Bible, the art of war, napoleon, Caesar. They are arrogant enough to mould society but not so arrogant as to ignore and fail to draw from the direct works of mans history

YEBIGA,

All your classical/neoclassical authors are standard Humanities fare, while the figures in your populist rant are old hat. Your venting a spleen that's been fermenting for decades and made you drunk.
There continue to be myriad journals and publications on all the key figures of literature and ancient and modern philosophy, while Foucault and the others you allude to tend to be out of fashion. Every thinker stands on the shoulders of those who went before and all the great thinkers are endlessly re-examined. Zizek for instance stands on the shoulders of the whole romantic tradition, as well as Marx far more than Lacan. As do all the others you mention, including "delueze/guattari"--clearly you've dabbled at best only in their joint effort--who make much of that very point, that the Western tradition is essentially Greek. Indeed look at any compilation of Continental Philosophy and your hallowed list of names is repeated!
I've been studying Aristotle's virtues for some time, as well as more recent works by Charles Taylor, Alisdair Macintyre, John Milbank and numerous others. As for your contention that the Humanities collective has been amusing itself with diversions while the world gets sold up-river, well they're hardly in a position to lead the revolution!
What they try to do is lead an intellectual revolution (which must precede the real thing), to help people to break out of their hegemonic confinement. It's bad enough that they have to contend with the dupes of conservative propaganda (and humans are naturally disposed to prefer the devil they know), but being blamed for the neoliberal assault by twits like you is beyond the pale!
The fact that the humanities are on the nose and threatened with closure in the era of neoliberal ascendency is the best appraisal of intellectual integrity one could ask for--perhaps all their books should be burned too!
That the humanities continue to fly in the face of political/cultural orthodoxy is a measure of honesty and commitment to truth--as rigorous and unrelenting as any of the sciences, which "are" in the pocket of their masters!

The thing about being a Chook (Signaller), if you've spent some time in Transmission Tracking, you learn about identifiers. Keying (morse), Pressel Switch use, phrases, accents, intonations, word use, etc, etc.

poirot/YEBIGA You were too easy to spot. I picked you up on your first post & confirmed it on the second. Just too easy.

Aristocrat: There's nothing for you to add to the discussion.

The Theme is about Andrew Bolt's article titled 'We're paying for the teaching of Marxist politics'.

He is right. The Universities Humanities Department is Leftist/Green inclined, as shown by many of the posters here. When their bias is questioned they come out like wounded bulls charging everything in sight.

Not one of you Pseudo Intellectuals has shown me where any benefit is obtained from your study of the Humanities. Therefore why should the Australian People pay for you hobby? Why should we have to pay for a bunch of ratbag Green professional student demonstrators to study that hobby?

You people do not improve the quality of life for anybody. You do not contribute to the economic benefit of Australia. You produce, build, manufacture nothing. You suffer from Delusions of Grandeur (shown by Aristocrat on his first post) as you stare at your navels sipping Brandy & mumbling under you breath. (OGC)

I have at least contributed in a number of ways, small as they may be, to the Benefit of Australia. What have you done?

The following is an extract from Joseph Schumpeters' classic "capitalism socialism and democracy" it is a work lauded by faculties of business studies in universities around the world.

Common sense demands that any self respecting humanities course would include his analysis. Any humanities phd student unfamiliar with this work is simply disengaged and irrelevant.

" ... Let us again visualise the state of things which looms in the future if that trend be projected. Business...is controlled by a small number of bureaucratised corporations. Progress has slackened and become mechanised and planned. The rate of interest converges toward zero, not temporarily or under the pressure of governmental policy, but permanently owing to the dwindling of investment opportunities. Industrial property and management have become depersonalised - ownership having degenerated to stock and bond holding, the executives have acquired habits of mind similar to those of civil servants. Capitalism motivation and standards have all but wilted away..."

This was written back in the early 1950s

Now, call me naive, but humanities students armed with understanding the philosophies underpinning the current hegemony is empowered to confront and challenge the current hegemony with a language which is understandable. Why it is even conceivable humanities students could, imagine, influence capitalist theory.

Voltaire, Rosseau, Marat, Paine inspired great changes because they spoke of what concerned everyday people and they spoke about it an everyday language. Their ideas are as complex as any 20 th century or current symptomologist but they speak to the universal human condition and thus they inspire not only students and academics but everyday people from all walks of life.

of all subjects The humanities cannot indulge in jargon, incoherence or obscurantism - its subject is man. If Derrida cannot be understood by Chomsky than he has no place in a university. We read Zizek only because the cupboard is so bare but his Marxian Lacanian psychology is as efficacious as reading tea leaves.

Squeers and aristocrat your education is not only useless but it remains a hindrance. My prescription is a 2 year sabbatical away from academia and any literature post 1918.

Unable to post till now.

YEBIGA:
Schumpeter was a fan of capitalism and all its achievements past and to come, but among his predictions was the conviction that, “…a socialist form of society will inevitably emerge from an equally inevitable decomposition of capitalist society”, foreseeing “a conquest of private industry and trade by the state” (from the preface and penultimate chapter respectively of “Capitalsim, Socialism and Democracy”).
Your savant was clearly wrong--as was Marx (at least about the timing)--and great as his masterpiece is there’s many another that’s equally or more indispensable.
There is no “Bible” to consult.
What is studied within the Humanities is vast and diverse and includes Schumpeter where appropriate.
I also dislike needless obfuscation and enjoy clarity, but it is as much dependent on subject matter, and the mental clarity of the reader, as on the prose. If you know anything about deconstruction you’ll know there are good reasons for the verbosity. Besides, if you want convoluted prose, read Hegel, it’s not just the moderns. If you want searingly austere prose, read Kant’s critiques, which are utterly Spartan and all the more difficult for it. Like the other Romantics, Kant realised that we’re prone to read through ideological lenses, or to latch onto familiar language and secondary concepts; thus the almost total want of example or illustration in his critiques, which are meant to rely on a priori acts of mind, rather than on already created objects.
If prose from any author or era has any value it depends as much on style as content. “The medium is the message”.
As if simple clarity was more than simplicity itself!

“Squeers and aristocrat your education is not only useless but it remains a hindrance. My prescription is a 2 year sabbatical away from academia and any literature post 1918”.

What’s so offensive here is the blind presumption. Speaking for myself, I never went near a university till I was over 40, but I read voraciously since my teens, including many of the names you mention.

Get thee to a university!

Jayb,

"The thing about being a Chook (Signaller), if you've spent some time in Transmission Tracking, you learn about identifiers. Keying (morse), Pressel Switch use, phrases, accents, intonations, word use, etc, etc.

poirot/YEBIGA You were too easy to spot. I picked you up on your first post & confirmed it on the second. Just too easy."

Your braggadocio is kinda funny in that case.....because you're way off the mark.

As I mentioned, I'm rather flattered you think I'm YEBIGA.

However, YEBIGA may be somewhat underwhelmed at the thought of you believing he/she is Poirot.

Kant and Hegel may be difficult to read but not so difficult to understand. And the work is a genuine search for the truth of our human condition Thus when they are wrong there is still something to learn.

This is not the case with theorists like Foucault, or a Derrida. Here we search for oppression and victims - hidden in psychology, in texts, language, gender - the snares are everywhere. in other words we study here the effect. The cause, the oppressor, its motivations, its rationale is negated.

Society itself here becomes an alien force with evil intent. Things are simply done to us and not only can we not trust anyone, in truth even our own motives are suspect.

The humanities now indoctrinate its students into sectarianism of race, gender, religion, gay/straight, drug users, single mothers, unemployed, refugees, prisoners... An endless list of sects making any communal action impossible. Thus divided, the entire population becomes pliable to the oligarchical forces.

This is no small academic postulation. I have my friend been to university, so I have seen first hand the conceit which feeds this false compassion, the intellectual dishonesty, the unthinking fawning, the triumphant surrender into unreason.

The right wing think tanks have become the leading practitioners and students of the humanities. They don't get lost in obscurantism and have very clear objectives. To achieve them it is not beneath them to borrow equally from an Edmund Burke or Lacan. They are not afraid to learn from Geobbels or from Kahnerman. They work shop ideas without outside the prism of political correctness.

If I insult you, it is because I despair at any alternative method of getting thru to you, how utterly corrupted the humanities have become.

YEBIGA,

here you go again, drivel from beginning to end, pretending knowledge of things about which you clearly know nothing. You might impress those who share your ignorant prejudice, but for someone who has read those you disparage it's plain you don't know what you're talking about.

I'll leave you to your delusions.

Poirot:

"I can't join in because I'm uneducated on such matters".

Don't let that stop you, it doesn't stop YEBIGA.

I felt a frisson when I saw your name come up btw. Glad you're still about : )

The following has been pasted straight from Melbourne Uni Website - ancient world studies.

Please remember this is the ancient world - the postmodern symptomology is much more profound in Melbourne Universities more recent historical studies, iphilosophical studies and its political studies - I had hoped the ancient world may have escaped its corruption.

"You can focus on a particular time period, geographic region, technical specialisation such as myth or ceramics, or thematic area of study. You will gain insight into and understanding of contemporary society by exploring how ancient cultures have contributed to the development of our modern world, with regard to gender and ethnic identity, warfare, colonialism and imperialism, the propagandistic power of literary and visual imagery, and technology and economy. You will develop skills in research, writing, analysis, and communication that promote career flexibility. "

The propagandistic power is certainly present in this introduction. And ceramics! Well ok
But Gender and ethnic identity in the ancient world - oh come on, only an idiot inculcated in 20th century [deleted - offensive] could write this. This is a patent attempt at backward engineering of history.

I am happy to go through the entire faculty and every subject for your enlightenment - pun intended.

Why the timeline alone should alert your critical faculties.
The rise of relativism, postmodernist theories, identity politics and all things politically correct coincides precisely with the rise of right wing think tanks, economic rationalism, the regression of social welfare, privatisation - in short the rise of the corporatocracy.

It is a kind of spooky parallel. For students have throughout the modern era played a pivotal role in every western progressive achievement. And what an amazing coincidence, that just as the theorists arrive the apogee of progress has past. The postmodern symptomologist would impotently watch every hard fought gain attacked and erased one at a time.

What are coincidence hey Squeers, Aristocrat, Chris.

Really - the conceit is past curing.

Chris,

Finally got round to reading your article, as have been entertained by YEBIGA and Squeers and their dueling philosophies (or something to that effect).

Just on this point where you said:

"I also produced two academic articles that sought to explain why the Howard government (1996-2007) was successful in electoral terms. While I never voted for Howard, the evidence suggested a pragmatic approach by the Howard government in line with community attitudes...."

It struck me as an "academic" way to explain that the Howard govt, noting that One Nation's policies struck a positive chord with the electorate decided it was safe and an all round good idea to pinch their platform of xenophobia and fear mongering and run with it..highly successfully, as it turned out.

It's also notable that Malcolm Fraser is now scathing of these policies from his old party claiming the "Liberal Party" no longer represents such as he. Most days on twitter he highlights some disgrace associated with OSB and the camps.

................

YEBIGA and Squeers, I hope you'll both continue to square off, it's great to see these sort of things discussed around here again...climate change and domestic politics being the usual hackneyed fare.

(Good to see you back too, Squeers:)

Poirot,

In regard to the two pieces on the Howard govt, which I now recognise could have been much better, my starting point was the bias shown by many academics against the Howard govt. I have admitted this to many.

Sure, there was the influence of One Nation, but a great deal of evidence indicates that the Howard govt did take public opinion on board in regard to many of its policies. you can read them: The Howard Government: The Extent to which Public Attitudes Influenced Australia's Federal Policy Mix (Aust Journal of Public Administration 2007; and Did the Howard Government Undermine Australian Democracy (Aust Journal of Political Science 2009).

In relation to book on Abbott govt's first term, indeed my effort will be much critical of its intended policies, the rationale, and whether such policies were successful. There is a heavy focus on the economic imperative, but issues concerning social impact will also be discussed.

Yebiga,

I have to explain I never give much attention to theory or past great thinkers with my humble writing efforts.

While I appreciate past contributions, and may occasionally refer to them, I am only ever interested in contemporary issues.

In other words, I study the issues and don't really give much importance to what was said long ago whether, 80 years ago, 500 years, or 2,000. A given context has unique circumstances which would probably mean that past thinkers would alter their thought today.

So your arguments about postmodernity, marxism, or any other theory, are probably lost on me. You can lump me wherever you like.

I had one IR tosser read my honours thesis and say it was crap, not theoretical enough.

But hell, I stuck to my guns and wrote on the importance of high-tech manufacturing with minimal regard to theory, albeit I had a chapter discussing comparative advantage and so on.

Maybe I was never up to scratch as a humanities student, at least in your desired mould. But I have only ever been interested in my interpretation of evidence. Studying modern issues, I have never felt the need to refer much to past thinkers.

As I have told many in university, often experts at theoretical waffle, I am not interested in some supposed search for the best theory.

There you go, I admit I am a theoretical dummy, but I am not ashamed.

Don't think lay people would be much interested in what was said 200 years ago either.

History may repeat, but the given context will always have unique circumstances.

Like I said previously, exposure to theory should be in humanities, but only as part of a course designed to get students to think critically about issues to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives in accordance to the evidence.

If students get that experience, we will have much better scholars both from he left and right.

That is my opinion.

YEBIGA,

I fail to see what's objectionable about the course--apart from the commercial pitch. All history and study of the past is necessarily retroactive, seen through the lens of the present. Howevermuch you object to relativism, there's no escaping it. The past is dead to us and can only be re-animated in contemporary terms. This is why we have historiography, and why history is recurrently obsolete and rewritten. It's not just that new evidence comes to light, but because our illusions are repeatedly dispelled/upgraded--though it's doubtful we can ever cast off the final illusion and look objectively at past. Just as scientists recurrently refine and reinvent knowledge of their respective disciplines(though they will probably always understand phenomena in cultural, or at least "human" rather than omniscient terms), so in the humanities we improve our understanding of society past and, more importantly, present.
The focus on gender, sexuality and other group identities acknowledges the fall of the concept of an individual and independent self, which there is no empirical evidence for and every reason to doubt according to academic strictures (as opposed to religious scriptures). If anything, this recognition of our "cultured" identities undermines the liberal doctrine of individualism and ought to alert us to its commodification.

What exactly do you object to in any of this? How is it pandering to the neo-liberal ascendency? And if it is, why do the liberals object to it? How exactly should the humanities comport itself? Should it have a direct radical agenda (which it does not)? Should it shy away from radical findings about ourselves and stick to the party line? Should it passively translate inconvenient findings into contemporary, politically-correct values, as the Liberals and Quadrant do?
How would you reorder the Humanities?
Your turn to say something constructive.

to add further, I had one arts/commerce student, trying to get me to do commerce, tell me that my thinking was in line with rational choice theory.

Well to this day, I don't know what rational choice theory means, nor do I care.

My starting point, albeit I am still criticised by some for bias, is the collection of evidence and the identified trends, whether positive or negative.

That is my starting point with my current attempt at analysis of the Abbott govt's first term.

I have some concerns, but in line with my feeling that we live in difficult times, I will not make the judgment until the first term if finished and all evidence (within reason) is assessed in line with my ability to do so.

piorot/Yebiga: Your braggadocio is kinda funny in that case..... because you're way off the mark.

The two, poirot & Yegiba overlays of other Topics Posts about Asylum Seekers match's exactly.

I think, like me, you have read through Marks. I found it boring & contempory with the 19th Century. You have picked out the bits which match the ideology of the Koran & gone with that.

I find if strange that no-one has mentioned Mao's "Little Red Book" which I have in my Library somewhere. I read it a long time ago. Hey, it had some good bits I agreed with. A lot I didn't. Now that's something worth studying in Humanities, & only 60 years old.

Chris,

"Like I said previously, exposure to theory should be in humanities, but only as part of a course designed to get students to think critically about issues to weigh up the strengths and weaknesses of different perspectives in accordance to the evidence."

I'm interested in how we form our perspectives of human behaviour. I have a 12 year-old whose major interest is history. He loves to poke around and discover what he can - and regarding more recent history, already heads straight for primary documents if it's possible to access them online. We homeschool, but I don't bother formally teaching him history as his delvings far surpass anything I could toss at him.

The main theme that comes through is that he is always forced to factor in all the themes of existence. Whether he's learning about Victorian England or the Spartans, he is obliged to take into account the realities of life at the time - and the spirit of the times, etc.

His perspective is constantly being renewed and refreshed, and together with discussion with those around him, I'm sure it must help to round his understanding of humanity.

I also believe all his critical faculties are enhanced by his freedom to pursue his research at will, he gains a sense of continuity by being able to forge his own way ahead - one thing leads to another - and he absorbs them as they arrive.

Poirot, it's good to see you son is self-educating. I guess he realizes that there's not much future in studying the Koran all day in Australia. Maybe he could help you come to terms with Australian Culture.

Squeers thank you for the question. Chris, it is not actually possible to ignore the past, as it will unwittingly inform your ideas. Poirot thank you for the encouragement.

“There but for the grace of god (circumstances or luck) walk I”

This perspective, informs the humanities from the ancient world until the 20th century. Thus even within a fundamentally conservative and even despotic prescription like Plato’s Republic all of society -everyman is present. In Shakespeare, the subject maybe the King but King Lear is every father, Lady Macbeth every wife. Ditto in Dickens, Dostoyevsky, Descartes or Nietzsche.

For Universities to focus on ethnicity within the ancient world of Rome/Greece is more than ignorant. You cannot interpret a single ancient text by ethnicity. The distinguishing feature of the rise of Rome is precisely its lack of ethnicity: Roman Emperor or Slave was as likely to be Italian as African, Middle Eastern or Gay. Ethnicity is a modern or post enlightenment construct.

Chris may attempt to ignore the past, but it lives within us and is passed on. For example, the morality, underpinning our entire socio-political structure, is informed by Christianity, Neo-Platonism, the enlightenment and post masturbation. You may choose to be unaware of it but you cannot choose to be uninfected.

Back to Squeers question. The humanities, in propagating sectarianism, elevating and deifying our differences; has thereby – with all the best intentions – undermined our civic and communal affinities. Thus, divided society becomes pliable to malevolent oligarchical forces. In a democratic system, being able to win over a single sect is often decisive in the passing of any legislation.

My prescription will no doubt fail to impress because of its simplicity. The humanities must return to the perspective of there but for the grace of god, walk I. It must cease sectarianism; even the narrative of evil oligarchs is wrongheaded. There is an accessible truth and discovering it our endless task; even the most despicable must not be demonized but understood.

Why do Neo-conservatives object to the Humanities? The same reason the Military Industry needs Terrorists

Jayb,

"Poirot, it's good to see you son is self-educating. I guess he realizes that there's not much future in studying the Koran all day in Australia. Maybe he could help you come to terms with Australian Culture."

What a pathetic comment....from a person that's offered nothing but vacuous criticism on this thread.

Petty and insular....sums you up well.

Sorry Yebiga,

I do not ignore past.

For example, with Abbott book there will be an early chapter that focuses on why the context faced by Abbott is different from past, and how strengths (and weaknesses) of Aust society (developed over time) can be maintained or developed further given demands of the day.

Of course, there are views and values and insights into the human condition.

I just don't feel the need to rave on about it, or the views of past thinkers.

YEBIGA:
"In a democratic system, being able to win over a single sect is often decisive in the passing of any legislation".
Can you give me a few examples please?

"It must cease sectarianism; even the narrative of evil oligarchs is wrongheaded.

The Humanities don't teach sectarianism, and you're the only one going on about evil oligarchs. But correct me if I'm wrong and, once again, give me a few examples.

"There is an accessible truth and discovering it our endless task"

Sounds wonderful; can you elaborate a little?

"even the most despicable must not be demonized but understood".

Jesus couldn't have said it better himself, but whom is the Humanities demonizing? They are siding "with" minorities!
What you seem to be arguing for is solidarity, though our age of individualism has already achieved possibly the most egoistic and alienated society in human history. It could be argued that finding group identities to replace disrupted class structures "is" working towards a more communitarian society. Recognising ethnicities is not sectarian, but more in the nature of promoting inclusion and empowerment of hitherto marginalised groups. It's xenophobes like Jayb you should be lecturing, not preaching to the converted (the Humanities).

"But for the grace of God go I" is a nice one to keep in mind, but I'm not sure how we should apply it to scholarship?

In truth, it seems to me you've got nothing to say to defend the position (whatever it is) you've been championing here; you've merely strung together a few high-sounding phrases in the hope we'll be baulked by your profundity.
Nietzsche for one would certainly despise such craven talk. Plato and Aristotle denied their slaves any status at all, Shakespeare demonised Jews, Dickens detested ambition utilitarianism in favour of sentiment, and Descarte is the father of modern individualism.

I don't want to be rude, but do you have anything more than platitudes?

“…the fall of the concept of an individual and independent self, which there is no empirical evidence for and every reason to doubt according to academic stricture (as opposed to religious scriptures). If anything, this recognition of our “cultured” identities undermines the liberal doctrine of individualism and ought to alert us to its commodification” – Squeers

Ok, and when you have completed the infinite regression and arrived into the post-masturbatory void, you will again wake up exactly where you started here in the presence at hand. Only now, as you have obliterated every foundation you now stand, on and, for nothing – rudderless. In becoming de-cultured, resistance or agency to the present becomes impossible – the present eternal. Thus stripped of our culture, we surrender everything and unwittingly enable our commodification.

“the liberal doctrine of individualism” - I needs muster all my strength to refrain from insulting. This is the remnants of bourgeois enlightenment theory adopted by modern Capitalism to persuade a populace of its benevolence. It is now nothing but hollow mythology. By what tortuous logic could one conclude that oligarchical, mega-corporates promote a doctrine of individualism? They are diametrically opposed to individualism; they are about uniform business suits working in teams not mavericks, eccentrics or individuality. The only individuality they promote is that between choices of brand and for the individual to struggle to survive alone. They are moreover for the destruction of the individual into a commodity as you suggest - as this makes for greater efficiencies

I perfectly understand how the intention of [deleted - offensive] is to identify and thereby remove oppression, exclusion, etc of minorities, identities, etc. This is the very heart and purpose of these theories and this school of thinking which has infected every fabric of the humanities and resonates in large parts amongst public servants and even public companies. It is now part of the genealogy of our culture.

I suggest that there has been precious little critical thinking as to the wider consequences and ripple effects. In the validation of one sect, we needs must ignore another and in validating an ever increasing number we by extension invalidate or at least obscure the collective cause.

The late 1970s early 80s marks the high point throughout the western developed world of social welfare programs, free education, workers rights, 36 hr week, annual leave, universal free healthcare...

Since then, we have seen the rise of economic rationalism and the systemic de-evolution of the above gains. For those interested, there are numerous sources available which detail the frustration of big business and its proponents during the 1970s and the development of their plans to subvert what they believed was an existential threat to free enterprise.

During this same period, [deleted - offensive] entered our univesities and its rise chronologically at least parallels the rise of economic rationalism and the de-evolution of the great universal social programs.

Although it should hardly be necessary, the documentary sources show that the right wing think tanks targeted 3 areas to subvert the gains of the 1970s: the media, unions and education. Subsequently, the media ownership has been concentrated into fewer and fewer hands and all singing from the same hymn book, the unions eviserated and the education system dumbed down and postmodernised.

The scene now set, we need to explore how the well intentioned validation of a plethora of sects victims may have and continues to aid the economic rationalist agenda.

YEBIGA,

you must be sensible of the utter poverty of what you're saying. You have some great nebulas anxiety you're projecting onto the humanities (too vast and complex for any single person to appreciate or criticise unilaterally), but you fail to communicate it in a coherent manner.
Unless you can provide a comprehensible thesis, or a little detail, I'll leave you to tilt at your windmills. I have better things to do.

Squeers: you must be sensible of the utter poverty of what you're saying. but you fail to communicate it in a coherent manner.

Cut YEBIGA some slack mate, English is his second language. YEBIGA is more at home reading the Koran, that where he get's his Humanities from, any other reading he does is to find a theory back up the Koran.

He is trying to copy Aristocrat at the moment by swallowing a dictionary, so he can appear to be pseudo intelligent.

It is perhaps instructive to reflect on what [deleted - offensive] may claim as its achievements: equality for women, ethnic tolerance, gay validation.

It so happens that this aligns perfectly to the advantage of globalised corporations. Moreover , the suffragette movement predates [deleted - offensive] by many decades, but it was the need for labour during the Second World War which introduced women to the general work force in number. The economic power which came from work empowered women and surely trumps any influence by theorists.

Moreover as capitalism expands across the globe tolerance of races and ethnicity is a prerequisite. Further, the tendency of gays to be smarter then average, talented, well educated they would always appeal to corporations.

Thus, the great achievements of [deleted - offensive] are the inevitable logic and desire of global capitalism and would occur with or without the aid of theorists and the widespread deployment of compassion.

Another, self appointed project from the schools of [deleted - offensive] is indigenous affairs. Here a great outpouring of compassion is generated to ripple across society ostensibly with the intention of improving the lives of indigenous peoples. The results on the ground however are absent. What has been attempted is the preservation of culture, as if indigenous people were themselves museum pieces, at the expense of lives lived in shameful conditions. Whilst, in cafes throughout Melbourne and Sydney, we feel good about compassion, we censor our language and escape into the realm of complete fantasy with all manner of symbolic gestures and great outpouring of apologies. On the ground nothing changes.

we will find the achievements of [deleted - offensive] no matter how well intentioned, to be either at best serving the interests of the corporate hegemony or downright harmful. From the outset its motivation was to undermine the great enlightenment project. Its enemy is universal human rights. Its first premise is that there is no universal truth, no common human experience. It is a misanthropia born of 2 world wars, a depression, holocaust, Stalin's purges, the threat of nuclear annihilation - entirely understandable but born of this sickness it is itself a disease.

[Deleted - abusive.]

SQUEERS and others,

to anyone who believes that the LEFT and therefore the majority of influence in the Humanities, is actually a truly self-critical, open and honest movement and culture of critique . . . .

. . . . . WHY do I never hear a feminist discussing women and oppression in most of the non-western world and how often culture and tradition of an unenlightened and unreasoned people is responsible?

. . . . . WHY is it utterly TABOO to discuss in universities and school generally issues such as non-western, non-white societies and RACISM and other prejudices of a tribal origin?

. . . . . WHY does the mostly left media and academic circles ONLY ever criticize western governments in situations of war and/or people/refugee flows such as in our region with Indonesia and their role in refugees coming here?

That is why are all the criticisms and questions only directed to white-western communities and their leaders? A truly critical person would also be scorning Indonesia for not in any sense treating refugees and other vulnerable groups with basic human decency and rights,

If one still PRETENDs that all non-western nations are poor and so cannot help, what about the extremely wealthy Arab Gulf states and also Japan, South Korea, and more and more these days also China and India who each have the population of the USA of a well-off middle class and these people allow their own poor (other half of nation) to be used and abused and robbed and to remain poor and in squalor.

Why doesn't the left EVER seems to be interested in these issues and be engaged in them.

If you take a glance at most books, journals and Course contents at any university in the west it is clear that the primary and overwhelming interest and focus for the left and their so-called critique crusade is to attack the flaws in the western society even though human rights, discrimination and gender abuse etc. are almost non-existent at least when compared with places such as Saudi Arabia, China, India etc.

"WHY do I never hear a feminist discussing women and oppression in most of the non-western world and how often culture and tradition of an unenlightened and unreasoned people is responsible?"

So you have your ear cocked for all the world's discourse?

Jottiikii, you have to harden yourself to the possibility that your perception of reality, overall, is conditioned by your localised experience, in other words that you're deluded..
But take heart, you're not alone.
For a start, I don't believe in the LEFT, and the Humanities is a diverse spectrum of scholarly interests and prejudices that's hardly changed since Hume. But since, presumably, you know nothing about Hume, I'll have to talk on your level about what Hume called the "passions". These are that very incapacity of thought that you evince in such abundance; the passions militate against reason.

"WHY do I never hear a feminist discussing women and oppression in most of the non-western world and how often culture and tradition of an unenlightened and unreasoned people is responsible?"

Well unless you have your omniscient ear cocked, around the globe, for this kind of discourse, you're unlikely to. Where do you get your information btw? And remember that the places you allude to are lorded over by men (or a poor excuse for such a venerable designation).

"WHY is it utterly TABOO to discuss in universities and school generally issues such as non-western, non-white societies and RACISM and other prejudices of a tribal origin?

It's utterly not. Being an experienced tutor, I find conservative resistance far more prevalent. Intolerance is alive and well.

"WHY does the mostly left media and academic circles ONLY ever criticize western governments in situations of war and/or people/refugee flows such as in our region with Indonesia and their role in refugees coming here?"

A recent study found the ABC is not biased, whereas we know the rest boast a right-wing bias.
Has not the media been critical of North Korea, Siria, Iran etc. etc?

In short, you are but the aeolian harp of the shock jocks and discursive noise of your ignorant generation.

I didn't consider my post offensive, but I guess YEBIGA did. The I wasn't the one fixated with, Well it IS blanked out.

Jottiikii: If you take a glance at most books, journals and Course contents at any university in the west it is clear that the primary and overwhelming interest and focus for the left and their so-called critique crusade is to attack the flaws in the western society even though human rights, discrimination and gender abuse etc. are almost non-existent at least when compared with places such as Saudi Arabia, China, India etc.

I've been saying this for years. The Humanities Studies are purely concerned with a Western orientation & Western or European peoples. So where does this leave ME & Asian peoples, or is this one of "Terra Nullius." What Studies have been done on ME & Asian Philosophers & writers in Humanities. Or, are any recognized as worthy of being included in Humanities by a Western oriented or Biased Faculty.

I often wonder why the Left always protests vigorously over any mistake, accident, bad behaviour or atrocity committed by Western Armies & NEVER complain about the deliberate atrocities committed by the people they are fighting on their own people.

How do the Humanities explain that, or will they. Is it a form of Racism?

Hi Jottiikii,

The first thing you have to understand is that good old Squeers has long been an aspiring passenger of the Humanities gravy train, and from this little self back pat -- "Being an experienced tutor"!-- It looks like he's finally scooped himself a ticket. So you could hardly expect him to criticise the hand that feeds.

Now a couple of words on the comments Squeers made:
You (correctly) noted: "WHY do I never hear a feminist discussing women and oppression in most of the non-western world and how often culture and tradition of an unenlightened and unreasoned people is responsible?"

And Squeers (predictable)tried to deflected it with: "Well unless you have your omniscient ear cocked, around the globe, for this kind of discourse, you're unlikely to. Where do you get your information "

Well if Mr Squeers had been watching his esteemed ABC's Q&A the last time --no sorry, eight episodes prior to her most recent appearance --he would have observed Germain Greer doing he usual anti-white male rant.But when thrice presented with the opportunity to criticise the treatment of women in the middle east, she thrice declined --and the ABC compare let her get away with it.

But Squeers did give us one eliminating piece --and it's this [QUOTE]
"I find conservative resistance far more prevalent"
Place heavy emphasis on "Ï FIND"

And this little comment takes the cake ...I mean, gravy ...as a bit of Humanities style reasoning "A recent study found the ABC is not biased" DOH! that proves it then, ay!

Thank you SPQR.

I have had on my eBook for some time, having never got around to reading it. Australian Universities: A Portrait of Decline. By Donald Meyer. I have read up to the Forward at this stage. I be looking forward to what he has to say.

No comment on ME, African & Asian Humanities papers? Too hard? Not Acceptable? It's a White-man thing?

As a migrant to this country, who grew up and attended primary and secondary schooling in melbourne's western suburbs and thus always had friends from all corners of the world, what has always struck me is the total inauthenticity of the typical humanities student, teachers, tutors and professors.

When examining European hegemony over the last half millenia, there are two possible perspectives. The first, is that there is something uniquely evil, racist and supremacist within the character and culture of Europeans which is absent in The rest of the worlds' people. The second, that had any other people's, from Africa, Asia or anywhere else, found themselves in a similar position of advantage as the Europeans, they too would have behaved in virtually the same supremacist manner and attempted to subjugate the world.

The humanities of the last 40 years in western university's is entirely informed by the first perspective and is violently opposed to the second. Thus informed, the humanities are hijacked by a people fixated on a quest to unearth every evil, real or imagined, of the European type. This is the postmiserable condition and the postmiserable school of thought which inspires colonial studies, indigenous studies, feminist studies, identity politics and political correctness.

Should you question any of the many irrational ideas which emanate from this crusade, the indoctrinated postmiserable will always frame the critic as a European supremacist and themselves as the owners of compassion. In other words, no criticism is permitted. The irony is almost beyond belief, that in order to defeat the European black/white mind, they need adopt a black/white censorship.

This latte sipping compassion which condemns indigenous Australians to museum pieces and the rest of us to corporatopia has abandoned is a disease of the mind.

SPQR,

I've mainly tutored in English Literature and the resistance I alluded to was around an "obscene" text based on homosexuality and drug use; resistance and even refusal to engage with it. Homosexuals and drug users are part of our society, they're represented in popular and artistic culture and their texts are as valid as the Bible to a literary critic.
Despite the ignorant consensus here, no one I know proselytises, neither is the curriculum left-wing. Canonical literature, history etc. are simply made to compete with other cultural forms for academic consideration. Importantly though, canonical stuff still get's priority.

Yebiga,
more of your errant nonsense. You seem to fit in nicely with JayB and SPQR. Maybe you should get some white hoods and start terrorising academics.

Squeers

Our culture has never had any issue with gay literature or feminist, or any identity.

Your self deception knows no end.

Off you go find another cause, deflect and enable your compassionate superiority. Why you would think the whole humanities department was full of mother Theresa's.

When your ready to talk about principles, then we can have an adult conversation.

Squeers: You seem to fit in nicely with JayB and SPQR. Maybe you should get some white hoods and start terrorising academics.

You want me to run around the Uni. like one of those Spanish Monks. That'd be a laugh. Maybe I could be naked underneath the robes.

Squeers, I'm not against the study of the Humanities. I just believe that people studying Humanities should have to pay for your hobby like I have to pay for mine. The Teachers should only be renumerated by the cost of the Course as in any Hobby course. The Humanities should be down graded to a T.A.F.E. Course.

I often wonder why the Left always protests vigorously over any mistake, accident, bad behaviour or atrocity committed by Western Armies & NEVER complain about the deliberate atrocities committed by the people they are fighting on their own people. As shown by the many demonstrations by Left Wing, Greenie Uni. Students.

How do the Humanities explain that, or will they. Is it a form of Racism by a White/Anglo/Saxon Faculty?

No comment on ME, African & Asian Humanities papers either I see.

& Please don't link me with Piorot/YEBIGA or potential Terrorists. How insulting. I should complain if you don't answer the questions.

YEBIGA: Our culture has never had any issue with gay literature or feminist, or any identity.

That's right because ME culture Doesn't allow Feminists, no comment on Gays, ;-) Identity? as long as it's the right one in that particular place. If not, Well, E.g. Syria. Any issues are cured by the Sword or Noose in a public place, eh.

Apparently the ME, with the exception of Israel, doesn't produce any Humanitarian papers. Well I haven received any answers to that question, yet.

Squeers,

<<I've mainly tutored in English Literature ... no one I know proselytises, neither is the curriculum left-wing. Canonical literature, history etc. are simply made to compete with other cultural forms for academic consideration>>

ROFLMAO --now say that again without reading from the departmental teleprompter

For your edification I'll reprint a little something I added back on 13 January 2014, on another thread, re the teaching of English a major NSW university:

[quote]

<<Here are some recent examples:
1)"The Boat" by Nam Le is a collection of short stories from various locations around the globe. The lecturer zeroed in on one story which included the murder of a Chinese woman in a country town in Oz --the murder is only mentioned in about six lines of the story & in no way could be said to be even a [minor] theme, even of that one story-- yet the lectures and discussions around the book centred on this one story which was held up as exposing white Australians racism and xenophobia.(Abbott's refugee policy also got a mention)

2) The film "Japanese Story" a Japanese executive/tourist visits Oz and drowns in the outback. Four critiques were endorsed --every one of those critics presented the film as an exposé of white Australians racism and xenophobia (Abbott's refugee policy got a mention here too)

3) Another lecturer talking about the novel "Robinson Crusoe"saw great significance in the fact that Man Friday was portrayed as brown rather than African-black. According to her it was some sort of attempt to whiten things up. She was apparently unaware that the natives of the south Pacific were not African.

4)Another lecturer who had the name "doctor" as part of her title.Bemoaned the fact that Americans were still going on about the twin towers attack "It was outrageous". Yet she just loved to spruik American slavery, set Toni Morrison novels which usually include reference to slavery and cite W.E.B. Du Bois. She also professed that the British conquest of India was more destructive than any other--she obviously had no knowledge of the Muslim conquests. (she also commented on Abbotts refugee policy)

And I could add more...>>

Professor Obscuratus from the university of Post Oppression Studies has written a thesis detailing the continuous marginalisation and unrelenting ridicule of Ufologists. Citing numerous statistical data the Professor highlighted the total absence of any support for traumatised victims of alien abduction. " these poor people" the professor said, " who suffer the most unimaginable horrors and all their human rights violated are then further violated by our cruel ridicule, this has been going on for centuries and is symptomatic of our paternalistic culture."

The University of post oppression studies is planning a new faculty of ufology to commence in the new year.

Andrew Bolt has attracted condemnation after he chimed in to the argument, stating " these alien abduction stories are just attempts to extract some kind of financial compensation from tax payers - anyone can wake up and say they have been abducted." His statements may now be the subject of a discrimination hearing.

The ABCs QandA program will be featuring a detailed discussion on the subject - senior Politicians from all the parties are expected to be represented. The ABC refuses to invite Andrew Bolt on the grounds that he is a denialist.

What a circus!

YEBIGA,
That's very amusing.
On a more serious note, the implication of your position seems to be that we are above criticism, above self-reflection. To the extent that the humanities do focus on our failings, what's wrong with that? It needn't be self-destructive. I can assure you Australia's foreign policy is oblivious, basing its actions on the cynical manipulations of Western imperialism and the profit motive. If the humanities exercise any influence at all on our immoral activities, isn't that a good thing?

Squeers: If the humanities exercise any influence at all on our immoral activities, isn't that a good thing?

You see, that's where you are flying with the fairies. No--one in the General Public even knows about Humanities let alone what Humanities do, if they do anything at all. I know, Humanities is a world where you live & it's seems all important in your world &, to you, it seems that the world revolves around humanities.

A good analogy would be say a Women's Councillor at a Womans Shelter. She has been to Uni. been taught that all men are evil. She went to Uni. because she was abused. At the Women's Shelter she is surrounded by abused women, all her friends are abused women. Therefore her teaching has been proven correct. "all men are violent."

Another is, A Baptist Pastor comes to town in a lecture tour. He preaches that if you are not walking around waving your hands & screaming, "Praise Jesus" 24 hours a day you are not a Christian. Anybody who is not doing that is a Thief, Rapist, Drug Addicts, Murderer, Pornographer etc, etc. He spent 40 years as the N.S,W. Police Chaplin. His beat, Kings Cross. His Flock, Thieves, Rapists, Drug addicts, etc, etc. Therefore everybody is a Criminal etc & condemned to burn in the eternal flames of HELLLLLL...... It was a good laugh at the time.

Do you see where I'm coming from. The Humanities is only significant to people involved in the Humanities. No-one else. It has no influence on anything outside Uni. Most people watch ads on TV & once they are over couldn't tell you what the last ad was. Suma, suma.

On the contrary Jayb
The humanities and the body of work which constitute it are omnipresent. Our entire legal/ethical and political systems, for a start, are the product of works studied in the humanities.

The rightful focus of the humanities is to study precisely those new thoughts which inform our present, examine them and integrate them into the growing body of wisdom.

Thus Jayb it is doubtful you have had a single thought in your entire life which has not already been examined forensically - phsychologically, philosophically, from a pop culture, marketing, business, family, friendship, religion, civic, consumer .... Perspective..

Whether the humanities in universities wish to be relevant or not this dynamic continues. If universities spent more time on integrating the vast amount insight now produced we would all be far better off - but that is a different subject.

Unfortunately, rather than coming at the ever growing level of data with some level of objectivity our universities have preordained narratives into which they try to fit all the data. Its easier that way - no need to think too hard - and if your particular narrative can continuously reaffirm your own compassionate superiority - why all the better!

And of course anyone that disagrees is clearly a white KKK supremacist.

On the contrary Squeers,

I am all for criticism and highlighting immoral acts. I am against the absence of integrating that criticism and immorality into the broader rights of all individuals.

The psychology of the humanitarian left is the self same exclusive psychology displayed by the right wing rationalist. One champions victims over everyone else, the other the uber powerful over everyone else. Two sides of the same coin: leaving the mass of humanity entirely unrepresented. Thus the dispossessed are paid off with a few morsels whilst rights and hard fought for civic gains belonging to all of us are relentlessly withdrawn.

Fukuyama's "the end of history" written back in 1992 celebrates the victory of the right over any alternative to the prevailing socio/political/ economic reality. It is precisely because the humanities have completely abandoned challenging the prevailing hegemony can Fukuyama's book receive a serious reception.

This new "best of all possible worlds" is an indictment against our universities. The conversation from Ancient Greece , thru to the Renaisance, and on to the enlightenment has effectively ceased. What remains is a hollow shell a husk of meaning with its active content either corrupted or removed.

Where once the humanities inspired the end of tyranny, revolutions, 40hour week, universal education, health - today it enables the illegality of assembly, the illegality of strikes, the illegality of free speech, the concentration of oligopoly power. Whilst society is raped and looted, the humanities are begging for grants for the study of some ever new exotic variation of hidden oppression.

Squeers, sadly you are part of a class of people who are so thoroughly corrupted and beholden to a self perpetuating charade which is now designed for the sole purpose to enable the complete evisceration of all our past civic gains. Short of some widespread catastrophe it is impossible to see how the disease can be removed.

It is patent, however, that the humanities emanating out of our universities is the unwitting agent of the current hegemony. Anyone wishing to retain a modicum of common sense will avoid its influence like the plague

YEBIGA,

there's no point us continuing this debate as this forum is overwhelmingly hostile against the Humanities, not based on any evidence but sheer prejudice. I also find your position unreasonable in the extreme--though at times you come close to my own position. As my posting history shows, I've often been critical of the sector myself.
Those few others who were willing to consider the issue on merit have long since, and wisely, quitted the field. I'm belatedly doing the same.

When your right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, then you can say to the mountain move and it shall move.

This is an example of just what the General Public knows about the Humanities. It's worth a look just for the giggle factor.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/O0azojPPRhw?feature=player_embedded

Yebiga: When your right hand doesn't know what the left is doing, then you can say to the mountain move and it shall move.

A quote from your favourite Humanitarian Book the Koran, Yebigie.

I asked some simple questions previously. Why won't anybody answer them? Squeers, JKJ, CL, Aristocrat, Yebiga, Anybody. Cat got your tongues?

I have read the first chapter of, "Australian Universities: A Portrait of Decline." By Donald Meyer. I think it is important that the people in the Humanities Section if this debate read & digest the content of this book. It is written with your discipline in mind, even though Meyers is a Scientist.

Here is the Book in PDF form.

http://www.australianuniversities.id.au/Australian_Universities-A_Portrait_of_Decline.pdf

Some comments;
http://jennifermarohasy.com/2012/06/australian-universities-a-portrait-of-decline/