I dislike a lot of what has passed for culture and thought since the beginning of the twentieth century, but I think it's a bit rich for people to claim it's any less democratic or less in touch with the common man than what preceded it. Has anyone actually noticed that prior to the twentieth century (actually, prior to the baby boomer generation) academia and the cultural elite were just as far removed from the ordinary man, but for different reasons? They were still an elite, often pushing their own agenda and who looked down on the unwahsed masses, after all.

As far as the culture wars go, maybe there's something to consider. If the ordinary man feels so alienated by the high school English curriculum, or what gets taught in the Arts Faculty at a university, then why doesn't he do something about it? To some extent he is (via private schools and doing courses other than a B.A.), but largely, he's having a whinge. Why not really hold teachers, academics, politicians and journalists to account? Better yet, where's the anti-post modernist groundswell in the form of "ordinary" people becoming teachers, academics, etc. to tell it how it really is and take over the teachers unions and curriculum boards?

If people want to pursue a B.Com. (and then a job in the business world) because it has better job prospects or earning potential, that's fine. However, they shouldn't then complain when the culture wars are so one-sided. The Marxists, feminists and post modernists didn't take over by accident. Partly it was their own efforts, and partly, it was an abdication on the part of their opponents. It's like why the socialist/Marxist/feminist twits always win student elections -- everyone else likes to whinge, but is ultimately too lazy to do anything about it, so the handful of nutters cruise into power year after year.

It ain't necessarily so Shorbe, I was driven from completing a Grad Dip in Education because of the mindless responses that were required to be submitted in a marxist, feminist philisophical setting. Assignments parroting the particular viewpoint of the lecturer received high marks, those presenting an alternative one were required to be resubmitted. In fact it was beyond the comprehension of the tutors/lecturers that another viewpoint might be considered. This was so disappointing because after forty years in the workforce, three degrees in the arts, plus engineering quals, I just wanted to put something back, to return an investment towards the future of others.
Anyway, I agree with Gregory Melleuish's article, but I wonder, does the problem exist because of some active intent on the part of the incumbents in these institutions, or is it that they are simply intellectually unable to grasp or reach out beyond thir own mindset?
In my dealings with academia, I have unfortunately reached the latter conclusion. Mind you I am probably considered to be obtuse because I see the shortcomings in their point of view.

Pericles, thanks. I've been wondering lately if it might be of use to have a new regulator in a similar vein to the TGA (Theraputic Goods Administration I think) called the TSA for Theological Spiel Administration.

Theologies could only be offered to the market after passing rigorous safety tests and would be subject to controls placed over marketting based on double blind tests, widespread studies etc.

A theology which could prove that it truly transformed human lives for the better (compared to control samples) could be marketed differently than those which could not substantiate such claims. Those unable to substantiate those claims through verifiable and acceptable means would not be allowed to make claims that their theology could do so. Same for all other marketing claims such as eternal life, miraculous healing power etc, prove it or don't claim it.

Base the model on what is required of those promoting products in the health field and much of the hard work is taken out of working out what to do.

Maybe need to broaden the scope to include "ism's" - Marxism, feminism, humanism, capitalism, communism, socialism, facism etc to ensure that the claims made by proponents of those ism's were also verifiable. (Does that get me a bit back on topic?)

If we do so we would need a more inclusive name than the TSA - any idea's?

Could be fun.

R0bert

Pericles, you have been around this site long enough to know that BOAZ is a bore and best ignored when he preaches (every time he posts?). He only hijacks the debate if he is allowed to.

On topic, I am always interested in the 'elites v ordinary Joes' debate in arts education. As a science graduate, I did not experience any form of cultural elitism with a leftist influence. I don't know to what extent that is a true characterisation of arts faculties in Australia.

I do agree that it seems a little bizarre to be reading a 19th century work by say, a Bronte, and trying to interpret it through a prism of a political or social philosophy developed later. Perhaps a better way of putting such a question would be 'explain ....in the context of social mores that prevailed at the time and contrast with those that are currently fashionable'. Takes the rigidity out of it.

However, if we accept that teachibg is to be delivered by those well-versed in a field, is it not inevitable that the majority of teachers will subscribe to and promulgate a particular school of thought, probably a prevailing one? That there will be opposing minority schools of thought? That such differences are always present in learning and academia? What is the real alternative - rigidly applied curricula that do not allow for interpretation and debate? If 'elites' are the problem, what is the alternative to that - lay people with little expertise?

Brilliant idea Robert, if a bit fascist.. we could call it the Theological and Ideological Trustworthiness Authority (TITA)

Oh my God, lay people with expertise! Oh no, never that! Oh please, our castle is under threat.