The current thinking is that there is no way to understand history, or literature, or theology, or sociology without first noting the biases. It's all about power relationships and preserving status and perpetuating...stuff. I agree with that considerably, and my best evidence is the behavior of current academics. Few eras and classes have exemplified that as clearly as our current crop.
When people tell you the terrible motives of those they disagree with, it is wise to pay attention. They are describing, or predicting what they would do and what their motives would be if they had the power, the money, or the status. I have seen this come true in my lifetime.
It's all about power relationships and preserving status and perpetuating...stuff. I agree with that considerably, and my best evidence is the behavior of current academics. Few eras and classes have exemplified that as clearly as our current crop.
ReplyDeleteYes, indeed. I suspect that academics don't see it that way, though. The pecking order in academia has nothing to do with power but about righteousness- or so the academics would say.
When people tell you the terrible motives of those they disagree with, it is wise to pay attention. They are describing, or predicting what they would do and what their motives would be if they had the power, the money, or the status. I have seen this come true in my lifetime.
ReplyDeleteThis is a terrifying statement as I think about my angry, angry, angry pacifist family and friends.
Richard--yes, a lot of people are blind to the power they'd like to use to enforce their ideas of righteousness. What's left but power when the great unwashed can't see the force of these superior beings' righteous arguments? Power in a good cause isn't morally reprehensible like power in the hands of bad people, right? From there it's only a short step to denying that it's an exercise of power at all.
ReplyDeleteAs for acknowledging that the ends served by this power are as much about fury and envy as about benignity, fuhgeddabouddit.