- With an eye on Hillary Clinton, Deborah Cameron identifies some of the historical difficulties that face women politicians as they seek power.
- Following Stanley Fish, Mark Liberman measures the humanities and finds that they are probably not big enough to ride the roller coaster. FWIW, the person charged with policing the humanities in my department has decided they are worth little more than the teaching of classical rhetoric or identity, but not, say, the rhetoric of identity. The limitations s/he places on the field come from conservative thought and, I still suspect, laziness.
- Don’t you know that Erika Hayasaki, the reporter who wrote this Los Angeles Times illumination of controversy in the scrapbooking world, discovered the story because she is a scrapbooker herself? (Great story, too.)
- Noam Scheiber’s comparison of Barack Obama’s campaign to Howard Dean’s is informative.
- “The celebrity is a special public,” the Scientologist said. “We’ve got to help them.”
- Do you think I should apply?
- Wallbuilders has released a presidential voter’s guide, in case you’re interested. It’s reductive and not particularly accurate, of course.
Comments
Sorry. I didn’t realize the application was behind a login. Here’s the relevant information:
by greg—Jan 19, 03:14 PM
On the Liberman/Stanley Fish article —
I take the point that the humanities have outlived their original public justifications, and I admit that I’m not sure exactly what new justifications might look like. But, it seems to me, that shouldn’t preclude us from coming up with some that are more substantial than “Boy this poem is pretty!” which is about all Liberman and Fish seem willing to grant them.
I’m not exactly sure what qualifies as a humanities discipline these days because there is so much overlap here, but a discipline like history certainly doesn’t have to resort to weak astheticist arguments to support its case. And I think that the same might be said for other humanities projects. I’ll have to think a bit more to offer a public justification of my discipline (since it seems to be the chief representative of humanities here), but I’ll get back to that.
by shaun—Jan 22, 11:01 AM
I didn’t mean to leave your comment hanging, Shaun. I actually don’t think aetheticist arguments are weak justifications for the liberal arts, though I do think they are immaterial arguments, which some people would see as weak.
Meanwhile, Inside Higher Ed reports on a seminar that discussed greater professionalization of the liberal arts, which if I read correctly, is largely the development of a skills-based curriculum and/or the strengthening of teacher education. I’m not sure what I think about it.
by greg—Jan 26, 09:04 AM
No problem, Greg. Some comments take; some don’t.
Arguments, I suppose, are often weak or strong relative to their audiences.
by shaun—Jan 26, 09:57 AM
Ha! Wallbuilders experiences blowback:
by greg—Feb 6, 04:23 PM