I guess this idea started when Goldblatt, while approving a SUNY course on sociology from an LGBT perspective, nevertheless objected to the idea that students were expected in the course to develop a “greater acceptance of LGBTQ+ perspectives and rights.” He’s sympathetic to those perspectives and rights, but said that a course should not have the aim of ideologically indoctrinating its students. If they change their minds by learning the material, that’s fine, but accepting a certain perspective should not be required. This led to a fracas in a faculty meeting:Colleges no longer teach kids to think for themselves. You have to accept the woke agenda.After expressing my general admiration for the course, I raised my misgiving in the following way (and this is nearly an exact quote): “We need to keep in mind that we’re a state university. Our mission is to pursue, ascertain, and disseminate objective truth, and to equip our students to do the same. Given that mission, I don’t think we can list a learning outcome that requires students’ assent on a matter of personal morality. The other learning outcomes are fine. You don’t need that one, so I’d just cut it.” My colleague was fresh out of graduate school and not yet tenured, which (theoretically) put her in a vulnerable position. Nevertheless, she became apoplectic; so angry, in fact, that she had difficulty getting out her first sentence. “I can’t believe people still think that way!” she spluttered. “Queer Theory has deconstructed objectivity!”
Saturday, February 18, 2023
Queer Theory has deconstructed objectivity
On the disintegrations of academia:
Labels: college, homosexuality
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Queer theorist: Queer theory has deconstructed objectivity.
Me : Yes, I'm sure it has as far as Queer theory is concerned, but that would also imply Queer theory is also entirely subjective and can not be supported by any kind of evidence...since that would require objectivity.
I can deconstruct Queer Theory without much effort at all, just by just using their own poorly defined buzz words. Since Queer theorists posit (don't ask me how) they can't identify with anyone unless they resemble themselves and their unique (fill in the blank ad nauseam), and are utterly alienated by this lack of representation in all things, How (much less why) do they expect anyone not like them to be able to identify with them at all? This would imply that cis-normative folk apparently are more flexible and tolerant than they are and can do something Queer theorists apparently can't.
Realistically, If one person speaks a language that no one else in the society around them does, it is incumbent upon the one, not the many, to learn the common tongue. This is how language works, we can't all invent our own languages and then expect people to understand us.
I really do wonder what goes through the heads of Queer theorists, since they don't apparently know what a logical fallacy is (much less a corollary argument), or how to debate without constant strong emotional incontinence, or what the words they use even mean, and have next to no ability to separate their inner feelings from external evidence.
Post a Comment