Re: [Marxism] Re: Academic whoring

[Louis Kontos <lkontos@xxxxxxx>]

I would not use any loaded term in any situation where objection is
taken by a comrade, for any reason whatever. Having said that, I like
to be able to call things what they are, as best as I can, and
contribute to solidarity on that basis -- by being honest. So if
there's a better term for academic 'whores' than whores, I'd like to
hear it -- this is a serious question. 'Sell-out' is too mild and
misses the mark, in my view, since it implies that real and honest
work is produced by someone who then cashes in on it without
conscience. Con-men is maybe better, but I don't think that most
academics (I am one, by the way) have the requisite interpersonal
skills to be effective con-men. The guy that sold me a used car, some
time ago, maybe, but not any of the professors I know. When
'scholars' produce whatever is required of them without conscience,
when they sell not only their research or published 'work' but their
thoughts, feelings, attitudes, etc., in order to maintain a middle
class lifestyle, or something better, they are doing something truly
reprehensible, qualitatively worse than someone who offers sex for a
price. So 'whore', in my view, isn't a strong enough term -- however
offensive it might be to comrades. I'd like to know what terms
comrades, especially Carrol and Louise, suggest we use and why.
Louis



On Jun 1, 2006, at 10:20 AM, Ian Pace wrote:

> From: "David McDonald" <dbmcdonald@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
> > I'm with Louise and Carrol on this. In particular I endorse Carrol
> > comments
> > about the list demographics and the dangers therein.
> >
> > Ian Pace got correctly busted for an insensitive remark that is
> > offensive to
> > women and to everyone who respects women. Most of us have done
> > this, sadly,
> > at one time or another, and the best of us try to learn something
> > from it
> > when such is pointed out to us. Not Ian.
>
> I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it was not
> myself who used the term whoring in the first place. It is not a
> term I use, before you start talking about my being 'busted'.
> > What is intolerable is Ian's refusal to own up to
>
> Own up to what? Take up the term with Louis if you like.
>
> > and apologize for his
> > crudeness and insensitivity and in particular I reject his cutesy-pie
> > faux-intellectual hiding behind little etymological questions to
> > avoid
> > making the necessary apology so we can move the fuck on.
>
> I have nothing personally to apologise for, in terms of using the
> term.
>
> > I take his reply as
> > an example of wink-wink politics and find it more offensive than the
> > original remark, let's let the girls gets their feelings out while
> > meanwhile
> > the fellas can go on to discuss the subtleties of the situation which
> > identity politicians caught up in the emotion of their own
> > oppression, are
> > too blinded by to see, or too lacking in dispassion to be
> > intellectually
> > engaged in.
>
> That is total BS. I'm actually concerned about the appropriation of
> the politics of identity as a mode of repackaging capitalist
> interests - is that not a legitimate concern. A distinct issue,
> yes, hence why changing the thread title.
> > If Ian Pace is so interested in the etymology of "semen" what
> > stopped him
> > from consulting the Oxford English Dictionary, written to answer
> > just such
> > questions? And how did we get from a discussion of whether it's OK
> > to call
> > people whose morals you disapprove of "whores" by analogy, to the
> > discussion
> > of Latin roots? What's that got to do with using an offensive term
> > and
> > dodging the consequences with a fog of vaporized horseshit?
>
> Calm down. The term 'seminal' was brought up (not by me). I was
> asking whether it is so necessarily linked to English 'semen'
> rather than Latin 'semen'.
> > By elevating the word "whore" to a metaphor -- presumably we are
> > not talking
> > about people engaging in actual sex to achieve academic
> > advancement, but
> > people who sell their academic skills in a manner similar to a
> > prostitute
> > renting the use of herself sexually to whomever will pay -- Ian
> > Pace not
> > only endorses treating women as sexual objects, as beings for whom
> > the part,
> > the vagina, is the whole, but generalizes and universalizes that
> > approach.
>
> All language is metaphorical. And some metaphors are more offensive
> than others. And in no sense does anything I say endorse treating
> women as sexual objects. Actually, I think prostitution is a
> reasonable metaphor for the plight of all non-ruling class people
> under capitalism, with the situation of women forced to sell their
> bodies in order to survive as the starkest example of such.
>
> > Not only is it a useful way to distinguish among women -- whores or
> > not-whores -- but it is SO useful a concept that it can be profitably
> > extended to any group or occupation, like professors. to
> > distinguish among
> > them, too. It is actually encouragement to everyone to think that
> > way, in
> > the precise sense that it encourages such thinking by asserting
> > its own
> > righteousness. Valid for you, why not for me?
> >
> > Ian is not responsible for the language. He is responsible for his
> > language.
> Yes, and please check who you phrases were attributed to before
> flying off the handle.
>
> Solidarity,
> Ian
>
>
> ________________________________________________
> YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
> Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/
> marxism


________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism