Re: [Marxism] Ward Churchill Redux

[Jeff <meisner@xxxxxxxxx>]

I think John Thornton stated the closest thing I might accept as a "rule"
in this regard:

At 11:39 07/05/09 -0600, you wrote:
>It's a question of timing.
>During a witch hunt the only appropriate answer to questions concerning 
>Churchill's scholarship should be "no comment at this time".
>During [other] times ....

In other words, one must always take into account the CONTEXT of their
criticisms, not just factual accuracy of what they are saying. Although I
think most people on this list would recognize that wisdom, it isn't such a
simple matter to always recognize/appreciate the context of a discussion
(though in the case of the witch-hunt against Churchill, it was pretty
stark!).

This probably applies to everyone, but I know there are times I have
inadvertently caused (minor) political damage through a good faith effort
at accuracy, and I hope that I have learned from each case the distinction
between the "art of politics" and political theory. For instance, when I
see certain environmentalists protesting against GM technology (and not to
start a new discussion on that topic!) and I see unscientific rants being
hurled against Monsanto, I don't walk up to the TV camera to explain why
the protest is wrong. But if a fascist organization were doing the exact
same thing (for whatever reason) then I certainly would publicly challenge
their facts as well as their political intentions!

In other words, science itself is a body of knowledge, but the propagation
of scientific findings often has a political effect or intent. If you
simply shout out sound scientific conclusions at every point, without
regard to the context, you will sometimes find yourself unwittingly helping
the enemy!

However I think John Thornton goes too far, or more correctly, changes the
subject, when saying:
>The idea that is bullshit is the idea than "we" need to be above reproach.
>"We" need only be human and as fallible/reliable as "them".
Well no, I really disagree. Especially concerning the social sciences and
humanities. We're not talking about innocent mistakes, but whether your
approach is one which should yield results which are "above reproach"
versus one which reflects the power structure and its ideology.

>Academic standards are not different for the left and right nor is there 
>any reason to suppose they should be.
Among those with poor politics, I would say that there are academics whose
standards/ethics are very high, especially in the physical sciences (but
even there they are a minority). But as you wander into the social sciences
and humanities, political influences become more and more important, and
that is where you would EXPECT and in fact SEE the effect of ideology.
Maybe their stated "standards" are still high, but those standards are
subverted in practice by the social/political context. So scholars who
perpetrated racist theories, having everything to do with slavery and
colonialism, may have been acting according to THEIR high standards, but
surely not ours!

- Jeff



________________________________________________
YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
Send list submissions to: Marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40archives.econ.utah.edu