[PEN-L:6822] Re: Re: Re: Old "foggies"/"fogeys"

[Ken Hanly <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Seems to me that a lot of the heterodox old foggies have become converted to
orthodox fogdom with their
spectacles fogged by a slightly different coloured fog. Those who a few years ago
may
have asked interesting questions re Marxism have settled down in a sort Walrasian
Analytical Marxism, that threatens nothing excpet Marxism as a revolutionary
analysis of capitalism. Social Democrats have
changed from savage critics of capitalism to responsible managers of global
capitalism. From people
such as Tommy Douglas who said he would not rest until the co-operative
commonwealth was established in Canada and capitalism abolished, we have
neo-liberal cheerleaders in New Zealand, and Tony Blair in the UK. Our own NDP
federal leader expressed admiration for Tony Blair. Many of the old foggies along
with
some of the younger crowd in universities have followed these politicians along the
same path.
    Cheers, Ken Hanly
Michael Keaney wrote:

> On Fri, May 14, 1999, 2:42 pm, Tom Walker wrote:
>
> >>Michael Keaney wrote:
> >>
> >>>One possible advantage accruing from present circumstances - more an
> >>>unintended side effect - is that the so-called old fogeys preserve what
> >>>remains of heterodox teaching and research.
> >>
> >>On the other hand:
> >>
> >>"As with other marginal groups, a certain handful of [heterodox old fogeys]
> >>are accorded higher status that they may perform a species of cultural
> >>policing over the rest. . . Such exceptions are generally obliged to make
> >>ritual, and often comic, statements of deference to justify their elevation."
> >>
> >>I've paraphrased from Kate Millett's Sexual Politics (1969), substituting
> >>"heterodox old fogeys" for "women". By definition, a "heterodoxy" offers a
> >>critique of the arbitrary selection and privileging of some discourses
> >>(orthodoxy) over others. But no critical discourse has the right to exempt
> >>itself from its own critique. So we may suppose that certain heterodox
> >>positions are "more orthodox" -- that is to say, more _deferential_ to the
> >>orthodoxy -- than others. And, we might suppose that it is those "less
> >>hetero" heterodoxies that are allowed by the orthodox to represent
> >>heterodoxy. Thus the "advantage" of preserving an old fogey heterodoxy must
> >>not be assumed to accrue to heteroxy per se. Quite the contrary.
>
> I am not exempting  critical discourse from its own critique. Far from it -
> assuming the existence of a significant number of heterodox old fogeys in
> positions of relative power and influence, especially with regard to course
> development and delivery, doctoral supervision and faculty appointment, then
> these would have a lot of answering to do as regards the shrinking
> opportunities for heterodox study in American and British universities.
> Similarly, what about the recruitment opportunities for heterodox
> youngsters? Those who espouse greater disciplinary or intellectual pluralism
> do not seem to have had much impact regarding the nurturance of the
> provision of alternative perspectives. This observation becomes a criticism
> when it refers to those who could have made a difference.
>
> All of which is to say that my original point was that recruitment policies
> focusing primarily or significantly on the race, class or gender of
> applicants/candidates should also recognise the intellectual individuality
> of these individuals. Otherwise we can be as politically correct and as
> reflective of wider social composition as could be possible while the very
> ideology we would all indict as at least culpable in the legitimation and
> prolongation of our societal and international woes would be further
> propagated at the expense of any critical perspective. And then where would
> that leave us?
>
> Michael
>
> Michael Keaney
> Department of Economics
> Glasgow Caledonian University
> 70 Cowcaddens Road
> Glasgow G4 0BA
> Scotland, U.K.