EPTNatural sciences, though. At another uni here in Germany a lecturer had his contract not extended for protesting with people who are not at all fans of our Grundgesetz and I think that is fine.
European Politico-economics QA Mega-thread - Page 1292
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. | ||
|
schaf
Germany1326 Posts
Natural sciences, though. At another uni here in Germany a lecturer had his contract not extended for protesting with people who are not at all fans of our Grundgesetz and I think that is fine. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4692 Posts
| ||
|
Simberto
Germany11340 Posts
On November 03 2020 23:33 Silvanel wrote: I dont think i understand - i googled Grundgesetz and it seems that it means Constiitution. I think in general it is ok to protest in favor of amending the constituion - You need to provide more information --> What exactly was he protesting against or in favor of? Some things might be ok some obiously might not. In Germany, we use "isn't a friend of our constitution" as an euphemism for "is some kind of extremist, usually hard right". If someone is protesting to add a paragraph about animal rights into the Grundgesetz, no one would say that they are protesting against the constitution, despite wanting to change something about it. That phrase is pretty much only used for people who are against some basic ideas in there (freiheitlich-demokratische Grundordnung is the german term, it means the basic ideas of liberty and democracy, with some human rights thrown in). The way schaf phrased it, i take it to mean "was part of a neonazi protest" | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4692 Posts
| ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5587 Posts
On November 03 2020 22:22 Jockmcplop wrote: However, to say that we live in a modern day stalinist society where people are regularly shamed/fired for not adhering to current social science theory is massively over the top. Again, I didn't mean that about Stalin literally. It was a joke. But I will give you an example. A Swedish historian, who I know personally, lectured recently about studying ideology in old texts and archives. She searched for a racial slur as an example of how this racist discourse was used in the text she studied. As she read passages from the text aloud some students were chocked by the language and reported her to the university administration. She was fired for using racist language. On November 03 2020 22:45 Jockmcplop wrote: So if someone was to publish a social sciences study with the title 'Why are Jewish People so good with money?' or 'Investigating the inherent criminality of black and middle eastern people' You wouldn't see a problem with that? But that's not close to being the problem. The problem is that you can take a passage out of Hitler's Mein Kampf, change the word "Jew" for "Man" and publish it as an academic article in a respected gender studies journal. My position is that you can't stop people from doing research in certain areas only because what they find out might hurt your feelings. One concrete example that comes to mind that is close to your second example is the heavy taboo in Swedish criminology about studying the possible connections between ethnicity and criminality. Luckily, that taboo is being lifted now and a new type of organized crime that is structured as ethnic clans have crystallized as an object of study. Since that is a very real problem in Swedish suburbs I think it is good that criminologists try to find ways of fighting that particular type of organized crime. At the same time I know how potentially damaging that kind of research can be. There is an incredibly rich sociological literature about stereotypes (my personal favorites are Sander Gilman and Howard Becker). But barring off parts of reality from inquiry doesn't only hurt our pursuit of knowledge it actively undermines the knowledge that is produced in the universities because every one knows that it is made within the confines of a PC safe-space. On November 03 2020 22:52 Nebuchad wrote: It's interesting that you're not letting the fact that you work in a university with the wrong ideology get in the way of the theory that you can't set foot in a university with the wrong ideology. Depending on what that grad student was studying, part of the previous research being "too white" could be a completely valid issue. What was it about? That's why I said I couldn't speak my mind freely. About the grad student; it was a couple of years ago so I don't remember exactly. But she did a "whiteness studies" influenced analysis of a Swedish modernist author, iirc, and she dismissed a good chunk of the previous studies of the author because the scholars were "too white". No one in the audience had anything to say about that, probably for fear of being perceived as not progressive enough. | ||
BigFan
TLADT24920 Posts
| ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On November 04 2020 05:14 Elroi wrote: That's why I said I couldn't speak my mind freely. About the grad student; it was a couple of years ago so I don't remember exactly. But she did a "whiteness studies" influenced analysis of a Swedish modernist author, iirc, and she dismissed a good chunk of the previous studies of the author because the scholars were "too white". No one in the audience had anything to say about that, probably for fear of being perceived as not progressive enough. I mean it's hard to tell since you don't remember the details but I probably wouldn't have had anything to say either, if whiteness is an important factor in her analysis. | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 04 2020 05:20 BigFan wrote: Out of curiosity, what is the definition of conservative in these situations? My understanding is maintaining the status quo, but if you are in a place were the status quo is ok (not pointing to anything, just in general), is it that bad to be a conservative then? Whenever I hear conservative, I keep thinking back to our political party here lol. Conservatism isn't just the status quo, as Burke said, a state without the capacity to change is a state that has lost its means of conservation. Conservatives generally tend to favour organic reform that is the result of some process of discovery over legislating change by fiat though. | ||
KwarK
United States42008 Posts
On November 04 2020 05:20 BigFan wrote: Out of curiosity, what is the definition of conservative in these situations? My understanding is maintaining the status quo, but if you are in a place were the status quo is ok (not pointing to anything, just in general), is it that bad to be a conservative then? Whenever I hear conservative, I keep thinking back to our political party here lol. If the status quo is okay then why are people trying to change it? As a rule conservatives think the status quo is fine for them (they’re allowed to get straight married etc.) and don’t understand why gay people want it to be changed. It’s a long historical conflict between those who currently world political and social power for their own benefits and those who lack power and suffer due to those with it. For as long as political and social power is unevenly distributed within society there will be conservatives saying “the status quo is fine”. In feudalism they’ll oppose the landless having votes. In early democracy they’ll oppose women having votes. Today they oppose minority religious groups having representation in public discourse. Tomorrow they might oppose removing national boundaries that limit economic opportunity. It’s not about any specific fight, it’s about the relationship between people and power. The difference between a progressive suffragette and a conservative white woman is whether the 19th amendment has been passed. | ||
|
Vivax
21806 Posts
Efficiency without empathy. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9108 Posts
On November 04 2020 06:01 Nyxisto wrote: Personally I don't really understand why anyone cares about any of this. Somehow everywhere across the political spectrum people seem to obsessed with gender studies in universities, but I can think of fewer people who have less impact on the actual world. The people in academia like to think they're important because well, that's what people in academia generally think, the people on the right freak out about it because they think saying outrageous things in gender studies turns the frogs gay. First thing that comes to my mind is that universities are publicly funded and therefore the state should make sure the taxpayer's money isn't spent on people who don't deserve it. Secondly the people in acadamia have some soft influence on public opinion. Journalists get to quote them as "experts", and there is probably no way you can find someone who is a convervative with a gender studies or women's studies degree. Lastly academics sometimes get jobs from the government that allow them to have an actual impact on the world. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On November 04 2020 06:33 Sent. wrote: Secondly the people in acadamia have some soft influence on public opinion. Journalists get to quote them as "experts", and there is probably no way you can find someone who is a convervative with a gender studies or women's studies degree. But again, there is not really a "conservative theory of sociology", that's not a thing. I guess unless you count stuff like phrenology and the like for the far right, but I'm thinking we're in the territory of more standard rightwing, where people think "there's no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families"... It's going to be a fairly quick lesson if you're interested in teaching that, which is why the only "competing" theories that we've actually discussed so far have been marxist, radlib, and an intersection of marxist and radlib. It is not extremely different from complaining that people who teach climate science are generally people who believe in science... | ||
|
Nyxisto
Germany6287 Posts
On November 04 2020 06:33 Sent. wrote: First thing that comes to my mind is that universities are publicly funded and therefore the state should make sure the taxpayer's money isn't spent on people who don't deserve it. Secondly the people in acadamia have some soft influence on public opinion. Journalists get to quote them as "experts", and there is probably no way you can find someone who is a convervative with a gender studies or women's studies degree. Lastly academics sometimes get jobs from the government that allow them to have an actual impact on the world. Tbh I think they get jobs from the government so that they don't have an actual impact on anything, they need to go somewhere after all. What academia or public intellectuals do is write hot takes and op-eds on arcane issues that nobody on the outside even understands. If you're a conservative and believe that all this gender theory stuff is just wrong and that those people are fundamentally mistaken about human nature and the way humans socially interact, then there's no reason to worry. (And I kind of agree with that), because no amount of tweeting or activism is going to change anything. Okay it costs some tax dollars but that's not really what anyone cares about This is why I don't get this culture war stuff that has started in the US and like osmosis seems to have moved across the pond. Let them write outrageous paper about how sex isn't real and so what. At some point they turn 40, settle down have kids and live suspiciously conservative lives and mellow out | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9108 Posts
On November 04 2020 07:00 Nebuchad wrote: But again, there is not really a "conservative theory of sociology", that's not a thing. I guess unless you count stuff like phrenology and the like for the far right, but I'm thinking we're in the territory of more standard rightwing, where people think "there's no such thing as society, there are individual men and women and there are families"... It's going to be a fairly quick lesson if you're interested in teaching that, which is why the only "competing" theories that we've actually discussed so far have been marxist, radlib, and an intersection of marxist and radlib. It is not extremely different from complaining that people who teach climate science are generally people who believe in science... I did not say there are no conservative sociologists, only that it would be hard to find a conservative expert with a degree created by leftists for leftists. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On November 04 2020 07:13 Sent. wrote: I did not say there are no conservative sociologists, only that it would be hard to find a conservative expert with a degree created by leftists for leftists. Well, do you think there are conservative sociologists? Cause I certainly haven't seen a lot of evidence of that. The main attitudes of conservatism toward sociology appear to be "It's nonsense, let's mock this nonsense" and "It's corrupting the youth into destroying the West (or whatever)". | ||
|
Elroi
Sweden5587 Posts
| ||
|
Sent.
Poland9108 Posts
On November 04 2020 07:17 Nebuchad wrote: Well, do you think there are conservative sociologists? Cause I certainly haven't seen a lot of evidence of that. The main attitudes of conservatism toward sociology appear to be "It's nonsense, let's mock this nonsense" and "It's corrupting the youth into destroying the West (or whatever)". To be honest I don't care. I assume there are some, at least in catholic universities. | ||
|
Nebuchad
Switzerland11933 Posts
On November 04 2020 07:23 Elroi wrote: You seem to have a hang up on there being no concervative sociologists. But what about Durkheim? Isn't he the founder of the field to begin with - stealing the term from Auguste comte, iirc, who believed that there could be no human society without a common religion? I know little about Durkheim but the little I know doesn't lend me to believe his approach of sociology was conservative (edit: and again, I'm still not sure how that would even work). His views on crime and deviance (Mindhunter was good btw) lead me to believe that he'd do some of the contextual work that gets you called an islamoleftist these days, to go full circle on this conversation. | ||
|
Big J
Austria16289 Posts
On November 04 2020 07:17 Nebuchad wrote: Well, do you think there are conservative sociologists? Cause I certainly haven't seen a lot of evidence of that. The main attitudes of conservatism toward sociology appear to be "It's nonsense, let's mock this nonsense" and "It's corrupting the youth into destroying the West (or whatever)". Sociology takes individuals as the atoms of evrything human, conservatives deny that principle fundamentally. They believe in nations, families and gods as the fundamental parts of the world. The whole point of sociological studies is to question that sort of bullshit. E.g. that if you are born from a Jewish mother that you are an individual that should be judged by their choices and not automatically gas chamber fuel, like hardcore Christian/Muslim conservatives believe. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain17852 Posts
On November 04 2020 11:47 Big J wrote: Sociology takes individuals as the atoms of evrything human, conservatives deny that principle fundamentally. They believe in nations, families and gods as the fundamental parts of the world. The whole point of sociological studies is to question that sort of bullshit. E.g. that if you are born from a Jewish mother that you are an individual that should be judged by their choices and not automatically gas chamber fuel, like hardcore Christian/Muslim conservatives believe. Wow. You have no clue what sociology is, do you? I mean, I agree with you that there are prominent sociological theories that take this approach, but there is no reason all sociologists should take this approach. Stating that conservatives can, categorically, not study social patterns, is however completely and utterly wrong. Also, it isn't as if conservatives don't believe individuals exist. | ||
| ||
