>School of Resentment is a term coined by critic Harold Bloom to describe related schools of literary criticism which have gained prominence in academia since the 1970s and which Bloom contends are preoccupied with political and social activism at the expense of aesthetic values.
I think Harold Bloom's prophecy that criticism of literature through the lenses of ideological bias, such as feminism, gender theory, Marxism, etc has come to ring true. Considering how identity politics and grievance culture has embedded itself so deeply in modern society, to the point where no group or crowed is able to insulate itself from its influence, what do you think can be done to save literature from being scrutinized with contemporary sensibilities to the point where some things are outright removed from, or simply never make it to the modern person or families libraries because of unnecessary application of sociological perspective. Any perceived infraction or disagreement is oft enough to completely dismiss the entire thing. Young minds and entire generation will be denied master pieces because of stupidity!
I know this is heading down a slippery slope fallacy, but there is no doubt that things are escalating. We're at a point where The Onion is becoming less and less funny satire and more a surreal reminder.
In the past when books were altered or banned for language that groups like the religious right deemed unacceptable, the reasonable people on the left would be there to combat them, but now it is the left whom are teetering towards the same path; not by outright banning it or book burning -- but by casting them aside to the "not progressive enough bin" and trying their damnedest to shame other people into thinking like them.
Racist, bigot, xenophobic, homophobic, problematic -- all words which could ruin the reputation of a book, and not allow it to reach the mind of someone who would otherwise benefit and become a better person from its contents. I hope I'm not alone in thinking that the coddling hand of the SJW is a cancer on /lit/.
Those on the left who still hold certain values to be true would probably have to realize it and concede in helping members of the right who aren't cuckked in order to help combat this lunacy.
OP here, I just realized I didn't complete my thought in the first sentence.
I think Harold Bloom's prophecy that criticism of literature through the lenses of ideological bias, such as feminism, gender theory, Marxism, etc *furthering the idiot-ization of society has come to ring true.
Offense is subjective. If someone calls me a cracker or a pedant or a hack, it's up to me to decide whether I am offended by that phrase.
One thing we USED to teach our children (I know this because it was what my father and mother taught me) was that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me" and while that is a facile lie on it's face because no man is perfectly secure, it breeds resilience and an ability to see through insult to insight.
An SJW is someone who, if confronted by the most perfect solution to the crisis in the Middle East ever conceived, would disregard it entirely if the spokesperson for that solution began "listen up, bitches and hoes" - it is a facile, reductive approach to discourse that seeks to make simple a complex society that is difficult to live in for those with low mental capacity.
When white people came to north america, they learned many survival skills from natives they considered inferior and morally destitute, because they had the resilience to look past those things about the natives which offended them to see the insightful practices which the aboriginals demonstrated constantly. To do otherwise would have meant starvation.
It is not a slippery slope at all to realize that SJW culture - this culture of a claim to inability or actual inability to endure rhetorical hardship - destroys the ability of a society to adapt, which of course will kill the society. Just as a communist tyranny approaches the tyranny of fascism, so too does SJW censorship bring with it all the ills of theocratic, ultra-right wing censorship.
What is really fascinating, I think, is to look at what got us here. To some extent it begins with things like the abortion struggle, with people cutting out discourse with phrases like "only a woman would understand" etc., but that is not all the story, I think. There is also a view, in revolutionary thinking - a trope, really - that the revolution will result in Utopia with a capital U - which is of course a reductive way of thinking about the world that makes everything seductively simple. But that inevitably collapses on itself when all the original goals of a revolution are met and people still find themselves unsatisfied. The desperate cling to their ship which has carried them well thus far, and they try to keep going, doing really extreme mental gymnastics to keep things afloat, lest they find themselves rudderless in a world too complex for their ability to cope.
The real solution is to be less reactionary, to eschew revolution wherever possible in favor of change from within: reform. This is the basis of the success of the catholic church and the basis of the failure of its protestant offshoots; churches are excellent test tubes for cultural transmission and adaptation.
I don't personally think it's a slipper slope either, but I'm so use to having to defend myself for criticism of SJW's that I did some weird concede, yet not concede move there, which helps your point on shutting down discourse. It may have started with a semi-reasonable thing to say about judging something very female related with a male(and most likely just religious) perspective. These days I can give dozens of anecdotes where conversations I've had get stopped by someone commenting how it's "two white men" talking about [insert minority group] issues.
there are no cases where it is reasonable to cut people out of a debate unless they are not bringing evidential claims or theretofore-unrefuted reasoning or if the argument must be concluded suboptimally due to time constraint.
i don't think you're right op. houellebecq exists and is one of the biggest authors in modern times. desu i think literature is just in a generally uninspired state. can you name an instance in which identity politics or 'grievance culture' have actually caused any of of your grievances?
>ethics become aesthetics
did bloom not read?
Cite your sources.
I believe we live in a society that is more heavily saturated by media which warps are perspectives. Loud minorities were a thing in the past why would they disappear now?
This is 4chan but don't commit the same problems that you are accusing others of doing.
Don't rely on anecdotes, rely on statistics.
If you enter a conversation with an SJW and never use anecdotal evidence, and point out when they are using anecdotal evidence, the conversation will wither. A speaker being x background only matters (it actually does) when anecdotal evidence is in question. Statistics doesn't give a fuck because it can check itself on its own biases.
Really have you ever looked up any facts about what you are talking about? Are you any better than them?
I read the SJW thing (as embodied in Mizzou, not Ferguson) as a failure of activists with good intentions and a recognition of real problems to find good ground to make their stand on.
This has a lot to do, in my opinion, with a lack of serious reading and serious political intuition among today's student activists.
Everyone wants to be like SNCC and stand up for what's right. Nobody wants to read about SNCC and learn how they actually did it.
I have been thinking about this a bit recently. I would consider myself a leftist, but much of what is called "SJW" leaves me kinda scratching my head. Not because it is "too radical", rather the opposite really, but it is hard to put into words.
As an example, take political correctness. So you are not supposed to call somebody a "Nigger". Fair enough, this is a word with racist connotations. But recently I noticed that even in say a normal conversation about racism, you are now supposed to say "the N-word" instead. This rubs me the wrong way to be honest, in the sense that this is the kind of thing you do when talking in front of children. They are not supposed to know the word "fuck", so you say "the f-word" etc. But since everyone actually knows what the word refers to and all the negative connotations stay intact, all you do is changing around a bunch of letters (and not even all of them). So I would conclude that it is not an effective way to combat racism, just an effective way for white people to signal that they are not racist.
Then you got the gay marriage thing. In some states and countries you can now get "civil unions", which (as I understand it), means all the state services as a marriage, but a different name. Now I can get behind a righteous struggle to win the same rights for everyone from the state etc, so to me that seems like the perfect solution.
So I am quite puzzled when people still claim that this is not enough and they want "gay marriage" as well. I am not a religious person and I don't care what you call it, but what annoys me is that this is not a fight for rights, but for recognition. Like they need society not only to give them their tax breaks or whatever, but also to tell them that they are the same. This to me seems like a very weak and insecure position, to be honest. I don't think Martin Luther King for instance was groveling for recognition by racists, he wanted to win certain rights for his race.
Anyway, those are my admittedly unstructured thoughts on this.
I misunderstood then, I thought he meant something in my post.
And yeah I don't see myself turning decisively to the right in the foreseeable future, but I am dismayed at the direction leftist politics are taking at the moment.
There is a difference between struggling for your rights and whining for recognition from your opponents. IIRC (it has been a while), but didn't Marx even write that the opponents of the proletariat acted in their own rational interests and should not be expected to change their minds? This is kind off the opposite of the modern political correctness and sjw ideology, where people are attacked for what they believe, not so much what they stand for, if that makes any sense.
Uh-huh. I'm politically left, specifically, from Scandinavia and with enough insight to realize that our brand of Social Democracy (which would probably be construed as extremist socialism in the US) is the best societal structure yet conceived.
I agree wholeheartedly with the right when it comes to political correctness, and I am grateful every day that I am not a swede.
When I read about american universitites establishing safe spaces on campus, where students can go if they are distressed at being confronted with thought that is in conflict with their own - safe spaces filled with play-doh, coloring books and puppy videos - I readily see the point OP is making about satire becoming indistinguishable from reality. Having such a haven of infantilization in a place of higher education, frankly, is utterly ridiculous.
>Statistics can check itself on its own biases
Statistics is the worst meme since "logic and reason"
Have you ever done anything that required collecting data or statistics at all? Even in subjects as rigorous as physics there are errors that are not evident through just the statistical data itself. Even if error is obvious, you still don't have its cause. Using statistics to support your argument without understanding how the data was collected and analyzed and understanding the phenomena the data is showing is no better than throwing out anecdotes.
>Using statistics to support your argument without understanding how the data was collected and analyzed and understanding the phenomena the data is showing is no better than throwing out anecdotes.
It's actually worse, because people fall for it.
Neo - modernist hillbilly techno fart culture
Grey literary prophetic analysis
Ingenious Holocaustic pretense orgasim
Stop making up phrases to sound smart you anglo cucks
I couldn't get through any lit courses without hearing about the white paradigm. I took a writing course where we read Notes From No-Man's Land and discussed it for a third of the semester. I took an American Lit course where the professor wanted to do a "multicultural" course where we literally only read slave narratives, folk tales and Gwendolyn Brooks. You can't read an academic blog post about Hegel without seeing a reference to the "dead white male." People who don't read assuming I just haven't been informed yet about white privilege. A white professor who literally told me the other day that a white Slovenian ancestry is not as interesting as a black Haitian ancestry. These are experiences off the top of my head. The university is almost a totalitarian nightmare where what you look like can get you shut out of a debate.
as much as others might shout against the void at each other, the chance of becoming the same monster through fighting them makes the effort pointless. while everything else is pointless, one might to a certain extent breathe the life out of their hollow gods and make yourself their pyrrhic king, if one were interested in that sort of thing by this mystic uttering:
>You know nothing of offence to be offended by this; you know nothing of my life to know what offensive is; the ghosts of the dead are offended by your meagre understanding of the violent, repulsive nature of this world, and are ashamed for you because you do not have the sense or decency to be ashamed of your offence.
or you can just mumble to yourself
>that's not a katana, m8, this is a katana.
it's all pretty much the same any way
It's interesting to note that I pretty much agreed with OP completely, even though he provided no concrete examples of what he was speaking about.
I guess I just saw too many examples on my own previously. So if you want to keep disagreeing with the OP, it's recommendable to not look at videos that descibe such example.
For example this video, which showcases how crazy students at some American universities are :
If you decide to watch it anyway, you can dismiss it easily by saying it's by Sargon of Akkad. I mean, the factual events described in the video still happened as they are described, which the video proves by recording of said events, but hey, surely somehow you'll reconcile with that, it's just reality.
i don't know if you're trolling me but i meant ways that aren't based in cultural/critical theory i.e. marxism, feminism, race, etc.
i know bloom is a freudian, which is pretty repulsive to me.
I like your reasoning. This reminds me of Zizek's discussion of "tolerance." MLK was not fighting for tolerance or as you put it, recognition, but rather for basic civil rights that would be put on paper and made into law.
uh, if you learnt those words from /pol/ you might find they have different meanings.
for the purposes of literary theory, marxist crit believes that literary movements arise out of social conditions and influence them: so books about whaling being awesome are more common in societies that think whaling is awesome, edgy books about whaling being awesome only appear in societies that think whaling is awful and people who say otherwise are trying to be edgy. the idea is that right and wrong are based around social ideals which change both through the debate of right and wrong, and because through time our interests in the rightness/wrongness of whaling will change with socioeconomic factors. marxist theory is dense with esoteric terminology like "the Other" and "subject formation", but it's very valuable because it's relativist.
feminist crit is a weird mix of marxism and freudianism. some critics who aren't feminist combine the two, but, when feminist crit does it, it's a new level in babble. a lot of it is not worth reading because it has a lot less meaning to the marx jargon and a lot more of the same jargon covering over this lack of coherency. if you want some really cuckoo tin foil hat conspiracy theory shit, you could read it, but /pol/ doesn't really do justice to how crazy this subsection is or how wrong they get marx or freud often.
i really can't think of any which aren't political pieces or very old. there's a famous anecdote about how hamlet is not interpreted the same outside the west which i think stopped people from getting tribemen to interpret shakespeare more, when we really should have encouraged that because it would be worth reading race based crit if we had:
this was the mid sixties when marxist/fem/psychoanalytic crit was on the rise in the wake of structuralism's fall ~1966, so from a marxist perspective they might have stayed away from gathering more of those interpretations because tribesmen's stories might be more interesting than their sjw ones
structuralism's a bit like the jungian psychoanalytic approach: it assumes there's an underlying human mythos which most works everywhere across the world have tried to imitate. levi strauss for structuralism, joseph campbell for jungian myths.
joseph campbell's theory is pretty much the plot line for star wars because lucas was in love with him. and with all due irony, poststructuralism killed it once it realised who its father was. poststructuralism is even denser jargon than marxism or structuralism, but it's valuable because it points out structuralism itself would have to be part of that great overarching myth we were just making facsimiles of with new works, and not a new work itself for it to hold any water. derrida is considered the father of this (or luke skywalker to strauss' anakin or however that family works now). however, read sontag, easier prose.
This is really interesting. Look at the snarl response that occurs when you criticize the social justice dogma.
There are some very good responses in this thread, the OP of which is quoting Bloom, and you have the /pol/ dismissal even though there's nothing nazi-esque about the post. Sjws hate being discussed, it lends legitimacy to their criticizers, and that can't be allowed, can it? The spoiled children of identity politics have become the new censorship authoritarians that the right was long ago. They need to die off, it's just a close-minded hate group now.
Ferdinand de Saussure
Boris Eichenbaum, Viktor Shklovsky
Lotman, Roman Jakobson
Roland Barthes, Levi-Strauss
Barthes get poststructuralist later on though, as far as I unterstand.
Never heard of that one, let's use google.
>Jacques Derrida's essay Ulysses Gramophone [....] devotes more than eighty pages to an interpretation of the word "yes" in James Joyce's modernist novel Ulysses.
Also, as far as I understand every method of analysis has its roots in some kind of assumption or framework, most of which are not strictly academic but cultural.
While certainly not true anymore, it had its prime time as a tool to get to the meaning to pierce all meanings , god. Used for the analysis of holy texts, became literary criticism later.
Partially a defense against other (as you would put it : cultural) fields overtaking lit. criticism. Strong focus on linguistics&literary devices (hurr durr Art as Device/Technique). Strong tendency to avoid most other aspects. Can be pretty limiting, it's intersting though.
Not going to say too much on structuralism or poststructuralism, thats out of my reach.
Also you might want to look up the difference between feminist criticism/study and gender theory-based (hurr durr butler) criticism/study. Most of the latter category make of point of not being confused with the former.
There's a lot of other schools though, if you care to research a little. Reception Aesthetics can be nice if you are willing to read some dense stuff, but that's true for most of the others as well.
>whatever type bloom likes etc
Do you want books ON this type of approach, or examples? Regardless:
The Well Wrought Urn - Brooks
Practical Criticism - IA Richards
Fearful Symmetry - Frye
Nabokov's work on Gogol, Lectures on Literature, Lectures on Russian Literature
Appreciations, with an Essay on Style - Pater
Wings of Art: Joseph Campbell on James Joyce
Poetry and The Age - Jarrell
Stuff like that. Y'know, works that approach literature out of a love for literature itself.
On the gay rights matter, it's really a matter of security. Whilst they mean the same thing now, there's nothing preventing future opinion changing and laws being made which only affect marriage or only affect civil partnerships. Obviously there could be a situation where they rename gay marriage again and then make their changes, but the more obstacles put in place, the harder it is to change, and the safer you feel, though I feel this isn't what drives everyone.
Imagine if a Government whom you trusted asked for your finger-prints, just for record, you could comply thinking, well this is fine i'm in no danger. However, further down the line the Government may change, maybe they start monitoring you with that print, or maybe they outlaw something unjust and catch you with that fingerprint. Whilst it's a stretch, the problem is the same, you have to place trust in a changeable institution.
nigga just because you don't have any contact with lit crit doesn't mean you have to get mad enough to break the global rules. have a video where derrida doesn't explain love from when he got over the inherent fascism of images and transitioned to the nietzschean understanding of image vs mask:
Words that are emotionally charged affect the way people experience the intended information. Political correctness asks you to use words with less charge to convey the direct meaning without the emotion. This can be seen with words like Vagina (as opposed to cunt) etc.
Humans are emotional beings, PC keeps the discussion as neutral as possible.
pc doesn't try to keep the situation neutral: it relies upon a politically correct and politically incorrect division, and both are decided by the politics of its advocates. there are other manners of speaking (the non violent language movements, neurolinguistic programming theories, culturally sensitive language approaches) which aim to mold languages to lesser "charged" words in situations which often cause strife. pc relies upon strife however, because it is intended to be a reminder of potential for violence and often is used in part reparation for violence. it's designed to neutralize all other positions, but unlike the others it is not as prone to being used nonviolently or unemotively. it's a canard that pc maintains that it is peaceable rather than political, but emotional reasoning pervades the terms associated with it for a reason: because appeals to emotion have always been part of the bedrock of politics.
as an example: pc thinks it's wrong to laugh at engrish, but for someone with a culturally sensitive approach to chinese ESL, china has a deep appreciation of puns from mistranslation because within accents and languages there are thousands of words this happens to in the language group. pc's agenda is in conflict with that because pc is not made up at all of any appreciation of other people's social politics. it's not neutral, it's people yelling at you that they're more neutral and everyone should listen to them instead.
This is bullshit. It's entirely possible to discuss vitriolic words like nigger and faggot without resort to euphamism. Moreover, using euphemism neuters the only important feature of those vitriolic words, and if a person cannot maintain discussion on topic in spite of """triggering"""" emotional verbiage, somebody else should do it for them.
PC discussion does not keep things neutral, people say catty bullshit designed to tar others all the time in PC language. PC language is a reputational game played by faggots competing for nice-guy points. By doing so they gain the support of other faggots who are like "that other guy sounded meeeean" because traditionally male modes of discourse have been neutered in the public arena of politics which is now dominated by reptilian vote-whoring slimebags catering to the whim of every spineless nu-male and jumped up bitch.
In this photograph, the hypocritical Malcolm X is in fear because the violent Islamists he spent his life promoting are planning his assassination. Just deserts IMO. Perhaps if he had spent more time constructing a viable ideology rather than a celebrity image, he wouldn't have been killed.
>Vagina (as opposed to cunt)
this is actually a horribly classist linguistic prejudice against anglo-saxon root-words (as low-class/vulgar), and towards latinate speech(as high-class). By supporting this linguistic prejudice you are abetting a structure of oppression which conspires to keep speakers of anglo-saxonate derived languages in the lower labor classes.
If you're so politically correct, how can you denigrate an entire people's manner of speech as vulgar and crass, when all they are doing is using their own natural language? Surely the vulgarity is not in the word itself, but in the person who hears it. Surely the perception of vulgarity comes not from the word, but from your idea of what kind of person says that kind of word.
pure class prejudice
Consider not being such a prissy cunt.
This guy points it out.
SJWism has a cult aspect to it. The inability to perceive ideology outside its own perspective is one of the key factors. It always interprets political incorrect discourse through its own narrative. You can't argue with an SJW, facts mean nothing to them.
I'd be willing to suggest the ideology was designed with that in mind. One of the very interesting things I've noticed about the left over the last century is that it establishes the narrative, determines the outcome of events and manipulates it in its favour. Then it proceeds to ensure there is always room to critic the past events to establish a new narrative for itself.
Take for example the obsession with black slavery and the civil rights movement. By focusing upon that history, and emphasizing it above everything else, you can create ressentiment on historic grievances. This ensure that you always have fresh "revolutionaries" ready to critic society through their interpretation. It is about denying foreign perspectives and ensuring that those forms of information determine the thoughts and ideology of all students, setting their latter perspective on expanded topics which are approached in later study.
This system is an ideological indoctrination system which comes from the professors themselves. Professors are rarely conservative or right wing. Most are left leaning, because ideas don't need to work to survive in academia. And so they educate the next generation in these theories, who as they seep through the higher levels of the education system, produce news means of expanding and growing the ideology into new areas of victimhood.
I'd argue the only method to solve it is to force a collapse of the higher education system or actively murder left wing professors.
i'm the guy you're responding to but I got to your second paragraph and realised i don't want you agreeing with me. social justice has a longer history than the modern sjw incarnation, and both are different but have some overlap with pc. not all social justice movements (or even modern sjws) adopt pc, and i stopped reading your post because i had to point that out. please try to agree with someone else
>Racist, bigot, xenophobic, homophobic, problematic -- all words which could ruin the reputation of a book, and not allow it to reach the mind of someone who would otherwise benefit and become a better person from its contents
Most of the people hurling this accusation are often defending a book that is, itself, a highly politicized piece of shit. This is why people say you're just the other side of the same coin: Bored, idle middle class people looking for something to complain about.
Is this bait? Read the whole fucking thing instead of barely reading it then replying. Literally kill yourself.
There is nothing more disgusting than someone pretending to present an intellectual point with denoting a common truth as a goal of that post, then not even reading it. The left and the right used to have debates with common interests in mind. The fact that I conjectured on your perspective then you actually want me to disagree with you, shows how immature and lacking of intellectual seasoning you are.
Go join hare krishna and starve yourself to death faggot.
Unless this is bait, in which case, 10/10.
you criticise 'the left' for constructing narratives to determine events and manipulate but then use a really terrible SJW bogeyman narrative, try harder next time.
There's plenty to be said against certain critics who shoehorn their pet theory/concern into lit crit about whatever book they select, but at the same time there is plenty of worthwhile criticism that does consider gender, historical context, 'marxism', etc. As an obvious example simply talking about Heart of Darkness on an aesthetic level has its merits, but to not also discuss issues of colonialism that it has as one of, if not its main theme would be a bit perverse.
There are certainly issues with the left, particularly it seems at universities and surrounding free speech but it doesn't mean all literary criticism that considers race, gender etc. is bogus, even though I think it should generally be more of a secondary consideration after more formal elements of texts.
It is a weaponized form of ideology. Using race, gender, class etc consistently and endlessly demonstrates the disdain that the present left wing perspective actually has for these groups.
Class, Gender and Race can be used as valid criticisms. There is no doubt that Orlando Furioso provided a nice introspection of racial and religious discussion in the work, but it wasn't primarily about race, or used to advance a political narrative entirely around something as arbitrary as race, religion, gender or class. It is entirely about agitation to divide and exploit inflated grievances. It is social alienation and manipulation at its core.
SJWism is merely the latest in a long line of these manifested forms. However with time, each left leaning student activist set has evolved its doctrine, but kept the same characteristics.
they are different things. it's important because some of the other methods of constraining language came out of previous social justice incarnations. i know you are trying to agree that people who use emotional reasoning are prone to being angry more than people who don't use the same emotional focus, but it's a conflation i purposefully avoided because earlier social justice has lead to different languages than just pc language, and, like i said, not all modern sjws are into pc. SJWs still use emotional reasoning when they try to reclaim words or pc, and it's a different emotional reasoning in both, and different again to when social justice movements brought about things like nonviolent language (in part since it was backed by other movements too, like some branches of psychology). We're having a discussion about the precision of language and its neutrality, and the two are separate phenomenon, especially since even SJW alone, not social justice as a whole, is not a language movement. It adopts other language movements, including PC, but it is not the same thing. The parallel you want to draw is as political as theirs, and the solution you propose is deeply in conflict with anything which aims for any kind of neutrality or education. Kill yourself, you want your progeny to be dumber than you and receive less education than your dumbass it.
>PC language is a reputational game played by faggots competing for nice-guy points.
>traditionally male modes of discourse have been neutered in the public arena of politics which is now dominated by reptilian vote-whoring slimebags catering to the whim of every spineless nu-male and jumped up bitch.
>The left and the right used to have debates with common interests in mind.
Lolno, I think shitflinging has been around since the development language.
Apart from that, I do agree with you that the dude is a lazy cunt. It almost has to be bait. The TL;DR response is easy but very, very effective bait.
>that our brand of Social Democracy (which would probably be construed as extremist socialism in the US) is the best societal structure yet conceived
Yeah because you lot advanced human civilization you cowardly shits
actually i think youll find there was always the trace of language in shitflinging, simultaneously outside and inside the action, it is clear when we examine shitflinging sous rature, then language has always been at once present and absent
How does it demonstrate disdain?
What is arbitrary about race? I understand that race itself is arbitrary and a fairly useless term when considering genetics, but considering it culturally (and of course literature is culture) I'm not sure what is really arbitrary about it, especially when it can feature so importantly in texts.
Left wing movements change of course, so do other movements.
monkey troops are the archetypical shitflingers and while they may communicate vocally and with body posturing to call what they exhibit a language (from the latin: lingua, meaning tongue) would be a stretch.
I hadn't fully grasped the previous conversation before I started this point as I am not the fellow you were responding to, so I will concede that the precision of language, manipulated by previous movements has a place to recognize.
However, I will proposition that language often seeps from radical sectors into society to set the narrative. For example, the word 'fanatic' in german was revived by the NSDAP during the 1930's to show one's devotion to the party and country. The politicization of language in that context was around providing language as a tool of discourse.
Often small groups can and do set the future language of discourse for long periods. the KJV, Shakespeare and the writers of the early 17th century set the standard for modern English, in the same way that Cicero set the standard for Latin.
As for the collapse of higher education, as cost outweighs the reward for the current education system. We will find that eventually enrollments will collapse under Credentialism and the university system will be abandoned. 17th Century Spanish Universities and late Tang Dynasty China prove that.
Because it generalizes their experience to the narratives presented to them. Although they may have a unique culture/identity, racially obsessed discourse instead stamps them with a culture from your perspective. It is literally no different from the view that Whites once held for blacks, with the same assumptions of superiority. Which is the same reason why white students flock to feel pity for these same niggers who they obsess over.
My entire point was that making race the centerpiece of a text is about racial agitation and ressentiment narrative creation. It actually shows the ignorance of those who push those narratives.
War never changes, but it is different with each war. The left as a political movement has a universal and constant set of characteristics, but the nature of each movement is always different. Compare Environmentalism and the Suffragettes, both used sadomasochistic tactics to achieve their goals. Hunger strikes, tying themselves to trees and lamp posts, victimhood and media attention seeking, victim orientated narrative setting.
>However, I will proposition that language often seeps from radical sectors into society to set the narrative.
the nature of my disagreement with the anon i was responding to was that PC hasn't fully infiltrated the SJW movement, and that it's infiltration to society isn't something they can really take credit for. Earlier social justice can take a small amount of credit for PC, but its major advocates for common use are much too early for any tumblrite to have played a part. It puts the cart before the horse.
The rest of your mealymouthed discussion of common use ignores the same problem I had with him: there's a historical record of when these terms come into use, and where they come from. I'm not sure how the proposition you put before that at all affects what I said for it to be considered a counterargument.
The rest of his post was spouting his own ressentiment. It takes a different form to how SJWs express theirs, whether by PC, or reclaiming words, or whatever their headmates tell them to express, but his post is still the same type of emotional reactionism which Bloom was complaining about in that quote. Nietzsche similarly described the ressentiment of both social justice and those who advocated against them back in his day, and the guy I was responding to displays the same type of attitude problem as the people he wants to start burning shit over. He's a fucking idiot who's too dumb to realize he's also a hypocrite.
Depends how the criticism is done. Fanon, Said, Bhabha and others don't fall into this trap at all - probably no coincidence that they aren't white.
I would argue it depends on the text. For some texts it is very difficult to not have race as the central issue, others race can seem to be a side issue but provide interesting readings, something like The Tempest has interesting postcolonial criticism.
Possibly, but the Suffragettes were a fairly fringe movement - compare them to Fawcett's movement for instance. it's unsurprising that it is victim orientated when historically left-wing movements have sought to free the 'oppressed'. There are larger issues with it in the first world now of course, everyone is equal before the law and most obviously just battles have been won.
I would ask what is necessarily wrong with having a political reading of a piece of literature though? Sometimes it can be very worthwhile and well thought out. It seems clear that you disagree with left wing politics - but it doesn't mean that there can't be well thought out left wing arguments from literary texts (I would extend this to film, art and culture more generally). Something like Said's Culture and Imperialism doesn't really fit what you've been decrying (not in my view anyway).
Sadly I am not well versed of the early history of this matter, but from the little I do know of it, it seems to have become mainstream during the late 70's through early 80's in academia, although ancedotally my mother said politically correct terminology was standard in trotskyist groups during her university days in the early 70's. You are right that it does not come from the current wave of SJWs, but they are more the enforcers of that narrative even if they didn't set it.
My point was to argue that small groups can set these narratives. It must have been a small group that derived politically correct terminology, or at least a set of thinkers from a particular academic background. How else could it come about without any acknowledgement of the people who invented the terminology or the concepts behind political correctness in the first place?
Agreed that the previous poster was an indoctrinated fool who should stick to wallaceposting.
Sadly, I am not familiar with those works so I can't comment on them. I definitely will read them and would love to respond on those points in the future.
It may be possible to have a text based on race as a central theme, but the concept of race and the critic of race has exhausted all forms and expressions in my opinion. I think there were some works which would prove interesting, but I see those postcolonial works as literary expression of hatred for Europeans and neo-europeans once concealed and now revealed. Like a sigh of relief in literary expression. Which might explain why those works have no sequels worth reading.
Political reading of a piece of literature is viable. There no doubt that the right piece of literature at the right time can produce amazing results.
I don't necessarily dislike the left or hate the left wing perspective, but I feel that all non-European attempts to critic western society are a threat and should be squashed, although understood and retorted, with all fury and might. From my perspective, every literary work which is another blow against the west is a threat to the existence of the west, which stands at a knife edge as the west grow weaker. Rather emotionally, I see the left as unknowingly wanting to destroy the west internally through it's actions and ideals.
Therefore, every effort should be raised to stop academic discourse in the wrong direction. Personally, I think the age of reason and intellectualism is approaching an end. Anti-intellectualism is the way of the future. Not necessarily because discourse is dangerous, but because most discourse in the humanities is an absolute waste of time and entirely based around indoctrination, combined with the rising credentialism, the stagnant graduate job market and increasingly authoritarian political system within the west.
>they are more the enforcers of that narrative
no they're not, the change your mother noted is the change that Bloom is noting in the 60s-70s, and the generation that was educated in colleges then created the next generation of PCers and back in the 90s it wasn't social justice warriors or a fringe front, but the standard of academia. SJWs just got educated by the same system which has been enforced for three generations before. They have some fringe views they're trying to get others to incorporate, but the majority of the work was already done on most of the PC terms long before tumblrisms became a thing, and PC terms are more popular than tumblrisms with greater clout.
Marxism considers itself to be a rather large movement. It doesn't have to be a small group which creates these terms; it was a massive movement which has a massive global impact beyond just language. The reason why it's not all put down to a small group and the terms are practically anonymous in origin at this point is because it wasn't a small movement at all. This is not like the inception of the word "quiz", where one person could be attributed as the origin and wasn't designed to be. The student movement of the 60s and 70s wasn't a small group, and PC has been a very large segment of society with only smaller groups opposing it in the past lifetime and wasn't intended by just a small group but a broad conference.
SJWs really aren't the main enforcers. PC is much much bigger and older than them, and even now they aren't all aligned with PC or their heaviest enforcers. Other interest groups (like Marxists, feminists, educators in general) have had a much bigger impact than SJWs and they are not as pervasive a language influence as other larger groups. It really doesn't have to be a small group that originates a term, or even one person, and for PC, a lot of the work was done by massive institutions and political groups.
Political correctness is part of the current zeitgeist, and I'm not sure if there is anything that can be done to change that any time soon. Like you've said, it is deeply embedded to the point where questioning it simply gets you cut out of the realm of respectable opinion. And it's really a liberal failing, ironically. I say it's ironic because liberals are the one who are supposed to tolerate dissent, discussion, and open-mindedness, but after becoming successful in opening the doors for broader representation (minorities, women, gays, etc.) in art and culture, they've turned around and effectively slammed it in the face of authors from different generations with different sensibilities and perspectives, all in the name of protecting the gains of previously marginalized groups. What followed from those noble aims is a kind of weird, baroque state of affairs were liberals are as intolerant of plurality as conservatives are. It's stupid.
There is a backlash against all of this, and there has been for a while. It just never seems to get anywhere; people crusading to add more books to the banned list always seem to outnumber those of us who still have faith in the ability of people to think critically.
I think the era of political correctness is going to last as long as these recently legitimized groups are still perceived as being fragile and in need of protection. So things could go on like this for the foreseeable future. Take comfort in the fact that the books aren't actually being burned - they will still be out there, waiting for a saner generation to rediscover them. But that's probably too melodramatic; if you're a kid today and you are interested in lit, you won't be deterred from reading something interesting just because the school library doesn't stock it.
Modern liberalism is just Protestantism. It's naturally progressed for several centuries now. None of this is new or surprising. It is the mainstream, dominant tradition in the West and has been for hundreds of years.
>but liberalism is secular
Protestantism *is* secularism.
>tfw liberal but I'm getting completely sick of liberals and "progressivism"
>feel embarrassed to even identify as a liberal anymore
>as soon as another liberal finds out I'm liberal they start the predictable memes
>LOL TRUMP IS HITLER XD
anyone else know this feel?
He's pretending that that term "liberal" isn't used to refer to both social and economic beliefs around the planet. He's probably upset about the American cultural dominance inside his country.
i used to be super liberal and eventually leftist, but once i started working in urban education i realize loading up these kids with all these liberal excuses for failure is not helping them...and the truth is the white man didn't make them fail the midterm and capitalist commodity production didn't make them fail the placement test...their shitty work ethic (which turned shitty by being told over and over again by liberals that hard work is just exploitation, and successful people are privileged exploiters) is to blame.
A while back, around 07 or so, there was a competitive gaming community, at the time it was still relatively small, whose players frequently used the word 'rape' to describe somebody who lost badly. Nobody saw a problem with it. In addition to this word, numerous curse words were used by casters whilst commentating matches.
Fast forward a couple years, the scene has grown notably larger to the point where sponsors are brought in, venues are more professional, and the overall production quality goes up.
Commentary is now completely clean to please sponsors and the colloquial use of the word rape is completely obliterated. The communities grassroots are extirpated.
Now that isn't the end of things, and the community still thrives, but a little crucial part of it did die. It's much more than not being able to swear anymore, it's the taking of cultural community and forcing it through a mesh net of sponsor standards so to make sure it is as innocuous as possible.
Why is this necessary?
wow people sell out, get over it, when you move out of your mom's basement you're going to realize being able to break into the one percent is a lot more important than having people on your dumb gaming website say "rape" as a meme