The original column that Keith Windschuttle wrote about Toni Negri also mentioned the work of an American scholar, Ward Churchill. On this topic, University of Sydney historian Dirk Moses, a bloke I went to uni with, has come out swinging in an Online Opinion article. Keith Windschuttle has been invited to reply. Interestingly, for the argument I’ve been making that The Australian, increasingly morphing into an openly Neo-con propaganda rag, has lost sight of journalistic ethics, it seems that the paper published Moses’ letter in response to Windschuttle’s piece. I wonder why Negri wasn’t afforded the same right of reply? One rule for an Australian academic and another for an Italian “terrorist”?
I don’t know Ward Churchill’s work so I won’t try to adjudicate this debate. I will note that Moses’ article does give the appearance of claiming that only “real historians” ought to participate in debate over history. This is wrong, and a real mistake – as I’ve argued before, it comes across like a reflex defence by the Historians’ trade union. Notwithstanding this, Moses has made a carefully argued case which Windschuttle needs to answer.
Robert Corr has more on the Oz’s response to correspondence and the shaping of its reporting by its editorial position over at Kick & Scream.
Mark, is Moses defining what a historian is? Or is he defining what a non-hisotrian is?
As I am reading Agamben at the moment…
Windschuttle should be considered a real hero. He does ‘emergency scholarship’: he suspends the modernist enlightenment-based conventions of scholarship to enact some scholarly violence in an attempt to ensure that scholarship may be possible. Thankfully we have Windschuttle around to ensure that real scholars might one day carry out some real scholarship.
Mark, is Moses defining what a historian is? Or is he defining what a non-hisotrian is?
As I am reading Agamben at the moment…
Windschuttle should be considered a real hero. He does ‘emergency scholarship’: he suspends the modernist enlightenment-based conventions of scholarship to enact some scholarly violence in an attempt to ensure that scholarship may be possible. Thankfully we have Windschuttle around to ensure that real scholars might one day carry out some real scholarship.
I’m finding it hard to discern whether you’re being ironic or not, Glen!
I’m finding it hard to discern whether you’re being ironic or not, Glen!
There is a sort of patronising tone in Moses’ article. He’d be on safer ground sticking to Windschuttle’s argumentative strategies – which I think he deconstructs well.
There is a sort of patronising tone in Moses’ article. He’d be on safer ground sticking to Windschuttle’s argumentative strategies – which I think he deconstructs well.
Yes, Mark, the indiscernibility of life and politics is one of the conditions of the Nazi camps, and Agamben has argued the camp is a better model of the contemporary than the city
Indiscernibility is also a useful strategy for dealing with reactionaries with a tendency for bringing libel cases against media.
Agamben’s argument is that during a state of exception the law is paradoxically suspended so that the law may be upheld, and what remains is the force-of-law (where ‘law’ is crossed out in SoE).
I am suggesting that Windschuttle writes with the full force-of-scholarship, but in a situation where, as I read Moses as arguing, scholarship itself is suspended.
Of course, I wouldn’t want you to infer anything from my account of Windschuttle’s _heroic efforts_ that pertains to questions of his _scholarship_.
Yes, Mark, the indiscernibility of life and politics is one of the conditions of the Nazi camps, and Agamben has argued the camp is a better model of the contemporary than the city
Indiscernibility is also a useful strategy for dealing with reactionaries with a tendency for bringing libel cases against media.
Agamben’s argument is that during a state of exception the law is paradoxically suspended so that the law may be upheld, and what remains is the force-of-law (where ‘law’ is crossed out in SoE).
I am suggesting that Windschuttle writes with the full force-of-scholarship, but in a situation where, as I read Moses as arguing, scholarship itself is suspended.
Of course, I wouldn’t want you to infer anything from my account of Windschuttle’s _heroic efforts_ that pertains to questions of his _scholarship_.
Glen, if you do a bit of scholargoogling you may find my paper on Schmitt worth reading if you’re interested in Agamben.
Glen, if you do a bit of scholargoogling you may find my paper on Schmitt worth reading if you’re interested in Agamben.
Windschuttle generally has no difficulty responding to his critics and I’m sure he will make a meal of Mr Moses, if the latter’s comments about terra nullius are anything to go by. I enjoyed his supercilious reference to Michael Connor as ‘an obscure, recent history graduate’, as if that somehow invalidated his arguments. Unfortunately (and I mean that most sincerely), these guys are experts at shooting themselves in the foot – as in Lyndall Ryan’s thoughtless comment on Channel 9 that ‘historians are always making up figures’. Now that was an embarrassing moment.
Windschuttle generally has no difficulty responding to his critics and I’m sure he will make a meal of Mr Moses, if the latter’s comments about terra nullius are anything to go by. I enjoyed his supercilious reference to Michael Connor as ‘an obscure, recent history graduate’, as if that somehow invalidated his arguments. Unfortunately (and I mean that most sincerely), these guys are experts at shooting themselves in the foot – as in Lyndall Ryan’s thoughtless comment on Channel 9 that ‘historians are always making up figures’. Now that was an embarrassing moment.
Rob, I quote to you from Dirk Moses’ article:
A further note. Dirk Moses is a teaching historian who’s taking time out of the few semester hours available to respond to Keith Windschuttle, who fights his battles on private means. One of the two is doing innovative research, as well as teaching undergraduates and supervising postgraduates, the other is picking at the footnotes.
Rob, I quote to you from Dirk Moses’ article:
A further note. Dirk Moses is a teaching historian who’s taking time out of the few semester hours available to respond to Keith Windschuttle, who fights his battles on private means. One of the two is doing innovative research, as well as teaching undergraduates and supervising postgraduates, the other is picking at the footnotes.
Lyndall Ryan’s words were poorly chosen, but it is undeniable and hardly a disgrace that historians make estimates about numbers. Whoop-de-doo.
Meanwhile, Rob has nothing to say about Windschuttle making up stories about Negri, and refusing to correct the record when caught.
Lyndall Ryan’s words were poorly chosen, but it is undeniable and hardly a disgrace that historians make estimates about numbers. Whoop-de-doo.
Meanwhile, Rob has nothing to say about Windschuttle making up stories about Negri, and refusing to correct the record when caught.
I should clarify matters, perhaps, since Liam’s raised Dirk’s current activities, and since in the post I mentioned that Dirk and I knew each other. Though Dirk and I were friends at Uni (he was President of the UQ Union when I was Treasurer in 1988 and we ran on the same ticket) – we’ve had very little contact for over a decade, and we certainly weren’t always in agreement in student politics. However, I have a lot of personal respect for his integrity and for his writing as an academic Historian.
I should clarify matters, perhaps, since Liam’s raised Dirk’s current activities, and since in the post I mentioned that Dirk and I knew each other. Though Dirk and I were friends at Uni (he was President of the UQ Union when I was Treasurer in 1988 and we ran on the same ticket) – we’ve had very little contact for over a decade, and we certainly weren’t always in agreement in student politics. However, I have a lot of personal respect for his integrity and for his writing as an academic Historian.
I am sure Rob is not trying to invalidate Mr Moses’s arguments on the grounds that he sounds supercilious. Or that his core argument could be demolished because it would be possible to dismiss another argument. That would be an embarrassing moment.
“Now that practice is entirely legitimate – as I have argued in two articles in The Australian, historians do not have a monopoly on interpreting the national past, and anyone is entitled to check their use of sources.” tends to suggest that Dirk is explicitly acknowledging the rights and role of us great unwashed in the debates of history.
He does say that this is “not real history” and I would support that. I read history, I will drink plonk and argue about it, but I don’t do the basic digging with the white gloves in the detritus of yesterday. That is a technical, professional discipline.
That line: “Having long ago substituted “critique” for reason, and even after everything that has happened during the past 3 ¬Ω years, the intellectuals cannot grasp that the West and its democratic values are under attack from an insidious new fascism”. is a totalitarian sentence, and it makes me very angry. As does attacking a university for inviting someone to speak.
Has anyone got a link to the whole editorial btw? – I don’t think Dirk cited it. It may be in the full version of the article but that is missing too. (There’s my bout of supercilliosness for the evening).
I am sure Rob is not trying to invalidate Mr Moses’s arguments on the grounds that he sounds supercilious. Or that his core argument could be demolished because it would be possible to dismiss another argument. That would be an embarrassing moment.
“Now that practice is entirely legitimate – as I have argued in two articles in The Australian, historians do not have a monopoly on interpreting the national past, and anyone is entitled to check their use of sources.” tends to suggest that Dirk is explicitly acknowledging the rights and role of us great unwashed in the debates of history.
He does say that this is “not real history” and I would support that. I read history, I will drink plonk and argue about it, but I don’t do the basic digging with the white gloves in the detritus of yesterday. That is a technical, professional discipline.
That line: “Having long ago substituted “critique” for reason, and even after everything that has happened during the past 3 ¬Ω years, the intellectuals cannot grasp that the West and its democratic values are under attack from an insidious new fascism”. is a totalitarian sentence, and it makes me very angry. As does attacking a university for inviting someone to speak.
Has anyone got a link to the whole editorial btw? – I don’t think Dirk cited it. It may be in the full version of the article but that is missing too. (There’s my bout of supercilliosness for the evening).
Sadly, David, I think we all missed the editorial at the time. We’d now have to pay a buck to Rupert to access it. Maybe you could email Dirk for the permalink?
Sadly, David, I think we all missed the editorial at the time. We’d now have to pay a buck to Rupert to access it. Maybe you could email Dirk for the permalink?
Look, David, have no fear about the history warriors. Only one side’s really fighting, and the other side—who occasionally dip in, when they’ve got a spare afternoon to write in—are doing the research, the teaching, the digging.
The next time I hear of Keith Windschuttle marking essays I’ll have more respect for him.
Look, David, have no fear about the history warriors. Only one side’s really fighting, and the other side—who occasionally dip in, when they’ve got a spare afternoon to write in—are doing the research, the teaching, the digging.
The next time I hear of Keith Windschuttle marking essays I’ll have more respect for him.
BTW – the link to Dirk’s whole article does work – it downloaded a word file – but still doesn’t have the link to the editorial.
BTW – the link to Dirk’s whole article does work – it downloaded a word file – but still doesn’t have the link to the editorial.
If only Online Opinion were a blog, David!
If only Online Opinion were a blog, David!
Guys, the 16 March editorial is here (or ought to be):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5744,12640570%5E7583.00.html
I’ve forgotten all my html code or I would link it more elegantly.
Hope it works.
Guys, the 16 March editorial is here (or ought to be):
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/
0,5744,12640570%5E7583.00.html
I’ve forgotten all my html code or I would link it more elegantly.
Hope it works.
Thanks, Rob, here’s the link.
Thanks, Rob, here’s the link.
Could be my dial-up but the link didn’t work.
Trying this.
Could be my dial-up but the link didn’t work.
Trying this.
New link works for me, Rob, old one doesn’t.
New link works for me, Rob, old one doesn’t.
My fault, I put in an extraneous carriage return to avoid the link text going over the boundary of the cell. Not a good move. Now I know how to do it properly. Thanks.
My fault, I put in an extraneous carriage return to avoid the link text going over the boundary of the cell. Not a good move. Now I know how to do it properly. Thanks.