It’s pretty clear to everyone that the history wars are but one front in a broader battle to reframe the way Australians think of our society – to create a new “common sense” through the culture wars. Commentary on the stakes of Australian history and the battles that have swirled around its writing and interpretation for some decades, intensifying since 1992, has usually pointed to the populist angle of elites vs. ordinary decent Aussies. I suggested recently that one of the less successful gambits in this fight is the claim to superior qualifications or professional knowledge. Martin Crotty, writing on the Brisbane Institute website, makes a lot of arguments with which I agree. But I suspect he undermines his own claims:
The resurgence of populism in Australia has also been an important contributor. The so-called ‘elites’ and ‘chattering classes,’ whether they are historians, left-wing commentators such as Philip Adams and David Marr, refugee activists, advocates of multiculturalism, or even High Court judges such as Michael Kirby, are frequently cast as thought police trying to send Australians on a guilt trip and trying to demolish the heroic Australian narrative. Populism suggests that these people are no better than any other Australians, and in this it is right. But populism gets taken to excess in notions such as the idea that the High Court should bow to the will of the people as expressed in Parliamentary elections, or that historians should tell people what they want to believe.
Populism has destroyed respect for the expert, for the qualified judge with long legal training, or the qualified historian with long historical training. Some things are legitimately decided by the wishes and the desires of the majority; others are best left to the people who ought to know. We defer to scientists and doctors but because many people in Australia, encouraged by the current political and media ascendancy, do not like what Australia’s historians tell them, they attack the expert, deny his or her legitimacy, close their ears and minds and retreat to old certainties. Rather than listen to the past, they shout at the messenger and tell him or her to go away.
For all the work done, for all the articles and books published, there has been no broad reconception of the Australian story. In that regard, it is hard to deny that the right has won in the court of public opinion. They have fought a dirty History War, they have .
[my emphasis]
Crotty’s right about populism – but his claim to expert knowledge is not an effective one tactically – it risks reinscribing his writing within the discourse of “elites” which he decries. There are also lots of other reasons why expertise has become suspect in our late modern times – the failures of science, broader dissemination of information so that people can challenge medical or legal opinion more easily, a shift in mores where self-determination and choice are more valued, and a (largely justified) erosion of trust in institutions such as the media, the family, Parliament and religious leaders.
This is a sociological shift which will not go away – and a largely positive, democratising one. That the “argument from authority” is less respected has to be a good thing. This is not to say that Crotty doesn’t have right on his side in claiming that professional historians best know how to do historical research. But this claim alone, and the denigration of (seemingly) everyone else as populist will no longer convince. The fact that the defence has to be mounted is itself significant.
I think many academics still see participating in public debate as somehow demeaning or involving “dumbing down”. This is most unfortunate, and probably one of the reasons why the “decline of the public intellectual” is often noted. It’s possibly not unrelated to the contempt many academics have for teaching, which has always repulsed me. There is a sense in the academy among some that the barbarians are beating on the gate of the Ivory Towers. Some academics for instance would dismiss blogging as a waste of time. I’m generalising here, and I wish to emphasise that I’m not talking about Crotty personally, although I think his attitude is a sign of a prevalent mindset.
I’d disagree – knowledge has little value unless it’s disseminated and communicated widely. And it has little value if ripostes are met with “I’m an intellectual, you’re not”. What academic historians need to do is get out there in the public domain and convince the public, persuade, expound, educate. Crotty’s right that at a lot is at stake, but if academic historians only fight on the ground of learned symposia and journals, and websites with a small elite audience, then they will win the battle only to lose the History War.
Given the almost uniform far-left orientation of academics in the humanities, and their willingness to use their research as a tool of political propaganda, they are increasingly regarded not as experts but as mere partisan commentators.
Crotty recites a litany of left-wing talking points which have in many cases been debunked. Yet he treats these dubious assumptions as fact. In doing so, he provides further support for the position that academic elites should not be taken seriously when commenting on political questions.
If more academics gave truth a higher priority than political advantage, they would earn more respect. As it is, they are only as believable as any other bunch of politicians.
Given the almost uniform far-left orientation of academics in the humanities, and their willingness to use their research as a tool of political propaganda, they are increasingly regarded not as experts but as mere partisan commentators.
Crotty recites a litany of left-wing talking points which have in many cases been debunked. Yet he treats these dubious assumptions as fact. In doing so, he provides further support for the position that academic elites should not be taken seriously when commenting on political questions.
If more academics gave truth a higher priority than political advantage, they would earn more respect. As it is, they are only as believable as any other bunch of politicians.
What academic historians need to do is get out there in the public domain and convince the public, persuade, expound, educate.
I agree, but at the same time, academics are already regarded in the community as disconnected from reality in their posturing about their areas of expertise. Given the sad lack of training academics receive in communication skills and public speaking, I suspect that many academics appear rather absurd and irrelevant to the general populace when they present themselves in public fora. In academic contexts such behaviour is partly ‘forgiven’ as an eccentricity of the sphere, but sending academics out in to the community to do more public debate may actually further wound their reputation.
I know I am often embarrassed by my colleagues when they are released like so many mutant laboratory rodents on to a public stage. Unless academics and other experts are properly trained in diplomacy, education, and the production of mass culture works, their skills in debate and analysis are just not going to convince the masses.
What academic historians need to do is get out there in the public domain and convince the public, persuade, expound, educate.
I agree, but at the same time, academics are already regarded in the community as disconnected from reality in their posturing about their areas of expertise. Given the sad lack of training academics receive in communication skills and public speaking, I suspect that many academics appear rather absurd and irrelevant to the general populace when they present themselves in public fora. In academic contexts such behaviour is partly ‘forgiven’ as an eccentricity of the sphere, but sending academics out in to the community to do more public debate may actually further wound their reputation.
I know I am often embarrassed by my colleagues when they are released like so many mutant laboratory rodents on to a public stage. Unless academics and other experts are properly trained in diplomacy, education, and the production of mass culture works, their skills in debate and analysis are just not going to convince the masses.
And in a rather timely manner, here’s a story that furnishes us with another reason why academics leave themselves open to lampooning: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/14/mit.prank.reut/index.html
And in a rather timely manner, here’s a story that furnishes us with another reason why academics leave themselves open to lampooning: http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/04/14/mit.prank.reut/index.html
Sigh.
Evil Pundit, I hate to pull out this argument from experience but…
When was the last time you were in a humanities department? You’d probably find a surprising number of very conservative people, especially in history and english departments.
Mark, I disagree. There’s a place for democratisation and a place for expertise. Historians and sociologists don’t go around expounding about the politics of plumbing, most of them know nothing about plumbing. When there’s a plumbing problem they expect to depend on a qualified plumber. So should people like Paul Sheehan, Miranda Devine and the other non-qualified commentators not be taken seriously when it comes to anxiety about ‘what’s being taught’.
EP’s claims that uni departments are stacked with the ‘far left’ just show a lack of contact with uni departments.
Sigh.
Evil Pundit, I hate to pull out this argument from experience but…
When was the last time you were in a humanities department? You’d probably find a surprising number of very conservative people, especially in history and english departments.
Mark, I disagree. There’s a place for democratisation and a place for expertise. Historians and sociologists don’t go around expounding about the politics of plumbing, most of them know nothing about plumbing. When there’s a plumbing problem they expect to depend on a qualified plumber. So should people like Paul Sheehan, Miranda Devine and the other non-qualified commentators not be taken seriously when it comes to anxiety about ‘what’s being taught’.
EP’s claims that uni departments are stacked with the ‘far left’ just show a lack of contact with uni departments.
I don’t think your unsupported assertions are any more convincing than mine, Liam. Admittedly the last time I was in a humanities department was 20 years ago, but from what I’ve heard, they’ve only moved leftwards since then.
I think the article linked by Mark in the first post speaks for itself. It’s a laundry list of leftist articles of faith, written by an academic historian who seems quite assured that his colleagues will back his points.
All the evidencve I’ve seen, incluiding all the academics posting on this site, convinces me that universities are indeed far to the left of society in general. While the US has spawned more studies with hard numbers to back up this contention, there is no reason to think that Australian academia is significantly different in its political makeup.
I don’t think your unsupported assertions are any more convincing than mine, Liam. Admittedly the last time I was in a humanities department was 20 years ago, but from what I’ve heard, they’ve only moved leftwards since then.
I think the article linked by Mark in the first post speaks for itself. It’s a laundry list of leftist articles of faith, written by an academic historian who seems quite assured that his colleagues will back his points.
All the evidencve I’ve seen, incluiding all the academics posting on this site, convinces me that universities are indeed far to the left of society in general. While the US has spawned more studies with hard numbers to back up this contention, there is no reason to think that Australian academia is significantly different in its political makeup.
Mark,
From what I can figure out, dissemination of knowledge and doing research are two poles on a continuum, but they are not the same thing.
I think academics should be able to research whatever needs to be researched, but the role of disseminating (democratising) knowledge is everyone’s responsibility and it is not only up to academics to somehow ‘spread’ knowledge.
DEST points measure the production of knowledge, maybe there needs to be another system that measures the social impact of research?
Mark,
From what I can figure out, dissemination of knowledge and doing research are two poles on a continuum, but they are not the same thing.
I think academics should be able to research whatever needs to be researched, but the role of disseminating (democratising) knowledge is everyone’s responsibility and it is not only up to academics to somehow ‘spread’ knowledge.
DEST points measure the production of knowledge, maybe there needs to be another system that measures the social impact of research?
oh, couple of other thoughts.
Humanities academics seem to be placed in a double bind. They have to fulfill the (arguably utopian) public intellectual role while having to carry out technical knowledge production. Are there any other areas of academia that need to (or meant to) do this?
And it seems that what is up for grabs in all these so-called ‘wars’ is not so much a representation of contemporary society, but the ‘force of scholarship’ of who gets to define whatever (history, culture, etc). Not the actual descriptions, accounts, etc of whatever, but the mechanisms and apparatus of legitimation that gives such descriptions, accounts, etc their power. That is how I understand such debates around cultural studies. No one really seems interested in what is being said, but the how, why, who, when of what is being said. It is a way to dismiss what is being said without having to actually engage with it. Contrary to what EP says, it is anything BUT the ‘truth’.
oh, couple of other thoughts.
Humanities academics seem to be placed in a double bind. They have to fulfill the (arguably utopian) public intellectual role while having to carry out technical knowledge production. Are there any other areas of academia that need to (or meant to) do this?
And it seems that what is up for grabs in all these so-called ‘wars’ is not so much a representation of contemporary society, but the ‘force of scholarship’ of who gets to define whatever (history, culture, etc). Not the actual descriptions, accounts, etc of whatever, but the mechanisms and apparatus of legitimation that gives such descriptions, accounts, etc their power. That is how I understand such debates around cultural studies. No one really seems interested in what is being said, but the how, why, who, when of what is being said. It is a way to dismiss what is being said without having to actually engage with it. Contrary to what EP says, it is anything BUT the ‘truth’.
Liam, I’m not sure we’re all that far apart. I certainly don’t reject expertise and I absolutely don’t do so in the way that the Devines of the world do.
My point is that strategically it’s a weak claim as it immediately reinforces the “elitist” argument.
EP, In an earlier post I linked to an article which claims that the methodology used to support claims that academia in the US is left-dominated is deeply flawed.
Liam, I’m not sure we’re all that far apart. I certainly don’t reject expertise and I absolutely don’t do so in the way that the Devines of the world do.
My point is that strategically it’s a weak claim as it immediately reinforces the “elitist” argument.
EP, In an earlier post I linked to an article which claims that the methodology used to support claims that academia in the US is left-dominated is deeply flawed.
I’m aware of that post, Mark. I think the article is a rather lame attempt to denty something that the author knows very well to be the truth.
When such tactics fail, the next step has traditionally been to declare that lefties dominate academia because they are smarter than righties.
But here in Australia we have only begun to take the first step.
I’m aware of that post, Mark. I think the article is a rather lame attempt to denty something that the author knows very well to be the truth.
When such tactics fail, the next step has traditionally been to declare that lefties dominate academia because they are smarter than righties.
But here in Australia we have only begun to take the first step.
Well, EP, I associate with lefty humanities people because they have more empathy (and they are smarter!;).
Well, EP, I associate with lefty humanities people because they have more empathy (and they are smarter!;).
“Admittedly the last time I was in a humanities department was 20 years ago”
Was that when you lost your tenure? Someone’s bitter!
“Admittedly the last time I was in a humanities department was 20 years ago”
Was that when you lost your tenure? Someone’s bitter!
See? we’ve moved on to Step Two already. It’s easy!
See? we’ve moved on to Step Two already. It’s easy!
You’re just so elite, baby.
You’re just so elite, baby.
I rock.
I rock.
Except on the Nordic charts.
Except on the Nordic charts.
Curse you ABBA!@!@!
Curse you ABBA!@!@!
I think there’s a subliminable socialist message in “Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man’s world”…
I think there’s a subliminable socialist message in “Money, money, money, must be funny, in a rich man’s world”…
And an anti-war message in ‘Waterloo’?
And an anti-war message in ‘Waterloo’?
That’s why EP hates Sweden so much.
That’s why EP hates Sweden so much.