Hopefully this post is not blocked for you (it's not blocked for me). The argument here is that researchers in the humanities are undermining their position by being advocates for political change rather than neutral researchers and commentators. "The idea that humanities scholars are activists first and only then scholars leaves much of the public skeptical of the work we do," writes Aaron Hanlon. "It's clear there's a fork in the road. Down one path is understanding the humanities foremost as knowledge work and therefore requiring institutional and civic credibility to function and thrive... down the other path is understanding the humanities as a kind of pure activism committed to rejecting the values that govern institutional and civic credibility." To be honest, I'm not interested in either path. If the choice is to either capitulate or to agitate, I choose neither.
Today: 3 Total: 3 [Direct link] [Share]
