[stuartr]

please beware that for some it is an excercise in obscurantism. For a historiography class I have to write a review of an article entitled: "Capacities and Modes of Thinking: Intellectual Engagements and Subaltern Hegemony in the Early History of Malagasy Christianity". If it sounds like nonsense, it is because it is. It is the worst kind of writing -- disguising an obvious conclusion with 30 pages of jargon and self-important references (as so and so termed it, a hermeneutic epistomology of undulate evisceration...) The thesis of this article -- where it is supposed to be most clear -- is as follows: "This paradox in Malagasy intellectual engagements with foreign religious emissaries--the hegemony of a subaltern intellectual discourse over that of a materially dominant and politically connected elite--suggests a rethinking of the ways in which colonial, cultural, intellectual and discursive projects are commonly conceptualized."
For those of you who are Foucault impaired (at least this yahoo led off with quote from Foucault so we knew what we were getting into...if the title didn't already give it away), let me translate this brilliant thesis into English.
"Missionaries came to Madagascar and the people there accepted Christianity, but not completely, they also incorporated it into their beliefs. This should make us rethink the history there." The thesis is so stupid...everyone everywhere change things to match their culture, it is the most banal statement ever. Ugh, I want to die now. At least this was given as an example of how NOT to write, but the damn thing was published in the American Historical Review!!!! This type of stuff makes me question whether I really want to get my PhD. in a field that could accept this as scholarship...Oh well, rant over, thanks for the venting.

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

I completely feel where you're coming from. My feelings are the same about a number of history works I've read for classes that took a subject (ranging from the anti-muslim policies of pre-WWII Soviets to rock n' roll) and made them 10 times longer than necessary, filled with billions of references to obscurities that 99% of readers will not and don't care to remember. I really love when an author states basically the same thesis over and over and over again, each time with different names and places, as if to make you ask "didn't I already read about this?" Make your point and move on dammit, don't waste all these trees (not to mention my time) being boring and redundant! That said, I'm still going to take three more history courses here to fill out my minor.

 

[KR...]

That's hilarious! Yet, I do feel for you, trust me I feel your pain. Welcome to the world of Pseudo-Intellectualism! You can thank the post-modernist movement for that one.

I so hate those pretentious idiots...


Just remember that a true genius has the ability to explain the most complex of concepts in the easiest to understand manner, not the other way around.

edit:

I don't know if you guys remember this but I had a sig about this very problem :

Eschew the meretricious utilization of polysyllabic locutions

 

[wallijonn]

edit:

oh, a REVIEW!

I take it that you are either going to translate it or take it apart.

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr At least this was given as an example of how NOT to write, but the damn thing was published in the American Historical Review!!!! This type of stuff makes me question whether I really want to get my PhD. in a field that could accept this as scholarship...Oh well, rant over, thanks for the venting.

I recently left the pursuit of a PhD in Philosophy for the same reason. The academy has butchered the pursuit of knowledge for its own sake, at least in the humanities. I've never been so disillusioned and disheartened about something in my life.

There are rewards done each year by some group for the worst in academic writing (the author of these awards escapes me at the moment, I will add later if I remember). Speaking of Foucault, for at least two years the "winner" has been the Academic Philosopher Judith Butler.

Good luck with the review!

--Chris

 

[spaceman]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr "Capacities and Modes of Thinking: Intellectual Engagements and Subaltern Hegemony in the Early History of Malagasy Christianity".

Wow....if I saw that when I was doing my undergrad in history, I think I would have been history!

 

[stuartr]

Yeah, I just finished the article. It was really atrocious...he used some primary sources, but they were all Missionary documents, he only cited Malagasy oral history once, despite claiming to have conducted extensive interviews since 1989. Of the 34 page article, perhaps 4 or 5 contained actual analysis or evidence to prove his contention that the Malagasy provided their own interpretation to Christianity. The last 10-12 pages were just comparisions and analysis of colonial theory. He consistantly appropriated others' terminology for no good reason -- for example, the following:
What Stuart Schwartz has called an "implicit ethnography"
on the same page: what Frederik Cooper has described as a "story of engagement"

[what] Vincente Rafael describes...as "listening-as-fishing"
What James Lockheart termed "Double Mistaken Identity"
What Guha deemed "subaltern hegemony in an autonomous domain"
What James C. Scott has [called] "weapons of the weak".
What Scott terms "public transcript" (and private transcript".
Mitchell interprets "enframing"...

it goes on and on. The only part I liked was when he said "I cannot review all these works here." That was on page 998...
Please direct me to the vomitorium....

 

[Iron_Dreamer]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr it goes on and on. The only part I liked was when he said "I cannot review all these works here." That was on page 998... Please direct me to the vomitorium....

Oh christ! Are you kidding me?!?!

I send my regards to what's left of your dinner

 

[stuartr]

Well, on page 998 of the journal, which is numbered with page 1 in January, and starting higher for each month...like I said, it was 34 pages, but it certainly seemed longer. Luckily, there is still excellent stuff being written in history, not just popular history either -- most of the best stuff comes from England, where a natural hatred for the French keeps them wary of Foucault, Derrida, Barthes, Ladurie, Levi-Strauss and any number of other post-post-structural quasi-annales poli-litero-histo-socio-anthropologians.
Simon Schama, Orlando Figes and John Dower would be examples of people who can truly write good history that is written so well that you might even WANT to read it.

 

[Music Fanatic]

Annoying, sure, but not everyone who gets a Ph.D. is gifted in writing. But I notice that academic writers such as, for example, Simon Schama, seem to be well respected and don't have problems putting together a decent sentence.

And if you think things are any better in the exact sciences, I can show you any number of papers....

Edit: just looked at your immediate post above and see we were both thinking of Schama! Heck, he can also be the star in his own TV serieis.

 

[daycart1]

Yeah, the point of this kind of writing is to put out a straightforward political thesis (e.g. history is still often written from a colonial point of view), but then to make out that it is academic discourse with a bunch of fakey scholarship ("what so-and-so called an x").

 

[jlo mein]

Jlo fail english? that unpossible...

lol that made no sense what soever....this is why guys like me are in sciences haha....can't go wrong with good ol chemistry or physics...

 

[stuartr]

Quote:

Originally posted by daycart1 it is academic discourse

OOOOOOOOH, you used the "D" word...I'm telling. Mr. Larson was very big on the "d" word...in fact, it was in almost every paragraph...

 

[hempcamp]

Quote:

Originally posted by stuartr Simon Schama, Orlando Figes and John Dower would be examples of people who can truly write good history that is written so well that you might even WANT to read it.

Figes' "Natasha's Dance" was excellent. For Russian history, I also like Stephen Hosking and Sheila Fitzpatrick (and my former professor, but lesser known, David Shearer).

Schama's history of England is very superficial, but easy enough to read. I agree that most British historians (not exclusively historians of Britain) write extremely well and have an excellent command of the discipline. David Blackbourn, Ian Kershaw, Mary Fulbrook, Mark Mazower, Dennis Judd (& my former prof Keith Surridge) all come to mind.

I'd personally like to see a de-emphasis of academic qualifications and more colleges like St John's College (of Annapolis & Santa Fe), where the focus is on great books and *real* discourse between a community of learners. But oh well, this is an unrealistic dream in this day and age -- William James warned us all.

--Chris