onsdag, december 05, 2007

Bad Writing Contest

I sin tid havde tidsskriftet "Philosophy and Literature" en konkurrence ved navn "The Bad Writing Contest". Den løb fra 1995-1998 og udstillede på hånlig vis hvorledes visse akademikere i et forsøg på at leve op til "publish or perish" mottoet, markerede sig selv ved at lukke uendelige mængder af ligegyldigheder eller vrøvl ud forklædt som akademisk leet-speak. Det er selvfølgelig især venstreorienterede intellektuelle og poststrukturalister m.fl. der gør sig i den slags, da de har mest brug for at maskere deres uvidenskabelighed.

Hele konkurrencen ligger online hér. Jeg har valgt et par af mine personlige favoritter ud.

Denne sætning fra den kendte Queer teoretiker, Judith Butler, vandt i 1998:

The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relations in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.

Den næste, fra en Professor Tyler er angiveligt om noget han kalder postmoderne etnografi:

It thus relativizes discourse not just to form — that familiar perversion of the modernist; nor to authorial intention — that conceit of the romantics; nor to a foundational world beyond discourse — that desperate grasping for a separate reality of the mystic and scientist alike; nor even to history and ideology — those refuges of the hermeneuticist; nor even less to language — that hypostasized abstraction of the linguist; nor, ultimately, even to discourse — that Nietzschean playground of world-lost signifiers of the structuralist and grammatologist, but to all or none of these, for it is anarchic, though not for the sake of anarchy but because it refuses to become a fetishized object among objects — to be dismantled, compared, classified, and neutered in that parody of scientific scrutiny known as criticism.

Der er mange flere på linket ovenfor. Jeg undrer mig over at konkurrencen ikke kører mere. Efter noget af det materiale man får lov til at læse på humaniore at dømme, er der stadigvæk brug for at latterliggøre disse, nærmest hermetiske, tekster, og selvfølgelig også de forestillinger der ligger bag.

Ingen kommentarer:

Send en kommentar