And btw, I love your use of the word 'argot'. It know the word, although it is not one I use or often see in print. When I saw it I first thought of two homophonic type words I DO use, they being 'ergot' (of lysergic acid fame) and 'Argo' (short for Argonaut, surely), the name of a cool little bookstore in Montreal I used to frequent in the early 1990s, and where I probably bought the books I referenced in my earlier post. Brings back great memories!
A nice critique. My only response to something like this pronouncement is that it is victim mindset nonsense. I don't even consider the authors, or their work, legitimate, they would be better employed as garbage collectors. That is NOT anti-intellectualism speaking, by the way. As a newly graduated engineer from McGill in the early 1990s I became concerned with what then was called Political Correctness, a term now less common, and read a few books about the subject. I was introduced to words like 'hegemony', 'hermeneutics', and 'praxis'. I also read a few short works by the French-American Post-modernists. and came to the conclusion they were all sophists and spewing gobbledegook. These Grievance Studies programs, as you say, use a specific internal language, but its all garbage and all grievance. There is no ACTUAL intellectualism on display. Today, when I see code words like 'praxis' being used unironically, its an immediate clue one is dealing with an ideological half-wit.
Of course you're right that left activists use their terms as buzzwords, signifying belonging. But they do have legitimate analytical meanings, and are sometimes useful. I use the word "hegemony" myself. Hermeneutics is the philosophy of interpretation, but yes, often thrown out to impress rather than to inform. And yes, "praxis" is a flag of allegiance, and little more.
Yes, for sure. Those three words (and others, similar) DO have legitimate meanings, and can be used in good faith, and yes are often just code words for belonging, where the actual meaning is mostly irrelevant.
And btw, I love your use of the word 'argot'. It know the word, although it is not one I use or often see in print. When I saw it I first thought of two homophonic type words I DO use, they being 'ergot' (of lysergic acid fame) and 'Argo' (short for Argonaut, surely), the name of a cool little bookstore in Montreal I used to frequent in the early 1990s, and where I probably bought the books I referenced in my earlier post. Brings back great memories!
A nice critique. My only response to something like this pronouncement is that it is victim mindset nonsense. I don't even consider the authors, or their work, legitimate, they would be better employed as garbage collectors. That is NOT anti-intellectualism speaking, by the way. As a newly graduated engineer from McGill in the early 1990s I became concerned with what then was called Political Correctness, a term now less common, and read a few books about the subject. I was introduced to words like 'hegemony', 'hermeneutics', and 'praxis'. I also read a few short works by the French-American Post-modernists. and came to the conclusion they were all sophists and spewing gobbledegook. These Grievance Studies programs, as you say, use a specific internal language, but its all garbage and all grievance. There is no ACTUAL intellectualism on display. Today, when I see code words like 'praxis' being used unironically, its an immediate clue one is dealing with an ideological half-wit.
Of course you're right that left activists use their terms as buzzwords, signifying belonging. But they do have legitimate analytical meanings, and are sometimes useful. I use the word "hegemony" myself. Hermeneutics is the philosophy of interpretation, but yes, often thrown out to impress rather than to inform. And yes, "praxis" is a flag of allegiance, and little more.
Yes, for sure. Those three words (and others, similar) DO have legitimate meanings, and can be used in good faith, and yes are often just code words for belonging, where the actual meaning is mostly irrelevant.