Over at The New Yorker, Victoria Dailey is having a little fun translating lines from Jane Austen’s Pride Prejudice into “Academiotics” — in short, academic speak. Here’s a little taste for you:
“It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a single man in possession of a good fortune, must be in want of a wife.”
Translation:
The heterogeneity of assumed intentions may incur a conclusory stereotype regarding gender selections in marriage-based societies, especially in those where the masculine hegemony of capital resources presupposes the feminization of property and uxorial acquisition.
Is taking shots at humanists not your favorite sport? It’s just too easy? Maybe spoofing social scientists is more your thing? Then you can read all about the Serbian academics who recently published a completely fabricated article in a Romanian journal. The published article itself, “Evaluation of transformative hermeneutic heuristics for processing random data,” appears on Scribd.
Related Content:
John Searle on Foucault and the Obscurantism in French Philosophy
Noam Chomsky Slams Žižek and Lacan: Empty ‘Posturing’
The Recipes of Iconic Authors: Jane Austen, Sylvia Plath, Roald Dahl, the Marquis de Sade & More
Taking shots at “humanists”?… I think you may need to purchase a dictionary.
The very first definition, Clare: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/humanist
Clare, You might want to tell David Brooks and The New York Times to get a dictionary too. They use “humanist” in the same way. nnnhttp://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/21/opinion/brooks-the-humanist-vocation.html?_r=0nnnThanks for stopping by,nDan
The question should be whether the jargon of postmodern critical analysis of the humanities counts as really engaging “the humanities,” whether or not you use the word “humanists” in that sense. Also, you are using the “appeal to authority” fallacy. Not to mention that David Brooks isn’t exactly William Safire.
The authority is the New York Times. They’re good enough for me.
Man I love a good nerd fight…these comments are much better than YouTube!nnBecause, seriously, “David Brooks isn’t exactly William Safire” made me giggle right out loud.