Quote:
|
Originally Posted by !@#$%!
anyway, i'm not adding anything to this discussion because you two have basically covered most of what i'd have to say-- except perhaps to add that if the academic humanities hadn't dug themselves into a hole of social irrelevancy they'd perhaps stand a better chance to get financial support.
|
For me, I always return to a certain point with this criticism - did anyone ever ask a dentist to not use technical terms? By which I mean - you can shout 'sophistry' at crit theory all you like, but ultimately, if a subject doesn't appeal to a broad audience, that's its audience's problem, not the subject. I'm not saying there's no frauds in crit theory, but the heavy emphasis on its alleged obscurity is ridiculous. If you don't get Derrida, it's because the subject isn't for you - no one is obliged to make sense to someone outside the subject. In this, I'd definitely take on board the point that Lacan probably shouldn't be taught to Sports Management studies students, but if you can't see the general value of Lacan to contemporary metaphysics (or even see the value of the extension of post-analytical metaphysics) then, well, fuck off out of my subject, basically (and I say this as a non-psychoanalyst).