Enjoy this slow-motion shell game, wherein the whiteness of the canon is obfuscated only so that it can be insisted upon as the only *safe* option... which is somehow also *meritocratic*
Shorter Bo Winegard:
- extremists agree that the canon is white, while moderates just think it's good
- the canon moderates like is also white, and if you change it there will be white backlash
- this one time we wedged in a couple nonwhite authors but that wasn't meritocracy
Note: this should be read while the Curb Your Enthusiasm music plays in the background
anyway this is a perfect example of the lazy but common use of "meritocracy" as a synonym for "status quo," arguably its chief function in current discourse
as a Quillette reader and a connoisseur of fine arguments, I nod my head sagely while running flat-out to keep up with the goalposts
it's not in the top three things wrong with Bo's argument, but it's also truly weird that a purported proponent of critical thinking should just take it for granted that you read the classics in order to "revere" them
an idea of Western Civ concocted ~100 years ago really is a surrogate God for some of these guys
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This is a very useful short guide to using a really wonderful resource for research and teaching about early modern science/medicine, but astrological medicine in itself and in social context.
ftr I think medical astrology is one of the most direct ways of looking at the social embedment of early modern scientific/medical practices. Sources like these preserve interactions between "ordinary people" and expert practitioners that are hard to find traces of elsewhere.
Maybe these pearls are supposed to land differently when they come from a fully licensed American Thought Leader but IMO this is pretty pedestrian stuff
Idk maybe this being surprising is just what happens when you build a career pretending to be a disaffected leftist while mouthing rightwing talking points. Seems peculiar as a hermeneutic for anyone else though
As we all watch the US in horror, the fact that Quebec has done worse throughout this crisis than *most* US states continues to get zero attention.
All the stupidity we laugh at -- people comparing being asked to wear masks in stores to totalitarianism, anti-mask marches, conspiracy theories, and people flaunting minimal (in fact insufficient) public health measures for the sake of having parties -- is here too, in heaps.
Some were surprised that culture-warriors who began by attacking humanities disciplines in the name of science ended up as Covid-deniers.
But it only makes sense that people who want history without historians would also prefer science without scientists. The issue is expertise.
In both cases there is a widespread belief that the accessibility of "information" (online or in textbooks) obviates the need for academic research.
In both cases there is a failure to consider where that "information" ultimately comes from, and what kind of work it rests upon.
I think a similar naiveté about the kind of "information" past research yields and its fixity across contexts (be they disciplinary or social) plagues some of the more flawed instances of interdisciplinary research that have come in for criticism recently (e.g. portraits/trust).