Huge and important question. Academics have a wide variety of tools designed to deal with this. An impromptu #THREAD
https://twitter.com/dilipnayak/status/1379406804094881793
One, you have to identify possible biases. This involves knowing, a lot, about the history of ideas, one's particular disciplines, one's areas of study, etc.
Often, biases have gone, well, sort of transnational and across identity boundaries. One example --
Often, biases have gone, well, sort of transnational and across identity boundaries. One example --
How we define religion, often, carries extensive Protestant biases. You may never have set foot inside a church and you may know nothing about Christianity, but you probably have these biases due to their widespread diffusion.
Those of us who work on religion learn & teach this.
Those of us who work on religion learn & teach this.
Critical reading and historical method.
We learn how to search for evidence and then how to read it, even interrogate it, from many angles. This takes years of practice to learn, and we never stop trying to improve.
We learn how to search for evidence and then how to read it, even interrogate it, from many angles. This takes years of practice to learn, and we never stop trying to improve.
Behind all of this is good-faith buy-in to scholarly methods of analysis.
Keep in mind that many people reject scholarly precepts outright. They want glory stories, or to justify their modern-day hate, or to promote specific politics at any cost.
Scholars are different.
Keep in mind that many people reject scholarly precepts outright. They want glory stories, or to justify their modern-day hate, or to promote specific politics at any cost.
Scholars are different.
The scholar's thirst for knowledge makes us incomprehensible to many people.
This is one reason why we see so much projection. Right-wingers accuse us of acting in bad-faith, because that's what they do. They accuse us of bias and prejudice, because those are their foundations.
This is one reason why we see so much projection. Right-wingers accuse us of acting in bad-faith, because that's what they do. They accuse us of bias and prejudice, because those are their foundations.
So, how do we know we're doing an alright job at pursuing knowledge and checking our biases? A couple of thoughts --
We rely on each other to check our work.
Ever read the acknowledgements of a scholar's book? They're often extensive (except in the Indian editions of my books where I omit them due to possible threats of violence; that's another story).
Peer review is another piece.
Ever read the acknowledgements of a scholar's book? They're often extensive (except in the Indian editions of my books where I omit them due to possible threats of violence; that's another story).
Peer review is another piece.
Personally, I've made a number of arguments in scholarship over the years that, frankly, I didn't originally intend to make and, even, didn't really want to make.
My feelings don't matter in such regards. I follow the evidence. Full stop.
My feelings don't matter in such regards. I follow the evidence. Full stop.
So, next time you're upset that I didn't soft pedal some aspects of Indian history or Hindu religious texts that might offend your sentiments, take heart that I treat myself the same way. No soft pedaling.
Theory helps scholars think more clearly (sometimes).
Theory isn't just spouting keywords that you've learned, btw. But real engagement with decolonization ideas, critical race theory, intersectionality, etc. can help scholars work through evidentiary and bias issues alike.
Theory isn't just spouting keywords that you've learned, btw. But real engagement with decolonization ideas, critical race theory, intersectionality, etc. can help scholars work through evidentiary and bias issues alike.
That's what comes to mind pre-coffee.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
