Comments on: Moving Images of Society

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Thu, 17 Jul 2003 14:47:58 +0000

>Your attempt…may not, in the abstract, constitute an ad homenin attack.< No, it doesn’t constitute an ad hominem attack; not ‘in the abstract’, and not in whatever category is here being opposed to the abstract. You have no arguments for believing that it does constitute an ad hominem attack, so I consider that you have conceded the point. Why did and do I object to Kieran Healy’s original post? Not because there is something wrong with referring to works of art in an attempt to interest students in an academic subject- quite the opposite. Rather, because Kieran H. takes it for granted that the only medium which will interest his students- who are, he tells me, as if this settles the point, 18 year-olds from Arizona- is twentieth and twentieth-century film. If he takes my advice and advises them to read certain 19th Century novels, then apparently- and these are not my words but his- the effect will be that of ‘a twice weekly dose of cod liver oil.’ Since Kieran seems rather brighter than some of his defenders, I would urge him to reconsider his assumptions. It might not be the case that students- even 18 year-old ones, even from Arizona- are horrified by the thought of being advised to read Dickens, or Twain, or Balzac. It might just be the case that they are able to enjoy these works. It might just be the case that they can derive pleasure from media other than the audio-visual, whatever the patronising beliefs of academics that ‘the kids just won’t like this’. It is certainly the case that agency, or or the division of labour, or class, can be considered with reference to 19th Century fiction. And finally, anyone teaching any aspect of the 19th Century seems to me to have a duty to at least let their students know about the cultural richness of the period- if not to make these novels obligatory reading (good arguments against that) then at least to put some titles on a ‘Suggested’ or ‘Supplementary’ reading list. I think Kieran might be able to grasp these arguments. But I’m waiting for DHN to tell me, again, that Kieran wasn’t teaching history he was teaching etc etc etc.

By: dhn

dhn — Wed, 16 Jul 2003 17:21:39 +0000

DH: I’ve always understood ad hominem arguments as those that attack the arguer, not the substance of their claims. Your attempt to connect one of my side projects to the failure of the “academic left” (of which I am not a member) to influence debates on US foreign policy may not, in the abstract, constitute an ad homenin attack. Indeed, it might make for an interesting debate, one in which I would probably agree with most of what you have to say about how little “leftist” writings in international-relations scholarship speaks to policy concerns, and how many “leftists” have destroyed their credibility by writing over-the-top pieces on the subject. Indeed, I would also mount a spirited defense of my forays into popular cultural analysis and attempt to differentiate them from the category of work you impune. In this context, though, it seems to be an attack on my credibility with respect to a debate about pedagogy by implying that my decision to engage in that research makes me culpable for the irrelevance of the views of a group of lefty academics. It would be much like taking something I had written, for example, on the dynamics of imperial control in early-modern Europe and saying: clearly his argument is wrong, he wrote something on the way Star Trek reflects American foreign-policy discourse! So if they aren’t a form of ad hominen argument, then your musings are nothing more than an irrelevant distraction from the question of whether 20th-century film is an appropriate tool for teaching concepts and ideas from 19th-century social theory. Do you have any further arguments on the subject?

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Tue, 15 Jul 2003 15:18:08 +0000

Re ‘ad hominem’: Given that I haven’t criticised- am, indeed, utterly indifferent to- your personal appearance, behaviour, dress sense or whatever, I take this to be a reaction to the fact that I think that I described studying the plot points of Star Trek in order to gain ‘ethnographic’ insight into US Foreign Policy as parodic, irrelevant, footling, etc. ‘DNH has written a paper on the Borg in Star Trek as an ethnographic data point for the consideration of US Foreign Policy, ergo he beats his wife and is a Commie traitor’: ad hominem. ‘DNH has written a paper on the Borg in Star Trek as an ethnographic data point for the consideration of US Foreign Policy- what a bloody silly thing to do. Is this a parody? If not, it jst shows how irrelevant US lefty academics are’: not ad hominem. Criticism of someone’s (real or imagined) personal habits, appearance, private life: ad hominem. Criticism of someone’s writing style, reasoning, choice of academic subject matter, politics: not ad hominem. If we accept your ridiculous definition of ad hominem, then no criticism of any paper, book or emweb-post can be accepted, since any paper/book/post has an author, and the author’s feelings can’t be hurt, poor thing.

By: dhn

dhn — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 18:57:01 +0000

Dan H: KH teaches a class called “19th-century social theory.” It is, from the syllabus, about the ideas and arguments of social theorists that wrote between the late 18th and early 20th centuries. Given this, I simply can’t make sense of your objections to using contemporary popular cultural sources as supplementary materials to help communicate and make relevant ideas and arguments. Your current argument boils down to two claims: (1) the 19th-centuy theorists KH teaches were deeply historicist in their methods and ideas; (2) an understanding of historical events and relations is important to understanding their arguments. Both of these, of course, are true. They lead to two obvious conclusions: integrate necessary historical details into lectures and supplemental materials. I assume that KH, like the rest of us, does precisely this kind of thing. But these observations in no way support your original claim that there is something wrong with failing to rely exclusively (or at all) on literature written in the same period as the people you study to communicate aspects of their ideas (indeed, if communicating historical events and patterns is your aim, I’d caution against using most 19th-century novelists as key sources). You can enagge in ad homenin attacks all you want, but it does nothing to support your objection to this thread. I’ll continue to stand by own experience that contemporary film, when used sparingly and appropriately, can be a tremendous aid to the learning process. I see you have an academic address, but I can’t find information about you. Care to share with us the wisdom garnered from your own pedagogical experience?

By: Dan Hardie

Dan Hardie — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 14:14:33 +0000

Of course the writings of Marx, Durkheim and Smith are not valuable merely as ’ artifacts of those periods’. I never suggested they were. But the course that Kieran Healy is teaching was entitled ‘19th Century Social Theory’, and his opening remarks included the following: ‘I usually begin with the question “How can there be a city as big as Tucson in the middle of the desert?” and go on to give them a sense of the differences between Europe around 1800 and the society they’re used to.’ I submit that these differences are, um, historical. Apart from anything else, Marx, Durkheim and Smith were all steeped in history, and all of them rooted their arguments in their readings of history. You can excise history from the teaching of, say, Marx, but only by excising much of what Marx himself wrote. If the other Dan, and ‘Mandarin’, wish to believe that history is of no importance to 19th Century social theory, fine, but I wouldn’t give a dime for their readings of the subject. If Kieran feels likewise, then he should rename the course ‘Social Theory written in some atemporal ahistorical neverland’. Another question that has been puzzling me recently: why is the American academic Left of no account whatsoever in the formulation of US Foreign policy, whether under Republican or Democratic administrations? Why don’t ordinary citizens listen to leftist academics when they are thinking about Iraq, or Al Qaeda? Why are American leftist academics so often parodied, in the popular culture which so obsesses many of them, as footling and irrelevant? Beats me. Especially when the US academic Left has people writing papers on such subjects as ‘the ultimate way in which the Borg comes to be represented in the Star Trek universe…an ethnographic data point with reference to the way threats are represented in American foreign-policy discourse.’

By: derrida derider

derrida derider — Mon, 14 Jul 2003 13:28:26 +0000

The fact that the Godfather is a supplemental teaching tool in so many differing fields simply reflects the tremendous breadth of Coppola's masterpiece. A hundred years ago professors who tried to keep you interested might have similarly overused Les Miserables, Bleak House, Anna Karenina or Middlemarch. Personally I think Godfather I and II stand comparison with these.

By: David Sucher

David Sucher — Sun, 13 Jul 2003 04:43:45 +0000

Seems as if you could use any movie—you can tease out some self-images from any movie. An only slightly more difficult task would be to teach a course in criminal law springing from movies. Actually you could use movies—- and it would be helpful in fact—- to show ALL of the key legal principles.

By: Shai

Shai — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 10:05:56 +0000

It’s sad, but dsquared is right about The Godfather. In a European history course my Professor used it (along with biker gangs) as a tongue-in-cheek way to describe feudalism. Then by another professor in a philosophy course to illustrate the Kantian concept of respect. Then again, in a political science course titled “democracy and dictatorship” to describe cronyism, and something about “offers you can’t refuse” to clarify something that I can only vaguely remember in Max Weber “The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism” (maybe the “iron cage”) All in the same year.

By: dan

dan — Sat, 12 Jul 2003 06:29:12 +0000

“How about 12 Monkeys?” An interesting suggestion. Raises an important point: many time-travel films and stories involve constraint based upon “rules” that allow for temporal continuity, but does the “can’t change the past” imperative represent something akin to the kind of structural determinism Kieran wants to communicate? Any takers?

By: Ampersand

Ampersand — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 23:01:54 +0000

It?s hard to think of a complementary film, one where, ideally, people think of themselves as making all their own choices but in fact are highly constrained by structural circumstances. How about 12 Monkeys? I thought Wayne gave his best performance in The Searchers (a movie I first saw in a class - although, I must admit, it was a film class).

By: JB

JB — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 21:47:46 +0000

As a recent graduate, I can positively say that I bitterly dreaded movie day. I must have seen “The Godfather” a dozen times before finally getting a degree. Still, this one is interesting. Have you conidered “Requiem for a Dream”? It wouldn’t be hard to see that as entirely based in structural determinism, although it may poison your students against the theory. Just a though.

By: mandarin

mandarin — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 19:02:39 +0000

What’s the problem here? Mr. Healy doesn’t seem to care much about teaching history—he’s mainly interested in theory. So why shouldn’t he screen Run Lola Run instead of assigning his students to read Dickens?

By: Ray

Ray — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:38:03 +0000

Regarding “structural constraints,” the HK martial arts fantasies of the 1980s and 1990s might also be useful. I’ve written briefly about this aspect of “Peking Opera Blues” and “Swordsman II” on my site; Wong-Kar Wai’s “Ashes of Time” focuses on it more consistently. And John Wayne was great in “The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence”.

By: dhn

dhn — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:35:19 +0000

… there’s no “moreover” :-).

By: dan

dan — Fri, 11 Jul 2003 18:34:36 +0000

‘Moreover, what unique purchase would they gain by reading Dickens, Flaubert, or whomever?’ A damn sight more ‘purchase’ on the nineteenth…” But your missing the whole point, which is not to give “purchase on the nineteenth century” but to gain purchase on sociological concepts such as structure, agency, the division of labor, and the like! True, the people in question were writing between the late 18th and early 20th centuries, but their value is not simply as artifacts of those periods. If you have any interest in responding to the arguments Kieran and I have advanced for why we would choose to use 20th century film as pedagogical tool, please do. Otherwise, do you have a point? “Star Trek, or rather a recondite plot detail thereof, as an ‘ethnographic data point with reference to the way threats are represented in American foreign-policy discourse’- now be honest, this really isn’t a parody” What makes you think there’s any parody involved? Certainly, a little bit of tongue-in-cheek, but there is inherent value in looking to popular culture to understand aspects of political culture. Mass cultural products are some of the best ways to access the zeitgeist of a period or place. If you didn’t believe this at some level, why would you be advocating that there was any value to the reading 19th century literature to gain insight into the 19th century? Moreover,