Couple of comments. Your experience with "Filme" vs. Bollywood reminds me of the occasion a few years ago (during Peak Woke) when I was on a hiring committee for a post in archaeology (not in my department - I was an external representative), and one of the people on the committee objected to our describing the position as one in "New World Archaeology", which she claimed was unacceptably Eurocentric. I lost my temper, and went straight on my phone and Googled the phrase "New World Archaeology", simply to demonstrate that it was still in general use among practitioners in the field, and I flatly refused to be on a committee that used whatever neologism this person had come up with as a substitute. I won - I think simply because I was so indignant and scornful: they weren't used to people pushing back on social justice-themed suggestions.
The other thing, though, is that I'm always a little suspicious of surveys which use "registered Democrat" as a proxy for "liberal", and "registered Republican" to mean "conservative". I consider myself conservative, but I'm a registered Democrat, simply because I'm in a deep blue city in a deep blue state, and Democrats always win: voting in Democratic primaries is the only meaningful way to influence the outcome of the election. If I lived in (e.g.) Idaho, I would be a registered Republican, for the same reason, even if I was more liberal. Given that many more elite universities are in blue states than in purple or red states, I wonder if some of those "registered Democrats" are, like me, simply strategically registered conservatives. I'm sure conservatives are massively outnumbered by liberals, especially in the social sciences and humanities, but I am concerned that the skew may be exaggerated by the wording of the question.
I also take issue with using registered parties as proxies, but largely because it ignores the split between liberals (who are often more moderate and believe in enlightenment-style ideals) and leftists (who range anywhere from Bernie-style progressives to outright Marxists, and are influenced largely by postmodernism). While both these groups are in the coalition that makes up the democratic party, they are very different at their core in a way that matters in a university setting.
As an academic myself, I agree in principle. The problem is, the liberals don’t even have each other’s back against the leftists, let alone anyone else’s. They mostly keep their head down and work on something non-political. Then once it gets politicised and they get attacked from the left, they first put up a meager defence, notice nobody helps them, and mostly just fold.
For example, a colleague (we are in genetics) has a her funding from a “collaboration” with social scientists on the interplay of the biological basics of sex on one hand, and social reality on the other. Very interesting, and quite important!
Except the “trans activist-scholars” (their own moniker, no kidding) actively harass my colleague to drop her research on the genetics of intersex, since it is in their view hateful and bigoted. Helping intersex individuals realize biological functions of their organs, and helping people have healthy children is to them absolutely unacceptable. The fact that most intersex individuals want this help and would greatly prefer to not have been born with non-functioning genitalia is completely irrelevant to them.
The collaboration hosts regular public lectures, and these are 100% without exception trans-activism. They don’t accept a single lecture critical of their views. My colleague (and other geneticists with the same source of funding) just accept this state of affairs, only complaining in private.
So what is the result? The intention of this collaboration was to put intersex and trans research on a more firm ground. Instead, we just get more social activism, and the media laps it up and presents the activist side as “science says”. The activists are, if anything, resentful that the geneticists still get funded at all.
Regarding party registration as a proxy for viewpoint, I live in a county where Republicans generally get 60-80 percent of the vote, and I’ve known several people who stated they were registered Republicans only in order to vote in the primaries. It is an issue, though I don’t know how widespread it is.
In the '90s there was an early version of woke called "PC" that prompted a great book by Robert Hughes called "Culture of Complaint." Back then, the stupid thing du jour was taking anything that could be connected to a male out of everything. So we got "herstory" and "womyn" and "policeperson." Hughes was having none of it, especially because he understood the English language better than the clowns who were demanding that we reinvent words.
I thought the stupidity went away, but I guess they were just regrouping.
This nonsense will never recede until individuals begin responding bluntly that the director considers his creation to be a 'Bollywood film,' and that is what we will be calling it. Do not thank them for their perspective when their action is an active attempt to disrupt your work. If nobody ever has the courage to do this then tone policing will go on indefinitely. No departmental memo is coming to save you.
My analogy for the ideological capture of universities is the ST:TNG episode "Conspiracy" in which the leadership is systematically controlled by an alien parasite.
The passing mention of Biosphere II caused me to read the Wikipedia page for it... and it's a fascinating experiment, hinting at all the challenges of colonizing the Solar System.
(Darn it! I shouldn't have said "colonizing" - but surely there are no Indigenous Martians?)
I hate when passive aggressive people try to "Liberate" you by controlling you, and controlling your language. I notice that professor who suggested "Bollywood" was too "Colonialist" (by email - nothing more passive aggressive a vehicle), didn't request the feedback of the person they were talking ABOUT. An EQUAL. A creative. A DIRECTOR. If he TRULY saw the man as equal, and not as someone weak he had to "Help", he would have ASKED.
*Snicker* Now I bet that professor was trying to start a "Trend" that would take off in the rarified air of US academic circles, and then he could get an article accepted by a journal about it. All this obscuring academic jargon jockeying, is trying to 1) Compete with eachother to do social engineering via Derrida (Who said language creates reality) 2) Keep these liberal arts professors justifying their tenure with new "Ideas" and "publications". As in, "Ooooo, has anyone thought of Bollywood, yet? How about Filme? It's SOOOO French theorist sounding!"
Am I onto something? I just thought this out, and I realize I am mocking people's behavior with no confirmation.
I tried very hard to keep my politics out of the classroom, but one time I let my conservative views leak through. The students flocked to me as bees to honey. It was quite touching. And that was before "peak woke"! There is not a single word of this essay that is untrue. What you didn't mention that used to drive me bat-s*** crazy was how condescending and paternalistic my colleagues were toward "minorities" (now, "marginalized people"). They had Great White Savior complexes thick enough to cut with a knife. But, of course, they thought of themselves as being so caring, so inclusive, blah blah blah. When I retired (early), I breathed a huge sigh of relief. I still do research, but on my own terms and without having to pay attention to the nonsense (I'm a scientist, so I don't have to worry much about doing the "right" research).
Couple of comments. Your experience with "Filme" vs. Bollywood reminds me of the occasion a few years ago (during Peak Woke) when I was on a hiring committee for a post in archaeology (not in my department - I was an external representative), and one of the people on the committee objected to our describing the position as one in "New World Archaeology", which she claimed was unacceptably Eurocentric. I lost my temper, and went straight on my phone and Googled the phrase "New World Archaeology", simply to demonstrate that it was still in general use among practitioners in the field, and I flatly refused to be on a committee that used whatever neologism this person had come up with as a substitute. I won - I think simply because I was so indignant and scornful: they weren't used to people pushing back on social justice-themed suggestions.
The other thing, though, is that I'm always a little suspicious of surveys which use "registered Democrat" as a proxy for "liberal", and "registered Republican" to mean "conservative". I consider myself conservative, but I'm a registered Democrat, simply because I'm in a deep blue city in a deep blue state, and Democrats always win: voting in Democratic primaries is the only meaningful way to influence the outcome of the election. If I lived in (e.g.) Idaho, I would be a registered Republican, for the same reason, even if I was more liberal. Given that many more elite universities are in blue states than in purple or red states, I wonder if some of those "registered Democrats" are, like me, simply strategically registered conservatives. I'm sure conservatives are massively outnumbered by liberals, especially in the social sciences and humanities, but I am concerned that the skew may be exaggerated by the wording of the question.
I also take issue with using registered parties as proxies, but largely because it ignores the split between liberals (who are often more moderate and believe in enlightenment-style ideals) and leftists (who range anywhere from Bernie-style progressives to outright Marxists, and are influenced largely by postmodernism). While both these groups are in the coalition that makes up the democratic party, they are very different at their core in a way that matters in a university setting.
As an academic myself, I agree in principle. The problem is, the liberals don’t even have each other’s back against the leftists, let alone anyone else’s. They mostly keep their head down and work on something non-political. Then once it gets politicised and they get attacked from the left, they first put up a meager defence, notice nobody helps them, and mostly just fold.
For example, a colleague (we are in genetics) has a her funding from a “collaboration” with social scientists on the interplay of the biological basics of sex on one hand, and social reality on the other. Very interesting, and quite important!
Except the “trans activist-scholars” (their own moniker, no kidding) actively harass my colleague to drop her research on the genetics of intersex, since it is in their view hateful and bigoted. Helping intersex individuals realize biological functions of their organs, and helping people have healthy children is to them absolutely unacceptable. The fact that most intersex individuals want this help and would greatly prefer to not have been born with non-functioning genitalia is completely irrelevant to them.
The collaboration hosts regular public lectures, and these are 100% without exception trans-activism. They don’t accept a single lecture critical of their views. My colleague (and other geneticists with the same source of funding) just accept this state of affairs, only complaining in private.
So what is the result? The intention of this collaboration was to put intersex and trans research on a more firm ground. Instead, we just get more social activism, and the media laps it up and presents the activist side as “science says”. The activists are, if anything, resentful that the geneticists still get funded at all.
Regarding party registration as a proxy for viewpoint, I live in a county where Republicans generally get 60-80 percent of the vote, and I’ve known several people who stated they were registered Republicans only in order to vote in the primaries. It is an issue, though I don’t know how widespread it is.
Filme, ffs.
In the '90s there was an early version of woke called "PC" that prompted a great book by Robert Hughes called "Culture of Complaint." Back then, the stupid thing du jour was taking anything that could be connected to a male out of everything. So we got "herstory" and "womyn" and "policeperson." Hughes was having none of it, especially because he understood the English language better than the clowns who were demanding that we reinvent words.
I thought the stupidity went away, but I guess they were just regrouping.
This nonsense will never recede until individuals begin responding bluntly that the director considers his creation to be a 'Bollywood film,' and that is what we will be calling it. Do not thank them for their perspective when their action is an active attempt to disrupt your work. If nobody ever has the courage to do this then tone policing will go on indefinitely. No departmental memo is coming to save you.
I think you just have to circle the wagons in defense of using the word "Bollywood".
I think you should start saying it with an Indian accent, to freak them out completely.
My analogy for the ideological capture of universities is the ST:TNG episode "Conspiracy" in which the leadership is systematically controlled by an alien parasite.
The passing mention of Biosphere II caused me to read the Wikipedia page for it... and it's a fascinating experiment, hinting at all the challenges of colonizing the Solar System.
(Darn it! I shouldn't have said "colonizing" - but surely there are no Indigenous Martians?)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2#Group_dynamics:_psychology,_conflict,_and_cooperation
I hate when passive aggressive people try to "Liberate" you by controlling you, and controlling your language. I notice that professor who suggested "Bollywood" was too "Colonialist" (by email - nothing more passive aggressive a vehicle), didn't request the feedback of the person they were talking ABOUT. An EQUAL. A creative. A DIRECTOR. If he TRULY saw the man as equal, and not as someone weak he had to "Help", he would have ASKED.
*Snicker* Now I bet that professor was trying to start a "Trend" that would take off in the rarified air of US academic circles, and then he could get an article accepted by a journal about it. All this obscuring academic jargon jockeying, is trying to 1) Compete with eachother to do social engineering via Derrida (Who said language creates reality) 2) Keep these liberal arts professors justifying their tenure with new "Ideas" and "publications". As in, "Ooooo, has anyone thought of Bollywood, yet? How about Filme? It's SOOOO French theorist sounding!"
Am I onto something? I just thought this out, and I realize I am mocking people's behavior with no confirmation.
Had to look it up, but I think "agential cut" sounds cool.
I tried very hard to keep my politics out of the classroom, but one time I let my conservative views leak through. The students flocked to me as bees to honey. It was quite touching. And that was before "peak woke"! There is not a single word of this essay that is untrue. What you didn't mention that used to drive me bat-s*** crazy was how condescending and paternalistic my colleagues were toward "minorities" (now, "marginalized people"). They had Great White Savior complexes thick enough to cut with a knife. But, of course, they thought of themselves as being so caring, so inclusive, blah blah blah. When I retired (early), I breathed a huge sigh of relief. I still do research, but on my own terms and without having to pay attention to the nonsense (I'm a scientist, so I don't have to worry much about doing the "right" research).
In the movie The Faculty the students figure it out but in a lot of other films where people are replaced with pods, the ending is not so happy.