About the Author We may not always know it, but we think in metaphor. A large proportion of our most commonplace thoughts make use of an extensive, but unconscious, system of metaphorical concepts, that is, concepts from a typically concrete realm of thought that are used to comprehend another, completely different domain. Such concepts are often reflected in everyday language, but their most dramatic effect comes in ordinary reasoning. Because so much of our social and political reasoning makes use of this system of metaphorical concepts, any adequate appreciation of even the most mundane social and political thought requires an understanding of this system.
Not only was it an illusion, but it was a harmful one, because beneath the guise of objectivity there lay a hidden agenda, namely, an interest in domination. Treating people as objects of study, rather than as subjects, was not politically neutral, because it generated a type of knowledge that just happened to be precisely of the sort that one would need in order to manipulate and control them.
Rather than striving for an elusive value neutrality, it would instead adopt a commitment to improving the human condition, then make these commitments explicit, as part of the inquiry, so that the entire exercise would be methodologically transparent.
What have I learned in the interim? Mainly to be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it!
Two years ago I was asked to serve on a jury for a book prize, to select the best work published by a Canadian university press in the social sciences.
Shortly thereafter, a big box of books arrived on my doorstep, from a wide range of disciplines. In other words, only four of them had as their primary objective the desire to establish and present to the reader facts about the world.
The others, by contrast, had as their primary objective the desire to advance a normative agenda — typically, to combat some form of oppression. Most of these books were also profoundly cringe-inducing. They were, to put it mildly, bad. Forced to read a dozen of them, however, I began to notice certain patterns in the badness.
The biggest problem with the books I read is that they almost invariably failed on the second half of this.
It was obvious that the authors — with the exception of a few law professors — had no idea at all how to make a normative argument. Indeed, they seem incredibly averse even to stating clearly what sort of normative standards they were employing.
A genuinely critical theory, Habermas argued, has no need for this subterfuge, it should introduce its normative principles explicitly, and provide a rational defence of them.
There is no group of people out there who actually describe themselves as a neoliberals. Because of this, there are no constraints on what it can refer to, and there is no one to answer any of the criticisms that are made of it. After all, if they wanted to engage with people outside that chamber, they would have to address one or more of the ideologies that are actually, and self-consciously, held by people outside that chamber.
In this respect, people who criticize neoliberalism are the cowardly lions of academia. The fact that there are no self-identified neoliberals in the world does, however, have one desired consequence. As a result, no one ever feels obliged to say what is so bad about it.
Beyond that, it can mean pretty much anything. No one ever explains their reasoning. It seems to be determined just by gut response — whether the person sees means-testing as way of denying benefits to some, or as a way of making the program more progressive and thus reducing inequality.
In any case, the mere fact that applying for the benefit involves filling out a form is likely to lead the critical studies practitioner to denounce it for being committed to the re production of docile bodies, in order to advance the normalizing agenda of the neocolonial state, or something like that.Misc thoughts, memories, proto-essays, musings, etc.
And on that dread day, the Ineffable One will summon the artificers and makers of graven images, and He will command them to give life to their creations, and failing, they and their creations will be dedicated to the flames.
Misperceptions and corrections The recent release of Paul Verhoeven's Starship Troopers has led to a lot of online debate concerning the original book. Some of the participants have made cogent points based on a thorough understanding of both the book in specific and the military in general.
In France, John Baptist Say has the merit of producing a very superior work on the subject of Political Economy.
His arrangement is luminous, ideas clear, style perspicuous, and the whole subject brought within half the volume of [Adam] Smith's work.
Explain What is Meant by Natural in Natural Moral Law Essay Sample. Natural Moral Law is another ethical theory produced by Thomas Aqunius. Within it he refers to moral decision making as natural and instinctive and argues the differences between apparent and real good, plus interior and exterior good.
What is Natural Law? Natural Law is a Theory that says that there is an existence of a law that is set by nature and applies everywhere because it is ingrained within our beings and can be discovered through the human ability to reason.
Here are 70 interesting sociology research topics. Choose a sociology essay topic matching your interests and write a fantastic essay!