Yes, alas- I know it all too well. I’ve been screamed down and called all kinds of terrible things. It’s clear people haven’t even engaged with what I’ve written. I think we have to stop lionising activism in society more generally. How to get people to realise that hard-core activism is toxic is a difficult question, but I suppose I’m starting here…
My immediate impression of one of your quoted bits of text: Roddy Meagher, Dyson Heydon and Mark Leeming would have benefitted from some 'Plain English Campaign' advice. I lost the will to live, or at least the inclination to try to figure out what the heck they were trying to say, before I got to the end of the 1st para. But glad that you are willing to plough through and translate for future generations!
Oh goodness yes. I suspect this passage was written by the late Roddy Meagher, who had a passion for purple prose. When I was in first year, I ambitiously tried to read this text from end to end, without knowing the context or reputation of it, and also lost the will to live…
Good piece. I wasn't expecting to re-read a paragraph from my old equity text book for my lunchtime reading away from reading contracts. I can't remember the position I took in the fusion fallacy essay I wrote for the subject, clearly I was no activist for the cause.
Excellent post, Katy, I agree whole-heartedly! My only mild caveat would be that I suspect when the authors of MGL4 or Birks used the word "evil", they were doing so in a fairly watered-down rhetorical sense of the word. But I agree that tossing this word lightly around can lead to demonising one's colleagues in very unhelpful ways!
I just don’t think it belongs in academic discourse of this kind, because of the risk of demonising someone who thinks differently. I cannot even think that I would describe someone disagreeing with me as “an evil”. To be frank I always found the trenchant positions taken by each side bizarre - it was almost like an article of faith! But then I am a shades of grey person, not a black and white person, in most regards.
Every single word here is true, yet unfortunately in the marketplace of ideas this argument becomes self-defeating:
Advocates: you have to engage with an argument, even when you disagree with the conclusion.
Activists: no we don't.
Advocates: [make the argument for academic open-mindedness]
Activists: [don't engage because they disagree with the conclusion]
How, practically, are those of us who believe in intellectual curiosity supposed to get around this problem?
Yes, alas- I know it all too well. I’ve been screamed down and called all kinds of terrible things. It’s clear people haven’t even engaged with what I’ve written. I think we have to stop lionising activism in society more generally. How to get people to realise that hard-core activism is toxic is a difficult question, but I suppose I’m starting here…
My immediate impression of one of your quoted bits of text: Roddy Meagher, Dyson Heydon and Mark Leeming would have benefitted from some 'Plain English Campaign' advice. I lost the will to live, or at least the inclination to try to figure out what the heck they were trying to say, before I got to the end of the 1st para. But glad that you are willing to plough through and translate for future generations!
Oh goodness yes. I suspect this passage was written by the late Roddy Meagher, who had a passion for purple prose. When I was in first year, I ambitiously tried to read this text from end to end, without knowing the context or reputation of it, and also lost the will to live…
Good piece. I wasn't expecting to re-read a paragraph from my old equity text book for my lunchtime reading away from reading contracts. I can't remember the position I took in the fusion fallacy essay I wrote for the subject, clearly I was no activist for the cause.
LOL! Sorry - can’t take the lecturer out of me…
Excellent post, Katy, I agree whole-heartedly! My only mild caveat would be that I suspect when the authors of MGL4 or Birks used the word "evil", they were doing so in a fairly watered-down rhetorical sense of the word. But I agree that tossing this word lightly around can lead to demonising one's colleagues in very unhelpful ways!
I just don’t think it belongs in academic discourse of this kind, because of the risk of demonising someone who thinks differently. I cannot even think that I would describe someone disagreeing with me as “an evil”. To be frank I always found the trenchant positions taken by each side bizarre - it was almost like an article of faith! But then I am a shades of grey person, not a black and white person, in most regards.