> Most theoretical backbones of math and science were discovered/formalized for anything but commercial reasons.
And if they end up serving no practical use they end up discarded and ignored by scientists and engineers (if maybe not pure mathematicians). The author's point is that there is no such selective pressure on lit crit.
Also, poststructuralist lit crit is not the be all and end all of "the humanities".
And if they end up serving no practical use they end up discarded and ignored by scientists and engineers (if maybe not pure mathematicians). The author's point is that there is no such selective pressure on lit crit.
Litcrit theory is actually a pretty big commercial success. Derrida et al. sell quite well for academic books, and a Sexy Postmodernism Sex Theory Made Accessible to Undergraduates type course is a reliably decent draw for English departments, who need the enrollment.
Furthermore, if you consume entertainment products with shifting, non-linear narrative like The Simpsons, Coen Brothers movies, or Inception, you're exerting selective pressure in favor of postmodernism.
I'm exerting selective pressure in favor of the Coen Brothers making more movies in that style, maybe, but academics writing about "texts" that other people create don't get a cut of box office so I'm not sure how it affects what they output.
And if they end up serving no practical use they end up discarded and ignored by scientists and engineers (if maybe not pure mathematicians). The author's point is that there is no such selective pressure on lit crit.
Practical use ≠ commercial use! Also, I have no idea where you got the idea of "disgarding" research, especially in regards to pure mathematicians. What is "practical" to you?
Also, poststructuralist lit crit is not the be all and end all of "the humanities".
No, it's not, and yet when I deconstructed the author's paper (I crack me up), I found that he made a generalization about all of the humanities following his limited experience with the given topic.
I didn't read any general statements about the humanities until people read a laser-focused discussion of deconstruction and said "he's attacking the humanities!". That's like reading a scathing Yelp review of a dodgy restaurant and saying "he hates food!"
I have no idea what in the Hell you're blathering about. If you read the goddamned article, he generalizes the humanities.
That's like reading a scathing Yelp review of a dodgy restaurant and saying "he hates food!"
Your analogy is like doing meth in a bathtub with a small chimpanzee playing a xylophone to the tune of, "Pachelbel's Canon" while shoving a sharpened pencil into my urethra to wash away the pain of dealing with ridiculous comments on Hacker News.
And if they end up serving no practical use they end up discarded and ignored by scientists and engineers (if maybe not pure mathematicians). The author's point is that there is no such selective pressure on lit crit.
Also, poststructuralist lit crit is not the be all and end all of "the humanities".