This post was authored by Austin Henshaw.
A couple of months ago I wrote “This Week In Intellectual Insanity #1,” highlighting several examples of what passes for scholarship in the modern social sciences/humanities, thanks to the proliferation of postmodernism in academia. Some examples included academic abstracts on “ableist and speciesist assumptions” of evolutionary biology, “fat studies” scholars pushing pseudoscience which ignores the biochemical consequences of obesity, the “gender performativity” of toilets, and apologism for the regressive actions of several Islamic countries towards women and LGBT individuals.
Unfortunately shortly after that piece came out, the @RealPeerReview account went silent for an extended period of time, similar to the previous incarnation of the account which disappeared after excessive backlash from academics who did not believe in the scientific method. Fortunately, the account has recently started sharing abstracts and highlights from academia again, and I thought this would be the perfect opportunity to highlight even more of the ridiculous things that can be found in modern academia. I would encourage everybody to peruse the account for themselves, and decide if it is best to laugh or weep at what modern academia has become.
The “ideal gas law” isn’t compatible with feminist values, in part due to the hierarchy amount states of matter. I suspect the critique of “the privileging of solid over fluid mechanics” by the feminist academic Luce Irigaray comes into play here. Unfortunately critiques of “masculine physics” does have sympathy amongst several gender “scholars.”
That’s right, a scholar used an “autoethnographic approach” to study completing jigsaw puzzles. Autoethnographies have been argued to “privilege” feelings and individual anecdotes over objective reality and facts, as a person can essentially come to whatever conclusions they personally feel are correct without critique from other sources.
Meeting over tacos and beer to discuss The Bachelor is now a valid research methodology. No comment.
I doubt “unhealthy bodies” (you’ll notice several examples of postmodern scholarship use the term “black and brown bodies” or “unhealthy bodies” instead of “black and brown people” or “unhealthy people”) are really disrupting capitalism that much when they are literally examples of excessive consumption.
Pico de gallo and barbecue grills are merely tools in the construction of Latino masculine identity, since people apparently can’t enjoy things without some nefarious, gender-affirming conspiracy behind it.
While I’m sure it’s an activity many people enjoy, watching porn for hours probably shouldn’t be considered academically rigorous, even if it can be rigorous in other ways. I’m sure several people are now wondering where they can sign up to receive a degree for watching porn now.
Trying to apply queer theory to Accounting for the purposes of “disrupting heteronormativity”. I’m sure this is a topic that can really benefit accountants, and won’t detract from all of the accounting, business law, and mathematics courses they are required to take.
Body integrity identity disorder (BIID) is unfortunately a legitimate diagnosis where the patient typically wants to amputate one or more of their healthy limbs or induce some kind of physical disability on themselves. These people deserve sympathy and need medical help, but their condition should not be legitimized as a “transabled” identity.
Gender categories have been revealed as “cultural fictions” thanks to scholarship on fat male sexuality. Not to be accused of fat-shaming, but that’s an area of study I’d rather not think about.
Unfortunately, “critical plant studies” can not be found in a Biology or Botany Department. Shame.
A show focusing on veterinarians and depicting surgery on animals “legitimizes humans’ dominance of other species”. Like a sorority girl, I can’t even.
As I mentioned above, there are many other examples on the @RealPeerReview Twitter page, and anybody who has had to take a general education class in Gender Studies or other academic areas largely based on postmodernism or critical studies has likely come across papers of this type in the past. It is in large part due to the proliferation of this type of scholarship in academia that some social scientists have even suggested not participating in the Science March on Washington due to the harms of postmodern scholarship on the social sciences, and the potential delegitimization of the “hard” sciences by association.