IDSG 95 James Lindsay and the Grievance Studies Hoax, Part 2
Yes, we’re back with Jimmy Concepts, reliable source of dishonest idiocy. This time, as a kind of ‘bonus feature’ to our last episode, Daniel reads out a representative selection of reviewer comments on some of the fake papers submitted to academic journals by Lindsay, Pluckrose and Boghossian during the so-called ‘Sokal Squared’ prank. It’s very revealing… albeit of something we already knew: namely that Lindsay and his cohorts are absolutely full of shit.
Content Warnings.
Direct Download / Permalink / Soundcloud
Oh, and here’s Part 1 (ep94) again: https://idontspeakgerman.libsyn.com/94-james-lindsay-and-the-grievance-studies-hoax
Podcast Notes:
Please consider donating to help us make the show and stay independent. Patrons get exclusive access to one full extra episode a month.
Daniel’s Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/danielharper
Jack’s Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/user?u=4196618
IDSG Twitter: https://twitter.com/idsgpod
Daniel’s Twitter: @danieleharper
Jack’s Twitter: @_Jack_Graham_
IDSG on Apple Podcasts: https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/i-dont-speak-german/id1449848509?ls=1
Show Notes for 95:
Areo Magazine, Academic Grievance Studies and the Corruption of Scholarship ( https://areomagazine.com/2018/10/02/academic-grievance-studies-and-the-corruption-of-scholarship/ )
Full listing of Grievance Studies Papers and Reviews ( https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/19tBy_fVlYIHTxxjuVMFxh4pqLHM_en18 ).
“BJ-Gay” reviewer’s comment:
– This paper claims to apply a combination of psychoanalysis and feminism to examine and critique
styles of masculinity evident within grappling-based martial arts subcultures. Overall, I found the
paper very difficult to read and cannot recommend it for publication. This is due to a combination of factors, namely:
– A densely theoretical, often confusing style of prose in many parts of the paper;
– An inconsistent application of theoretical concepts, most of which were not defined with any
clarity for the reader;
– Overuse of certain source material, as well as a fairly consistent tendency to misuse sources in
support of claims that the papers/books in question do not actually support;
– Many sweeping generalizations about (all) men involved in (all) grappling-based martial arts;
– A tokenistic inclusion of discussions of women in these spaces, which was not reconciled with the analysis in any meaningful way;
– A central thesis which is not, to my knowledge, supported by any of the empirical research in this area (despite the fact that several such studies were cited in the paper);
– Bizarre, even farcical concluding recommendations which indicate a lack of knowledge about the martial arts in question, as well as a tenuous and selective grasp of feminism as applied to sport.
– There is simply too much wrong with the paper to offer a more robust criticism as a reviewer. I recommend that the author spends far more time acquainting themselves with both the theoretical and empirical literature at the intersection of sport, martial arts and masculinity studies before attempting a re-write. The current offering sits far short of the standards of scholarship expected of academic publication, particularly in a journal such as Men and Masculinities.