This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
There seems to be a small movement by Republican lawmakers to put legal pressure on the excesses of woke universities.
The STEM Scott writes about several bills up for consideration in the Texas state senate:
Florida is considering a similar bill, HB 999, that would place restrictions on DEI-related initiatives and majors at public universities. Already the effects are being felt at SLACs like the New College:
I'm in a bit of an odd place with regards to these issues. I don't fit neatly onto the woke "how dare you attack our most hallowed and sacred institutions!" side, nor the anti-woke "stop teaching this pinko commie crap to our kids!" side.
I really do have an almost naive faith in free speech for all, even for my worst enemies. Despite being an avowed rightist, I not only want leftists to be able to speak, but I want them to be platformed! I want to help you get the word out! I think our public life really should play host to a diversity of viewpoints. I think the university should be a hothouse of strange and controversial ideas. By all means, keep teaching CRT and women's studies and black studies and whatever else you want. I know that leftists don't extend the same courtesy to me, but that doesn't invalidate the fundamental point that I should extend that courtesy to them. Even just beyond extending formal charity to my political outgroup, I actually enjoy a lot of this type of scholarship and I find value in it, I like Marxist literary criticism and the obscurantist mid-20th century French guys and German phenomenology and all the rest of it, and I think it should continue to be taught and studied on its own merits, even if I don't necessarily agree with the politics.
But! It really is hard sometimes. When things like this happen, when a book chapter that was, by all accounts, a completely anodyne explication of the official party ideology, whose only crime was that it didn't go far enough in advocating the abolition of all gendered pronouns, is met with public humiliation and a tarnishing of the reputation of the author... it does make my blood boil and it's hard to maintain my principles. It makes me want to go "ok, yeah screw it, ban all liberal arts programs at universities, I don't care, whatever, I just want these people to lose." I'm on their side on a lot of the key object-level issues and I still want them to lose! That's why I constantly feel like I'm of two minds on these questions.
In spite of all the problems with the modern university, I still think it's important that we have at least one institution that acts as a countervailing force to utilitarian profit-maximizing techbroism. The university as it stands now leaves a lot to be desired. But if the choice is between the university we have now, or nothing, I'll stick with the university.
Is it? Honest question, I'm just wondering what you have in mind here.
At a basic level, it's because the university is fundamentally a non-utilitarian, non-capitalist enterprise. Granted that's less and less true of actual universities with each passing year, but as long as public dollars are still going to people who are doing entirely useless research into the Langlands program or the mating habits of an obscure species of moth or whatever, it remains at least partially true. The university is, ideally, a place where people can pursue intellectual queries for their own sake without concern for profit or real-world applicability. If nothing else, it shows people how a different model of life might look, that a different model of life is possible.
I guess in order to get deeper than that I'd want to know what kind of answer you were expecting. Is it a question about what sorts of thought the university produces, or is it a question of how the university is supposed to have any impact on the actual real world?
My church offers people an example of how a different model of life is possible, and shows what it looks like. Notably, my church isn't subsidized by the federal government via compulsory taxation, to the tune of many billions of dollars a year. If this is what Universities are for, I have zero objection to them pursuing that goal on the same terms my Church does. People like yourself who value such efforts are free to donate money to support them of your own free will, and everyone goes home happy.
We finance Universities because they are supposed to be an unambiguous public good, like electricity and clean water. That is to say, we finance them for explicitly utilitarian ends. If that's not what they actually do, then to hell with tenure and DEI; we need to publicize their true nature as loudly and publicly as possible, the better to quicken the complete abolition of their access to the public purse.
Well, it depends on what you think a "public good" is, and your own personal tolerance for ambiguity, I suppose.
Do you think a paper on Frobenius exact symmetric tensor categories is an unambiguous public good? Hell, do you think Frobenius exact symmetric tensor categories are even real? Because this is a representative exemplar of the sort of thing that the university does. And this is from a STEM department, the "useful" half of the university.
I do think it's a public good - it's just a public good of a non-utilitarian kind. This kind of research isn't going to help you cure cancer or feed more people or build the next killer app; but I view it as a public good nonetheless, because it's an integral part of what makes life worth living in the first place.
Perhaps diverting your tax dollars to causes you find nonsensical is itself a public good, if it serves as an impetus for you to reflect on your own preconceived notions of value.
Oh yes, my preconceptions of value and what is worth dispensing violence over are regularly challenged by bluehair tier academia.
More options
Context Copy link
I have good news! I am willing to perform a good deed for you - in exchange for a large sum of money, I'll provide you with an impetus for you to reflect on your own preconceived notions of value. Hell, I'll even be generous and throw in one or two bonus impetuses at no extra cost. If you think this is a good worth spending other people's tax dollars on, why not spend some of your own money on it?
More options
Context Copy link
...I do not think this is going to be a persuasive argument for most people, but I must admit that it certainly seems likely to be a public benefit, at least from my perspective, for you to continue to make it.
[EDIT] - ...More charitably, I think it behooves supporters of the Universities to recognize the degree to which the vast public costs of these institutions have been justified by long-standing claims of public benefit far more concrete, immediate and utilitarian than "an impetus for you to reflect on one's own preconceived notions of value". The level of appalling smuggery in that last phrase, in particular, is... quite something.
I do not recognize why "Frobenius exact symmetric tensor categories" are an unambiguous public good, and I emphatically reject the argument that they are any part, integral or otherwise, of what makes life worth living in the first place. Maybe this is because I'm too stupid to understand the vital role such categories play. I'd certainly be interested in seeing an actual argument as to why their pursuit is worth trading away sizable and utterly irreplaceable chunks of my life, though, should you deign to provide one.
I can elaborate on my views a bit, at any rate.
It will be helpful if we continue to confine ourselves to mathematics, rather than university studies as a whole, since mathematics is less politically fraught than the humanities, and certain peculiar properties of mathematics help bring questions of usefulness vs uselessness into sharp relief.
I don't know how much you know about research-level mathematics, so I'll give a brief summary. Mathematicians primarily concern themselves with writing proofs of theorems - deductive arguments in support of statements about mathematical objects. These mathematical objects can be ordinary and familiar, like numbers, or they can be extremely exotic, like hypervector spaces over fields of characteristic p. It is an open philosophical question as to the precise relationship between mathematical objects and what one might call "reality". Mathematicians simply speak them into existence with flat declarations like "Define a hypervector space as any set of points that meets such and such requirements...", the way one speaks the rules of Chess into existence with statements like "Define the Queen to be a piece that moves in such and such a way...", which naturally raises questions about the ontological status of these objects. After a proof has been written and certified by peer review, it will be published in a journal where it will be largely unread, largely incomprehensible to all but ~15 mathematicians who specialize in the author's sub-sub-field, and it will pass largely unnoticed into the dustbin of history. Such is the peculiar enterprise we concern ourselves with.
Fields medalist Timothy Gowers gave a nice lecture on the value of mathematics, and why it's deserving of public funding. The most substantive part of the argument is when he points out the obvious fact that mathematics does indeed have practical real-world applications that everyone can agree are important; otherwise we couldn't have science and engineering and computers and all the rest of it. The twist though is that you can't know a priori which field of mathematics, let alone which individual results, will turn out to be "useful" in a utilitarian sense. The classic example is how number theory turned out to have applications in cryptography, but this application of number theory only became apparent over a century after Gauss and Galois inaugurated the modern study of the subject. Unlike fields of mathematics that developed in close relationship to concrete problems in physics, like differential equations, no one could have guessed that trivia about things like quadratic reciprocity would ever be useful to anyone - and yet it did turn out to be useful, in the context of the technology of the distant future.
This argument should be enough to convince even the most hard-nosed utilitarian that funding some level of speculative mathematics research is worthwhile. In the short term it may look like a lot of waste and false starts, but the potential payoff is so great, and the proven track record of past results is so strong, that I think the expected ROI is positive.
My own views go beyond this though. I think even if we had God's guarantee that some branch of mathematics would never have any practical use whatsoever, it would still be deserving of public funding, as long as it met the specifically mathematical criteria for mathematical relevance, of course (desirable traits that mathematicians will point to in a theorem like aesthetic beauty, "naturalness", impact on other results, etc). This I believe simply because the purpose of civilization itself is to enable higher types of minds to do higher types of things. Society should not be a playground arranged so that atomized individuals have maximum freedom to "do as they please" - rather it should be arranged with no other goal in mind than to support the flourishing of humanity's most meaningful achievements. Lower types of activities should subsidize higher types of activities. A paltry <1% of the federal coffers is a small price to pay in pursuit of this goal.
I once witnessed a conversation that went as follows:
I think B was getting at something quite important. The standard criteria that people use to determine whether something is "useful" is precisely backwards. Infrastructure, commerce, defense, all types of "efficiency"... these things have no value in and of themselves. Their only justification is to serve as the foundational support structure for authentically human activities, the things that separate man as such from the mere animals.
As for why I give mathematics specifically such an exalted place, I could elaborate on my reasons further, but they would quickly become poetic and unpersuasive to you. I will simply say that direct contact with the subject is the best argument. I don't see how a genuinely sensitive and inquisitive mind could understand the statement and history of problems like the search for an exact quintic equation, or Fermat's Last Theorem, or the Riemann Hypothesis and remain unconvinced that there is something of immense value there. Such apparently simple problems, such deceptively childish questions, and yet they resisted the continuous assault of humanity's greatest minds for centuries, their solutions had such surprising and far-reaching implications, or they remain unsolved even today despite us bringing the full weight of our resources to bear on them, such as the RH and an infinite sea of even further and loftier problems...
Not all mathematical problems are interesting of course. Many are boring and trite and have no real relevance to anything or anyone. But similar to the argument given above about practical utility, you can't know a priori where great ideas will come from. A random paper about combinatorics published by a professor at a third-rate state school probably won't lead to a proof of the Riemann Hypothesis, but at the same time, it might. The history of mathematics is full of such surprising connections. Which is why it's better to simply let mathematicians do what they do and not try to prune the search space too early.
To be clear, nothing in this argument is self-serving. I am not employed by or affiliated with a university, and never will be.
Similar considerations will apply to most university STEM fields. They may change somewhat if we were to consider the humanities, but the basic thrust is the same.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link