Yes, I am aware *that* you think this Mr Miller. My question, however, was, *Why do you think this*? How is it possible for everyone to claim an outside (if everyone claims an outside, is there really an outside?)?
Now, I flatly disagree with your claim that one can only examine something from the outside. At best, this leads to an unreflective bias. At worst, such an examination misses the point entirely. How could I examine, for instance, an architectural drawing if I am 'outside' architecture? the drawing would simply not make sense to me in the first place. And to say something like, I do not like all the complicated lines (which, unbenkownst to me, indicate where various electrical and plumbing materials need to be placed), and therefore the drawing is not as good as something else utterly misses the point. Ultimately, there is no outside to be claimed Mr Miller. There are just varying degrees of background knowledge. Finally, I have no idea what you mean by American academics claiming an outside for pop culture. It strikes me that, if anything Warhol claimed pop culture as high art, rather than academics. Or, to reach back a little further, one might say that the birth of cultural studies in Britain introduced pop culture as an object of study, and is aligned with a marxist understanding of class struggle. It is not very American. You can see for yourself here <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_studies>. On Fri, Sep 18, 2009 at 8:45 AM, Chris Miller <[email protected]>wrote: > I think everyone should "claim an outside", regardless of the culture, > sub-culture, or institution to which they are committed. That's the only > point-of-view from which shared assumptions can be examined, regardless of > how > complex and variegated they may be. > > Academics are justly proud for having "claimed an outside" from American > popular culture -- but they also need to claim an outside from the canons > of > their own institutions, and pay attention to critical outside voices, like > Ayn > Rand's, without comfortably dismissing her as a Fascist kook.. > > > >Despite all your huffing and puffing, Mr Miller, I am still quite > comfortable in my academic home. What, exactly, is your point here? Let > us > forget Rand for the moment, and ask a substantive question: Why do you > insist on claiming an outside? And why is it so difficult for you to see > that 'the canon' is an internally complex, variegated notion? How does > claiming multiple canons relieve the problems you see with 'the canon'? > Why > does it not simply multiply the same problem? > > > ____________________________________________________________ > Improve your career health. Click now to study nutrition! > > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVIxwkJ8IDecBMMGNhB0Zy7P > NuZ1ohac25F3fFJ1whdBZuhqdxUFy/<http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2231/fc/BLSrjnxVIxwkJ8IDecBMMGNhB0Zy7P%0ANuZ1ohac25F3fFJ1whdBZuhqdxUFy/>
