Comments on: The not-always-reliable Oxford Companion to Australian Politics

By: Nicholas Gruen

Nicholas Gruen — Sun, 23 Dec 2007 02:28:00 +0000

Great review Andrew. Thx.

By: Rafe

Rafe — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 09:26:01 +0000

Well one of the meanings of essentialism is the excessive concern with the true meaning of terms that leads to endless “concepual analysis”, usually disconnected from issues of truth and falsehood (in the case of theories) and practical benefits (in the case of policies).
http://www.the-rathouse.com/popessent.html

That is a major activity in the social sciences and it tends to undermine the critical faculties of students who take it seriously while those who can’t take it seriously are likely to become anti-intellectual in reaction, thinking “if that is the life of the mind you can shove it” or words to that effect.

By: John Greenfield

John Greenfield — Wed, 14 Nov 2007 03:52:06 +0000

Spiros

I just ran the same search and came up with hundreds of thousands. Some real doozies. But don’t just rely on Google, go to the Faculty websites.

By: Boris

Boris — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 14:54:05 +0000

This is what I found on the internet:

“”essentialism: no one is quite sure what, in essence, it is, but it makes an excellent insult.” (McKenzie Wark, Dictionary of Received Ideas)”

By: Spiros

Spiros — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 11:27:16 +0000

John, I reckon you’re making this up.

I just did a Google search on “essentialist discourse of Science” and what did Mr Google tell me?

Your search - “essentialist discourse of Science” - did not match any documents

Not a single one in their internet! Not one!

And, of course, none on Google Scholar either.

Now, I ask you, how can this be, if what you say is true?

You shouldn’t make silly claims that can be easily checked.

By: John Greenfield

John Greenfield — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 10:52:03 +0000

Rafe

Unfortunately, they don’t really. They share the same hostility to Science as all those “Studies” types - Gender/Cultural/Media/Luvvie/Whiteness/Communication/Yada Yada.

A friend recently shared an interesting inisght from some research. Select a few universities. Go to each of their websites. Look at the Faculty bios for Gender/Cultural/Whiteness/Media/Luvvie Studies. See how none of them has any training in Biology, Maths, Stats, Neuroscience, Psychology. Then check their publications and see how often they reject the “essentialist discourse of Science.”

Truly frightening. The Confederacy of Dunces is Here and living high on the ARC Hog near you!

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 02:09:02 +0000

Isn’t Brian suggesting that each entry was written by “true believers” for “true believers”? So the entry on economic rationalism reflects what it is - by its leading exponent.

Maybe, Andrew, the book you’re loking for is “A Critique of Australian Political Concepts”. That may not be what the Campanion aims to provide.

By: Andrew Norton

Andrew Norton — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 01:09:49 +0000

Brian - Unlike Rajat, my confidence in the book is not ’shot’, but I do think that caution is needed. Many of the contributors are people I know from reading their work in the past are good scholars (yourself included). I bought the book partly because I am interested in new ideas but also because I do a lot of fact-checking, both for my own writing and when editing others. If Pusey’s entry got through whatever process you had for ensuring accuracy it cannot have been a very good process. But I used Pat Weller’s entry on ministerial responsibility in a post yesterday because I know he is careful and reliable.

You’ve almost admitted that an entry I have not read, on postcolonialism, should also be handled carefully, believing I will see it as pushing a case rather than explaining an idea. I don’t have the time or the expertise to assess how many other entries fall into that category, and nor do the intended readers. That was the job of the editors.

By: Rajat Sood

Rajat Sood — Tue, 13 Nov 2007 00:51:43 +0000

Brian, as a prospective purchaser and reader of the book, I don’t think that defence cuts it. There are several things going on here: (1) an error of judgement in picking authors; (2) careless or uncritical editing; (3) a view implied in your comment above that sloppy work is acceptable; and finally (4) an intolerance of criticism and resort to personal comments, which augurs badly for the next edition if there is one. Sorry, but my confidence in the book is shot.

By: Brian Galligan

Brian Galligan — Mon, 12 Nov 2007 23:43:44 +0000

Andrew has taken the bate and been provoked by three authors whom he loves to hate and their individual entries.
He admits these may not be representative but claims, curiously, that their inclusion undermines confidence in the whole project. He expresses concern for undergratuates who will not have quite his knowledgement and discernment, and therefore not be able to evalutate what they read. What a lot of twaddle.
Andrew hasn’t picked on entries from the other side: eg Peter Coleman on ‘political correctness’; nor John Roskam on ‘liberal democracy’. Both are fine pieces, and by committed proponents of liberalism and liberal democracy.
Andrew, you should read a little further. Certainly add the entry on ‘postcolonialism’ to your hate list. But be challenged and perhaps instructed by other entries where you may be more the novice, and see if you can learn some new things.