Critical theory and the end of life as we know it

I do occasionally get drawn into discussions on the Stuff and Nonsense website. Not so drawn into them that I feel compelled to actually participate, but drawn in enough to read them, expecially when my name keeps coming up.

All this blather about old and new, progressive and regressive (don't these language mavens understand the binary subtext of the word progressive?), coaches and mavericks, does at times show an incredible level of ignorance about the state of education in America (and bodes well for our chances at CFL Nats), but there is a good core point here that I will acknowledge. To wit, research/reading/evidence on a resolution should be resolution-specific.

There seems to be some myth that in Days of Yore, LD was nothing but semi-literate troglodytes mumbling the words social contract under their breath until the judges collapsed from the sheer weight of it. Well, there was a run of vague philosophical topics like abusive government versus no government that definitely played in rationalism's backyard, but a good debater never "ran" Locke or Rousseau. You can't run a philosopher, insofar as you can't encapsulate a philosopher's ideas in the couple of minutes you have when you present a constructive. The best you can do is pull out a single idea that the judge will accept based on your presentation on it, and then build your argument from that. You start with a premise, an axiom, whatever, and build from there. To start from a premise that governments are formed for a variety of reasons, and one of these reasons is to protect its member people, will not cause a judge to throw a brick at you for being a crackpot. So much for the SC; from that point, you're on your own.

As I've said before, topics have changed. And people need to change their reading/research to keep up with them. And while I seldom hesitate to vilify critical theory in the broad sense, I do find good material in the underpinnings of modern thought. So this old bourbon-drinking whiner (or whatever the reference was to us poor old coaches passed over by the whirlwind tide of bright young things) has indeed begun digging into, and coaching on, modern critical thought. Language DOES have power, which is why I insist that it be used well. Power IS a fluid construct. Which is what Caveman is all about.

One of the things I like about doing this activity is that it keeps me learning new things. With Caveman, a lot of what I'm doing is merely synthesizing what I already know (although I've been astounded by how much I've gotten wrong when I research my references—I am a wealth of mis- and dis-information). The problem is taking critical theory, which is mostly an effete academic mishmash of bad writing attempting to indict others for their evil writing, and finding the good stuff that can be presented with educational benefit to a high school audience. The attraction of pomo stuff is not unlike the attraction of good old Ayn Rand: there's some ineffable pull of crackpotsia that draws in a certain usually young mind. I don't want to imply that the old are smarter than the young, but they are different. Even when I was a spring chicken I knew that some things (like the novels of Henry James) were better left to my dotage (which was a couple of years ago, if reading Henry James's novels are any indication). But I digress. As usual.

My point is, yes, we should look at more topic specific stuff. Read the people writing about democracy if you're discussing democracy, read the people wiriting about religion if it's separation, etc., etc., etc. (It has, ladies and gentlemen, ever been thus, but the Days of Yore just can't measure up to these enlightened times, I guess. )