I generally know what you're talking about; it meets with my experiences with fellow academic refugees. I quite a Lit PhD well into my dissertation and writers like Lyotard figured heavily in my MA thesis.
But there's not a lot of use in talking about anything like this stuff in general conversation. Groups of people get exposed to something a little bit, someone smugly tells them that the emperor has no clothes, and it quickly becomes more enjoyable for them to use that tiny bit of smugness to dismiss rich and useful lines of thought. At a certain point, there isn't much to say to people who have developed an allergy to certain kinds of terms, analysis, and lines of thought.
> Groups of people get exposed to something a little bit, someone smugly tells them that the emperor has no clothes, and it quickly becomes more enjoyable for them to use that tiny bit of smugness to dismiss rich and useful lines of thought.
Sure, you can see it on HN. But I expect more from experts in their own domain. Perhaps that's why I'm disappointed.
> At a certain point, there isn't much to say to people who have developed an allergy to certain kinds of terms, analysis, and lines of thought.
I do disagree with this. In that scenario, people are following the herd like sheep; it's not a result of strong beliefs. Among sheep, one leader can change the direction of things, at least to an extent.
"Among sheep, one leader can change the direction of things, at least to an extent."
Well, I am skeptical that people are that easily led... I feel that it's more the case that they respond to what they need and so if what you're providing doesn't line up with their (possibly dysfunctional) view of the world your ideas will fall on deaf ears. It's not like these ideas in their functional forms have ever been widespread beyond artists using them as a post hoc justification for why their work resonates with the popular mood.
As to your first point about "experts in their own domain"...
I believe that most of the folks who care about these ideas are probably neither in academia nor have much access to popular discourse.
There are plenty of threads to pickup in this world where the intellectual work is still ongoing, but the people in academia mostly don't consider these ideas useful because (among many reasons) they destabilize their already unstable position in the economy.
My dissertation director was way more interested in a very conservative approach to history than in unpacking language, and he was, I think, fairly representative of the people in the field: if you're interested in theoretical concerns, then you're almost definitely going to be either unemployed or become unemployable as an academic or an intellectual.
It's really tough for my cohort to afford to write while paying off student loans working at Barnes and Nobles or adjuncting a 5/5 at some JC. At the same time, I personally have the time to write, but I'd rather focus on playing music because it's a lot more relatable for most people.
You might consider someone like Mark Fisher (kpunk) to be the kind of person I am thinking of when I say that theory in the university is a rough endevor. I'm in the middle of reading his "Capitalist Realism: Is there no alternative?" and I think it addresses this, so maybe pull the PDF and take a skim. His personal mode of addressing the issue (he eventually killed himself) is probably not super healthy, but at the same time I am not sure that there really is much else that is actionable here.
Thanks for a valuable comment worth reading a couple times or thrice. The insights into academia are depressing, though I already know well the plight of the adjunct. Unionize!
> Well, I am skeptical that people are that easily led... I feel that it's more the case that they respond to what they need and so if what you're providing doesn't line up with their (possibly dysfunctional) view of the world your ideas will fall on deaf ears.
I'll add a couple points, hopefully without belaboring the question: First, governments, corporations, and political organizations spend a lot of time and money trying to influence opinion, especially online (even on HN); they must believe, rightly or wrongly, that they can lead people. Second, I agree that your ideas can't conflict with their worldview, and in fact the way to lead people (in this sense) is to target their worldview; frame that, program their assumptions and their conclusions are second nature.
But there's not a lot of use in talking about anything like this stuff in general conversation. Groups of people get exposed to something a little bit, someone smugly tells them that the emperor has no clothes, and it quickly becomes more enjoyable for them to use that tiny bit of smugness to dismiss rich and useful lines of thought. At a certain point, there isn't much to say to people who have developed an allergy to certain kinds of terms, analysis, and lines of thought.