1. Make a minor theoretical distinction that will save the planet. This is an especially useful strategy when a single book has defined your field and no one will admit to hating it because the author is something of a rock star now. Changing this book's theoretical wording may allow you to assert that while it is useful (which no one believes), it is ever so slightly (i.e. extremely) reductionist, essentialist, etc.
2. Pull off the presto-changeo trick. This is kind of related to no. 1. What you do is take something that everyone thinks is progressive and prove (i.e. assert) that it is (presto-changeo!) actually conservative, imperialist, racist, sexist, or in service of the white middle class. Your argument will distract everyone from the fact that it makes no sense and is based on nonexistent evidence and a knowledge of history culled from books that came out in 1989. Because so many things that seem progressive in real life really are conservative, imperialist, racist, sexist, and in service of the white middle class, people will take you seriously.
If you can think of any other "oh, snap" strategies, let me know.
2 comments:
Making a minor theoretical distinction is a good one. What I've noticed about my diss is that several other people have done bits of it already, but no one has done all of what I am doing (or what my advisor says I am doing) in one work. So my strategy is to combine all these theoretical distinctions into one "new work".
Basically, I'm admitting that A has done X, B has done Y, and C has done Z, but I am doing X, Y, and Z. And sure maybe D has done X, Y, and Z, but it's only one chapter. I've doing a whole diss, which is more, and therefore better. Yeah.
My best strategy, however, is not to think about it right now. That's something best left till when you write the introduction. So my strategy is to procrastinate. Heh.
let's not forget the tried and true method of sounding so smart (jargony) that, while no one knows exactly what you're saying or mean, no one is willing to call you on it and thus reveal their confusion. I could see that strategy working, since it apparently has worked for a number of scholars before us.
Post a Comment