“Twenty years after his death, it seems that Bourdieu was one of the last people who still thought that sociology should comment on issues such as social inequality, the reproduction of power, and the influence of social affiliation on the way people think and act. His opponents resent the fact that he even mentioned these issues,” writes a Czech sociologist, professor Jan Keller in a regular note.
What else should sociology be concerned with but such topics? The gender aspects of Mickey Mouse? The profitability of a product? Why should taxpayers pay for our study if they should not expect it to increase their understanding of what is going on in society?
Academia and the media, which by definition should be the freest, exercise the strictest censorship.
But the trend is indeed there. The really important things are not to be talked about. Academia and the media, which by definition should be the freest, exercise the strictest censorship. And it’s particularly sad to see how this seeps into the whole of society. People are already afraid to speak up even in ordinary workplaces. And most “alternative media” already have their own lists of banned authors (following the example of the mainstream media). And the more censorship comes to the fore, the more discernment is weakened.
Articles and ideas are sorted not by whether they are true or false, clever or stupid, but by whether the author is willing to recite a pre-approved thesis. Even various free speech projects have adopted at least part of this regime. Simply, stupidity pervades everything. Of course, stupidity cannot go on forever. But when it will stop and how, no one knows at this point.
