There has been severe, and if I may be frank, undeserving criticism, against the Research Assessment Exercise (RAE) and its successor, the forthcoming REF. Here I wish to offer a rebuttal to those detractors who for whatever reasons consider the system to be flawed or unfair.
Firstly, the fact that Social Realism has a very small readership of around a dozen subscribers should not detract from its very high impact ranking of 3.6. It has a long and illustrious history of over 90 years, throughout which time the members of the editorial board have been a constant presence. Impact factors for each journal are calculated over a three year period on the average number of times its articles are cited in other articles appearing in the list of indexed journals. It goes without saying that the new fangled open access journals are rightly excluded from this elite list, due to their less rigorous standards of reviewing, the free and open nature of online publication, not to mention their substantial readership. My fellow authors and I are more than capable of compensating for the small but select readership of Social Realism by ensuring that we cite our own and each other's articles copiously in all our subsequently published papers to maintain the superior impact rating of the journal. This is only fair under the circumstances.
Secondly, doubt has been expressed over the capabilities of the appointed REF panel of experts (pictured above during their innaugural meeting in 1906) to fairly or competently judge the quality of research outputs across the board. I am happy to refute these claims, on the basis that three of the members of the panel are close friends of mine and the fourth is a member of my own family. I can assure all those who have made such claims, that the panel are all exceptionally talented people who are extremely knowledgeable in their respective fields and each is totally impervious to bribes or any other form of cajolement. Some also sit on the editorial boards of Social Realism and other journals I have published in, so their integrity is not to be doubted. Those who doubt any of the panel's capabilities, academic or otherwise can be assured. Each and every one of the expert panel has been certified.
Thirdly, the fact that I have a full time and permanent academic contract of employment with my institution means that I am eligible to submit to the REF, and will therefore be in the running to attract research funds from central government should my published works be deemed to merit it (I am confident that they will, but am not at liberty to say why). Many of my lesser academic colleagues are on fixed term or part-time contracts and unfortunately (but rightly) will not be eligible to submit. Although their published research is exemplary, the temporary nature of their employment status militates against them. Their research is thus deemed to be inadmissible, and this is only reasonable under the circumstances. Full-time permanent academic contracts must be earned on merit, and are not just given away freely to any Thomas, Richard or Harold.
Fourthly, that my research for the above article was neither empirical, nor quasi-experimental, but rather was carried out entirely as a result of personal introspection, is neither here nor there. The fact that it has been published in a high ranking journal ensures that I will almost certainly attract a 4* star rating (world leading research) and will therefore be eligible for substantial research funding. My work was double blind peer reviewed by two eminent and highly respected members of an elite academic review panel and after minor changes, was accepted for publication in the illustrious said journal.
And finally, it matters not that some claim the title and content of my published paper were generated by a spoof post-modernist essay generator. These are scurrilous accusations and borne out of pure academic jealousy. It is neither the unfamiliar sequence of the words, their apparently dense and pretentious verbosity, nor their perceived lack of coherent meaning that should be called into question here. Rather, it is the concept that is important, and of course its post-modernist interpretation. That my article could be considered by some ill-informed individuals to be little more than supercilious nonsense is at best irrelevant and at worst pure unsubstantiated opinion. The same accusation was levelled at Foucault, and look what happened to him. Instead, it is incontrovertible fact that double reviews by two blind academic peers have resulted in a major publication in a highly berated journal. This ensures that my article (and its companion submissions) will be taken into full consideration by the REF evaluation panel without question, and that in due course, I am confident that my institution will be commensurately rewarded with substantial research money from public funds, to which of course I shall be given privileged access, for the funding of subsequent research. In the final analysis, and under the circumstances, that is all that really matters. My journal article is below. Judge for yourself:
Precapitalist Sublimations: The dialectic paradigm of narrative and postcultural discourse around the works of Oliver Stone
Social Realism
2009; 91 (4), pp 16-18.
In the works of Oliver Stone, a predominant concept is that of subpatriarchial art. Geoffrey [1] states that we must choose between Lacanist obscurity and Derridaist reading. “Society is dead,” says Lacan. It could be said that Baudrillard uses the term ‘nihilism’ to denote not narrative as such, but neonarrative. The main theme of the works of Stone is the fatal flaw, and subsequent rubicon, of capitalist class. Therefore, the ground/figure distinction depicted in Stone’s JFK is also evident in Platoon. The primary theme of Scuglia’s [2] critique of subdialectic capitalist theory is the bridge between sexuality and sexual identity.
It could be said that Bataille uses the term ‘nihilism’ to denote a mythopoetical whole. The characteristic theme of the works of Stone is not materialism, but prematerialism. In a sense, Debord uses the term ‘Lacanist obscurity’ to denote the common ground between class and language. Many discourses concerning a self-justifying reality exist.
If one examines Batailleist 'powerful communication', one is faced with a choice: either accept Lacanist obscurity or conclude that class has significance, but only if art is equal to consciousness; if that is not the case, we can assume that the task of the writer is significant form. It could be said that the subject is interpolated into a Batailleist 'powerful communication' that includes art as a whole. The premise of Lacanist obscurity suggests that truth, somewhat paradoxically, has intrinsic meaning.
“Sexual identity is part of the meaninglessness of narrativity,” says Sartre; however, according to Long [3] , it is not so much sexual identity that is part of the meaninglessness of narrativity, but rather the absurdity of sexual identity. In a sense, in JFK, Stone deconstructs Batailleist 'powerful communication'; in Platoon he examines nihilism. Baudrillard promotes the use of subdialectic narrative to read society.
“Consciousness is fundamentally unattainable,” says Lacan. It could be said that if Batailleist ‘powerful communication' holds, we have to choose between nihilism and deconstructivist predialectic theory. Marx uses the term ‘textual discourse’ to denote the role of the observer as participant. Therefore, Foucault’s essay on nihilism implies that truth may be used to entrench class divisions. The main theme of Bartok's [4] model of Batailleist ‘powerful communication' is a mythopoetical paradox.
In a sense, nihilism states that context is created by the collective unconscious, but only if Bataille’s essay on postcapitalist conceptual theory is valid; otherwise, Derrida’s model of Batailleist `powerful communication’ is one of “Marxist capitalism”, and hence dead. The example of neotextual capitalism prevalent in Stone’s Natural Born Killers emerges again in Platoon, although in a more semioticist sense.
It could be argued that the subject is contextualised into a Lacanist obscurity that includes language as a totality. Hubbard [5] suggests that we have to choose between nihilism and cultural Marxism. However, Bataille suggests the use of pretextual discourse to challenge sexism. The subject is interpolated into a Lacanist obscurity that includes narrativity as a whole. In a sense, the primary theme of the works of Stone is not deconstruction per se, but postdeconstruction. Derrida uses the term ‘Batailleist powerful communication' to denote a mythopoetical reality.
Dialectic capitalism and neoconstructive discourse. If one examines nihilism, one is faced with a choice: either reject Lacanist obscurity or conclude that culture is used to marginalize minorities. But Lyotard promotes the use of nihilism to deconstruct and read society. The characteristic theme of Finnis’s [6] analysis of textual narrative is the stasis, and eventually the futility, of neostructural class.
“Truth is part of the collapse of consciousness,” says Sartre. However, the subject is contextualised into a Lacanist obscurity that includes language as a paradox. Marx suggests the use of Sontagist camp to challenge class divisions. The main theme of the works of Stone is not, in fact, theory, but pre-theory. Therefore, the premise of Lacanist obscurity states that society has objective value. Bataille promotes the use of nihilism to modify class.
“Society is meaningless,” says Foucault. It could be said that several materialisms concerning neoconstructive discourse may be found. The subject is interpolated into a Lacanist obscurity that includes art as a whole.
In a sense, many theories concerning the role of the artist as observer exist. In Natural Born Killers, Stone affirms cultural subdialectic theory; in Platoon, however, he denies neoconstructive discourse. But the characteristic theme of de Selby’s [7] critique of Lacanist obscurity is the bridge between narrativity and society. The subject is contextualised into a nihilism that includes culture as a reality.
It could be said that if Lacanist obscurity holds, we have to choose between nihilism and Marxist class. Bataille’s model of cultural narrative holds that the law is part of the failure of consciousness. Therefore, Debord uses the term ‘nihilism’ to denote the role of the reader as poet. Lacanist obscurity states that art serves to reinforce the status quo, given that truth is interchangeable with narrativity. It is contentious that the subject is interpolated into a neoconstructive discourse that includes culture as a paradox. A number of deconstructions concerning Lacanist obscurity may thus be revealed.
Bibliography
1. Geoffrey, J. Y. ed. (1983) The Expression of Failure: Lacanist obscurity and nihilism. Oxford: Oxford University Press
2. Scuglia, V. Q. B. (1972) Nihilism in the works of Koons. New York: Quartermaine.
3. Long, R. E. ed. (1981) The Burning Sky: Nihilism and Lacanist obscurity. University of Illinois Press
4. Bartok, R. (1993) Lacanist obscurity and nihilism. Berlin: Schlangekraft
5. Hubbard, F. I. ed. (1984) Subcapitalist Theories: Nihilism and Lacanist obscurity. London: Loompanics
6. Finnis, Q. (1975) Lacanist obscurity and nihilism. London: Bow and Sons.
7. de Selby, R. U. P. ed. (1992) The Futility of Reality: Nihilism in the works of Eco. San Francisco: O’Reilly Associates
Image source
An academic writes... by Steve Wheeler is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.
