Two cases of academics who are trying to talk to a general public, but probably shouldn't be.
The local
CBC Radio midday phone-in yesterday was on how couples divide up the household chores. The guests were three sociologists. I guess the conversation was just too accessible for one of them, because after some talk about who does what in the home, she interjected with (I'm paraphrasing): "But I think, as sociologists, we should be discussing the structural nature of negotiations."
Now there's someone with a talent for connecting with the little guy -- and exciting the interests of potential callers too, I'm sure.
Case #2 is from the September issue of Harper's Magazine. German philosopher
Peter Sloterdijk holds forth on the World Cup. I've only ever encountered very few philosophers who can say anything original and non-pretentious about sports. This guy isn't one of them. He watches soccer as "a man interested in the archaeology of manliness." He has the wildly original thought that sports offers an outlet for men, whose hunter instincts have been suppressed for the last 7,000 years. And, as for soccer itself, "There is no other game in which our old proto-artillery feeling of hunt success can be so clearly imitated."
What? Has Peter Sloterdijk ever
seen another game? American (or Canadian) football, say? Or hockey? Or Australian Rules Football? If you're looking for a sports equivalent to "strik[ing] prey with a ballistic object" I'd say firing a hockey puck comes a lot closer to it than anything you could do on a soccer field.