FW: Discussion: C. Hasselblatt's original comment

Sun Dec 17 15:34:20 UTC 2006

Dear colleagues,

I understand Stefan Georg's message was meant for the whole list.

Best
JL
-- 
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso
Universität Wien, Institut für Europäische und Vergleichende Sprach- und
Literaturwissenschaft (EVSL) | Abteilung Finno-Ugristik
Universitätscampus Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 7, A-1090 Wien
Tel. +43 1 4277 43019, (VoIP) +43 599664 43019 | Fax +43 1 4277 9430
johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at | http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/

-- 
Univ.-Prof. Dr. Johanna Laakso
Universität Wien, Institut für Europäische und Vergleichende Sprach- und
Literaturwissenschaft (EVSL) | Abteilung Finno-Ugristik
Universitätscampus Spitalgasse 2-4 Hof 7, A-1090 Wien
Tel. +43 1 4277 43019, (VoIP) +43 599664 43019 | Fax +43 1 4277 9430
johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at | http://homepage.univie.ac.at/Johanna.Laakso/

------ Weitergeleitete Nachricht
Von: Stefan Georg <Georg-Bonn at t-online.de>
Datum: Sun, 17 Dec 2006 00:37:00 +0100
An: Johanna Laakso <johanna.laakso at univie.ac.at>
Betreff: Re: Discussion: C. Hasselblatt's original comment

Dear colleagues,

Thanks to Johanna Laakso, Cornelius Hasselblatt and Simona Klemencic for
their clear words on this issue, which plagues not only the discipline this
list is devoted to. And it is only helpful to have some voices from "the
other side", if only to show to those who do not already know what the
"spirit" is like, the "opposition" to what we continue to call sober science
is driven by. 
There is really no need to engage in discussion with such, as they refer to
themselves rather frankly, "believers". Suffice it to say that we, as
linguists, do not have to defend any "belief". Everything we do is to apply
the general methods of scientific reasoning (which, as they have ever been,
are of course, just like anything else, open to scrutiny, revision, even
iconoclasm - let it only be *informed* and *interesting*) to try to make
sense of the world around us and the things we find in it. However the
results of such activities may indeed be difficult to swallow for
individuals who seem to consist more of pride than of anything else (as
terrestrians, mammals, humans, "caucasians", Europeans, Hungarians or
whatever anybody's whim takes him/her to be "proud" of being). That's what
scholarship is about. It is precisely the ability to acknowledge the fact
that it is not about defending anybody's "pride" spells the difference
between people who qualify for a civilized discussion and those who simply
do not. The history of science has shown that, like life itself, the
principles of reason will always find their way. So much for optimism. It is
of course possible, and deplorable, that certain groups, if they are only
loud enough, may at times succeed to hijack the attention of certain parts
of a certain audience - the more gullible part, of course - and to score
some points in the tabloid press. The worst thing which may happen is that a
young generation of academics is spoiled, if not outright betrayed, by such
developments, should they ever cross the doorsteps of universities. It is
sad to learn that this is about happening in some countries or may be close
to happening. But, then, again only the gullible will fall victim to this,
they might soon discover that doing scholarship of any kind is not exactly
their thing anyway. The less gullible will discover, without our
"preaching", that the assumption that, e.g., Finno-Ugric linguistics is just
a cook-up of sinister KuK jesuits or whatnot would entail that *all* of
comparative linguistics *round the globe* would have to be cooked up by the
same people (or done by people who follow their concoctions) for the same
motives. Imagine that: the whole world, from Vienna to Canberra, from
Anchorage to Buenos Aires, is doing linguistic scholarship the way it does
*only to subdue the pride of Hungarian patriots*! They are even doing the
linguistics of aboriginal Australian and Bantu languages like this, only to
try to fool us. What a grand scheme, how they must fear us! And how much
money must be in for those who lend themselves to perpetuate this
Austro-Hungarian propaganda (frankly, I'd like to have some of it, where can
I enlist to become a card-bearing member of this conspiracy? So far I have
been silly enough to participate in this for free ! I'm sure one of the
"believers" can point me to the secret organisations on whose payroll
everybody in the field apparently already is, I just want to write them a
humble reminder...).
Well, I know that sarcasm of this kind will be of little help to colleagues
who have this problem literally at their doorsteps, but I know no better
solution as that advocated by Cornelius Hasselblatt here, i.e. to carry on
the good (and maybe sometimes the less good - we are all prone to error in
everything we do, of course) work in the vineyard of reason, disregarding
those who dream of putting us in cages - let's see how far they get, call me
arrogant, if you wish. Speaking out loud for the priciples we advocate and
base our work on is of course our duty (and drawing lots of hate mail for
this is the price we have to pay - I still hope it won't get worse
anywhere), but I would not go into discussions of the kind "proposed" here,
i.e. to engage in "public" debates on some TV station of possibly
questionable reputation, catering for "general interest" audiences - call me
extremely and unbearably arrogant if you wish this time. Let the
fundamentalists of any ilk do this to their hearts' contents, gracing their
conventions by our presence is certainly nothing which will lead anywhere -
who ever has talked to true fundamentalists will immediately know why there
is simply no point.
The discussion of *any* claim with possible or real consequences for
scholarly debates will, by nature, only go on in the appropriate outlets.
Those who deny, for example, the Finno-Ugrian descent of Hungarian have
usually been granted access to all kinds of scholarly journals and published
book series (the conspirators have obviously done a bad job silencing them,
given all the money they command...), and we receive such publications on a
regular basis. We sit down and write answers, reviews, sometimes heated
position papers - where are the responses, I mean those which respond to the
points raised ? 
Concerning Angela Marcantonio (I hesitate to add that the "cages"-metaphor
is not hers and that I do not want to imply that she endorses anything I
quote here, or make fun of, as the opinions of some people - that said, I
find it nevertheless correct and appropriate to point out, by whom her book
is marketed in Hungary - if she doesn't like the company she finds herself
in, she can always distance herself from this, of course), who complains
that her book is condemned rather then read - well, I did read it (*every*
Finno-Ugricist of my acquaintance did read it, even some non-Finno-Ugricists
I know did out of curiosity !) and I did write about it in public (FUM). Not
surprisingly, I found it wanting, but - in spite of my arrogance ! - I do
not consider it impossible that I am wrong, that I overlooked crucial
things, that I do not know my trade or what else. I would love to read such
or similar points raised in the defense of this so far ill-fated book - say
about it what you like but not that it has been ignored. Some friends and
colleagues of mine are actually dying to read anything in the way of an
informed response to our critiques of it (all-at-once or one by one, it
doesn't matter! - or please let me know where this has happened, should I
have missed it). Since Dr. Marcantonio honours at least some rules of
academic decorum, I consider this discussion as still possible, of course.
But the ball is no longer in our field, if there is any demand for a
continuation of this discussion, we'd need some targeted input, it will be a
pleasure to oblige then, certainly not only for the undersigned.
This, I am afraid, is actually everything we can do in the way of selling
our way of doing things. By doing them the way we do them and hope that we
find intelligent readers who understand. Popularizing a difficult and arcane
field as comparative linguistics is not easy, but I would praise anybody who
really manages to do this - I regret, together with Simona Klemencic, that
our field produces so few people who are at the same time able and willing
to do it. We should not frown on them, should they be found (I know of some
attempts, of course, of varying quality, so there is hope). But we should
not dream of making the headlines with a (however well-written, lavishly
illustrated and capturing) demonstration that Hungarian is Finno-Ugric or
that Slovene is actually Slavic. The headlines will always belong to those
who say that the universities are just populated by boring harebrains who do
not see the obvious - certainly in our field(s), but also in medicine,
physics or archaeology. There will be no end of this, as long as
universities exist (I sincerely hope they will outlive me).

Dr. Stefan Georg
University of Bonn

PS:

(At the time of writing, I am, if I haven't lost track, a more or less
active member of the following conspiracies: Pro-Indo-European, Pro-Uralic,
Anti-Altaic, Anti-Nostratic, Anti-Dene-Caucasian, Anti-North-Caucasian,
Pro-Basque-as-isolated, mildly pro-Afro-Asiatic (lukewarm believer, will
never make it to politburo there); I am currently considering to apply for
membership in the Anti-Sino-Tibetan conspiracy - but I'm open for
interesting offers here, the payment is reportedly lousy - and I have
recently left the Anti-Chukcho-Kamchatkan conspiracy, in which I was active
for a while - I was bribed with good arguments). In order to control the
hate-mails I am bound to receive I deny to admit here in which conspiracy
regarding the position of Sumerian I currently take part.

StG

------ Ende der weitergeleiteten Nachricht

--
ura-list at helsinki.fi - list for Uralic linguistics and related disciplines
to (un)subscribe, send majordomo at helsinki.fi a message:
(un)subscribe ura-list my.own at email.address
Mirror archive: http://listserv.linguistlist.org/archives/ura-list.html