Kierkegaard II: The Sequel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

In what follows, I want to discuss three audience responses to ‘Kierkegaard: The Movie’, a
paper I delivered at the Cultural Studies Association of Australia’s annual conference in
December 2001, and to show where those responses led me. The reason I am doing so is
that I am more and more convinced that our theories of ideology suffer a fundamental
flaw. They fail to incorporate the richest source of data that we, as humanities academics,
have at our disposal: the fact that we are all teachers. What richer source could we have for
studying the transmission of ideas and beliefs than our own social practices? I am re f e rring
not only to the classroom, but also to our conferences, and even to our collegial visits to the
pub. Wherever it is that university people garner new ideas and directions, that is where we
will be most likely to learn about the mechanisms of cultural and indeed political transmission.
So rather than set forth a new reading of Harold Garf i n k e l ’s Studies in Ethno -
methodology, I want to show how my new reading was generated in response to the comments
and critiques I received when I delivered my first Kierkegaard paper.1 The result will seem
chatty and informal and that is precisely my point because I’m using the data most re a d y
to hand to further the study of where ideas come from: people like us.
Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)114-131
Number of pages18
JournalCultural Studies Review
Volume10
Issue number2
Publication statusPublished - 2004

Fingerprint

movies
cultural studies
ideology
classroom
university
methodology
teacher

Cite this

Magee, Paul. / Kierkegaard II: The Sequel. In: Cultural Studies Review. 2004 ; Vol. 10, No. 2. pp. 114-131.
@article{381268b7905849cdaf705855f700d972,
title = "Kierkegaard II: The Sequel",
abstract = "In what follows, I want to discuss three audience responses to ‘Kierkegaard: The Movie’, apaper I delivered at the Cultural Studies Association of Australia’s annual conference inDecember 2001, and to show where those responses led me. The reason I am doing so isthat I am more and more convinced that our theories of ideology suffer a fundamentalflaw. They fail to incorporate the richest source of data that we, as humanities academics,have at our disposal: the fact that we are all teachers. What richer source could we have forstudying the transmission of ideas and beliefs than our own social practices? I am re f e rringnot only to the classroom, but also to our conferences, and even to our collegial visits to thepub. Wherever it is that university people garner new ideas and directions, that is where wewill be most likely to learn about the mechanisms of cultural and indeed political transmission.So rather than set forth a new reading of Harold Garf i n k e l ’s Studies in Ethno -methodology, I want to show how my new reading was generated in response to the commentsand critiques I received when I delivered my first Kierkegaard paper.1 The result will seemchatty and informal and that is precisely my point because I’m using the data most re a d yto hand to further the study of where ideas come from: people like us.",
author = "Paul Magee",
year = "2004",
language = "English",
volume = "10",
pages = "114--131",
journal = "Cultural Studies Review",
issn = "1837-8692",
number = "2",

}

Magee, P 2004, 'Kierkegaard II: The Sequel', Cultural Studies Review, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 114-131.

Kierkegaard II: The Sequel. / Magee, Paul.

In: Cultural Studies Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, 2004, p. 114-131.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Kierkegaard II: The Sequel

AU - Magee, Paul

PY - 2004

Y1 - 2004

N2 - In what follows, I want to discuss three audience responses to ‘Kierkegaard: The Movie’, apaper I delivered at the Cultural Studies Association of Australia’s annual conference inDecember 2001, and to show where those responses led me. The reason I am doing so isthat I am more and more convinced that our theories of ideology suffer a fundamentalflaw. They fail to incorporate the richest source of data that we, as humanities academics,have at our disposal: the fact that we are all teachers. What richer source could we have forstudying the transmission of ideas and beliefs than our own social practices? I am re f e rringnot only to the classroom, but also to our conferences, and even to our collegial visits to thepub. Wherever it is that university people garner new ideas and directions, that is where wewill be most likely to learn about the mechanisms of cultural and indeed political transmission.So rather than set forth a new reading of Harold Garf i n k e l ’s Studies in Ethno -methodology, I want to show how my new reading was generated in response to the commentsand critiques I received when I delivered my first Kierkegaard paper.1 The result will seemchatty and informal and that is precisely my point because I’m using the data most re a d yto hand to further the study of where ideas come from: people like us.

AB - In what follows, I want to discuss three audience responses to ‘Kierkegaard: The Movie’, apaper I delivered at the Cultural Studies Association of Australia’s annual conference inDecember 2001, and to show where those responses led me. The reason I am doing so isthat I am more and more convinced that our theories of ideology suffer a fundamentalflaw. They fail to incorporate the richest source of data that we, as humanities academics,have at our disposal: the fact that we are all teachers. What richer source could we have forstudying the transmission of ideas and beliefs than our own social practices? I am re f e rringnot only to the classroom, but also to our conferences, and even to our collegial visits to thepub. Wherever it is that university people garner new ideas and directions, that is where wewill be most likely to learn about the mechanisms of cultural and indeed political transmission.So rather than set forth a new reading of Harold Garf i n k e l ’s Studies in Ethno -methodology, I want to show how my new reading was generated in response to the commentsand critiques I received when I delivered my first Kierkegaard paper.1 The result will seemchatty and informal and that is precisely my point because I’m using the data most re a d yto hand to further the study of where ideas come from: people like us.

M3 - Article

VL - 10

SP - 114

EP - 131

JO - Cultural Studies Review

JF - Cultural Studies Review

SN - 1837-8692

IS - 2

ER -