Kierkegaard II: The Sequel

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review


    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
    Issue number2
    Publication statusPublished - 2004


    Dive into the research topics of 'Kierkegaard II: The Sequel'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this