Academia is a surviving medieval, barely secularized and once fully Catholic form of institution and so retains an authoritarian institutional culture, meaning that you must express yourself within the reigning paradigm of your academic subculture and abide by its subcultural codes or at least so until you have secured unlimited tenure at which point you most probably already fully represent ideological hegemony itself or alternatively simplistic reverse discourse thereof.
The scientific term for this is epistemological privilege. There are two kinds of epistemological privilege; either because you belong to a socially hegemonic group of oppressors (men, heteroculturals, whites, cis-persons, humans etc.) or reversely because you belong to a structurally oppressed category of persons. In the first case is the implicit argument that power is truth and in the second case is the converse, yet explicit argument that weakness (i.e. relative absence of power) is truth.
Rather, the duty of a scientist is to leave the polis of epistemological privilege and venture out to always seek khôra anew. What then is khôra? Plato describes khôra as a place outside of the polis. For Derrida is khôra what is best described as the repressed domain of the feminine; e.g. Talmudic discourse in relation to the ideologically hegemonic structural unreason of superficially “secularized” Christian metaphysics as dominating “secular” (i.e. Para-Christian) academia in as Derrida points out originally being a form of Greek ethnocentrism. The domain of the feminine is thus that which is irrationally suppressed by ideological hegemony.
Concepts such as independence and objectivity are metaphysical notions of carno-phallogocentrism as indicating ultimately logically impossible pretensions. Carno-phallogocentrism is therefore the notion that you yourself rather than the discursively/culturally appropriated, fully non-Christian famous pharisaic rabbi of Christianity is now somehow mystically the embodied “logos” of superficially Christian metaphysics in thus you claiming epistemological privilege in discursive ostensible “transcendence”.
Where then is khôra? Well, it is certainly beyond the academic polis of paradigm. This of course is not to imply that just anything beyond the polis is khôra but rather that khôra is non-place that we constantly need to seek anew. You should thus specifically not assume in carno-phallogocentric manner that you yourself personally constitute the location of khôra whether due to egocentrism (“I think ergo am I right”) or personal vanity such as seeking an academic career with all the unscientific epistemological opportunism which that invariably involves.
Who then should seek out khôra? Everyone cognitively able to do so certainly should seek out khôra. The literary persona of Buddha left the palace with all the beautiful princesses in order so as to seek out khôra in the wilderness. That is literally what every scientist, journalist, leader and reader ought do in leaving the lures of dogmatically fanatical systemic illusions of epistemological privilege such as paradigm, genre, system, logocentrism, phonocentrism, physionomism etc.
The Para-Christian carno-phallogocentrism seeks transcendence in the illusion of disembodiment, yet khôra is precisely transcendence itself, namely khôra/transcendence is precisely beyond paradigm, namely external to epistemological privilege. Khôra of course is neither physical nor metaphysical location but rather the proper locus for the production of knowledge.
Career academics are invariably fools in being captive to mostly irrationally secularized religious imperialism of historical medieval Europe. Carno-phallogocentrism irrationally stakes epistemological privilege by means of claiming neurological disengagement in laying claim to the masculinist carnal fantasmatic logos and typically implicitly/explicitly so on behalf of a political category of bodies in implicitly/explicitly laying claim to epistemological privilege on account of structural power or relative lack thereof.
While it is true that knowledge is power is power or relative lack thereof in and of itself not intrinsically knowledge per se and the absence/presence of power is thus not the intrinsic location of khôra since khôra is neither a metaphysical nor a physical location. Feminist standpoint epistemology although an important intellectual development in the 1980s was thus a mere simplistic reversion of despicably masculinist carno-phallogocentrism of patriarchal sexist academia and hence the very essential need to shift feminist paradigm from Intersectionality to Polymorphism.
All this brings us to the issue of investigative science journalism. Most journalists for unexplained, entirely irrational reasons avoid investigative journalism despite this being the proper path to journalistic prominence. Yet, investigative journalism is precisely essential to defending freedom, emancipation and representative governance everywhere.
What then is investigative science journalism? This is a most vital question indeed as good answers are produced in response to good questions. Investigative science journalism is the practice of ethico-political “Derridean” deconstruction by means of investigative journalistic methodology. This inter alia also means recognizing paradigm as simply cheap propaganda for structurally oppressive ideological hegemony as paradigm usually seems ridiculous and without basis in historical hindsight. Of course, paradigm is based on serial rejection in secular (i.e. Para-Christian) supersessionism whereby one paradigm supplants another and so paradigm itself is premised on simplistic rejection-cum-reproduction of paradigm.
What then is “Derridean” deconstruction? This is another vital question since most adherents of Jacques Derrida in his time treated him as a new “jewsus” (i.e. para-Christian founder of discursivity) which no doubt was just as frustrating, infuriating and demeaning as it was for President Barack Obama to receive the Nobel Peace Price on account of his pigmentation, simply due to being the first US president of “color”. Imagine being constantly stalked by people imitating you in insisting on systemically misunderstanding you. That is clearly not an envious locus in which to be socially situated in – despite this being what pusillanimous epigones opportunistically seeking academic careers indeed tend to endeavor to attain with their petty lives. This is so as footnotes and appended bibliographies are simply a socially accepted, indeed bureaucratically institutionalized form of plagiarism.
Why then distinguish “Derridean” deconstruction from other forms of deconstruction such as e.g. Talmudic discourse? For the simple reason that Jacques Derrida effectively engaged in undercover investigative science journalism as did in fact Michel Foucault and number of other Paris intellectuals of the time.
Adherence to paradigm is not merely irrational but significantly slows down the historical trajectory of scientific advancement. Paradigm is thus not merely unreason but fanatical dogmatism, intellectual inertia and is above all unscientific indeed.
What is now very much needed is therefore overt investigative science journalism, meaning journalists need become investigative journalists in questioning and destabilizing central assumptions of discourses of power as based on epistemological privilege. This pertains especially to institutional claims to epistemological privilege and entirely irrespective of whether those social institutions are legally incorporated or not. E.g. may the unhappy patriarchal institution of monogamy be expressed as legally incorporated or not.
As science is supposed to critically investigate all aspects of everything (and hence the term “university”) needs investigative science journalism also critically study all claims to epistemological privilege, including studying academia by means of investigatory journalistic field anthropology as if it were an “exotic” culture with “outlandish” practices, social claims to power and irrational beliefs – as it is indeed.
Journalism clearly needs become more scientific and science conversely needs become more journalistic. Since career academics are institutionally obliged to career opportunism in irrational adherence to irrational dogmatism and institutional inertia of paradigm, genre etc. can they not currently be expected to think or act independently since they are typically mental slaves of discourse of ideological hegemony or simplistic reverse discourse thereof such as reverse epistemological privilege (“I am oppressed, ergo am I righteous”).
Investigative journalism ought be recognized as a virtue for all who are cognitively capable of performing investigative journalism, yet that is not enough as investigative journalism needs become scientific as well. Scientific investigative journalism means destabilizing and ultimately discrediting unfounded central premises as underlying socially institutionalized practices of exercise of power of many different kinds within as well as obviously beyond academia. Every scientist needs become a journalist, every journalist needs become a scientist and every thus cognitively capable person ought certainly become an investigative science journalist indeed.
The Eurolect – Politics of the Para-Christian documentation project