Here’s a find tweeted out by James Lindsay, who, with Peter Boghossian, wrote the “conceptual penis” hoax paper. That paper has gotten the knickers of Regressive Leftists in a Mobius-like twist as the ideologically ossified do everything they can to discredit the authors. (This, of course, comes from the increasing willingness of people to show that many papers in cultural and gender studies are intellectually vacuous as well as abysmally written.)
The original post (from reddit?) may itself have been a joke, but the passage is not; it comes from this article—in a journal that the RL’s admit is a good one (it was the one that initially rejected the hoax paper but passed it to a related journal).
Here’s the passage reproduced at the top of the tweeted-out post:
On the basis of this sex–gender distinction, a discussion concerning the character and psychogenesis of phallic masculinity, informed by psychoanalytic thinking and experience, is made possible (see ‘Masculinity as project’). My main point is that phallic masculinity is to be understood as a project, entailing a denial of our existential conditions such as vulnerability, transience and dependence. The psychoanalytic revelation of unconscious processes and unconscious intersubjective exchanges allows us to explain phallic masculinity as a repudiation of the feminine/motherly containment and a response to a humiliated, narcissistic ego. Interestingly enough, in the psychoanalytic disclosure of phallic masculinity one can find a connection to a phenomenological description of the masculine character. In a certain sense one can say that this is an occasion on which a meeting takes place between a psychoanalytic, motivational, explanatory intentionality and phenomenological, descriptive intentionality. I am thinking of Simone de Beauvoir’s ideas concerning the meaning of the fate of the male body in terms of transcendence (see fn. 16). The concept of transcendence will be further elaborated upon in the final section of this article, which deals with the alienating consequences of phallic masculinity, and where I will profit from phenomenological thinkers (most notably de Beauvoir and Iris Marion Young) and psychoanalytic thinkers (most notably Donald W. Winnicott).
You can read the whole paper, and then tell me if this is a substantive contribution to scholarship, obscurantist c.v.-burnishing, or some mixture of the two. I’ll have another post today with a paper that is either a hoax or a real one, and you get to guess.