Read on Twitter
Total, all encompassing groupthink within academic/'intellectual' publishing - where the acceptable political opinions range from 'far left' to 'hyperliberal left' - is leading to a narrowing range of debate, which is making academia a deluded echo chamber cut off from reality.
The way this happens is rarely direct censorship, but it's insidious and amounts to something similar.
1. The class & viewpoint diversity of people recruited into editorial positions is v narrow, so they don't even consider publishing stuff outside of a tiny intellectual range
1. The class & viewpoint diversity of people recruited into editorial positions is v narrow, so they don't even consider publishing stuff outside of a tiny intellectual range
2. Different standards are subtly applied to works of different political outlooks. If something is 'progressive' left or woke, it is subject to far less serious scrutiny than if something clearly has a conservative, or even less radical, outlook
If something makes an extreme left-wing argument then that's fine, it's considered sophisticated and edgy. Normal standards - like 'is this a wild generalisation based on no empirical evidence?', 'is this just an anecdote expanded into a grand theory?' - go out of the window
But if something makes an even mildly right-of-centre, or even unconventionally left of centre/postliberal/non-liberal, position, then all of sudden academic rigour is rediscovered with a vengeance and any objection, genuine or spurious, is thrown at it.
3. Academic publishing depends on peer review. 95% of academics (in the non-hard sciences) reflect a tiny range of political opinion. Some will still give a fair shake to things they honestly disagree with, but many see peer review as a 'does this person agree with me?' test
In this sense, of course, academic/high end non-fiction publishing just reflects the navel-gazing, groupthink-addled nature of the academic and social milieu it comes from. But you'd think publishers might want to try to stir up debate and challenge stultifying consensus...
4. The wider context, in which social media mobs attempt to get opinions they disagree with banned & academia develops an ever more censorship friendly, soft-totalitarian, anti-free speech tilt, means publishers don't want the hassle. Why rock the boat? Anything for a quiet life
Of course, people say, well you can always publish with someone else. But if publishers represent a total monoculture, then some people will never get published. Unless they are dead certs to sell a truckload of books, in which case it's suddenly a different story (e.g. Peterson)
