I don’t think anyone would accuse Aquinas, Descartes, Pascal, or Foucault, of lack of seriousness; yet each was very seriously involved in reflection upon the new circumstances of life in his age. A significant part of Aqinas’s attention was devoted to the problem of Christians and Muslims living in close proximity (e.g. Summa Contra Gentiles) — a scholar of the time might reasonably have grumbled about being “off to read Lombard.” Pascal and Descartes both explored the limits of the rationalism and empiricism then current (among much else) — where were the serious scholars like Scotus? Foucault wrote extensively on how modern civility masks power exercise — Where was the meat we used to see in, um …. Descartes?

Every age of scholars must investigate the life that’s presented to it. In every age, there is quite a lot of fluff, marshmallows, trendiness, and nonsense. And in at least the lucky ages, a few people find the serious meaning of what’s going on. Perhaps “Performing Split Selves” will be completely forgotten, but Baudrillard will be remembered — or maybe the reverse; I don’t know (although I can guess).

But I do know that each of the known serious scholars I have named flourished best in scholarly community — which must include more than one or two people in an age. The fluff must exist to provide a context in which the serious can work.

I think ‘cyberculture’ does, or certainly can, identify a real thing. And anything can be studied, and any activity that can be done can be done seriously (or jokingly, or earnestly but with little care,…). I do not know how Professor Dixon goes about it.

In short, I think that calling into question the status of this type of study as serious academic work is a rhetorical side-step to the difficult question of allocating funds in academics.

That said, I DO agree with the implicit point that funding often goes to popular or attractive avenues of study which, upon consideration, have less to offer us than what may seem tired, dead, or simply boring.