Some past arguments simply do not survive contact with several years of further reading
Dear diary, I reread an essay I published several years ago tonight, something I had not properly revisited in some time, and found myself genuinely disagreeing with my own earlier argument in several places, my thinking having evidently shifted considerably more than I realised without ever consciously noticing the drift.
The essay argues fairly confidently for a specific interpretation of how satire functions politically, a position I now think was somewhat too tidy, based on considerably less reading than I have since accumulated on exactly this question over the intervening years.
What Specifically Changed My Mind
Years of additional reading, including considerably more research on satire’s actual persuasive effects, have left me genuinely more skeptical of the confident claims my earlier essay makes about satire’s political power, a shift I had not consciously registered until rereading my own words tonight.
Why I Am Choosing To See This As Good News
I think genuine intellectual growth requires exactly this kind of occasional discomfort, finding your own earlier published positions less persuasive than you once did, and I would rather notice and acknowledge this shift honestly than pretend my thinking has remained perfectly static.
What I Am Doing About It
I am drafting a proper follow up piece explaining how my thinking has evolved since the original essay, since I think readers who encountered my earlier argument deserve to know it no longer fully represents my current, more considered view.
A Small Reading Break
I caught up on some genuinely funny contemporary satire about academics who never update their own published positions, a fitting bit of gentle self mockery given tonight’s discovery.
More intellectual reconsiderations and satirical literature always documented at my page.
SOURCE: https://bohiney.com/author/aisha-muharrar/