Not from conservative attacks from the Right. Not from evolution-from-within to a broader humanist or critical theoretical philosophy. But from people with real power, real influence, simply ignoring its claims.
Just this week I read an article in The Chronicle of Higher Education that proceeded as though decades of scholarship on work and family and decades of feminist critique of masculinist workplace practices had never existed. [Turns out, the author and the male faculty he interviewed are dismayed by the lack of "collegiality" of those who work at home or won't stay till 9 pm for evening activities. . . and yes, before you double-check your calendar, it's 2017.]
I said most of what I wanted to say about the Chronicle piece in my letter-to-the-editor, which they published online today.
What I was thinking about while driving in to the office was how often this happens in our scholarship, too. In my own subfield, decades of feminist scholarship on religion is generally overlooked by the more influential scholars who do not cite it in their work or take its theoretical critique into account in formulating their own analytical approach. Everyone is happy the feminists are there, of course. They congratulate themselves at the number of feminist and queer theoretical sessions on the conference program -- sessions they never go to, profiling books and articles they couldn't be bothered to read.
How do we fix that problem? How do we create graduate training programs that don't segregate critical theoretical approaches into an "oh-by-the-way" ghetto? How do we train journal editors to expect more of their reviewers, their most influential authors? Because this granting of a small territory on the side (not the good ground, mind you, not the ground by the river, but highlands, where it's hard to grow things) -- it's not enough anymore.