Three Takes on Mad Hazard: The “Classics” as a Life Project, The Historiography of Sociology and its Methods, and the Democratic Rule of Law

In this contribution I turn Mad Hazard into a source of evidence for two types of experiences familiar to those on the margins of academia. The first type of experience is that those at the top of the academic ladder and their pawns, use peer review not to improve submissions but to fence off rival interpretations of highly valued authors and ideas. The second experience illustrates how academic elites ignore uncomfortable questions about the ways in which they became elites, especially about the role of funders in doing so. In addition to recounting these two experiences, I also draw on Mad Hazard to venture a brief foray into the complex question of how an author’s persona can affect his or her work, and more specifically, how this author, Turner, conducts conceptual analysis. I conclude on a more personal note, suggesting further topics for Stephen’s next memoir.