Somewhat frustrated

Lately, I'm not sure why some scholars have been particularly critical of me. Most of these critics have been Taiwanese, and are ones--who for some bizarre reason--criticise me apparently for my "naive" view of the world. They brushed aside my questions and suggestions, as if to suggest my thoughts were somehow unimportant. Their response to my question goes something like this: "Face reality, this is an unequal world where 'the market' rules." It is ironic that part of this discipline's goals is commitment to tackling social inequality, yet Taiwanese sociology appears to prefer legitimating that social structure rather than deconstructing it.

Nevertheless, I've also received praises from women and men, primarily from other cultures and countries, for my willingness to express myself and to ask important questions.

I've always thought that one of academia's missions is to foster an independent state of mind. "Thinking outside the box" is our chief concern, and certainly constructive criticism is part of our responsibilities as well. Still, it does become frustrating when those who enjoy being critical are the ones who tend to be the most unwilling to be self-reflexive. I think I'm beginning to acquire a cynical view of this discipline as it is practised in Taiwan.

(Postscript: I may be overreacting to or misunderstanding these comments. I hope this is the case, rather than the scenario that I've described thus far)