Hello Nima, thank you very much for sharing this interesting line of thought. I like your critique of the concept of "going beyond". I wanted to not only nod in agreement but also suggest perhaps another way of making sense of "going beyond".
It could be that impossibiltiy of decicing which institutions make academia and which do not. Im not refering to citizen science debates, thought those could also be made here. The prestige of institutions, and the fact that some of them declare science but produce nothing. For example, a 2017 study revealed nearly 1 of each 3 thesis in Turkey is stolen, do we count the institutons that foster these as academia? Or are we already beyond it? If we consider the context, which we should, and if we consider the prosecution academics face for trying to do genuine research or proclaim any political identity, then where exactly does "academia" begin and end anyways? Perhaps your use of the term "historical" would also fit here in this regard?
As for what you wrote on primatology, i wanted to ask whether one could consider any other disciplines in this way? While reading it i thought of paleontology. Might it fit? There are books on "applied paleontology" but i guess then it becomes a question of what applied is. I just thought that your line here : "what primatologists thought they knew about primates led to a reinforcement of masculinist justifications of a hierarchical view of human collectives." could also work for our dino buddies, and even in the construction of social darwinism to a degree, but i may be overshooting. I was curious as to what you might think, sorry for the long question, and thank you for your time.
