system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Why is it that "continental" philosophers are still highly popular and influential in Anglophone social science, despite mostly not being especially well-liked by most philosophers in the same region?

In a lot of social science stuff I read in English, I tend to see a lot of philosophers typically considered to be "continental" (if that's still an intelligible category any more) referenced and drawn from, especially Butler, Foucault, Marx, etc. It seems very unusual to me, considering that so many American and British philosophers ("analytic philosophers", if you want to call them that), tend to either be dismissive of or even outright hostile to them. Why is it that social scientists tend to draw from those continental sources rather than the dominant philosophical attitudes of their own regions?
gpt
While the generalization is unfair to the interesting work being done which contradicts it, it seems to me that if you look at at least the big names in analytic (logical positivists through the post-positivists) and continental (phenomenology through the post-structuralists, perhaps also the Frankfurt school) philosophy, there has tended to be more contact with the natural sciences in analytic philosophy and more contact with the human/social sciences in continental philosophy.  If this is true, then the prevalence of continental philosophy in the theory of the social sciences isn't that unexpected.