But I can't because I don't have the time and others have done it really, really well lately. I suggest you read:
1. Stephanie Gilmore's fantastic piece on Racialicious about the absence of reflexivity in movements that claim solidarity.
2. The always amazing and admirable Flavia Dzodan has a wonderful rant about that whole n-word debacle at Slut Walk in which she (rightfully) proclaims: "My Feminism will be intersectional or it will be bullshit." Can I get that in a tattoo?
I really want to write something about World Mental Health day, which was this past week, as well as about a piece I saw about the Nobel prize for literature, but the time, it is running out lately. Keep yourself satisfied with these amazing writers.
Tuesday, October 11, 2011
Friday, September 30, 2011
I took out a subscription to an academic journal...
Because I was vaguely entertaining notions of going back to graduate school. I paid the money for The Hedgehog Review, which is one of those academic journals that isn't as heavy as say, Political Theory, and that can probably be vaguely categorized in the area of "public intellectual" writing.
But then, THEN, I read sentences like, "We could use another value-soaked word to understand what Burckhardt was getting at: society becomes more primitive, the more people see themselves categorically, in terms of fixed identities (Sennett, 28)." The point being that technology segments us, and as a result, we become more primitive and just resemble the bunch of talking heads on faux news.
This is all in the spirit of defending humanism, the project of which Sennett describes thusly, "Humanism's emphasis on life-narratives, on the enriching experience of difference, and on evaluating tools in terms of human rather than mechanical complexity are all living values -- and more, I would say, these are critical measures for judging the state of modern society (30)."
This is all because Sennett had the misfortune to experience Google Wave. It apparently did not allow him to collaborate in the way he would like. And honestly, I'm just annoyed at this. Google Wave was a product NO ONE liked. Google discontinued it because it sucked, not because it wasn't "humanist" enough.
It irritates me when academics are so afraid of us on the internet talking about intellectual things. I spend a lot of time on tumblr (my tumblr name is one I will take to my grave, but if you are an old reader of lady blog you may guess it based on an inside joke about a certain legume, and if you can guess it, you're in the club, baby). Tumblr, is for me, one of the most intellectually stimulating places to be. I have met plenty of IRL friends there and have had so many stimulating and inspiring intellectual conversations, I couldn't count all of them on my two hands and feet. What Sennett doesn't understand is that technology is never measured by mechanical complexity - it is measured by our ability to connect.
But then, I understand how media works. In my day job, I am a marketer. I spend time in the social channels talking about things I really have little interest in, but I get how this shit works. I'm tired of these academics who haven't really made an attempt at social media and the wonders it provides.
I'm reminded here of William Connolly, who remarks regarding Sheldon Wolin, who thinks democracy needs slow, non-technological time to succeeds, "...I also think it is wise today for democrats to be wary of nostalgia for a world of long, slow time and a circumscribed politics of place. The politics of local place (valorized by Wolin) and the state (valorized by others) are both pertinent to democratic action in the contemporary period. But they are insufficient to it (142)."
Duh. Time moves quickly in the social media world (though as FB daily reminds us, we are not allowed to forget). It is undemocratic to assume that slower time is better because most of us? We move at that pace and these slow, plodding writers ought to think of the rest of us, speeding ahead.
But that's not all. I've said before in my post on No B.S. Discourse - this shit? It really is pretentious. It assumes that a certain group of brainy people are better than another group of brainy people. Really, come to tumblr. We'll school you.
Things I read while writing this:
Neuropolitics by William E. Connolly
"Humanism" by Richard Sennett in The Hedgehog Review. Summer, 2011.
But then, THEN, I read sentences like, "We could use another value-soaked word to understand what Burckhardt was getting at: society becomes more primitive, the more people see themselves categorically, in terms of fixed identities (Sennett, 28)." The point being that technology segments us, and as a result, we become more primitive and just resemble the bunch of talking heads on faux news.
This is all in the spirit of defending humanism, the project of which Sennett describes thusly, "Humanism's emphasis on life-narratives, on the enriching experience of difference, and on evaluating tools in terms of human rather than mechanical complexity are all living values -- and more, I would say, these are critical measures for judging the state of modern society (30)."
This is all because Sennett had the misfortune to experience Google Wave. It apparently did not allow him to collaborate in the way he would like. And honestly, I'm just annoyed at this. Google Wave was a product NO ONE liked. Google discontinued it because it sucked, not because it wasn't "humanist" enough.
It irritates me when academics are so afraid of us on the internet talking about intellectual things. I spend a lot of time on tumblr (my tumblr name is one I will take to my grave, but if you are an old reader of lady blog you may guess it based on an inside joke about a certain legume, and if you can guess it, you're in the club, baby). Tumblr, is for me, one of the most intellectually stimulating places to be. I have met plenty of IRL friends there and have had so many stimulating and inspiring intellectual conversations, I couldn't count all of them on my two hands and feet. What Sennett doesn't understand is that technology is never measured by mechanical complexity - it is measured by our ability to connect.
But then, I understand how media works. In my day job, I am a marketer. I spend time in the social channels talking about things I really have little interest in, but I get how this shit works. I'm tired of these academics who haven't really made an attempt at social media and the wonders it provides.
I'm reminded here of William Connolly, who remarks regarding Sheldon Wolin, who thinks democracy needs slow, non-technological time to succeeds, "...I also think it is wise today for democrats to be wary of nostalgia for a world of long, slow time and a circumscribed politics of place. The politics of local place (valorized by Wolin) and the state (valorized by others) are both pertinent to democratic action in the contemporary period. But they are insufficient to it (142)."
Duh. Time moves quickly in the social media world (though as FB daily reminds us, we are not allowed to forget). It is undemocratic to assume that slower time is better because most of us? We move at that pace and these slow, plodding writers ought to think of the rest of us, speeding ahead.
But that's not all. I've said before in my post on No B.S. Discourse - this shit? It really is pretentious. It assumes that a certain group of brainy people are better than another group of brainy people. Really, come to tumblr. We'll school you.
Things I read while writing this:
Neuropolitics by William E. Connolly
"Humanism" by Richard Sennett in The Hedgehog Review. Summer, 2011.
Friday, September 23, 2011
To the person who searched and came to this blog asking whether it is pretentious to cite Foucault: only if you're doing it wrong. And generally, in every day conversation, yes, in a paper, no. On my blog? NEVER! Also, there are Foucault puppets.
Thursday, September 22, 2011
No B.S. Discourse
A ongoing hobby for me within the discipline has been how discourse in the real world differs from discourse in the academic world. I'm not sure what the pretentious title for this type of research is, so, let's, like good pretentious people, make something up - I'll call it No B.S. Discourse.
I'll define this as talking and writing in a manner that is understandable to everyone. See how easy that was? I could probably write a book about it, though, with logic and everything.
No B.S. Discourse first became an interest for me when I read Excitable Speech by Judith Butler. Now, I LOVE that book so hard. It blew my mind when I read it. Before reading it, I had never realized that political theory could be so goddammed critical, but the entire thing is virtually unreadable if you aren't within the discipline and have little experience reading thick texts.
What the book comes down to is that censorship needs to be questioned because not saying a word (whatever it may be) does nothing to investigate and remove the violence of it; indeed, saying you can't say the word propogates that violence. What Judy B wants us to do is to trouble the water of words, make them change, or if we must remove them, we need to do so in way that challenges the entire system of that word.
I know! I read that at 19 and was like, "Whoah!"
While I understand that book now, it took hours to get to that point and a few class lectures, but I think a lot of people could get there more quickly, and some have:
See? It doesn't have to be so difficult. But some would argue that it does. Here's Judith Butler's response to being given an award as a terrible writer:
There is so much out there that makes me question Butler's premise (and remember, I LOVE her): Jon Stewart, Persephone Magazine, Old Jezebel (before it got bad), Racialicious, Tiger Beatdown - I could go on, but these are all places where language is challenged in ways that people can understand. Of course, many of these authors have read Judith Butler first (among many others) but like me, they question the assumption that language must be difficult to trouble the water. They want it to be understandable so that everyone, not just the scholar or grad student, feels troubled.
What's more, these spaces of no b.s. discourse are quick; they operate at the speed of where people are at and what they are talking about at the bar, and that's at a level of immediate influence that an academic is hard-pressed to come by.
I'd like, for a moment, to quote Habermas (yes, I am going there, into the world of hard-to-understand discourse). He defines the principle of discourse ethics, or the way at which we reach universal principles of right and wrong as, "Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse." (Discourse Ethics: 93).
What Habermas says that is so important is that everyone must be allowed to participate. No one can be prevented from speaking. We all have to participate in this discussion so we can come to a moral conclusion that is acceptable.
Academic discourse precludes so many people in a multitude of ways. It is expensive. It requires training to understand. And in order to be taken seriously, you must also talk in a very specific way. In a way that gives you an "A." I take this as fundamentally against allowing everyone to participate.
Of course, non-academic discourse can preclude, too. The yelling talking heads on Fox News show us this every day.
And that's why the thought of finishing my PhD is sometimes so daunting. Because as critical as I can be of Judy B (it rhymes!) I still need her and how I think in the world and my ethics have been fundamentally shaped by people like her. But at the same time, I've read and had experiences outside of academic discourse that have been just as, if not more, influential.
I'm never certain of the right location for this work - here or someplace locked in an ivory tower. Goodness knows I'd have more time for it if I were in an ivory tower.
I'll define this as talking and writing in a manner that is understandable to everyone. See how easy that was? I could probably write a book about it, though, with logic and everything.
No B.S. Discourse first became an interest for me when I read Excitable Speech by Judith Butler. Now, I LOVE that book so hard. It blew my mind when I read it. Before reading it, I had never realized that political theory could be so goddammed critical, but the entire thing is virtually unreadable if you aren't within the discipline and have little experience reading thick texts.
What the book comes down to is that censorship needs to be questioned because not saying a word (whatever it may be) does nothing to investigate and remove the violence of it; indeed, saying you can't say the word propogates that violence. What Judy B wants us to do is to trouble the water of words, make them change, or if we must remove them, we need to do so in way that challenges the entire system of that word.
I know! I read that at 19 and was like, "Whoah!"
While I understand that book now, it took hours to get to that point and a few class lectures, but I think a lot of people could get there more quickly, and some have:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Mark Twain Controversy | ||||
| ||||
See? It doesn't have to be so difficult. But some would argue that it does. Here's Judith Butler's response to being given an award as a terrible writer:
Herbert Marcuse once described the way philosophers who champion common sense scold those who propagate a more radical perspective: "The intellectual is called on the carpet. . . . Don't you conceal something? You talk a language which is suspect. You don't talk like the rest of us, like the man in the street, but rather like a foreigner who does not belong here. We have to cut you down to size, expose your tricks, purge you."
The accused then responds that "if what he says could be said in terms of ordinary language he would probably have done so in the first place." Understanding what the critical intellectual has to say, Marcuse goes on, "presupposes the collapse and invalidation of precisely that universe of discourse and behavior into which you want to translate it."What Butler is saying is that the common language is too supportive of very bad things, and she is right. Language matters and troubling language in complex ways could be useful, but I question its usefulness when the majority of people cannot understand it.
There is so much out there that makes me question Butler's premise (and remember, I LOVE her): Jon Stewart, Persephone Magazine, Old Jezebel (before it got bad), Racialicious, Tiger Beatdown - I could go on, but these are all places where language is challenged in ways that people can understand. Of course, many of these authors have read Judith Butler first (among many others) but like me, they question the assumption that language must be difficult to trouble the water. They want it to be understandable so that everyone, not just the scholar or grad student, feels troubled.
What's more, these spaces of no b.s. discourse are quick; they operate at the speed of where people are at and what they are talking about at the bar, and that's at a level of immediate influence that an academic is hard-pressed to come by.
I'd like, for a moment, to quote Habermas (yes, I am going there, into the world of hard-to-understand discourse). He defines the principle of discourse ethics, or the way at which we reach universal principles of right and wrong as, "Only those norms can claim to be valid that meet (or could meet) with the approval of all affected in their capacity as participants in a practical discourse." (Discourse Ethics: 93).
What Habermas says that is so important is that everyone must be allowed to participate. No one can be prevented from speaking. We all have to participate in this discussion so we can come to a moral conclusion that is acceptable.
Academic discourse precludes so many people in a multitude of ways. It is expensive. It requires training to understand. And in order to be taken seriously, you must also talk in a very specific way. In a way that gives you an "A." I take this as fundamentally against allowing everyone to participate.
Of course, non-academic discourse can preclude, too. The yelling talking heads on Fox News show us this every day.
And that's why the thought of finishing my PhD is sometimes so daunting. Because as critical as I can be of Judy B (it rhymes!) I still need her and how I think in the world and my ethics have been fundamentally shaped by people like her. But at the same time, I've read and had experiences outside of academic discourse that have been just as, if not more, influential.
I'm never certain of the right location for this work - here or someplace locked in an ivory tower. Goodness knows I'd have more time for it if I were in an ivory tower.
Tuesday, September 20, 2011
What Happened to Irony?
At some point, or maybe it was always this way, irony became discovered by the good ol' boys club of advertising. See, they started reinforcing the norm by pretending as if they weren’t. For evidence of this, I present this video (which I originally found on one of the greatest blogs ever: Sociological Images).
It’s all very headspinning since you can never be sure whether the shit is really shit or if it’s really just taking a dump on you. Of course, irony is also coopted by the hipster, who doesn’t do anything unless they don’t really mean it. What we really learn from all of this is that irony, like any concept, can be dangerous.
I wonder if Richard Rorty could have anticipated this? Irony used in this form and the snark it accompanies is very much an invention of very recent history. Rorty thinks of irony as a literary concept that is found in books and poetry. His examples come from Philip Larkin, Nobokov, and Orwell. All of these are worthwhile explorations, but it’s clear from the examples in the video that irony needs to be explored from the perspective of pop-culture.
And here’s where I’m going to pause for a hot-minute and say that this, THIS, is exactly why it is so important for academics to embrace pop culture and what it says instead of just analyzing Nobokov all the time - what Anita Sarkeesian is saying is that irony has taken on a role that does more to reinforce dangerous norms than it does to overcome them and it’s only if you’re paying attention to Carls Jr. ads and giving them credit as a text that you are going to notice this.
Back to irony. Honestly, it’s incredibely furstrating because how are we supposed to fight the power aside from punching it in the face? I’ve always seen irony as a gentle way to bring up a feminist perspective or to point out to someone that they enjoy white/male/whateveryoulike privilege.
Not that irony is now off the table, but it means we have to treat it with caution and unerstand that it can be interpreted in ways that reinforce the very fundamentals you’re trying to overcome.
It’s all very headspinning since you can never be sure whether the shit is really shit or if it’s really just taking a dump on you. Of course, irony is also coopted by the hipster, who doesn’t do anything unless they don’t really mean it. What we really learn from all of this is that irony, like any concept, can be dangerous.
I wonder if Richard Rorty could have anticipated this? Irony used in this form and the snark it accompanies is very much an invention of very recent history. Rorty thinks of irony as a literary concept that is found in books and poetry. His examples come from Philip Larkin, Nobokov, and Orwell. All of these are worthwhile explorations, but it’s clear from the examples in the video that irony needs to be explored from the perspective of pop-culture.
And here’s where I’m going to pause for a hot-minute and say that this, THIS, is exactly why it is so important for academics to embrace pop culture and what it says instead of just analyzing Nobokov all the time - what Anita Sarkeesian is saying is that irony has taken on a role that does more to reinforce dangerous norms than it does to overcome them and it’s only if you’re paying attention to Carls Jr. ads and giving them credit as a text that you are going to notice this.
Back to irony. Honestly, it’s incredibely furstrating because how are we supposed to fight the power aside from punching it in the face? I’ve always seen irony as a gentle way to bring up a feminist perspective or to point out to someone that they enjoy white/male/whateveryoulike privilege.
Not that irony is now off the table, but it means we have to treat it with caution and unerstand that it can be interpreted in ways that reinforce the very fundamentals you’re trying to overcome.
Monday, September 5, 2011
The Narrative of Detroit
Last week, The Awl published a story on Detroit by Willy Staley. Staley takes as his jumping off point an article from Guernica by John Patrick Leary titled "Detroitism". The author accepts Leary's division of the Detroit narrative into Detroit as utopia and Detroit as lament - he leaves aside the idea of Detroit as metonym (or so it seems). The utopia narrative is centered around young (mostly white) Detroiters involved in the arts and urban farming who see Detroit as the idealized vision for the future. Detroit as lament centers around ruin porn; the photos of Detroit as it crumbles.
The Awl critique then departs from Leary to suggest that Detroit as utopia denies authenticity of Detroit as lament. The classification of the lament as pornographic by the utopia advocates, Staley worries, denies the fact that Detroit is in decline. Right-sizing of the city, Saley writes, is the recognition that Detroit has shrunk and it admits that something must be done. Right-sizing is the process of bulldozing abandoned buildings in the city in an attempt to encourage the remaining population to center in the parts of the city that still have population. Ruin porn shows us why this must be done.
Leary's article adds shading to Staley's account. The article brings in some analysis that is useful, especially when Leary writes how photos of Detroit as ruined do not identify the origins. They are moments in time that just show the wreck and do not fill in the gaps of what actually happened to the city. The narrative of Detroit as metonym is also important and something that Staley would have done well to dwell on for a moment: how is it that the name of Detroit stands in for so many of our fears and hopes?
Staley wants to say that ruin porn is not pornographic at all; indeed, it is useful, but I disagree. I think Leary says something more useful when he draws out some descriptions of Detroit's ruins as an "American Acropolis." As Athens is the metonym for democracy, Detroit is the metonym for the decline of a number of things that have yet to be settled: capitalism, classical liberalism, modernity.
What the ruins of Detroit do not identify is critical and Staley too easily leaves this critique of ruin porn aside: they are a moment in time that has no past and no future. They are, just as the Acropolis has become, romantic. I wrote about this in my last post about Detroit - the romanticizing of ruins is just as white-washed as the utopian vision of Detroit. Staley dislikes the fact that young, white urbanites come to the city to fix it with their dream, and the implied (but not spoken) part of this is because it does not recognize the non-white visions of the city. I am perfectly accepting of this assumption - there has always been a bit of a "white man's burden" to some of the movements in Detroit. What I would like Staley and others like him to be a bit more suspicious of are these photos - what do they not recognize? What do they not say?
Staley's article is a worthwhile read, and so is Leary's, but like all of these discussions of ruin porn, I think there is an unwillingness to discuss the past. Leary says that ruin porn gives us means to memory, but I disagree. I think the memory is tricky and too willing to endear itself to the metonym of Detroit as center of (white) capitalist endeavor.
What it comes down to is this: Detroit as metonym is dangerous and when Staley leaves that narrative behind, he accepts it and abandons the complexity of what Detroit represents. Athens was never democratic in the way we romanticize it; Socrates proved that, so how can we de-romanticize Detroit?
Things I read while writing this:
"What's Really Pornographic? The Point of Documenting Detroit" by Willy Staley in The Awl
"Detroitism" by John Patrick Leary in Guernica
The Awl critique then departs from Leary to suggest that Detroit as utopia denies authenticity of Detroit as lament. The classification of the lament as pornographic by the utopia advocates, Staley worries, denies the fact that Detroit is in decline. Right-sizing of the city, Saley writes, is the recognition that Detroit has shrunk and it admits that something must be done. Right-sizing is the process of bulldozing abandoned buildings in the city in an attempt to encourage the remaining population to center in the parts of the city that still have population. Ruin porn shows us why this must be done.
Leary's article adds shading to Staley's account. The article brings in some analysis that is useful, especially when Leary writes how photos of Detroit as ruined do not identify the origins. They are moments in time that just show the wreck and do not fill in the gaps of what actually happened to the city. The narrative of Detroit as metonym is also important and something that Staley would have done well to dwell on for a moment: how is it that the name of Detroit stands in for so many of our fears and hopes?
Staley wants to say that ruin porn is not pornographic at all; indeed, it is useful, but I disagree. I think Leary says something more useful when he draws out some descriptions of Detroit's ruins as an "American Acropolis." As Athens is the metonym for democracy, Detroit is the metonym for the decline of a number of things that have yet to be settled: capitalism, classical liberalism, modernity.
What the ruins of Detroit do not identify is critical and Staley too easily leaves this critique of ruin porn aside: they are a moment in time that has no past and no future. They are, just as the Acropolis has become, romantic. I wrote about this in my last post about Detroit - the romanticizing of ruins is just as white-washed as the utopian vision of Detroit. Staley dislikes the fact that young, white urbanites come to the city to fix it with their dream, and the implied (but not spoken) part of this is because it does not recognize the non-white visions of the city. I am perfectly accepting of this assumption - there has always been a bit of a "white man's burden" to some of the movements in Detroit. What I would like Staley and others like him to be a bit more suspicious of are these photos - what do they not recognize? What do they not say?
Staley's article is a worthwhile read, and so is Leary's, but like all of these discussions of ruin porn, I think there is an unwillingness to discuss the past. Leary says that ruin porn gives us means to memory, but I disagree. I think the memory is tricky and too willing to endear itself to the metonym of Detroit as center of (white) capitalist endeavor.
What it comes down to is this: Detroit as metonym is dangerous and when Staley leaves that narrative behind, he accepts it and abandons the complexity of what Detroit represents. Athens was never democratic in the way we romanticize it; Socrates proved that, so how can we de-romanticize Detroit?
Things I read while writing this:
"What's Really Pornographic? The Point of Documenting Detroit" by Willy Staley in The Awl
"Detroitism" by John Patrick Leary in Guernica
Sunday, August 21, 2011
If I were more couragious, I'd submit this to Sociologial Images
I watched I Love You Philip Morris last night (which is excellent and on Netflix instant). Today, Netflix asked me to rate it and I gave it 5 stars because it was good.
The next screen they ask me, "How often do you watch steamy" and "How often do you watch gay and lesbians?"
I'm sorry, but the whole categorization of this just bothers me. First off, I didn't think the movie was all that steamy. It felt tamer than many movies about heterosexual couples that I've watched, so I'm curious as to how it was steamy. Because it features a gay relationship and acknowledges that they have sex? If that automatically means "steamy," then we must be much farther from the goal of equality than I thought.
Regarding the gay and lesbians question - okay, fine, I can see how Netflix might want to know if I have a particular interest in watching gay relationships vs. straight relationships, but I would hope that the relationship in the movie is seen as a relationship in its own right and not just as a gay relationship.
It's not like Netflix's system is known for its sensitivity. I remember that after I watched Do The Right Thing, it decided that Big Momma's House should be my next movie. It would never occur to Netflix that I watched one of the greatest movies ever made because it is intelligently crafted and not because I have a particular interest in movies featuring people of color.
The next screen they ask me, "How often do you watch steamy" and "How often do you watch gay and lesbians?"
I'm sorry, but the whole categorization of this just bothers me. First off, I didn't think the movie was all that steamy. It felt tamer than many movies about heterosexual couples that I've watched, so I'm curious as to how it was steamy. Because it features a gay relationship and acknowledges that they have sex? If that automatically means "steamy," then we must be much farther from the goal of equality than I thought.
Regarding the gay and lesbians question - okay, fine, I can see how Netflix might want to know if I have a particular interest in watching gay relationships vs. straight relationships, but I would hope that the relationship in the movie is seen as a relationship in its own right and not just as a gay relationship.
It's not like Netflix's system is known for its sensitivity. I remember that after I watched Do The Right Thing, it decided that Big Momma's House should be my next movie. It would never occur to Netflix that I watched one of the greatest movies ever made because it is intelligently crafted and not because I have a particular interest in movies featuring people of color.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)