Skip to main content

LANGUAGE, POLITICS, AND ACADEMIC FEUDS

 

  1. Judith Butler’s op-ed in The New York Times from before I was born (lol, not to date myself) is missing a response to what I believe is valid and constructive criticism. Butler’s piece is in part a response to being crowned in a bad writing competition by a conservative journal which Martha Nussbaum likely made them aware of in her scathing critique. I know this because I wrote a poem (a sonnet) about it last year which I would be happy to share in class if there is any interest. Nussbaum, a philosopher and professor at UChicago, wrote a hit piece on Butler called “The Professor of Parody” published in The New Republic on February 22, 1999 and was shortly thereafter rebutted (indirectly) by Butler’s article published on March 20, 1999. In this article, Nussbaum argues, from a feminist perspective, that Butler and other academics have detached themselves from material politics and have adopted a defeatist politic to societal woes. These word-obsessed academics, she argues, have been incapable of addressing actual material change in the realms of legislative politics. I recommend reading it, but I also think that Nussbaum fails to diagnose that there are ruptures happening from their followers/students. And I want to see if my diagnosis is correct—I believe that this feud is symptomatic of larger distinct approaches to praxis in academe, I see the two figures in different philosophical camps. Whereas Nussbaum believes that reform happens primarily and should happen in legal institutions, Butler has a different stance, one in which reform happens in the cultural imagination of the left. While Nussbaum has been a part of the culture that influences legislation and judicial ruling (she teaches in the law school); Butler, and other gender theorists, have shifted the discourse about gender in mainstream culture in profound ways—everyone is obsessed with gender, especially conservatives (Butler teaches in the Comparative Literature and Critical Theory departments at UC Berkeley). I am interested in discussing how being in these different “disciplines” or academic departments shapes the way they engage with the political outside of the academy and how cultural studies engages with the works of these thinkers (Giroux et Al). 

 

  1. Here’s a fun question: Who do you think some contemporary “conservative organic intellectuals” are? Who are some radical organic intellectuals? 

 

—Brayan

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Corrine Contemplates the Funk

 I will keep my intro brief, as I think I will mainly just be echoing my classmates, but what a delicious book! I have really be enjoying reading two great minds converse through "the mundane to the profound" (2). Gilroy mentions in his introduction that "readers...are invited to appreciate the tone and timbre of these interlocked voices in the same spirit with which the participants listened carefully to each other" (x). I was reminded of this early in the reading, through hooks and Hall's mediations on conversation as pedagogy, especially Hall's comments on page 7: "It is as much about rhythm as anything else. If you are living the rest of your life at a certain intensified rhythm, it just doesn't fit the rhythm of conversation. You can't hurry." This seems to be compounded for academic readers by their reflections on how being "paid to talk" or teach in the academy changes the status of talking or teaching. My question then rev...