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

Articulation_by_Abby Escatel

 In "Race, Articulation and Societies Structured in Dominance," Stuart Hall is concerned with complicating Marxist theory's tendency to overgeneralize and universalize its claims that are specifically located within a European history of labor. Questions concerning slavery, coloniality, unfree/forced labor come to the fore and force Marxist theorists to grapple with the need to be specific in their contextualization and historicization of particular moments, ruptures and conjunctures. My questions are as follows:  1. How do we move forward with Marxism while taking into account the component of "unfreedom" when conceptualizing class, labor, and labor power? How does the "proletariat" fail to account for the lived realities of racialized bodies?  2. It seems as though Hall is also saying that race is not all encompassing and also shouldn't be overgeneralized/universalized. In short, labor and race are both always already at work. As a scholar who ce...

Pedagogy vs. the indulgence of regressive politics (a. darryl moton)

I deeply hate to focus on merely one aspect of the incredibly rich texts we read for this week, but I stopped clearly on this paragraph from the Giroux: These are hard times for educators and advocates of democratic schooling. Beseiged by the growing forces of vocationalism and the neoconservative cultural warriors, prospective and existing classroom teachers are caught in an ideological crossfire regarding the civic and political responsibilities they assume as engaged critics and cultural theorists. Asked to define themselves either through the language of the marketplace or through a discourse of liberal objectivity and neutrality that abstracts the political from the realm of the cultural and sopcial, educators are increasingly being pressured to become either servants of corporate power or disengaged specialists wedded to the imperatives of a resurgent and debasing academic professionalism.(343) Having taught in high schools in the early-to-mid-2000s, I witnessed firsthand both...

Week 6 Discussion Qs

 Hall brings up the concept of interpellation as applied to social formations. (p 335) How is interpellation related to articulation? How are the two different, if at all? Must the two be discussed together? I have more difficulty conceptualizing interpellation than I do articulation. If we are to take up Hall's warning not to study racism as a set of "historically specific racisms" (336) nor as something with a "universal structure" (337). What balance can we strike today between these two approaches in our current historical moment? Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has written that certain forms of modern racism have been impacted by the prevalent ideology of "colorblindness." Are we still in this moment or are new specificities arising?