Skip to main content

Week 10- Matt

 Writing in 2014, Gilroy argues that the 1996 conversation took place in a space where ““The US-centric liturgy of generic, internet-friendly  identity-talk  is  entirely  absent. It was not a factor when these dialogues took place. There are no casual invocations here of either privilege or victimage” (xi). How has such modern language substantively changed the conversation? What have we lost through the digital shift?

 

Hall and hooks both discuss whether universities represent spaces for political conversations (4). hooks recounts that “I remember the lack of spaces of conversation as one of  my deepest disappointments when I arrived at Stanford. Evidently, at one time, they had designated rooms where people could get together to have tea and talk” (4). How much learning and change (should) happen in vs. outside the classroom? What are the limits of formally recognized spaces of knowledge?

Comments

Post a Comment

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...
Post a Comment
Read more

26 January 2022 Reflection.

I'm stuck on certain aspects of the Butler piece, and not necessarily because of Butler's own opinions; I'm particularly drawn to their citation of Adorno's position that "nothing radical could come of common sense." I like the idea, especially the fact that anything that could truly constitute "common sense" could be interpreted as maintenance of the status quo. However, I immediately think of philosophical and political movements based on the unity of the working classes. Toward the end of World War II, then-US Vice-President Henry Agard Wallace gave a particularly compelling speech in which he declared that, in order for society to progress and reach its potential and for all humanity to achieve a lasting peace, the era after WWII needed to be the "Century of the Common Man," in which peaceful intellectual and economic competition would enable the free people of the world to create a better society. Wallace insisted that WWII was, in fac...
Post a Comment
Read more