What in the hell …

There have been a number of big and/or intense actions on university campuses in recent days, as detailed on various web sites. (See for example here, here, and here.) I’ve not followed that stuff much at all, from (what were, I think,) the first ones in New York to the more recent ones in California. I think this is important and exciting stuff. I wish someone would sum up what’s happened so far for me, in a short-ish and readable article with a “for further reading” section at the end.

I wonder how much of all this is the result of longstanding projects and relationships and how much of this is the result of things (you know, things - relationships, networks, etc) that are being built much more quickly. I particularly wonder about how this stuff is spreading. Are (some of) the same people involved from one effort to the next? If so, at what level - planning, or just spreading the idea? Are people hearing about occupations then being inspired to occupy? If so, by what means? And what people? Few or none of the possibilities here are mutually exclusive. My hunch is that this stuff is being spread something like the following - radicalized students who are plugged into some informal information networks hear about one occupation through somewhat passive outreach (by passive outreach I mean here material that one sort of has to be looking for to find, not a clear or well worked out definition I know), get fired up, try to spread information further in other parts of their social and information networks. What I wonder most about is the participation of less politicized students. How much is it happening? If it is to much of a significant degree, how is it happening? How much outreach is being done beyond the circles of the usual suspects? (I don’t mean that dismissively, I can’t think of a better term.) I think this has a lot of bearing on what might be done by those of us who aren’t involved and who live far away. Among other things, I wonder if some kind of coordinated outreach might be done, and if that would be actually useful, to let more people know about all this - beyond the usual suspects.

Funding-wise I mean. This was implied in some of my remarks in the discussion on research funding in the comments on this earlier post. I wonder, are there any major differences between substantive arguments and values that add up to something along the lines of “fund the National Endowment for the Arts” and “fund research by academics in the humanities”? I mean with the NEA parallel specifically funding for artists and artistic production, and by the humanities I mean to exclude things like medical advances, faster microchips, cleaner technology, and social stuff like improved counseling practice for trauma survivors, more effective teaching of reading, and so on - stuff with a clear and relatively short term and obvious economic or social welfare impact.

Hmm. A wrinkle… I realize that I’m assuming that there is no difference between some scholarly research and artistic products. I don’t mean to argue here that this is true for *all* scholarly research (though that’s my inclination, or close to it); I think it’s clear that *some* scholarly research is not different from art in important ways. I suppose then I’ve probably answered my own question: for that work in the humanities that is not different in important ways from art then there could be no real and honest important difference in the justification for that work in the humanities. So I have to extend my claim further. Assuming that some work in the humanities is different from art, what (or when?) is different about justification for funding that work and funding artistic production?

A post at Charlotte Street reminded me of something I’ve been meaning to put down for a bit. (more…)

I don’t know Althusser’s work. I was uninterested in it for a long time - categories like ideology and structure don’t interest me very much. My impression was that his work was largely about the successful continued accomplishment of the reproduction of capital, which doesn’t strike me as of much use to articulating the breakdowns thereof. I’ve become more interested, while those concerns remain, in large part via exposure to folks I respect very much who have made use of Althusser (Angela and David are high on that list, as is Jason Read). (more…)

It’s very disturbing, that’s for certain. And yet quite compelling.
http://www.ratemyprofessors.com

Thiago dissed a piece by Michael Berube over at Long Sunday. (more…)

To be even more obtuse, maybe it should be “relative (ideo)lexical rigidity.” Eric and I have been having a conversation by email about modes of speech, and power plays related to them. (more…)

From the ‘bringing oneself down to their level’ department…

A friend of mine came out of a short-term hibernation today, and to celebrate invited several people to a bar. It was nice - good jukebox, a Galaga arcade style video game, decent cheap beer, and conversation with smart, funny, good-looking people (and I don’t just mean my wife Angelica). Negri’s impending appearance in North America was mentioned (some conference in April in Canada), someone told a story about Negri trying to come to the US for a conference and getting given the run around by the government, not a denial but a permanent deferral of permission. Then Agamben’s “No To Biopolitical Tattooing” diatribe was approvingly referenced, his refusal to come here, his calling for others not to come here (which I don’t remember, I’ll have to look at that piece again).
(more…)