Skip to main content

Random & Too Much

By
This week's readings have been going around in my head over and over and I'm trying to think what to write about. A couple of things: some of these are comments, others are questions.

1) Stemming from Sam's class, I'm still wondering if anything we do as scholars is ever representing and if we use that word too lightly. Should we not be presenting what we are witnessing instead of representing a culture or a group of people? I feel uncomfortable with the narrow target and concept of representing and more comfortable with presenting.

2)Participation and resistance fascinate me. Does resistance work without participation? I keep thinking about the article by Bennett here. Simply participation was a form of resistance for these me. This made me think of Cloud. She says "Of course texts do things, but changes produced only through symbolic action tend to be symbolic rather than material changes" (2005, p. 516). However, the gay men's changes were both symbolic and material. They were symbolic because they were resisting and they were material because they change was actually happening, their blood was given to others in order to save their lives. The structural change did not happen, is this what she means by change?

3) I worked hard to take the personal out of my papers I submitted to NCA. (This is response to the aesthetic chapter). However, should I? Should there not be room for this type of discourse in academic writing? Of course, it could lead to being rejected, but there's always risk involved in resistance right? That's what we learned from Cloud and Basu & Dutta.

4) Can we talk about resistance being co-opted by the neoliberal project? Does it still count as resistance? Does it still have room to change?

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

By RK
In light of the discussion we had during our advisee meeting on Friday about being strategic in our means as critical scholars I was struck by the words of Lenin who emphasizes the role of the intellectual. He says, "The history of all countries shows that the working class, exclusively by its own effort, is able to develop only trade-union consciousness, i.e., it may itself realize the necessity for combining in unions, for fighting against the employers and for striving to compel the government to pass necessary labor legislation, etc. The theory of socialism, however, grew out of the philosophic, historical representatives of the propertied classes, the intellectuals." (pg. 74) This idea of the bourgeois socialist intelligentsia as an instrument of raising consciousness and fomenting dissent is an ideal one I am sure but in contemporary times we, the academics, forming a substantial part of the "intellectual elite", occupy a unique position which forces us into ...
6 comments
Read more

Echoing Malcom

By Saqib
Reading Malcolm X's speeches, it is clear that he points to a historical trend in the process of obtaining independence from tyranny. In other words, history shows that people must be committed to overhauling the system and prepared to sacrifice for a great cause. The trouble comes in overcoming the anesthetization of the natural impulse that people have to change their surroundings. I feel that this is incredibly difficult in the modern world when entire industries have been created for the sole purpose of distraction and self-indulgence. Has that impulse changed? Is it still there? Sometimes I think that when people become so self-absorbed and ignorant of rampant injustice, they will only react when its too late. For instance, there have always been economic disparities but public anger only sets in when their houses are foreclosed and savings wiped out. Revolution then becomes the last refuge of the hopeless. Is there any point to calling for revolution when the only precursor t...
2 comments
Read more