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

Whose means justifies their end?

By
I spend a lot of my time teaching and disciplining children now-a-days and through these experiences, I have found many similarities in the ways that Marx and Engel construct their arguments for communism and against capitalism, most of which are shaped around the concept of deflection. First, let me provide an example from which my conclusions are built, all of which are inducted from daily experiences. I know that my experience is nothing novel or new, especially if anyone reading this has had the pleasure of working with large groups of kids. In a classroom there is supposed to be only one goal, one guider, and one “law maker” and that lovely job title has been bestowed upon me, the teacher. In trying to achieve my one goal to teach multiplication, I tell every student to be quiet and do their work. While not paying attention, I hear several of the students talking. When I look up, I single out the first one that I see talking (lets call him Crandon). I tell Crandon, “If you continu...
7 comments
Read more

Neoliberalism - Is it a necessary evil?

By
The term 'neoliberalism' came into existence in 1938, but started to get used during the 1960s. It is another label for 'economic liberalism.' However, the leftists use neoliberalism as a pejorative term, showing discontent with the ideologies that neoliberalism brings to the table. The term is also used neutrally though by many political organizations [ source ]. The essence of neoliberalism is quite straight forward - economic control of resources should be transferred (even if partially) from the government to the private sector. The belief is that such actions will make for a better economic system with improved economic productivity, and in the process create an efficient government. However as Dutta & Pal (in press) suggests, ideologies such as neoliberalism is supported and promoted by certain organizations (MNCs, TNCs, certain governments) because it helps them maintain the power structure in their favor, and thus continue to exert control over the alrea...
Post a Comment
Read more