Skip to main content

Co-opting ‘their’ language:

The readings sent a chill down my spine. Never did I expect the academe to be this biased and ruthless. The articles were revelationary, inspiring, infuriating and shocking at different times. All, Churchill, Prashad, Schueller and Dawson were revelationary, incisive and undeniably appealing. I however came to have a different line of thought than most of us have expressed at this forum. I think of solutions/ alternatives beyond the crossing of t’s and dotting of I’s. I also think of how impossible the sentiment of ‘co-opting their language’ looks to me now. If this is the language and grammar of the mainstream can we ever co-opt it for our own ends – I don’t think so. This very move would create lacunae that would be enough to negate any credibility on our part.

The most heartening parts of all articles were referrals to solidarities that existed across student and faculty bodies. This perhaps is the resource that we can rely on. I think Critical Scholarship should take clear stances and assert itself in solidarities—not attempt to talk in ‘their’ language.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Purdue's Professional Revolutionary

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 ...

Echoing Malcom

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...