Re: [silk] Music question
On 07-Oct-10 6:52 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: The same with me. I cant treat music I like as useful background noise when I get on with other work, and I detest people gossiping about saree prices and daughter in laws at a concert on the rare occasions I do go to those Here's someone who agrees with you: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20015642-47.html Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] Music question
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Here's someone who agrees with you: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20015642-47.html Oh, EVERYONE detests the gossipers; everyone is an utter devotee of the music none more than the gossipers themselves, when asked! How often have I heard the VTM's (Vaira Thodu Mami's...don't want to translate that) gush, Oh, I just LOSE myself in the music!...and then turn around to their companions to catch up on how Lakshmi Athai's daughter behaved with the neighbour's boy Sorry, the Miaow factor of that was rather high. :( Deepa.
Re: [silk] Music question
vtms = middle aged women wearing diamond earrings. culture vultures, I've heard another type described .. you know, aggressively ethnic fabindia clothes, a bindi as large as a manhole cover, consciously (over)use bharatnatyam mudras even in normal conversation over dinner etc. Detest them almost as much as the VTMs. Deepa Mohan [13/10/10 14:09 +0530]: On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 1:54 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Here's someone who agrees with you: http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20015642-47.html Oh, EVERYONE detests the gossipers; everyone is an utter devotee of the music none more than the gossipers themselves, when asked! How often have I heard the VTM's (Vaira Thodu Mami's...don't want to translate that) gush, Oh, I just LOSE myself in the music!...and then turn around to their companions to catch up on how Lakshmi Athai's daughter behaved with the neighbour's boy Sorry, the Miaow factor of that was rather high. :( Deepa.
Re: [silk] Music question
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.netwrote: culture vultures, I've heard another type described .. you know, aggressively ethnic fabindia clothes, a bindi as large as a manhole cover, consciously (over)use bharatnatyam mudras even in normal conversation over dinner etc. You forgot the ethnic silver tribal jewellery which is supposed to be an antithesis to the gold-and-diamonds but makes exactly the same statement!
Re: [silk] A radical pessimist's guide to the next 10 years
On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 7:24 AM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/a-radical-pessimists-guide-to-the-next-10-years/article1750609/print/ Douglas Coupland A radical pessimist's guide to the next 10 years A radical American pessimist's guide to the next 10 years I think. The author seems to have confused the concept of the world and USA, I have a hard time buying predictions from someone with so narrow a world view. Cheeni
Re: [silk] Music question
On Fri, Oct 8, 2010 at 10:31 AM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: On 08-Oct-10 9:46 AM, Sruthi Krishnan wrote: But serious listening is different -- it becomes a task in itself (of course, a very pleasurable one). Indeed. I'd also claim that single-task listening to music and background or multitask listening to the very same piece of music are qualitatively different experiences. Case in point: I was attempting to see if I could perceive the difference between a (high quality) MP3 file and the original CD through (high-quality) earphones. So I was listening very hard to the same songs twice over, working my way through an album. The actual differences merit a thread of their own, but what struck me forcefully is just how much detail and depth one perceives when listening with all of one's concentration. Very well said, Udhay. One of the forms of meditation that I was taught was to listen carefully and follow one single instrument throughout a musical piece. It is a fascinating form of meditation and it taught me how even relatively minor instruments that may be used just once or twice in a composition, enhance the whole melody. Venky
Re: [silk] Music question
Deepa Mohan [13/10/10 15:00 +0530]: On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:54 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian sur...@hserus.netwrote: culture vultures, I've heard another type described .. you know, aggressively ethnic fabindia clothes, a bindi as large as a manhole cover, consciously (over)use bharatnatyam mudras even in normal conversation over dinner etc. You forgot the ethnic silver tribal jewellery which is supposed to be an antithesis to the gold-and-diamonds but makes exactly the same statement! Let's not forget the organic food and the turning up at parties hosted by good causes :)
[silk] The subaltern studies collective?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHH4ALRFHw I don't want to call things I don't understand names, but this talk smells so strongly of BS I have to ask this online collective what they think. Anyone who begins a talk with lashing out at critics, and then taking every opportunity to feather one's nest by alluding to one's Bengali middle classness / literaryness / obscurity of thought / right wing fans / women's libness is enough for me to want to call foul. Am I mistaken? Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On 13-Oct-10 5:45 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHH4ALRFHw I don't want to call things I don't understand names, but this talk smells so strongly of BS I have to ask this online collective what they think. Anyone who begins a talk with lashing out at critics, and then taking every opportunity to feather one's nest by alluding to one's Bengali middle classness / literaryness / obscurity of thought / right wing fans / women's libness is enough for me to want to call foul. Title: The Trajectory of the Subaltern in My Work Length: 1hr 28min 55sec Much as I love you, Cheeni, I'm not going to watch this. Udhay (you're welcome to try and convince me, though) -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Much as I love you, Cheeni, I'm not going to watch this. What fascinates me is this: the speaker and her listeners are clearly educated (maybe a little too much, they have the air of people who have only hung around in college campuses) and intelligent - but there's so much intellectual wanking and preening going on (or so it appears to me), and yet everyone seems to think the talk was fantastic. What did they get out of the talk that I didn't? Or more generally, I come across the Bengali (it is usually a Bengali) literary critic / thinker who spouts incomprehensible sentences such as homeopathy of self abstraction and I think to myself - what a wanker. I'm perhaps wrong because these are clearly educated and intelligent people who however seem to be members of a mutual admiration society. Do they actually get anything done? Wouldn't they get more stuff done if they didn't speak in incomprehensible tongues? Cheeni
Re: [silk] A radical pessimist's guide to the next 10 years
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 11:43:31AM +0200, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: A radical American pessimist's guide to the next 10 years I think. The Of course. (Though radical he's not). author seems to have confused the concept of the world and USA, I have It's quite obvious that he's writing about the US. World=US, unless scope explicitly specified to be elsewhere. a hard time buying predictions from someone with so narrow a world view. This is entertainment, of course. -- Eugen* Leitl a href=http://leitl.org;leitl/a http://leitl.org __ ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
Of course I don't understand the specific Indian implications of this thread, but worldwide I find overintellectualised BS particularly unpalatable. Cheers Giancarlo
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Giancarlo Livraghi g...@gandalf.it wrote: Of course I don't understand the specific Indian implications of this thread, but worldwide I find overintellectualised BS particularly unpalatable. She claims she isn't Indian in her thought - and anyone calling her ideas Indian is being a cultural imperialist for she is a Europeanist. (I'm not making this shit up) Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Title: The Trajectory of the Subaltern in My Work Length: 1hr 28min 55sec I just completed listening and occasionally watching the entire video in the background while doing other things of course. I have the following observations: a) there must have been an easier way to say whatever it is she just said b) no one wins any respect in my book unless they can explain themselves sufficiently clearly c) being an abusive person hyper-critical of others isn't nice Ergo I expect to see a lot of shit flying around on the Internet criticizing this lady (who inexplicably hangs onto the last name of a man from many marriages back), but there isn't? All the heuristics (and I can only proceed on heuristics because I understood little of the talk itself) point me to ignore this person, but Wikipedia and a story in the NYT and many blogs mostly with other Bengalis (!) are gushing over her. So I'm curious. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gayatri_Chakravorty_Spivak
Re: [silk] A radical pessimist's guide to the next 10 years
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:16 AM, ss cybers...@gmail.com wrote: Overcriminalization of society already exists (in many places). The criminals stay out of jail. The world will feel like jail for anyone who doesn't belong I guess. In the US it's a particular aberration of the free markets - they build jails as profitable businesses where the state pays an entrepreneur for every prisoner - so these entrepreneurs elect law makers who enact laws that push ever greater numbers of people into prison. For example making crack cocaine possession more severely punishable than powder cocaine (which rich white people with lawyers use) is pointed out as a jail filling ruse. Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan che...@gmail.com wrote: story in the NYT and many blogs mostly with other Bengalis (!) are s/mostly with other Bengalis/mostly by other Bengalis/
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
Or more generally, I come across the Bengali (it is usually a Bengali) literary critic / thinker who spouts incomprehensible sentences such as homeopathy of self abstraction and I think to myself - what a wanker. I'm perhaps wrong because these are clearly educated and intelligent people who however seem to be members of a mutual admiration society. Do they actually get anything done? Wouldn't they get more stuff done if they didn't speak in incomprehensible tongues? This kinda obscure stuff is what post-modern stuff is usually about. Post-modernism was built on the might of intellectuals such as Derrida, who relied on neologisms. Derrida's prose was referred to by Foucault as obscurantisme terroriste. The text is so obscure that you can't figure out what it is, and if you can't the author says, you are an idiot. :) Read this recently in a cute book on postmodernism.
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On 13-10-2010 18:48, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Ergo I expect to see a lot of shit flying around on the Internet criticizing this lady (who inexplicably hangs onto the last name of a man from many marriages back), but there isn't? All the heuristics This may be a professional decision, so that work published throughout her career is given citations under the same name. -- Regards, Aadisht Email for lists: li...@aadisht.net Personal Email: aadi...@aadisht.net Website: http://www.aadisht.net/ Blog: http://www.wokay.in/
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Aadisht Khanna li...@aadisht.net wrote: On 13-10-2010 18:48, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Ergo I expect to see a lot of shit flying around on the Internet criticizing this lady (who inexplicably hangs onto the last name of a man from many marriages back), but there isn't? All the heuristics This may be a professional decision, so that work published throughout her career is given citations under the same name. Why is this curiosity over her choice of a name relevant to understanding her scholastic merit?
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
Post modernist pretentiousness strikes again. Possibly the one thing more bogus is science studies, I guess --Original Message-- From: Srini RamaKrishnan Sender: silklist-bounces+suresh=hserus@lists.hserus.net To: silklist@lists.hserus.net ReplyTo: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: [silk] The subaltern studies collective? Sent: Oct 13, 2010 17:45 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHH4ALRFHw I don't want to call things I don't understand names, but this talk smells so strongly of BS I have to ask this online collective what they think. Anyone who begins a talk with lashing out at critics, and then taking every opportunity to feather one's nest by alluding to one's Bengali middle classness / literaryness / obscurity of thought / right wing fans / women's libness is enough for me to want to call foul. Am I mistaken? Cheeni -- srs (blackberry)
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On 13-Oct-10 6:55 PM, Sruthi Krishnan wrote: This kinda obscure stuff is what post-modern stuff is usually about. Post-modernism was built on the might of intellectuals such as Derrida, who relied on neologisms. Derrida's prose was referred to by Foucault as obscurantisme terroriste. The text is so obscure that you can't figure out what it is, and if you can't the author says, you are an idiot. :) Read this recently in a cute book on postmodernism. insert obligatory mention of Chip Morningstar piece [1] Udhay [1] http://groups.yahoo.com/group/silk-list/message/12241 -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
(Apologies for top-posting, via phone) If a lay reader's criticism of a theorist's language is legitimate, is a layperson equally right to criticise technical language in a scientific discussion that her education has not equipped her to follow, as obtuse? If so, can I bring up the criticism the next time a Silk thread begins on developments in, say, physics, or computer science? If not, why not? Is it because cultural theory owes it to laypeople to be less academic, or to adopt more egalitarian stances? If this is so, why should it be strange that a theorist talks about her own identity in a talk which, going by its title is about -- herself? Why does her choice of name or her reference to her background come up out of context as a matter for discussion? Genuinely curious. Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -Original Message- From: Sruthi Krishnan srukr...@gmail.com Sender: silklist-bounces+supriya.nair=gmail@lists.hserus.net Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 18:55:23 To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Reply-To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective? Or more generally, I come across the Bengali (it is usually a Bengali) literary critic / thinker who spouts incomprehensible sentences such as homeopathy of self abstraction and I think to myself - what a wanker. I'm perhaps wrong because these are clearly educated and intelligent people who however seem to be members of a mutual admiration society. Do they actually get anything done? Wouldn't they get more stuff done if they didn't speak in incomprehensible tongues? This kinda obscure stuff is what post-modern stuff is usually about. Post-modernism was built on the might of intellectuals such as Derrida, who relied on neologisms. Derrida's prose was referred to by Foucault as obscurantisme terroriste. The text is so obscure that you can't figure out what it is, and if you can't the author says, you are an idiot. :) Read this recently in a cute book on postmodernism.
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On 13-Oct-10 7:21 PM, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote: Post modernist pretentiousness strikes again. Possibly the one thing more bogus is science studies, I guess Flamebait for Chris Kelty. Where are you, Herr Doktor? Udhay -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
If not, why not? Is it because cultural theory owes it to laypeople to be less academic, or to adopt more egalitarian stances? I think that in technology and science, jargon has a precise definition -- a two or three line explanation that has no room for ambiguity. On the other hand take some cultural theory that invents new language to explain the power structures within language. It questions language itself, and hence prefers to be deliberately obscure so as not to fall into the trap of a rigid reference to external reality. By being obscure, the cultural theorist is making a statement about the nature of language itself. For a layperson to understand this, does take some reading beyond two or three line definitions. Hence the impatience and the call for simpler understanding? Why does her choice of name or her reference to her background come up out of context as a matter for discussion? Genuinely curious. Even I am curious.
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:43 PM, Sruthi Krishnan srukr...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:58 PM, Aadisht Khanna li...@aadisht.net wrote: On 13-10-2010 18:48, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Ergo I expect to see a lot of shit flying around on the Internet criticizing this lady (who inexplicably hangs onto the last name of a man from many marriages back), but there isn't? All the heuristics This may be a professional decision, so that work published throughout her career is given citations under the same name. Why is this curiosity over her choice of a name relevant to understanding her scholastic merit? I believe she has a deliberate agenda in cultivating a certain personality: Ref. http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/09/arts/creating-a-stir-wherever-she-goes.html -- Ms. Spivak, wears a sari (with combat boots), with vivid pink highlights in her crewcut hair - has this name that is sufficiently unique even for Google (I don't think she minds, she sets off my attention-whore alarm) - and talks non-stop of her Bengali roots and references her family (mother, grandmother, uncle, brother) - bashes her critics at every turn - stops short of calling them names - only talks about her work3/4th of the way into her talk yet pounces on anyone who claims she's got Indian influences in her work for example. Claims she will explain herself if she comes across as being difficult to understand, and then proceeds to speak the most incomprehensible things. Claims her work doesn't inspire Maoism or naxalite factions, denies her subaltern studies movement had students who were maoists and in the same breath claims a close relative (brother / uncle, I forget) was a Maoist intellectual, and her students went on to teach Maoists. She appears to be a deliberate intellectual agent provocateur who spouts incomprehensible obscurities and lays so many political correctness landmines that her critics will step on one of them before they come close to questioning her work. Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:16 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan che...@gmail.com wrote: - only talks about her work3/4th of the way into her talk Oh and also what's with the incessant name dropping? As I was saying to xxx the other day, and yyy was there too - really, this is relevant to a technical talk on her work? Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:56 PM, supriya.n...@gmail.com wrote: If a lay reader's criticism of a theorist's language is legitimate, is a layperson equally right to criticise technical language in a scientific discussion that her education has not equipped her to follow, as obtuse? I'm not alone in calling her language obtuse - her fellow post-modernists (I don't think it's very nice to take a commonly understood term like modern and overlay it with a specific technical meaning, I hate this about Agile programmers too, who I usually abhor, but that's for another thread) claim she's nuts too. Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Aadisht Khanna li...@aadisht.net wrote: This may be a professional decision, so that work published throughout her career is given citations under the same name. I hope so - I was so annoyed at the end of the talk I was going for attention whore, but you may be right. Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:25 PM, Sruthi Krishnan srukr...@gmail.com wrote: This kinda obscure stuff is what post-modern stuff is usually about. Post-modernism was built on the might of intellectuals such as Derrida, who relied on neologisms. Derrida's prose was referred to by Foucault as obscurantisme terroriste. The text is so obscure that you can't figure out what it is, and if you can't the author says, you are an idiot. :) Read this recently in a cute book on postmodernism. Thanks, that's a nice summary.
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 4:13 PM, Sruthi Krishnan srukr...@gmail.com wrote: By being obscure, the cultural theorist is making a statement about the nature of language itself. For a layperson to understand this, does take some reading beyond two or three line definitions. Hence the impatience and the call for simpler understanding? I've educated myself to the point where I can follow along a conversation that holds sufficiently advanced thoughts and logical constructs that should be good enough for Ms. Spivak to explain herself. Instead she resorts to overloaded terms that have a narrow sphere of operation - partly to ensure they become commonplace. I'm annoyed that she imposes a sneaky tax on my attention in order to further her hidden agenda. Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wednesday 13 Oct 2010 5:45:34 pm Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ZHH4ALRFHw I don't want to call things I don't understand names, but this talk smells so strongly of BS I have to ask this online collective what they think. Anyone who begins a talk with lashing out at critics, and then taking every opportunity to feather one's nest by alluding to one's Bengali middle classness / literaryness / obscurity of thought / right wing fans / women's libness is enough for me to want to call foul. Am I mistaken? Cheeni Anyone willing to tie me up and whip me with leather thongs while I watch this? I want this to be a special experience. shiv
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wednesday 13 Oct 2010 6:18:59 pm Udhay Shankar N wrote: Much as I love you, Cheeni, I'm not going to watch this. Udhay. I know you like books and you are an avid reader. I don't want you to be disappointeed. Here. A whole book on Gayatri Chk Spk http://niazi.info/web_documents/gayatri_chakravorty_spivak__routledge_critical_thinkers__- _stephen_morton.pdf shiv PS: I used Google uncle to search for Gtri. Chk. Spk. because I have heard that the name Gayatri is given (in Karnataka) to the third of three dughters in the hope that the line of female birth ends and the fourth will be a son.
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 3:55 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: insert obligatory mention of Chip Morningstar piece [1] Very useful - thanks Udhay, so my hunch was right (Chip's description of the entire field can be summed up as pretentious wankers). Cheeni
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
Oh, come. Let's not give Derrida-ish wankers the same rights as us humans. On 13 Oct 2010 19:30, supriya.n...@gmail.com wrote: (Apologies for top-posting, via phone) If a lay reader's criticism of a theorist's language is legitimate, is a layperson equally right to criticise technical language in a scientific discussion that her education has not equipped her to follow, as obtuse? If so, can I bring up the criticism the next time a Silk thread begins on developments in, say, physics, or computer science? If not, why not? Is it because cultural theory owes it to laypeople to be less academic, or to adopt more egalitarian stances? If this is so, why should it be strange that a theorist talks about her own identity in a talk which, going by its title is about -- herself? Why does her choice of name or her reference to her background come up out of context as a matter for discussion? Genuinely curious. Sent from BlackBerry® on Airtel -Original Message- From: Sruthi Krishnan srukr...@gmail.com Sender: silklist-bounces+supr... Reply-To: silklist@lists.hserus.net Subject: Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective? Or more...
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On 13-Oct-10 11:07 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan wrote: Very useful - thanks Udhay, so my hunch was right (Chip's description of the entire field can be summed up as pretentious wankers). Not the entire field, but some members of it, certainly (which is fine, recalling that 90% of *everything* is crap) The relevant part of Chip's piece (written in 1993, but still fresh) quote So, what are we to make of all this? I earlier stated that my quest was to learn if there was any content to this stuff and if it was or was not bogus. Well, my assessment is that there is indeed some content, much of it interesting. The question of bogosity, however, is a little more difficult. It is clear that the forms used by academicians writing in this area go right off the bogosity scale, pegging my bogometer until it breaks. The quality of the actual analysis of various literary works varies tremendously and must be judged on a case-by-case basis, but I find most of it highly questionable. Buried in the muck, however, are a set of important and interesting ideas: that in reading a work it is illuminating to consider the contrast between what is said and what is not said, between what is explicit and what is assumed, and that popular notions of truth and value depend to a disturbingly high degree on the reader's credulity and willingness to accept the text's own claims as to its validity. Looking at the field of contemporary literary criticism as a whole also yields some valuable insights. It is a cautionary lesson about the consequences of allowing a branch of academia that has been entrusted with the study of important problems to become isolated and inbred. The Pseudo Politically Correct term that I would use to describe the mind set of postmodernism is epistemologically challenged: a constitutional inability to adopt a reasonable way to tell the good stuff from the bad stuff. The language and idea space of the field have become so convoluted that they have confused even themselves. But the tangle offers a safe refuge for the academics. It erects a wall between them and the rest of the world. It immunizes them against having to confront their own failings, since any genuine criticism can simply be absorbed into the morass and made indistinguishable from all the other verbiage. Intellectual tools that might help prune the thicket are systematically ignored or discredited. This is why, for example, science, psychology and economics are represented in the literary world by theories that were abandoned by practicing scientists, psychologists and economists fifty or a hundred years ago. The field is absorbed in triviality. Deconstruction is an idea that would make a worthy topic for some bright graduate student's Ph.D. dissertation but has instead spawned an entire subfield. Ideas that would merit a good solid evening or afternoon of argument and debate and perhaps a paper or two instead become the focus of entire careers. Engineering and the sciences have, to a greater degree, been spared this isolation and genetic drift because of crass commercial necessity. The constraints of the physical world and the actual needs and wants of the actual population have provided a grounding that is difficult to dodge. However, in academia the pressures for isolation are enormous. It is clear to me that the humanities are not going to emerge from the jungle on their own. I think that the task of outreach is left to those of us who retain some connection, however tenuous, to what we laughingly call reality. We have to go into the jungle after them and rescue what we can. Just remember to hang on to your sense of humor and don't let them intimidate you. /quote -- ((Udhay Shankar N)) ((udhay @ pobox.com)) ((www.digeratus.com))
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
Udhay Shankar N [14/10/10 06:54 +0530]: Not the entire field, but some members of it, certainly (which is fine, recalling that 90% of *everything* is crap) It is marked by intellectual dishonesty such as the use of logical fallacies, ad hominem rather than debate .. you name it. Shines through in that earlier email about the derrida vs foucault interaction. Chakraborty-Spivak certainly doesn't seem to make the 10% cut.
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:43 PM, Sruthi Krishnan srukr...@gmail.com wrote: I think that in technology and science, jargon has a precise definition -- a two or three line explanation that has no room for ambiguity. On the other hand take some cultural theory that invents new language to explain the power structures within language. It questions language itself, and hence prefers to be deliberately obscure so as not to fall into the trap of a rigid reference to external reality. By being obscure, the cultural theorist is making a statement about the nature of language itself. For a layperson to understand this, does take some reading beyond two or three line definitions. Hence the impatience and the call for simpler understanding? Yes. As I see it, I think this is part of a longstanding secondary conversation among theorists, and the tide seems to turn back and forth depending on which side of the argument reflects the political climate to greater satisfaction (or has a new book out, or is the subject of a new movie - cough Zizek cough). I don't like obscurantism myself, but if it works for Judith Butler, I have no grounds for complaint. *g* I am thinking of it now as the divide between electoral politics and movement politics - whenever one part of the academy codifies and legislates from on high, others negotiate, protest, and popularise and vice versa. I don't know if this analogy works for the sciences or other fields. Supriya -- roswitha.blogspot.com | roswitha.tumblr.com
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
I'm not alone in calling her language obtuse - her fellow post-modernists (I don't think it's very nice to take a commonly understood term like modern and overlay it with a specific technical meaning, I hate this about Agile programmers too, who I usually abhor, but that's for another thread) claim she's nuts too. Oh cultural theorists, when will they learn that ad hominem attacks along the lines of 'I claim you are nuts Gayatari Chakravorty-Spivak! And I am a theorist, so I should know!' are not generally the best way of ensuring their ideas go down in history? I am not well-read on deconstructionism: while I have enjoyed Terry Eagleton's criticism of Spivak (via Derrida), I read it as part of an ongoing conversation on the nature of language itself, as Shruthi highlighted in one of her last emails. Perhaps if it were a debate, Eagleton, who is fantastically eloquent no matter how self-contradictory or lazily constructed his arguments are, will always emerge the winner, simply because there will be more people - in the short term - who find him believable. Supriya -- roswitha.blogspot.com | roswitha.tumblr.com
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 6:48 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan che...@gmail.com wrote: On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 2:48 PM, Udhay Shankar N ud...@pobox.com wrote: Title: The Trajectory of the Subaltern in My Work Length: 1hr 28min 55sec I just completed listening and occasionally watching the entire video in the background while doing other things of course. I have the following observations: a) there must have been an easier way to say whatever it is she just said b) no one wins any respect in my book unless they can explain themselves sufficiently clearly c) being an abusive person hyper-critical of others isn't nice Quite frankly, this sounds like repeatedly slamming your head against a wall because it feels so good when you stop. -- b
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 7:52 PM, Srini RamaKrishnan che...@gmail.com wrote: I hate this about Agile programmers too, who I usually abhor Um ... why? -- b
Re: [silk] The subaltern studies collective?
it might come across as name -dropping but your reference to Eagleton reminded me of the recently departed Frank Kermode [1] and his consistent attempts at introducing 'theory' within the Leavisite bastions of Cambridge. Kermode's own work always remained a brilliant example of accessibility that was still sharp, intelligent and scholarly. Some here may remember the Fontana Masters Series that Kermode edited in the 70s and its popular introductions to Freud, Gramsci etc. [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2010/aug/18/frank-kermode-dies-aged-90 abhishek On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:28 AM, Supriya Nair supriya.n...@gmail.comwrote: I'm not alone in calling her language obtuse - her fellow post-modernists (I don't think it's very nice to take a commonly understood term like modern and overlay it with a specific technical meaning, I hate this about Agile programmers too, who I usually abhor, but that's for another thread) claim she's nuts too. Oh cultural theorists, when will they learn that ad hominem attacks along the lines of 'I claim you are nuts Gayatari Chakravorty-Spivak! And I am a theorist, so I should know!' are not generally the best way of ensuring their ideas go down in history? I am not well-read on deconstructionism: while I have enjoyed Terry Eagleton's criticism of Spivak (via Derrida), I read it as part of an ongoing conversation on the nature of language itself, as Shruthi highlighted in one of her last emails. Perhaps if it were a debate, Eagleton, who is fantastically eloquent no matter how self-contradictory or lazily constructed his arguments are, will always emerge the winner, simply because there will be more people - in the short term - who find him believable. Supriya -- roswitha.blogspot.com | roswitha.tumblr.com
