It's the new banner headline. That's a slice of the view from the window of my apartment at night.
I'm not sure if I like the typeface. Maybe it's a little too tweaked? And maybe blue is the wrong color given the yellow/brown palette of the rest of the image.
Phrase-lator: Perfect metaphor for America vs. World
Many of you have probably heard that American soldiers are walking around Iraq with a little device that spits out automatic Arabic translations whenever certain English phrases are said by its user. But I just learned that it only works one way:
Isn't that just fitting?
Its creators at the Pentagon-financed company VoxTec admit that even the new model, the P2, has a drawback: it is still just a ''one-way'' translation device. In other words, it phraselates perfectly well from English into Arabic (or any of the 59 other ''target languages'' it has mastered so far), but the device is no better at understanding foreign languages than the Americans who are wielding it. So the Phraselator allows occupiers to issue commands, but it does not help them comprehend any of what the occupied may have to say in response. (New York Times)
Isn't that just fitting?
Ursula Le Guin washes her hands of it
Ursula K. Le Guin's famous Legend of Earthsea has been adapted to a miniseries for the SciFi channel, and she thinks it's not very good. Besides the cheap "McMagic" look of the series, she's angry that the Entertainment industry interpreted the multi-ethnic characters of her books via an all-white cast.
I'm certainly not complaining about her choices here -- I remember these books quite fondly (though as a 5th grader, I don't think I even noticed the ethnic markers she was using...).
But isn't the way she's talking about race here a little heavy-handed? It's one thing to have your characters look different, but is it just about looks? What about cultural differences, language, differences in attitude?
Most of the characters in my fantasy and far-future science fiction books are not white. They're mixed; they're rainbow. In my first big science fiction novel, The Left Hand of Darkness, the only person from Earth is a black man, and everybody else in the book is Inuit (or Tibetan) brown. In the two fantasy novels the miniseries is "based on," everybody is brown or copper-red or black, except the Kargish people in the East and their descendants in the Archipelago, who are white, with fair or dark hair. The central character Tenar, a Karg, is a white brunette. Ged, an Archipelagan, is red-brown. His friend, Vetch, is black. In the miniseries, Tenar is played by Smallville's Kristin Kreuk, the only person in the miniseries who looks at all Asian. Ged and Vetch are white.
My color scheme was conscious and deliberate from the start. I didn't see why everybody in science fiction had to be a honky named Bob or Joe or Bill. I didn't see why everybody in heroic fantasy had to be white (and why all the leading women had "violet eyes"). It didn't even make sense. Whites are a minority on Earth now—why wouldn't they still be either a minority, or just swallowed up in the larger colored gene pool, in the future?
I'm certainly not complaining about her choices here -- I remember these books quite fondly (though as a 5th grader, I don't think I even noticed the ethnic markers she was using...).
But isn't the way she's talking about race here a little heavy-handed? It's one thing to have your characters look different, but is it just about looks? What about cultural differences, language, differences in attitude?
The Battle for Falluja
You've got to be kidding me:
Huh, no kidding.
Hollywood has joined the war. Universal Pictures announced yesterday that it is to make The Battle for Falluja. To prove it is serious, it has enlisted Indiana Jones himself, actor Harrison Ford, to help defeat the insurgency.
The film - Hollywood's first foray into the second Iraq conflict - is due to go into production next year and will be based on a yet-to-be-finished book, No True Glory: The Battle for Falluja by Bing West, a former marine, politician and now war correspondent.
The movie and book take as their starting point the killing of four civilian contractors in Falluja and the ensuing decision to order an assault on the city by US marines. That first assault, which was abruptly stopped by the White House, was led by General Jim Mattis, who will be played by Ford.
Six months later, shortly after the US presidential election, the marines attacked Falluja for a second time, successfully occupying the city. Almost 80 US marines were killed in the two assaults, while some sources have estimated that 800 Iraqis and insurgents died in the April assault on the city and a further 1,000 in November.
The film promises to depict the story from the point of view of US soldiers and politicians; it seems unlikely that the plight of the Iraqis will figure too prominently in Hollywood's take on the subject. (From The Guardian)
Huh, no kidding.
Comments turned off temporarily
Three harassing comments from a person who was a homophobe and a misogynist. He predictably accused me of censoring him, but I would censor anyone who used a four-letter word in a comment, even a comment I liked. He also slandered a well-known feminist critic by name. A no-brainer.
Unlike the (many) other trolls I've had over the past 8 months, this one left a paper trail -- I have his hotmail account and his (pseudonymous) blogger/blogspot URL. Does blogger accept complaints?
Unlike the (many) other trolls I've had over the past 8 months, this one left a paper trail -- I have his hotmail account and his (pseudonymous) blogger/blogspot URL. Does blogger accept complaints?
Rohit Gupta's Blognovel: Le Spirale Fantastique
Other people have linked to this, but a dude in Bombay is selling his novel online for links.
Dude. It's sort of a genius thing to try. The thing I find especially interesting is the way all this linking-shinking might dismember the narrative he's trying to tell.
[Via Jill/txt]
I'm writing a blognovel. If you like a quotation from this novel, tell me about it. I will link that text, less than 50 words, to your blog or website. In return, you use that quote as a link to my novel on your site. It's a gift-exchange system, and that simple. After this, you own that quote. I own nothing, and nothing owns me.
Dude. It's sort of a genius thing to try. The thing I find especially interesting is the way all this linking-shinking might dismember the narrative he's trying to tell.
[Via Jill/txt]
Monkey blogging
A new species of monkey has been discovered in Arunachal Pradesh. They're going to call it the Arunachal macaque.
I don't know why, I'm a sucker for monkeys.
"In a major blow to patriarchy..."
"In a major blow to patriarchy..." -- only in the Indian media do you get such beautiful lead-ins!
It actually applies to something quite serious:
About time. This is the kind of thing that people like Githa Hariharan and Madhu Kishwar have been talking about for years.
The "coparcenary" problem is also one of the issues that makes the debates over the Uniform Civil Code more complex than people often like to admit. While the Muslim Marriage Act is certainly the more backward, the fact is, there are further reforms that need to be made to the Hindu Marriage Act as well. This is one of them.
Well, let's see if this thing passes.
It actually applies to something quite serious:
In a major blow to patriarchy among Hindus, the Union Cabinet today cleared a legislative proposal to introduce equality between men and women in their rights over joint family property.
Amending the Hindu Succession Act 1956, the proposed Bill gives the daughter entry for the first time into the “coparcenary” of her family—which means she will be counted among those members who are entitled to seek partition and get equal shares in the ancestral property. The Bill states that in a joint Hindu family, the daughter of a coparcener shall “by birth become a coparcener” and have “the same rights in the coparcenary property as she would have had if she had been a son.” As a corollary, the daughter will be bound by the common liabilities and can even become the “karta” (or loosely the head) of the joint family.
About time. This is the kind of thing that people like Githa Hariharan and Madhu Kishwar have been talking about for years.
The "coparcenary" problem is also one of the issues that makes the debates over the Uniform Civil Code more complex than people often like to admit. While the Muslim Marriage Act is certainly the more backward, the fact is, there are further reforms that need to be made to the Hindu Marriage Act as well. This is one of them.
Well, let's see if this thing passes.
William Safire is right for once -- stem cells, cloning, and "pro-living"
It's not often that I can praise William Safire.
The best twist phrase in this piece is "pro-living," which is a clever rhetorical response to the phrase "pro-life": "I'm with the hopers on this, and also hope President Bush opens his mind to the medical scientists' patient-oriented, pro-living position." I hadn't come across the phrase before. I did a google search on "pro-life pro-living", and it looks like a few others are using it the way Safire is here, but not many.
A challenging point in this piece is the bit about therapeutic cloning. We're all against reproductive cloning, but what if science could clone a defective kidney? An amputated limb? Wouldn't we support "cloning" research that might lead to such possibilities?
The best twist phrase in this piece is "pro-living," which is a clever rhetorical response to the phrase "pro-life": "I'm with the hopers on this, and also hope President Bush opens his mind to the medical scientists' patient-oriented, pro-living position." I hadn't come across the phrase before. I did a google search on "pro-life pro-living", and it looks like a few others are using it the way Safire is here, but not many.
A challenging point in this piece is the bit about therapeutic cloning. We're all against reproductive cloning, but what if science could clone a defective kidney? An amputated limb? Wouldn't we support "cloning" research that might lead to such possibilities?
Some India-related panels at MLA 2004
The Modern Language Association Convention ("MLA") meets every year at the end of December, at a rotating North American city. I've been going to them since early in grad school; I remember going to ones in Toronto, San Francisco, New York, and Washington DC (twice). This year it's going to be in Philadelphia.
It's a huge convention. There are usually more than 1000 panels, with 3-4 participants each. And a total of 10,000 attendants overall (the MLA as a group has about 30,000 members). It's where most preliminary academic job interviews happen in both English and Comparative Literature. There is also a huge book display, with stalls from 50 academic publishers.
Because of this it might seem like heaven for lit/theory nerds. But there are many reasons why it doesn't always work out that way. For one thing, the immense size of the conference and the short panel times make it difficult to get intellectually focused -- not impossible, but it takes work and concentration. And the papers are not of a consistent quality. Some people really put time and effort into the papers they give, but others think of it as more of an academic obligation to give a talk at MLA every so often; papers are often hacked together out of something used earlier in another context. Or they are excerpted out of long chapters, with only minimal effort made to offer adequate context or transitions. The flamboyant titles of some MLA papers get a lot of media attention, but the real scandal is that many flamboyant titles are attached to papers that are quite staid.
Also, quite a number of the people present at MLA every year are either interviewing for jobs, or conducting interviews; going to panels (or giving talks) is the last thing on their minds. And finally, many people go to MLA primarily to socialize. It's the one conference of the year when a significant number of people you know from graduate school (and other contexts) are likely to be around. [In some cases, it's a chance to make new friends; this year there will be an attempt at a "Blogger Meetup", which I'm looking forward to]
That said, if you look you will find. There are a few India panels that I'm probably going to this year One is a panel that I'm chairing. I've taken the times and locations off the panels; I'm listing them just to give some idea of what the papers are about. If you want to attend, you should get the exact information through the MLA website. If any of you are waffling about going, all the interesting paper titles might cause you to think twice:
The idea behind my panel was to look at the "next generation" of South Asian writers, who aren't especially preoccupied by the legacy of colonialism, and for whom "hybridity" is an a priori, and fairly uncontroversial fact of existence. There is a new set of issues that are beginning to come up in the books, and in some cases new spins on old issues. Is it time to move past the term "postcolonial" as an umbrella term to describe what these books are about?
I'm also going to several other, non-India panels (and I probably won't make it to all of these). But it's interesting -- some authors I haven't even heard of here (Gopinath Mohanty). Some panel topics seem somewhat familiar (I seem to recall there being a panel on Caste and Race in SA lit at an earlier MLA... and I seem to recall being on that panel!). Others are new -- I'm pleasantly surprised to see that others in my field are starting to talk about secularism! You can bet I'll be in the audience there, the first to ask a question.
It's a huge convention. There are usually more than 1000 panels, with 3-4 participants each. And a total of 10,000 attendants overall (the MLA as a group has about 30,000 members). It's where most preliminary academic job interviews happen in both English and Comparative Literature. There is also a huge book display, with stalls from 50 academic publishers.
Because of this it might seem like heaven for lit/theory nerds. But there are many reasons why it doesn't always work out that way. For one thing, the immense size of the conference and the short panel times make it difficult to get intellectually focused -- not impossible, but it takes work and concentration. And the papers are not of a consistent quality. Some people really put time and effort into the papers they give, but others think of it as more of an academic obligation to give a talk at MLA every so often; papers are often hacked together out of something used earlier in another context. Or they are excerpted out of long chapters, with only minimal effort made to offer adequate context or transitions. The flamboyant titles of some MLA papers get a lot of media attention, but the real scandal is that many flamboyant titles are attached to papers that are quite staid.
Also, quite a number of the people present at MLA every year are either interviewing for jobs, or conducting interviews; going to panels (or giving talks) is the last thing on their minds. And finally, many people go to MLA primarily to socialize. It's the one conference of the year when a significant number of people you know from graduate school (and other contexts) are likely to be around. [In some cases, it's a chance to make new friends; this year there will be an attempt at a "Blogger Meetup", which I'm looking forward to]
That said, if you look you will find. There are a few India panels that I'm probably going to this year One is a panel that I'm chairing. I've taken the times and locations off the panels; I'm listing them just to give some idea of what the papers are about. If you want to attend, you should get the exact information through the MLA website. If any of you are waffling about going, all the interesting paper titles might cause you to think twice:
Hybridity’s Children: Paradigm Shifts in Contemporary South Asian Literature
Session leader: Amardeep Singh, Lehigh Univ.
1. “Beyond Nations and Nationalisms: Rethinking Modern South Asian Literature,” Kavita Daiya, George Washington Univ.
2. “Unfamiliar Relations: Incest and the Postcolonial Novel,” Sangita Gopal, Univ. of Oregon
3. “To Understand Me, You’ll Have to Swallow a World: Salman Rushdie and the South Asian Multitude,” Mrinalini Chakravorty, Univ. of California, Irvine
The idea behind my panel was to look at the "next generation" of South Asian writers, who aren't especially preoccupied by the legacy of colonialism, and for whom "hybridity" is an a priori, and fairly uncontroversial fact of existence. There is a new set of issues that are beginning to come up in the books, and in some cases new spins on old issues. Is it time to move past the term "postcolonial" as an umbrella term to describe what these books are about?
Africa in India, India in Africa
Presiding: John Charles Hawley, Santa Clara Univ.
1. “South Asian Africans and Indian Literature,” Jaspal Kaur Singh, Northern Michigan Univ.
2. “Bombay’s Africa,” Sharmila Sen, Harvard Univ.
3. “Where Gandhi Became Indian,” Amitava Kumar, Penn State Univ., University Park
4. “Sam Selvon and the Romance of Creolization,” Gautam Premnath, Univ. of California, Berkeley
Framing the Secular: South Asian Contexts
Program arranged by the Discussion Group on South Asian Languages and Literatures
Presiding: Hena Ahmad, Truman State Univ.
1. “The Panchatantra and Secular Tale-Telling in the Premodern World,” Brenda Deen Schildgen, Univ. of California, Davis
2. “Secular Literature in Preindependent India: A Look at Ismat Chughtai and Saadat Hasan Manto,” Deepika Marya, Univ. of Southern Maine, Portland
3. “Re-presenting the Burdens of South Asian History: Narayan and Rushdie,” Pradyumna S. Chauhan, Arcadia Univ.
4. “The Vernacular of Doubt,” Amitava Kumar, Penn State Univ., University Park
Race, Caste, and Class in South Asian Literatures
Presiding: Anushiya Sivanarayanan, Southern Illinois Univ., Edwardsville
1. “Race and Class: Reflections on Chitra Divakaruni’s Short Fiction and Poetry,” Bruce G. Johnson, Univ. of Rhode Island
2. “Gopinath Mohanty’s Paraja: An Intertext on ‘Tribal Problem,’” Amiya Bhushan Sharma, Indira Gandhi Natl. Open Univ.
3. “The Unspeakable Limits of Caste: A Reading of Bhabani Bhattacharya’s So Many Hungers and He Who Rides a Tiger,” Rajender Kaur, Ridgefield, CT
4.“The Bhil Woman’s Plums: Dalit Counter-Offerings in ‘Times of Siege,’” Cynthia Ann Leenerts, George Washington Univ.
Masculinity, Ascetic Nationalism, and the Indian Nation
1. “British Colonial Discourse and Ascetic Nationalism in Colonial India,” Chandrima Chakraborty, York Univ., Keele
2. “Ascetic Nationalism and the Muslim ‘Other’ in Colonial India: The ‘Case’ of Swami Vivekananda,” Gautam Kundu, Georgia Southern Univ.
3.“Gandhi, the Father,” Rachel V. Trousdale, Agnes Scott Coll.
I'm also going to several other, non-India panels (and I probably won't make it to all of these). But it's interesting -- some authors I haven't even heard of here (Gopinath Mohanty). Some panel topics seem somewhat familiar (I seem to recall there being a panel on Caste and Race in SA lit at an earlier MLA... and I seem to recall being on that panel!). Others are new -- I'm pleasantly surprised to see that others in my field are starting to talk about secularism! You can bet I'll be in the audience there, the first to ask a question.
Asia Blog Awards
Someone nominated me for best India blogger at Simon World.
If I weren't so vain, I would probably vote for Sepia Mutiny, since they are so maddeningly entertaining over there. Though really, both they and I should be under a separate category ("Diaspora Blogger" -- maybe I'll suggest it next time around). And if I were being a serious policy wonk I would be voting for The Acorn. Nitin is one step away from writing professional op-eds for the Indian media. (Indeed, he's probably a step above much of what's published in The Times of India)
But I'm neither serious nor honest, so I voted for myself. When I looked at the results so far, I was a little aghast to see that I was the first vote for me! (Then again only three votes have been cast so far, which means I am tied for first. If no one else votes, I might actually win)
The only serious thing here: exposure to a list of blogs from all over Asia, most of which I've never encountered before. Go check them out.
If I weren't so vain, I would probably vote for Sepia Mutiny, since they are so maddeningly entertaining over there. Though really, both they and I should be under a separate category ("Diaspora Blogger" -- maybe I'll suggest it next time around). And if I were being a serious policy wonk I would be voting for The Acorn. Nitin is one step away from writing professional op-eds for the Indian media. (Indeed, he's probably a step above much of what's published in The Times of India)
But I'm neither serious nor honest, so I voted for myself. When I looked at the results so far, I was a little aghast to see that I was the first vote for me! (Then again only three votes have been cast so far, which means I am tied for first. If no one else votes, I might actually win)
The only serious thing here: exposure to a list of blogs from all over Asia, most of which I've never encountered before. Go check them out.
"Smart Criticism" vs. Good/Useful Academic Writing
Jeffrey Williams in the Chronicle of Higher Education historicizes the idea of "smartness" in scholarship. He is primarily focusing on literary criticism, though I presume his argument could apply to other disciplines as well. In the old days, smartness was valued less than soundness:
The first move to smartness came with Lionel Trilling's "The Moral Value of Being Intelligent," though it manifested itself at an institutional level in the move to technocracy and standardized testing that swept academia in the late 1960s, and turned the Ivy Leagues from simple bastions of privilege to bastions of privilege where you have to a) be intelligent, and b) work like a dog.
I find this part of Williams's essay a little confusing -- why did the rise of American technocracy (which Williams also connects to the Cold War) require more "intelligence" than before? Also confusing is how English departments in particular then went on (starting in the early 1970s) to leave "intelligence" behind for a time, to take on a new emphasis on quasi-scientific "rigor," whose chief proponent and examplar was Paul de Man. One can see why rigor became popular from a disciplinary point of view -- the seductions of literary theory. But since Williams is trying to historicize intellectual trends, I would expect a historical explanation for this trend.
At any rate, now "rigor" and theoreticism is apparently gone again, in favor of a new cult of smartness. And here is where I think Williams makes a great point.
There is much that I agree with here. I have on my bookshelf a long list of academic books that make exactly the sort of "sharp connection" Williams is describing. Ironically, most of them are not especially "useful"; when I prepare to teach a course on 20th Century Indian literature (as I am now preparing to do), very few of these very smart books are suitable as secondary materials to recommend to undergraduates. There is no chapter summarizing Indian literature before the twentieth century leading up to Tagore, which mentions ancient and medieval Sanskrit writers, the different language traditions (i.e., the Bengali Renaissance), the influence of the Mughal tradition (Ghazals; Mehfil; Shayri), and finally, the transformative role of the British. There are fifty books out right now dealing with Indian literature in one way or another, but if I want a ten page excerpt that covers major concepts along the lines mentioned above, I pretty much have to write my own. (No shame in that, of course... keeps me busy)
Side-note: Another factor affecting the utility of smart criticism is also jargon. Williams doesn't say it, but over-use of jargon is one dire consequence of the plague of smartness.
I don't advocate, as Williams seems to, yet another turn in academic fashion -- yet another return to pseudo-science, or strictly utilitarian criticism. I think there ought to be room for publishing books that do several different kinds of things. On the one hand, we need textbooks that collect and propagate information (not just anthologies; I believe we need textbooks on literature, and maybe also on cultural studies topics). There is an art in putting together the kinds of arguments, and the style of writing, that is designed to offer information to undergraduates.
That said, the field continues to need studies that do aim to represent what I still naively think of as "new knowledge." In literature, this might involve discovering literary texts that no one has read; proposing a new, contrarian reading in texts that everyone has read; various kinds of archival work; and, the surveying of new forms or genres, to name just a few. And though I think Williams makes a very good point, I do feel that smart criticism can potentially belong in the category of "new knowledge" -- if it is either exceptionally well-written or thoroughly original.
Q: Is "smart criticism" a problem in other disciplines?
Q2: Is the smartness trend tied to jargon, as I've suggested?
Q3: Is the smartness trend tied to "academic groupthink">
Q4: Do you buy Williams's argument? Are there other holes?
In literary studies -- I take examples from the history of criticism, although I expect that there are parallels in other disciplines -- scholars during the early part of the 20th century strove for "sound" scholarship that patiently added to its established roots rather than offering a smart new way of thinking. Literary scholars of the time were seeking to establish a new discipline to join classics, rhetoric, and oratory, and their dominant method was philology (for example, they might have ferreted out the French root of a word in one of Chaucer's Canterbury Tales). They sought historical accuracy, the soundness of which purported a kind of scientific legitimacy for their nascent discipline.
The first move to smartness came with Lionel Trilling's "The Moral Value of Being Intelligent," though it manifested itself at an institutional level in the move to technocracy and standardized testing that swept academia in the late 1960s, and turned the Ivy Leagues from simple bastions of privilege to bastions of privilege where you have to a) be intelligent, and b) work like a dog.
I find this part of Williams's essay a little confusing -- why did the rise of American technocracy (which Williams also connects to the Cold War) require more "intelligence" than before? Also confusing is how English departments in particular then went on (starting in the early 1970s) to leave "intelligence" behind for a time, to take on a new emphasis on quasi-scientific "rigor," whose chief proponent and examplar was Paul de Man. One can see why rigor became popular from a disciplinary point of view -- the seductions of literary theory. But since Williams is trying to historicize intellectual trends, I would expect a historical explanation for this trend.
At any rate, now "rigor" and theoreticism is apparently gone again, in favor of a new cult of smartness. And here is where I think Williams makes a great point.
Individual specializations have narrowed to microfields, and the overall field has expanded to encompass low as well as high literary texts, world literatures as well as British texts, and "cultural texts" like 18th-century gardens and punk fashion. At the same time, method has loosened from the moorings of grand theories; now eclectic variations are loosely gathered under the rubric of cultural studies. Without overarching criteria that scholars can agree upon, the value has shifted to the strikingness of a particular critical effort. We aim to make smart surmises among a plurality of studies of culture.
[...Omitting a couple of paragraphs on further historical changes in the academic environment...]
Smart still retains its association with novelty, in keeping with its sense of immediacy, such that a smart scholarly project does something new and different to attract our interest among a glut of publications. In fact, "interesting" is a complementary value to smart. One might praise a reading of the cultural history of gardens in the 18th-century novel not as "sound" or "rigorous" but as "interesting" and "smart," because it makes a new and sharp connection. Rigor takes the frame of scientific proof; smart the frame of the market, which mandates interest amid a crowd of competitors. Deeming something smart, to use Kant's framework, is a judgment of taste rather than a judgment of reason. Like most judgments of taste, it is finally a measure of the people who hold it or lack it.
The promise of smart is that it purports to be a way to talk about quality in a sea of quantity. But the problem is that it internalizes the competitive ethos of the university, aiming not for the cultivation of intelligence but for individual success in the academic market. It functions something like the old shibboleth "quality of mind," which claimed to be a pure standard but frequently became a shorthand for membership in the old boys' network. It was the self-confirming taste of those who talked and thought in similar ways. The danger of smart is that it confirms the moves and mannerisms of a new and perhaps equally closed network.
"Smart," as a designation of mental ability, seems a natural term to distinguish the cerebral pursuits of higher education, but perhaps there are better words. I would prefer the criticism I read to be useful and relevant, my colleagues responsible and judicious, and my institution egalitarian and fair. Those words no doubt have their own trails of associations, as any savvy critic would point out, but they suggest cooperative values that are not always inculcated or rewarded in a field that extols being smart.
There is much that I agree with here. I have on my bookshelf a long list of academic books that make exactly the sort of "sharp connection" Williams is describing. Ironically, most of them are not especially "useful"; when I prepare to teach a course on 20th Century Indian literature (as I am now preparing to do), very few of these very smart books are suitable as secondary materials to recommend to undergraduates. There is no chapter summarizing Indian literature before the twentieth century leading up to Tagore, which mentions ancient and medieval Sanskrit writers, the different language traditions (i.e., the Bengali Renaissance), the influence of the Mughal tradition (Ghazals; Mehfil; Shayri), and finally, the transformative role of the British. There are fifty books out right now dealing with Indian literature in one way or another, but if I want a ten page excerpt that covers major concepts along the lines mentioned above, I pretty much have to write my own. (No shame in that, of course... keeps me busy)
Side-note: Another factor affecting the utility of smart criticism is also jargon. Williams doesn't say it, but over-use of jargon is one dire consequence of the plague of smartness.
I don't advocate, as Williams seems to, yet another turn in academic fashion -- yet another return to pseudo-science, or strictly utilitarian criticism. I think there ought to be room for publishing books that do several different kinds of things. On the one hand, we need textbooks that collect and propagate information (not just anthologies; I believe we need textbooks on literature, and maybe also on cultural studies topics). There is an art in putting together the kinds of arguments, and the style of writing, that is designed to offer information to undergraduates.
That said, the field continues to need studies that do aim to represent what I still naively think of as "new knowledge." In literature, this might involve discovering literary texts that no one has read; proposing a new, contrarian reading in texts that everyone has read; various kinds of archival work; and, the surveying of new forms or genres, to name just a few. And though I think Williams makes a very good point, I do feel that smart criticism can potentially belong in the category of "new knowledge" -- if it is either exceptionally well-written or thoroughly original.
Q: Is "smart criticism" a problem in other disciplines?
Q2: Is the smartness trend tied to jargon, as I've suggested?
Q3: Is the smartness trend tied to "academic groupthink">
Q4: Do you buy Williams's argument? Are there other holes?
What Have You Invented For Me Lately?
Erich Kunhardt, a Physics professor writing in the Times, says academics should be required to invent things, in addition to doing research and teaching.
Start filing patents, people!
Or not.
Start filing patents, people!
Or not.
'Sugar in the milk': Bombay Parsis (Zoroastrians) on NPR
Photos by Sooni Taraporevala, and an interview on NPR with Jennifer Ludden.
She talks about the religious origins of Zoroastrianism, and tells some stories about the arrival of the Parsis (originally from Iran) in India. Also see Wikipedia on Zoroastrianism. Other famous Parsis include Freddy Mercury of the rock band Queen (who was actually of Indian origin), the conductor Zubin Mehta, and both Homi Bhabhas (the literary theorist and the nuclear scientist, no relation as far as I know).
She talks about the religious origins of Zoroastrianism, and tells some stories about the arrival of the Parsis (originally from Iran) in India. Also see Wikipedia on Zoroastrianism. Other famous Parsis include Freddy Mercury of the rock band Queen (who was actually of Indian origin), the conductor Zubin Mehta, and both Homi Bhabhas (the literary theorist and the nuclear scientist, no relation as far as I know).
God in Elementary School: Steve Williams
Joanne Jacobs has been posting about a 5th grade history teacher at a public school in the Bay Area who has been told to stop using religiously-inflected supplementary materials in the classroom. The teacher is named Steve Williams.
The San Jose Mercury News has an article. One sentence that stood out to me was this one:
But there is no reference to God in the U.S. Constitution! (See for yourself) There are of course many references to God in the various state constitutions. So that part of the Mercury-News's sentence is ok at least.
In her posts on Williams, Jacobs is playing this as another case of extreme intolerance of religion. Among other things, Williams has apparently been told to stop using historical documents that seem to reference God, like George Washington's "Prayer Journal." The implicit argument of Williams's defenders is, it should ok because it's historical. But that's a fallacy, because any historical period or event can be 'spun' differently depending on which documents are used. You can spin the Founding Fathers as religious zealots or as raging freethinkers, deists, and atheists. (The second case is much more persuasive to me -- especially regarding Thomas Jefferson) Williams's choice of documents, while not legally actionable, reflects a particular bias on history that is not appropriate for fifth graders in a public school. At a university, I wouldn't complain about it.
Secondly, Jacobs (and the Williams legal team) are arguing that the ways in which Williams brings a little extra God into the classroom (no one denies this) are petty. But I don't know about that:
Clearly, when the students have felt it to be an issue, and complained to their parents, it's a little too much. When he's sending students home on a non-holiday, it's too much. (I don't object to his choice of religious apparel.) Williams has left very little hard evidence of his approach to teaching, but I suspect that were a video camera in that classroom it would be "God, Jesus, let me tell you about what the Bible says on that... come to my Bible study class..."
I appreciate that the school board has been taking the gentle approach (stop with the supplementary stuff; stick to the textbook). But can't they just fire this guy?
The San Jose Mercury News has an article. One sentence that stood out to me was this one:
Among Williams' controversial teaching handouts are excerpts with multiple references to God from the U.S. Constitution and from various state constitutions.
But there is no reference to God in the U.S. Constitution! (See for yourself) There are of course many references to God in the various state constitutions. So that part of the Mercury-News's sentence is ok at least.
In her posts on Williams, Jacobs is playing this as another case of extreme intolerance of religion. Among other things, Williams has apparently been told to stop using historical documents that seem to reference God, like George Washington's "Prayer Journal." The implicit argument of Williams's defenders is, it should ok because it's historical. But that's a fallacy, because any historical period or event can be 'spun' differently depending on which documents are used. You can spin the Founding Fathers as religious zealots or as raging freethinkers, deists, and atheists. (The second case is much more persuasive to me -- especially regarding Thomas Jefferson) Williams's choice of documents, while not legally actionable, reflects a particular bias on history that is not appropriate for fifth graders in a public school. At a university, I wouldn't complain about it.
Secondly, Jacobs (and the Williams legal team) are arguing that the ways in which Williams brings a little extra God into the classroom (no one denies this) are petty. But I don't know about that:
"Mr. Williams discusses his Christianity in the classroom,'' said Dorothy Pickler, who has two children at Stevens Creek. "He slants lessons in that direction. Parents have complained.''
Armineh Noravian, whose son had Williams last year, said that the teacher wore a Jesus ring, a cross near the collar of his shirt and talked to his students often about his Bible study classes.
Noravian said that when Williams sent his students home with a proclamation for national prayer day from President Bush, she and other parents complained to the principal.
Clearly, when the students have felt it to be an issue, and complained to their parents, it's a little too much. When he's sending students home on a non-holiday, it's too much. (I don't object to his choice of religious apparel.) Williams has left very little hard evidence of his approach to teaching, but I suspect that were a video camera in that classroom it would be "God, Jesus, let me tell you about what the Bible says on that... come to my Bible study class..."
I appreciate that the school board has been taking the gentle approach (stop with the supplementary stuff; stick to the textbook). But can't they just fire this guy?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)