I don't mean this as a cheeky response (this is a great piece well worth your time), but suppose we see all of this--QAnon, culture wars, &c.--*as* *actual* *policy*. I think that's the way to understand it. It's not policy that helps people or helps the country, but it's policy!
E.g., the Trump admin. used executive orders to execute a lot of policy stuff on the culture wars front. And I think we should understand obstructionism as a policy choice, following a policy agenda that passed libertarianism long ago and verges into nihilism.
I guess I should say: I don't mean this as merely a semantic distinction. I think it's actually instructive to see GOP actions as steps toward fulfilling earnest desires and ideological outcomes (like any other party). The methods are cynical but the desires sincere.
I.e. it's *too* charitable to look at the worst of it (conspiracy theory, COVID denialism, family separation policy, etc.) and think 'no one could actually believe in that; they just want power.' Too charitable!
So, to treat this version of the GOP according to the political exceptionalism it cultivates is playing their game. salon.com/2016/05/14/you…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
1) ‘Literature and x’ works best when the thing being called ‘literature’ actually is or is doing the x, e.g. literature and philosophy where poem or novel is actually doing philosophy and that’s one of the purposes of poem or novel. ...
2) Or literature and science in a time and place (say ~ 1600-1800 in Britain) when ‘literature’ expressly included scientific writing. ...
3) ‘Literature and x’ where the relationship btw the two is ‘x is mentioned in literature’ or ‘here’s a ‘literary’ perspective on x’ is one area where people like to slip from the mere facts of ‘literature and x’ to ‘x is so important, so how could ‘literature and x not be?!’ ...
1) A crucial insight here I'd like to expound upon. There's a fundamental mismatch between the purposes for which English departments were set up and the charges of knowledge work today. Neither avoidance nor activism can change that. ...
2) The institution of Literature is not the way it was when knowledge was re-organized and departments created to specialize in the study and close reading of Literature. That's not so say literature isn't important today, but that it's not an institution as it once was. ...
3) I know people think the problem is simply a lack of justice or appreciation for our work and we can awareness or activist our way out of the problem, but I think that's wrong. The institution of Literature is not coming back in the form that engendered our departments. ...
1) A speculative thought on class in the US, prompted by @jbouie's excellent newsletter, in which he quotes (to take issue with) this miserable assessment of the capitol insurrectionists by Caitlin Flanagan in The Atlantic ...
2) @jbouie concludes, correctly and contra Flanagan, with this. Which honestly made me think of class in 18th c. Britain, in the sense that ...
3) ... we're not quite talking about 'lower,' 'middle,' and 'upper' classes, but a more fine-grained 'class' system of socioeconomic ranks, as in the 18th c. To explain ...
Whereas I have tons of pedagogical chill (being patient, supportive, encouraging, looking for the good in student work) the material I teach has no chill. Sometimes I wonder what students think of that.
Sometimes I feel bad about the prospect of students coming to my course because of what they've heard about me and then I'm like 'Cowley was the last of the metaphysical poets according to Johnson...let's talk about Aristotelian referentiality and anti-Ciceronianism...'
'You've signed up for a literature course...Let's talk about the emergence of 'Literature' at the end of the 18th century and why we're not reading any of that...'
1) I've said for years now that 'STEM' vs. 'humanities' is a silly and destructive dichotomy, as is the blame game that goes along with it. I've also said non-biz 'STEM' fields will face pressure similar to 'hum' fields. Viz., cuts to the math dept. at Murdoch U:
2) By 'non-biz' I mean fields without a direct biz application & that don't pull in profit for the institution. 'STEM' marketing relies on the 'T' and the 'E,' & 'STEM' has been valuable branding as biz incentives have increasingly driven higher ed governance & policy choices. ..
3) The 'S' and the 'M' won't be able to ride this marketing wave forever. People will realize an English degree and a biology degree have near identical employment prospects and start asking ?s of biology they now do of English. ...
1) Quick thread about tenure (I'm up for tenure right now). I value the prospect of tenure. Highly. I don't think people like Dean White at UC Boulder understand that if you take that away then people like me work elsewhere, including in another industry altogether. ...
2) I quit a consulting job to get a PhD in English. In 2008. I wasn't naive abt what it meant for my financial & employment prospects to make that decision. If you're thinking, whoa, that was stupid, I don't agree, but that should tell you how much I value the prospect of tenure.
3) I wouldn't have quit my job to do a PhD if there were no prospect of tenure. Notwithstanding the impression you have by now from this thread of my appetite for risk, I'm an extremely risk averse person. The best I can explain this is with a poker analogy (sorry). ...