empathies

~alabama is the real sunshine state~

Mon, 20 May 2013 19:41:42 -0500

~*alabama is the real sunshine state*~

"I think marriage in general is not a healthy institution in our society. If people want civil..."

Mon, 20 May 2013 17:49:06 -0500

“I think marriage in general is not a healthy institution in our society. If people want civil rights, then that’s what I feel we should be fighting for. Couples, people who are each other’s kin or primary intimacies, a friend who takes care of a friend for 30 years in the same household—all should have basic civil rights. To bring that whole movement for social justice under the rubric of ‘gay marriage’ seems to me just to reinforce patriarchal notions of who is worthy of care and support. It also lets down the gay people who don’t want to be married.
The movement for gay marriage has had a strong push among very class-privileged people, because they are the people with trusts and with property and with health care. If you’re gay, black, poor and you don’t have any access to insurance, the question of whether your partner can be included on your insurance is not just relevant to the health needs of your life. What would be more relevant is national health care!”

- bell hooks (via tabularasae)

Photo

Mon, 20 May 2013 17:18:14 -0500

On Standardized Testing

Mon, 20 May 2013 17:16:44 -0500

fucktheoryquestions:

Earlier today I twitted about standardized testing and how ETS is a vile, monopolistic parasite complicit in some of the most egregious offenses of the contemporary higher education industry. As a result, @SeaSurface asked “Do you think GRE scores are any indication as to how well a student might do in grad school?”

The quick answer is a resounding “No.”

I’ll qualify that immediately that I’m in the humanities. I have no idea how well, or whether, the GRE assesses potential performance in the so-called “STEM” disciplines. You’ll have to ask someone else. But in the humanities - no, the GRE doesn’t meaningfully indicate how well a student might do in grad school.

Not only does it not indicate this, I don’t think it should indicate this and I also don’t think that anybody claims it indicates this. In fact, many senior faculty and administrators I’ve spoken to over the years happily admit that the GRE is the least important part of potential grad students’ application packages. So why does the GRE even exist? Well, there are three answers to this - the cynical, the practical, and the ideal.

The cynical answer is - flows of capital exist to reproduce themselves, as do most other power relations. Which is a fancy way of saying that once it comes into existence, a financial bonanza like standardized testing will hold on to its own existence tooth and nail, not because it serves a function, but simply because it’s profitable. Capitalism isn’t particularly sensitive to practical or realistic goals in that sense.

The practical answer is - the GRE doesn’t predict much of anything, but it does serve some function. Except that function is much simpler than you might think, and really has little to do with the test at all: the GRE is simply the first of many selection hoops they make you jump through to cut down the applicant pool. Again, nothing to do with the test at all; purely a question of numbers. The key decision makers in these kinds of these are often the “elite” universities and colleges; elite universities and colleges today have far more applicants than they have available places; they need to narrow that pool down somehow. The GRE, generally speaking, is just one of several ways to make a “first cut”; you decide a cutoff point, and you toss out any application with a GRE score below that level. Boom. Applicant pool narrowed. Not because it serves the students or predicts anything in any meaningful sense, but just because it’s a quick and convenient sorting tool which - best of all - the students and not the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences has to pay for. And as with the cynical answer, inertia has a lot to do with it; they need a system, there’s already a system in place, why change anything? Obviously, “students needs” is rarely a sufficient answer to that question, from an administrative perspective.

Finally, there’s the ideal answer - what could the GRE measure? That is, assuming we want to use standardized testing to measure something, what’s the kind of thing a standardized test like the GRE could predict if you were determined to use one? This is, obviously, a highly speculative question of the kind I tend to stay away from. But. To the extent that standardized tests could be useful, I see their primary utility not in predicting a student’s future potential but simply in describing their past. I don’t think it’s useful, legitimate, or sensible to try and predict what someone might be capable of - as Deleuze reminds us again and again, we do not yet know what the body can do; still less do we know what the mind might be capable of. But I do think there’s a systematic utility to saying, “OK, what do we want an applicant for our program to know? What do we want an applicant for our program to be able to do?” In that sense, standardized tests can, conceivably, be a useful tool for evaluating whether a student already possesses certain skills or knowledges. But only to the extent that the student could then fail, retake the exam, and come back with more knowledge. As soon as an exam begins to measure what you can do and not what you have done, we’ve moved away from practicality and into the idealized domain of essences and identities. Not a good place for standardized tests to live.

"It’s a terrible thing, I think, in life to wait until you’re ready. I have this feeling now that..."

Mon, 20 May 2013 16:59:31 -0500

“It’s a terrible thing, I think, in life to wait until you’re ready. I have this feeling now that actually no one is ever ready to do anything. There is almost no such thing as ready. There is only now. And you may as well do it now. Generally speaking, now is as good a time as any.”

- Hugh Laurie

I’ve been singing this to myself all day…

Mon, 20 May 2013 16:22:20 -0500

I’ve been singing this to myself all day…

the-split-lark: A little slice of hamp

Mon, 20 May 2013 15:55:48 -0500

the-split-lark:

A little slice of hamp

fucktheory: Roots (click) I’ve read a good amount over the...

Mon, 20 May 2013 15:51:27 -0500

fucktheory:

Roots

(click)

I’ve read a good amount over the years.

Once you’ve read a certain amount of material in the same vein or genre, it becomes harder and harder for that type of writing to surprise you, to shock you, to grab you by the neck and reorganize every idea in your head. There’s nothing wrong with that - it’s just how the mind works. This is equally true whether the material you’re reading is an endless series of romance or detective novels, or an endless series of academic essays in queer theory. You learn to appreciate craftsmanship; you might enjoy a particularly well-turned phrase; certain ideas stick with you. But that shock, that jolt that can happen when you first discover something - that tends to fade.

Given this inevitable consequences of habit on the workings of the mind, Eve Sedgwick’s work holds a special place in my heart for two reasons. The first and, frankly, more banal reason is that I read Between Men and The Epistemology of the Closet in quick succession right before I went off to university, and each of those books separately and together changed my thinking permanently.

Between Men introduced me to the idea - surprising to me at the time - that homophobia and violence against homosexuals is closely linked with and related to misogyny and violence against women. This was the first time I’d encountered the idea that the political investments of feminists and gay men might align in important ways; it was also the first time I’d encountered the idea of Foucauldian power - the notion that different oppressions and different identities might be organized in different ways by the same kind of structures or the same kind of socio-political pressure. Between Men, in other words, teaches its reader the danger in distinguishing unilaterally between closely-related phenomena.

The Epistemology of the Closet, meanwhile, worked in some ways to undo the lessons of Between Men; by generating a set of conceptual and critical tools for what she called anti-homophobic inquiry, Sedgwick not only played a key role in teaching me the value of strategic alliance but also the important of careful and rigorous distinction, the ways in which the presumption of identity and alliance can hide crucial linkages between forms of power, discourse, and oppression. The Epistemology of the Closet, in other words, teaches its reader the danger in unifying without reflection closely-related but fundamentally distinct phenomena.

That these two books complement rather than contradict each other is a testament to the brilliant refinement of Sedgwick’s mind, her concepts, and her intellectual project. Each of Sedgwick’s books takes risks, goes in unexpected directions, creates infinite possibilities at every turn. She was never afraid to change, to dare, to revise, and to me, that bravery - that self-reflexivity - is the most important mark of a true and committed critical thinker. There are many smart and insightful critics; there are far fewer brave critics, and in this regard, Sedgwick stood head and shoulders above the vast majority of her contemporaries.

But for me, the most incredible aspect of Sedgwick’s work as I sit and write about it today isn’t how brave it was in its day - that part is impressive, but boldness isn’t necessarily a testament for the ages. What’s incredible about these books, today, is that they haven’t lost a single iota of their ability to jolt, to excite, to inspire, and to challenge me. Gender Trouble, Of Grammatology, Ecrits…so many of the books that used to shock and awe me as an undergraduate have largely lost their effect. Many of them I’ve had to reject entirely. But Sedgwick never gets old, or dull, or predictable. Even the essays I’ve read 5-6 times still have the power to surprise and illuminate.

A key part of Sedgwick’s enduring appeal, to me, is how prescient she was; like most truly great thinkers, Sedgwick was light years ahead of the curve. Where so much ’90s queer theory is rapidly become quaint and even naive, the full implications of Sedgwick’s ideas are just beginning to unfold. So yes, yes to this article. We need Sedgwick’s insights and wisdom. We need them now more than ever. If you’re interested in the topics I write about, in the way I approach them, or in the kind of concepts I generate, you need to go read Eve Kosofsky Sedgwick’s work.

Metro station for “Vokrug Sveta” mag, Max Degtyarev.

Mon, 20 May 2013 14:20:07 -0500

Metro station for “Vokrug Sveta” mag, Max Degtyarev.

Ivan the Great Bell Tower, Max Degtyarev. “This is an...

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:40:06 -0500

Ivan the Great Bell Tower, Max Degtyarev.

“This is an illustration of The Ivan the Great Bell Tower in the Moscow Kremlin complex.

It was built in 1508 for the Russian Orthodox cathedrals in Cathedral Square, namely the Assumption, Archangel and Annunciation cathedrals, which do not have their own belfries. It is said to mark Moscow’s precise geographic center.”

Elevations, Anique Azhar.

Mon, 20 May 2013 13:00:12 -0500

Elevations, Anique Azhar.

Subterranean Temple, Richard Benning.

Mon, 20 May 2013 12:20:07 -0500

Subterranean Temple, Richard Benning.

Alas Al Mar (Wings to the Sea), Javier Marin.

Mon, 20 May 2013 11:40:02 -0500

Alas Al Mar (Wings to the Sea), Javier Marin.

The too-smart city

Mon, 20 May 2013 06:27:35 -0500

The too-smart city:

humanscalecities:

The smart city has become a buzzword in urban planning and university engineering departments, and a topic of breathless coverage in science and business magazines. But as political leaders, engineers, and environmentalists join the smart-city bandwagon, a growing chorus of thinkers from social sciences, architecture, urban planning, and design are starting to sound a note of caution. Though they share enthusiasm for what a smart city could do, they also point out that smart-city programs couldâwith little public oversightâput us on track to an oversanitized, high-surveillance, serendipity-free urban future that not everyone thinks is ideal.

Good article with great insights on some of the problems I have with the mainstream idea of smart cities and the role of technologies in urban living.

This quote sums up my feelings (good article): “The biggest human issues cities face—like persistent poverty, social injustice, or public education—aren’t technological problems with single “best” answers that can be optimized by a system, Kitchin argues. They’re fundamentally political questions about where our priorities lie. The more energy cities invest in running according to “smart” principles, he and others suggest, the easier it becomes to neglect the aspects of our problems that have no technological solution. Critics like Columbia’s Laura Kergan have also pointed out that we will always measure what is cheap, convenient, technologically possible, and politically expedient to measure. Even the best-engineered control room will see only a slice of urban reality.”

I’m moving in with vegans so, I have to enjoy these fried chicken midnight sandwichs while I...

Mon, 20 May 2013 01:12:41 -0500

I’m moving in with vegans so, I have to enjoy these fried chicken midnight sandwichs while I can…

I spent the evening with Jennifer and Terry and I can’t...

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:58:36 -0500

I spent the evening with Jennifer and Terry and I can’t explain how enormous of inspirations they both are to my work and what I want to do and that they are perhaps the most important couple in my life by which I measure the worth of what I do, and just generally they mean a lot to me and goodness I am going to miss them. But it’s okay… that’s just how these things go.

I’m really drunk and I’m eating the most delicious fried chicken/cheese/honey bbq sauce...

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:47:19 -0500

I’m really drunk and I’m eating the most delicious fried chicken/cheese/honey bbq sauce sandwich from whataburger oh my goodnesss

Photo

Mon, 20 May 2013 00:42:42 -0500

Photo

Sun, 19 May 2013 18:07:36 -0500

"Maps turn each of us into what Michel de Certeau calls a ‘voyeur-god’ … The map is a mechanism that..."

Sun, 19 May 2013 17:29:28 -0500

“Maps turn each of us into what Michel de Certeau calls a ‘voyeur-god’ … The map is a mechanism that shows what no eye could ever see, even when the maps represents the most familiar territory— the space marked out by daily experience … Maps suggest ways of thinking as well as seeing. They materialize a view of the mind more than of external reality. They project an order of reason onto the world and force it to conform to a graphic rationale, a cultural grid, a conceptual geometry.”

- Christian Jacob, The Sovereign Map

(the piece where got the de Certeau bit from was his 1984 book, The Practice of Everyday Life)