Knowing everything is easy and fun
I wish I could have been here. I’m excited that I can listen or watch now (although I’m not absolutely sure that I ever will, somehow), but that’s not quite the same.
The conference was organized by graduate students in the Department of Comparative Literature at UC Irvine. Participants were invited to address the term “state” and to consider the effect of the “global” on discourses of knowledge and power, literary analysis, and theories of subjectivity. The conference sought to reconceptualize the global by delineating states of sentiment, desire, and affect, and examining their deployment on – or relation to – the global scene of political and economic states. In their dialogue, Butler and Spivak discuss alternative subjectivities and state forms in a “global state.” In arguing for the possibilities afforded by forms of belonging that are unauthorized yet exist within the state, Judith Butler suggests that the “right” to rights arises in the form of social discourse – calling for freedom is already an exercise of freedom. Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak disarticulates the identity of state and nation and develops the concept of critical regionalisms as a new analytics of power that rethinks territoriality and sovereignty.
Harmless enough; I know, I know. It’s just that – who cares what departments of comparative literature think about these huge subjects that they take on so lightly? Who cares what Judy Butler and Gayatri Spivak have to say about economics, politics, rights, globalization, state, nation, power, territory, sovereignty and so on? Who cares what comp lit teachers have to say about such things? And if comp lit teachers are busying themselves with omniscience on subjects that normally take whole teams of economists and political theorists to think about, then who is teaching actual comp lit? When did comp lit in fact become economics plus sociology plus political theory plus psychology plus philosophy plus law? Who are these people and how did they get to know everything? Who are the people who sit at their feet in the conviction that they know everything? What does it all mean?
I think I know, but I’ll keep it to myself.
“Who are these people and how did they get to know everything?”
That is just begging to be the title of a book about unclothed postmodern emperors…
What intrigues me is their strange/weird/seductive use of language — new words like “disarticulates” — and odd sentence structure.
Reminds me of Rem Koolhaas and Werner Erhard.
Not good reminderances.
I’m really curious about how they attract students to do their courses. I did a literature course but that’s because I loved literature and wanted to study it and talk about it. Who do they attract now? Anyone who loves literature would be repelled by their ugly jargon. Are the numbers of students studying literature dropping? Or are they getting jargon lovers?
Actually disarticulate is okay, believe it or not – it’s a term of art but it is a useful one, and not invented by Theory types. But they have plenty of other new words that are…well…not so charming.
Yes and yes. Numbers are dropping and they are getting jargon lovers.
“Who cares what comp lit teachers have to say about such things?”
This doesn’t seem right. Now you have to have specific qualifications to comment on/explore something that interests you?
If we’re going to embrace credentialism, who cares what you, OB, have to say about philosophy or secularism or anything else that is commonly covered here? Do you have a PhD in any of these subjects? I guess if you don’t, everybody should pack up and find another website.
R.A. we care what O.B. has to say if you dont mind!!
Actually, some of the terminology used would be quite powerful and quite appropriate if placed in a context where it is made clear what it means. “Performativity” for example is a concept of great interest in linguistics, other humanities fields, etc. Same with “transgressive” which is also a bit of a code word. I can think of literature which could be called “transgressive”. Sade and Solanas seem pretty “transgressive” to me. I think there’d be some interest in studying such stuff.
But instead, so much of it seems simply piling verbiage upon verbiage. Which is a pity, because some of the starting points seem fairly interesting enough. But, for instance, a philosopher like Hegel (who seems popular in PoMo quarters) is already hovering on the edge of understandability. What is built upon that often tends to fly – to me at least – into the wild blue yonder.
RA – OB’s attitude seems supporters in this case, though, by the fact that actual practitioners in the fields PoMo theory-of-everything tends to gobble up tend to have a dim view of said tendency (see the unfortunately recently deceased linguist Larry Trask’s Amazon review of Kristeva’s “Language, the Unknown” for a tasty example.
And that’s not even speaking of the actual political havoc PoMo armchair radicalism tends to wreak. For instance Spivak’s “strategic essentialism” which gives a pseudo-leftist flavour to all kinds of ideas way past their shelf date (such as ultra-nationalist origins theories, etc.).
I would also add that O.B.does not draw a tax payer funded salery and is not preaching to a captive audience like these teachers.
“OB’s attitude seems supporters”
Supported.
Grrr.
OB:”When did comp lit in fact become economics plus sociology plus political theory plus psychology plus philosophy plus law?”
Perhaps the Comp. Lit. student spends so much time trying to understand the different cultural contexts in which different literatures arise that in the end cultural context takes up all their time. Comp. Lit. inevitably becomes merely a doorway into comparative history and social science.
I just think the whole post doesn’t work.
The paragraph cited obviously places these “huge subjects” in a literary context. “Participants were invited to address the term ‘state’ and to consider the effect of the ‘global’ on discourse of knowledge and power, LITERARY ANALYSIS, and theories of subjectivity.” Comparative literature often concerns itself with “relationships.” It doesn’t seem outside the scope of their scholarship, to me, to have a conference on the relationship of “state” or “global” concepts to literary analysis, etc.
And anyway, why go on a tangent attacking their credentials? Why not just SAY what’s wrong with their inquiry? If you can’t, I don’t see the point in posting. It’s easy to just dismiss it all as jargon — easy and boring. Also, if you think THIS is flaky, you should really check out more comp. lit dissertation titles. This is nothing.
Richard — This was a conference for invited (I assume willing) participants. I don’t think anyone was handcuffed to auditorium seats and forced to listen, so the whole ‘captive audience’ thing doesn’t work. Also, who the hell has any idea how much of their salaries is state-funded? How and what do you know about that?
Also, I should note, the size or willingness of O.B.’s audience and her income have no bearing at all on the quality of her arguments. They ought to stand alone.
Back to the actual article…
Quote: “The conference sought to reconceptualize the global by delineating states of sentiment, desire, and affect, and examining their deployment on – or relation to – the global scene of political and economic states.”
The phrase “literary analysis” does not appear in this sentence or those which follow.
The aims, overall, DO appear grandiose for a group whose primary expertise is textual analysis.
Compare with the aims of most other conferences which, I am sure you would find, are more consistent with the actual expertise of the attendees.
I stand corrected about “disarticulate.” I still think irt’s obnoxious and pretentious and doesn’t add to the ddiscussion.
The definition I find says that “To disarticulate” is to “…break up and disrupt the logic of (an argument or opinion).”
The quote states ” Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak disarticulates the identity of state and nation…”
Since NO ONE thinks that “state” and “nation” are indentical, to “disarticulate” them seems a bit pointless as they are already understood to be separate though related concepts. No?
Anyway, that sort of linguistic BS is found in many fields, even, believe it or not, in _architecture_ which one would think is the most rooted of all crafts.
With all this sh*t about, there’s GOT to be a pony around somewhere
That pony’s on steroids I’d say GT.
Mmmm, ponyyyy…
It does not make me feel better to know that Butler and Spivak probably earn well over $100,000/year in their academic positions, in addition to whatever honoraria they receive from conferences. Bullshit pays.
“Bullshit pays.”
Well, that’s part of the irritation of course. Bullshit does pay, and in academic terms as well as monetary ones, and it’s hard not to think that’s just not right. It debases the currency. So to speak.
“Who are these people and how did they get to know everything? “
Hey we were all students once. Or a couple of times.
“part of the irritation”
Well, because we’re not religious, we can’t gloat that Butler, Spivak et al will all end up in hell. Our consolations are pretty limited. Being certain that all who think this nonsense is profound are idiots doesn’t help a lot. I like to think that one day, when there is no longer a faddish reason for anyone to worship Judith Butler, it will be easier to look at her work dispassionately and then the disproportionate amount of verbiage to any content will ensure that it is consigned to the deserved dustbin of academic history.
Oh, sure. The worship of Judith Butler is not going to be a permanent problem. It’s irritating more as a symptom than as itself – it irritates as a sign of a particular brand of credulity that just shouldn’t exist. The worship of JB won’t be forever, but the tendency of literary academics especially in the US to babble about stars and superstars and fame and to be impressed by empty verbiage and to make heroes of verbiage-pushers – well who knows how long that will go on.
Oh, no, of course I didn’t mean her exclusively. I was taking a much longer view, one of centuries, when a lot of the names of previous centuries we know today are still known, but one will be able to ask (just for example) “Judith who?” and then possibly leaf through a mouldering volume and laugh at the stupid things she (and others) wrote to maintain their positions in the ivory tower.
Oh, centuries – but I want her work to be consigned to the dustbin now, now, now!
Well, I said “Our consolations are pretty limited.” We just have to keep on letting the light in. Have you considered prayer?
I’ve tried it, but I keep having this inner experience of meeting Judy Butler, and it’s too unnerving.