It's been a while and this is the semester I'm supposed to get myself organized and get my papers together and get stuff published/sort out another book/etc etc. Hence, it's obviously the best time to start this up again! For now, this will just be observations/random snippets that don't fit on Twitter/things I feel I wanted to get off my chest. The usual, in other words.
It's been a pretty snowy few days. We were promised blizzards and such and I think we got about a foot? a bit less? of snow here in SW Virginia. I discovered that some random pieces of plastic in my garage and realised they were sleds. Dog and I went sledding today.
On the academic side, I'm struggling with a paper that received a relatively favorable (I thought) R&R a few months ago and then, when I did the R&R, it was rejected. I admit I was not the best pleased by this--I thought it was one of my better pieces and discussed stuff that normally doesn't get talked of/about in IR/Political Science/whateveritismyfieldis (IR I think) (maybe). It also took a lot of time and the whole year was basically wasted on this paper while a straight up rejection would have meant I'd have tried (and hopefully published) it elsewhere by now. But, hey, that is academia especially when you do weird stuff on a mainstream-y topic.
I have also been in quite a few meetings and discussions lately and was thinking about a few things with regard to racial/economic/etc ideas of "diversity". Apparently, my university is all on its way to becoming inclusive (their word) and promoting diversity. So far, this has led to some interesting practices that I've noted, one of which is my "Academic Rant of The Week". Here goes (with the caveat this is my observation and not a generalization. In case that caveat is needed. I mean, this is a blog after all so obviously everything is my observation):
Apparently these days, it's totally ok to say things like: "hey, I"m a white guy, I"m not supposed to understand X (critical/non-white theorists/etc)" but if you say "hey, I'm a brown girl. I don't give a flying fuck about that one line in Plato and Aristotle" or even "Look, yes, Plato, Aristotle, blah blah but surely Z and Q are saying interesting things too?", you don't know how to "do political theory".
I'm so so close to going on a mini rant about this in a context that's best not ranted in so...here we go. In many ways, this is about "the canon", right? The canon of political theorists who are all aligned in some dark, dingy, library shelf somewhere and where "we" are all supposed to get our ideas from. But, I went to university in a setting where they didn't give much of a damn about these fellas. One of my theory professors was one of the very few (still one of the very few) folks who asked us to question the mainstream historical narrative of the establishment of the Australian nation-state. I did read Plato, etc and especially a lot of 20th century theorists but we read them in two ways: 1. to see what they themselves might have "hidden" or what we could perhaps discover underlying their accepted thoughts and in relation to the time/context they lived in, and 2. we read these theorists alongside local/Indigenous fictions/films to note how what they said could be questioned. Thus, you question the foundations of "political theory" while also knowing that these fellas (and, of course, it's usually fellas) make up what counts as those "foundations". I don't understand how this is any better or worse than reading a bunch of Plato/Aristotle/Whoever. It's just different. And, I'd argue, if you want real diversity, then you need to acknowledge that not everyone might have had the same/similar educational backgrounds and ways of learning. Indeed, diversity isn't just about adding a woman or adding a person of colour.* Diversity of thought about what is "political theory" might also be helpful for the institution and for students.
Well. I do feel better now that rant is over. Next time, I dunno. Agent Carter? How Dog sleds?
* I have a different rant about this but will save it for another time.
It's been a pretty snowy few days. We were promised blizzards and such and I think we got about a foot? a bit less? of snow here in SW Virginia. I discovered that some random pieces of plastic in my garage and realised they were sleds. Dog and I went sledding today.
On the academic side, I'm struggling with a paper that received a relatively favorable (I thought) R&R a few months ago and then, when I did the R&R, it was rejected. I admit I was not the best pleased by this--I thought it was one of my better pieces and discussed stuff that normally doesn't get talked of/about in IR/Political Science/whateveritismyfieldis (IR I think) (maybe). It also took a lot of time and the whole year was basically wasted on this paper while a straight up rejection would have meant I'd have tried (and hopefully published) it elsewhere by now. But, hey, that is academia especially when you do weird stuff on a mainstream-y topic.
I have also been in quite a few meetings and discussions lately and was thinking about a few things with regard to racial/economic/etc ideas of "diversity". Apparently, my university is all on its way to becoming inclusive (their word) and promoting diversity. So far, this has led to some interesting practices that I've noted, one of which is my "Academic Rant of The Week". Here goes (with the caveat this is my observation and not a generalization. In case that caveat is needed. I mean, this is a blog after all so obviously everything is my observation):
Apparently these days, it's totally ok to say things like: "hey, I"m a white guy, I"m not supposed to understand X (critical/non-white theorists/etc)" but if you say "hey, I'm a brown girl. I don't give a flying fuck about that one line in Plato and Aristotle" or even "Look, yes, Plato, Aristotle, blah blah but surely Z and Q are saying interesting things too?", you don't know how to "do political theory".
I'm so so close to going on a mini rant about this in a context that's best not ranted in so...here we go. In many ways, this is about "the canon", right? The canon of political theorists who are all aligned in some dark, dingy, library shelf somewhere and where "we" are all supposed to get our ideas from. But, I went to university in a setting where they didn't give much of a damn about these fellas. One of my theory professors was one of the very few (still one of the very few) folks who asked us to question the mainstream historical narrative of the establishment of the Australian nation-state. I did read Plato, etc and especially a lot of 20th century theorists but we read them in two ways: 1. to see what they themselves might have "hidden" or what we could perhaps discover underlying their accepted thoughts and in relation to the time/context they lived in, and 2. we read these theorists alongside local/Indigenous fictions/films to note how what they said could be questioned. Thus, you question the foundations of "political theory" while also knowing that these fellas (and, of course, it's usually fellas) make up what counts as those "foundations". I don't understand how this is any better or worse than reading a bunch of Plato/Aristotle/Whoever. It's just different. And, I'd argue, if you want real diversity, then you need to acknowledge that not everyone might have had the same/similar educational backgrounds and ways of learning. Indeed, diversity isn't just about adding a woman or adding a person of colour.* Diversity of thought about what is "political theory" might also be helpful for the institution and for students.
Well. I do feel better now that rant is over. Next time, I dunno. Agent Carter? How Dog sleds?
* I have a different rant about this but will save it for another time.
No comments:
Post a Comment