Archive for 2007
Top Ten Lists of 2007
I’m not sure how many people read these sort of posts, aside from the bloggers themselves, but I’m curious what were the most frequently visited, commented, etc. posts of 2007. So, below the fold is a summary for others who are curious. Read the rest of this entry »
Going to Heaven: The Life and Election of Gene Robinson
This is a promised review, a year in coming. Soft Skull Press sent me a copy of this book about this time in 2006 and I thought I’d get around to reading it when the semester was over. Wrong.
Honestly, after my disappointment with the other text they sent me, I was a little hesitant about what seemed like a less interesting topic–Episcopal church polity. But I was pleasantly surprised by both the writing style (Elizabeth Adams) and the approach to the topic.
First, what this book is not: a biography of Bishop Robinson’s entire life. Read the rest of this entry »
The violent take it by force
From the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven has suffered violence, and the violent take it by force. Matthew 11:12.I asked Andrew Simone to be a guest blogger here, quite aware that he would write in a vastly different style than is usual for this blog. As much as I enjoy Michel Foucault (in fact, I just bought his Archaeology of Knowledge with my Borders Bucks yesterday), I’m not a continental philosopher. Okay, I’m not a philosopher, I’m a philosophy student. But the tradition which I imbide regularly is analytic. I’ve always wondered how far apart the two “traditions” really are. After Foucault, I am curious about the discourse in which we label philosophies as “continental” or “analytic” and what kinds of assumptions those entail about what knowledge is. Read the rest of this entry »
Frank Schaeffer: Interview
A few weeks ago I discussed Frank Schaeffer’s new book, Crazy For God, anticipating I’d read it during my summer break. Well, I wound up tearing through it in a couple of days just recently, then emailing Schaeffer for a few follow-up questions: Read the rest of this entry »
Book Release 12.26.07
Another semester has gone by, and I have to make room for more books. Rather than lug them down to my local used bookstore or sell them on Amazon.com, I’m making them available first to my readers–for free (I just ask that you cover the cost of shipping via US Mail). Leave a comment if you’re interested and I’ll email you to get your shipping info. First come, first serve. Whatever books aren’t gone in seven days will go to the local bookstore or be donated. (Please know that many of the books have some underlining and margin notes, but none are so marked up a to be illegible.)
Books for release: Read the rest of this entry »
Back in the saddle
Thanks to Andrew for contributing to the blog in my absence. I’ll have a few things to say about his posts later, but right now I’m uploading Flickr photos of my vacation to Arizona, watching Madagascar on ABC and enjoying Christmas lights. Read the rest of this entry »
The Parable Explained
The reason I wrote the parable in the first place was to manifest how choice may mean violence, specifically choice for philosophical or religious perspectives. If you, say, decided to choose Buddhism over Christianity (or vise versa), then the fact that you find both choices is cheapening, it commodifies them–at least in the West.
However, what my buddy, Jack, finds troublesome about the parable–and why I posted it here in the first place–is actually quite right, “I see so many people finding something (or looking desperately) that they can transform into a violence narrative, portraying themselves as this hapless victim who rails at the injustice of the world, shut out of society by being too honest or hurt or intelligent or whatever.”
The implication of the critique of my critique is that narrative of violence does violence to violence. It is a Hericletian inversion: violence, by it ubiquity in narrative, has become the norm, the state of rest, or peace. This peace, unlike the promised peace of the Enlightenment, is profoundly antimetaphysical since the firm footing of ordered hierarchies (peace, security) is replaced with master and slave (violence, victimhood). In my (very) humble opinion, until philosophy can comfortably situate itself in the difficulties of the pluralisms which these narratives of violence draw strength from, it will not progress and has no business talking safely about metaphysics.
In the next post I will flesh out the “Hericletian inversion,” its faux-peace, and its relationship to language.
A Parable
I’ll let ck’s introduction stand as is, even if a person would have to have tasted a few bottles of Lafite before she could ever begin to be called a connoisseur. I will, however, present an autobiographical parable which will give you a sense of my cognitive posture, critique of contemporary thought, and my love for narrative.
Oh, and here is a side question to reflect on: May I justly consider a story from my life as typological (and is it a matter of “justice”)?
Introducing a guest blogger
While I’m away at my undisclosed vacation spot next week, blogger and wine connoisseur Andrew Simone will be posting here. I first made Andrew’s acquaintance via a mutual friend’s blog–we both attended the same seminary, but at different times. He blogs at These Things Thought and Clusterflock, generally on topics related to language, knowledge, continental philosophy, and theology.
I’m handing over the reins to Arbitrary Marks knowing that this is a fellow who thinks that “98% of all philosophical and theological discourse falls under the bullshit category” and reads Ezra Pound. So expect something different in the next few days!
Academics and social graces
This post at Philosophy et cetera got me thinking about my own experience in academic social circles. For full context, you want to go to Feminist Philosophers and read the comment thread, then see what Richard has to say about it. But the gist of the problem is this:
A female philosopher complained that she was at a social function with a visiting colleague (which included spouses) and witnessed rudeness, conversation domination, etc. and was torn: does she jump into the philosophical conversation and show she’s got “the stuff”, or does she try to talk with the other females at the table, who are non-philosophers?
Richard picked up on the question of social norms and replied:
“Now, from my perspective, the whole point of a bunch of philosophers going out to dinner with a visiting speaker is to discuss philosophy. That’s what they’re there for…More generally, it’s nice to accommodate people and make them feel comfortable. But given that the lack of fit between ‘nerds’ and ‘normals’ is symmetrical, it’s not clear why the norms of the latter group should always take precedence. I mean, there’s no surer way to make me uncomfortable than to put me in a situation where one is expected to engage in small talk.”
So, he seems to be saying, the problem is not due to gender and social expectations, but one of unjustly expecting others to follow our social norms (the ‘normals’ to expect the ‘nerds’ to be polite).
My response was to tell a story about being the “odd man out” at doctor functions and appeal to collaboration in conversation, not domination. At Feminist Philosophers, this difference in style might be perceived as due to gender (whether innate or socialized).
The larger point, though, I think, is that social norms in conversation are not entirely arbitrary, but are intended to ease communication and comfort. “Small talk” that makes some people (myself included) uncomfortable is meant to help the majority of people talk about easy things. Eventually we work ourselves up to more self-disclosure and difficult topics. But for the ‘nerds’ as Richard calls them, small talk is terrifying. We’d rather jump into what is safe for us–ideas, books we’ve read, lectures we’ve attended and so on. Again, however, the reason we go there, rather than small talk, is that we feel more able to connect and be comfortable when discussing these topics.
Where things get hairy is when you’re at a function that involves both ‘nerds’ and ‘normals.’ Richard says that since the nerds are setting up the function, their social norms should govern. The Feminist Philosophers are concerned that these social norms are primarily male-dominated, and that female nerds are torn between two desires: be comfortable in avoiding small talk and joining into professional conversation, and be comfortable in socializing with the normals who are feeling like outcasts.
My comment at his site appeals to the shared focus of both norms: conversational comfort. Since these norms are governing communication, which is (as another commenter points out) collaborative, there is nothing to prevent the two groups from working together to (implicitly) develop new norms for the situation. For example: if the situation is centered around a visiting philosopher, then it makes sense for technical talk to be permitted and not socially castigated. But since spouses, who are outliers in this language game, are invited, some concern needs to be given for their comfort. The final problem is that often the female philosopher is the one who “leaves” the technical group to ensure that the (female) spouses are included. But this assumes that the primary characteristic is the gender of the conversation’s participants.
What do you think? The situation is one that probably everyone, academic or not, has had: you’re with your spouse at a work function and the topics at hand continue to be spreadsheets or finances or business strategies. Who is responsible for including people, if such a responsibility exists? What expectations should spouses have coming into the event? Does having a couple with opposite gender makeup than the norm complicate things?
I’ve thought about this a lot, since I’m a woman partnered to a woman and we are both in male-dominated fields. At social events, I’ve often wound up talking with the wives–but as someone who identifies more “butch”, that’s an odd feeling, not identifying with the group entirely. Yet if I talk with the men, I am out of my field professionally. My solution is to aim to overcome my expectations about how I should be treated and instead focus upon the conversational needs of the people I am with. Generally I will ask questions, find what they are interested in, and go from there.