Week seven, I think.
Rule #1 in grad school: there isn't enough time. Get used to it. Rule #2: When you use your Netflix account to get a break from grad school, be sure to intersperse some uplifting films in the queue every once in a while. This weekend we watched "The Road" here at home, and it just wasn't the RIGHT movie for this time during the semester. Sure, they did a pretty good job of adapting the film to the book. But the film itself was a bit bleak for a couple of grad students who don't get a lot of time to go outside and have fun away from computers and books. Noted.
Right now I am buried in seminars, writing up a research proposal, and doing TA stuff. It's the usual life of a mid-semester grad student. Suddenly all take-out and restaurant food sounds really good, all the time. This is the time of the semester when I feel like I need to go make coffee--or do something--in order to really start getting stuff done.
One big project that I am working on is writing up my dissertation proposal. Suddenly I am chasing down any article I can about the whole proposal process--articles about style, about methods, and about accepting the fact that a multitude of people will be going for the same grants. This site, by the way, has some pretty helpful stuff for any of you folks who happen to be working on dissertation or other proposals. I also have a renewed interest in all of my methods books. Now, I want to have H. Russell Bernard with me at all times.
In one seminar, which is basically about Power according to Michel Foucault, we just went through another interlude with the work of Lacan. Psychoanalysis: interesting, yes. But then what? I'm not really sure what to do with all of those ideas about "the real" and "the void" in a methodological sense. Ya, I get the basic idea that we exist in a symbolized world, and that our cultural and linguistic symbolizations can't really envelope all of reality. There are gaps in what we can explain, depict, and even recognize--and sometimes our little symbolic webs pretty much limit how and why we think certain ways.
Great. But how or why should I or anyone else assume that Lacan has THE right version of reality? Does it even matter? I mean, it seems like it all requires a leap of faith. Either you accept the starting assumptions that Lacan (and others) put forth, or you're a die-hard materialist reductionist who is blinded by the symbolic order/fish tank that you don't even know you're in. Who knows? I always wonder how Lacan is able to realize all of this--what makes him one of the people who able to realize that "the real" exists? Maybe that's just his own symbolic order conflating the issue. This is a tangent that I am going to walk away from, abruptly.
In another seminar the word of the week is "development." This has been the word of the week before, of course. This time around, I'm glad we're reading through James Ferguson's Anti-Politics Machine. Why? Because he makes the point that it might be a good idea to look at the unstated results of development. Don't just look at the stated goals of development projects, also look at all of the other consequences.
The news of the week: 22 tourists were kidnapped in Mexico. I think this happened in Acapulco. Not good. Did you know that almost 30,000 people have died in Mexico because of drug wars and related violence? Ya, this is a serious problem. Felipe Calderon has tried to battle the situation, but he has basically been outgunned on most counts. His newest plan is to revamp the entire police force of Mexico.
Finally, from the environmentalist front. Sometimes when environmentalists talk about human-environment issues, they forget about the human part. There is a real danger in this, especially considering people like the Discovery Channel gunman who go completely overboard. Another recent case occurred with the British environmentalist group 10:10, who released a new promo video called "No Pressure," which is supposed to encourage people to do something about the environment. Here's the video (graphic content warning):
Rule #1 in grad school: there isn't enough time. Get used to it. Rule #2: When you use your Netflix account to get a break from grad school, be sure to intersperse some uplifting films in the queue every once in a while. This weekend we watched "The Road" here at home, and it just wasn't the RIGHT movie for this time during the semester. Sure, they did a pretty good job of adapting the film to the book. But the film itself was a bit bleak for a couple of grad students who don't get a lot of time to go outside and have fun away from computers and books. Noted.
Right now I am buried in seminars, writing up a research proposal, and doing TA stuff. It's the usual life of a mid-semester grad student. Suddenly all take-out and restaurant food sounds really good, all the time. This is the time of the semester when I feel like I need to go make coffee--or do something--in order to really start getting stuff done.
One big project that I am working on is writing up my dissertation proposal. Suddenly I am chasing down any article I can about the whole proposal process--articles about style, about methods, and about accepting the fact that a multitude of people will be going for the same grants. This site, by the way, has some pretty helpful stuff for any of you folks who happen to be working on dissertation or other proposals. I also have a renewed interest in all of my methods books. Now, I want to have H. Russell Bernard with me at all times.
In one seminar, which is basically about Power according to Michel Foucault, we just went through another interlude with the work of Lacan. Psychoanalysis: interesting, yes. But then what? I'm not really sure what to do with all of those ideas about "the real" and "the void" in a methodological sense. Ya, I get the basic idea that we exist in a symbolized world, and that our cultural and linguistic symbolizations can't really envelope all of reality. There are gaps in what we can explain, depict, and even recognize--and sometimes our little symbolic webs pretty much limit how and why we think certain ways.
Great. But how or why should I or anyone else assume that Lacan has THE right version of reality? Does it even matter? I mean, it seems like it all requires a leap of faith. Either you accept the starting assumptions that Lacan (and others) put forth, or you're a die-hard materialist reductionist who is blinded by the symbolic order/fish tank that you don't even know you're in. Who knows? I always wonder how Lacan is able to realize all of this--what makes him one of the people who able to realize that "the real" exists? Maybe that's just his own symbolic order conflating the issue. This is a tangent that I am going to walk away from, abruptly.
In another seminar the word of the week is "development." This has been the word of the week before, of course. This time around, I'm glad we're reading through James Ferguson's Anti-Politics Machine. Why? Because he makes the point that it might be a good idea to look at the unstated results of development. Don't just look at the stated goals of development projects, also look at all of the other consequences.
The news of the week: 22 tourists were kidnapped in Mexico. I think this happened in Acapulco. Not good. Did you know that almost 30,000 people have died in Mexico because of drug wars and related violence? Ya, this is a serious problem. Felipe Calderon has tried to battle the situation, but he has basically been outgunned on most counts. His newest plan is to revamp the entire police force of Mexico.
Finally, from the environmentalist front. Sometimes when environmentalists talk about human-environment issues, they forget about the human part. There is a real danger in this, especially considering people like the Discovery Channel gunman who go completely overboard. Another recent case occurred with the British environmentalist group 10:10, who released a new promo video called "No Pressure," which is supposed to encourage people to do something about the environment. Here's the video (graphic content warning):
Not surprisingly, there were tons of negative reactions, the video was pulled, and 10:10 issued a heart felt apology, saying they "missed the mark with this one" or something like that. You know, when you start alluding to killing people based upon political or social ideals, well, I think you've gone far beyond "missing the mark." While I certainly understand the reasons why people become passionate about environmental issues, I think it's pretty critical not to completely lose perspective. Kind of reminds me of the biography of the late Diane Fossey. Yes, it is important to rethink how we use the environment, and this is a serious issue. And yes, we need to think about how humans interact with the "natural" world around them. At the same time, it's critical not to turn the issue into some ideological nightmare by making polemic crap like this. Bad move, 10:10. All you've done with this is make yourselves look like extremists. Definitely not going to win any supporters with this sort of thing.
5 comments:
Hi Ryan,
Thanks for these notes, especially for the dissertation proposal workshop.
About 10:10, I think the video illustrates one serious bias in this kind of individualist approach to environmental issues. IMO the problem should not be framed as one of individual ethics. Most emissions come from industry and agriculture, not households energy consumption.
Further, if one owns three cars, a huge mansion, plays golf, fly twice a week, etc, one's contributions to emissions is obviously far larger than if one has no car, takes the bus to work, never flies, etc. I don't think it's quite faire, nor even efficient to simply ask that everyone step down by 10%. To me, this kind of campaign looks like it is more about setting new moral norms (and new "good people") than about being serious about climate change.
And, by the way, would these people dare to (virtually) spill that much blood, it it was the blood of people whose decisions do really have great impacts, like politicians, CEO's, etc ?
Of course not, that would be (virtual) terrorism. But, for example, the people who threw the Tokyo protocol to the dustbin were neither young pupils nor tired employees.
Great post, Ryan. I definitely know where you're coming from - in fact, I should be doing some work right now, but I need a little break.
On Lacan and the Real - I've not read any of his work yet, so I can't speak to his concept of the Real, but I've been thinking about similar issues recently (as a result of reading Levi Bryant, Graham Harman, Adrian Ivakhiv, et. al.).
In spite of the fact that we're stuck with limited perception of the world and locked into our symbolic webs, I believe we can and must talk about reality.
The reason I say we can talk about reality is because the world and the other entities that compose it affect us, alter us and affect and alter one another.
I say we must talk about reality because if we don't, then we deny the agency of those other entities. The world becomes a formless, shapeless lump passively waiting for us to impose meaning upon it. I don't think that squares with our experience of the world, and I don't think it's fair to those other entities.
That said, we have to recognize our situatedness within reality (thus our limited perception) and the reality of the symbolic webs that we compose around us. I also believe that there is not just one reality, and so no "right version." Rather, realities are multiple and continually being created (by ourselves and by others). A lot of this comes from Latour and John Law in addition to the speculative realist crowd.
Anyway, it's not something I've developed fully, but it's something to think about.
Ryan, I think that your statement: "Great. But how or why should I or anyone else assume that Lacan has THE right version of reality? Does it even matter?" indicates that you got the best out of the lesson. Symbolic approaches are tricky. Are they helpful or just a mind-boggling hindrance? I mean, stuff actually happens and I think we shouldn't be afraid to hazard guesses at why people do the things they do that are not just about recognizing that we're all dupes hitching a ride on the psychoanalytical train to nowhere. Now only a few weeks from PhD submission myself, I'm sorry to say that the issues you're grappling with (including methods) don't get any easier with time, but rest assured that your ability to maneuver them will!
@ Jeremy:
Thanks for the comment. Ya, these issues are really interesting...and hopefully I didn't come across as simply blowing them off!
"That said, we have to recognize our situatedness within reality (thus our limited perception) and the reality of the symbolic webs that we compose around us. I also believe that there is not just one reality, and so no "right version." Rather, realities are multiple and continually being created (by ourselves and by others). A lot of this comes from Latour and John Law in addition to the speculative realist crowd."
I like where you're going with this, especially the idea that there isn't any one particular version of reality that happens to be correct (or, maybe, more real). I also like the idea of this being a series of processes that are active--as opposed to thinking of reality as some big monolithic 2001-esque black figure that we simply cannot fathom.
Thanks again for the comment!
Hey Fran!
"I mean, stuff actually happens and I think we shouldn't be afraid to hazard guesses at why people do the things they do that are not just about recognizing that we're all dupes hitching a ride on the psychoanalytical train to nowhere."
Agreed. I especially like your phrase "psychoanalytical train to nowhere"! The thing that gets me about some of the conclusions of psychoanalysis is that they seem to be a little prone to a seriously opaque circularity that SEEMS to be saying something, but might not be. Ya, I get the idea that we can only explain so much through language, and that there are huge gaps in our knowledge and understandings of whatever reality is. But, for me, talking about how reality as some undefinable entity that exists beyond language is interesting, maybe, but a little ironic too (I mean, doesn't defining it as such already bring it within our symbolic system?).
Ha! See what happens?
Anyway, I agree with you that "stuff actually happens" and that we need to find a way to figure out what that means for certain people, in certain moments, dealing with particular issues.
Post a Comment