As I have described it in my Blogger profile, my dissertation will present "an intellectual history of an infamous, emblematic but still inadequately understood battle in the so-called Culture Wars of the 1980s: the 'Great Books' debate at Stanford University."
One of the major ideas I am/will be paying attention to is the idea of canonicity -- literary canons, cultural canons, disciplinary canons. This is why both E.D. Hirsch and Allan Bloom, the Mutt and Jeff of cultural literacy during the 1980s, are on my reading list. They are two among many primary sources that I will be using in order to sketch out the broader cultural landscape within which and/or against which the particular debate at Stanford took place.
At some point -- and I haven't quite identified that point yet -- the debate about canons and canonicity shifts from a historic moment that I am examining to a current critical discourse into which I am, as the argot of academe has it, "making an intervention." This is one of the (many!) tricky methodological challenges of my dissertation. In order to manage this move -- and I think it will be an oscillation, a move back and forth between what I might call "the historic debate" and "the current debate about the stakes of the debate" -- I need to develop my own canon (or, if I simply must abandon irony for the good of the collective, my own list) of works that address notions of canonicity and cultural value since the 1980s.*
So far, my list includes such authors as John Guillory, Evan Watkins, Walter Benn Michaels, Gerald Graff, and Henry Louis Gates. I should probably add Stanley Fish too. Lawrence Levine fits here as well -- Highbrow/Lowbrow was published after the Stanford kerfuffle, though very close to it. And the wonderful anthology edited by David Richter, Falling into Theory, points toward a number of authors with whom I will need to be in conversation.
But I would be more than happy to hear from our readers (and my blog colleagues!) on this question. If you can think of other works that ought to be on my radar screen, feel free to add them in the comments section below.
______________
*Now, my canon on the canon question before the 1980s is an entirely separate list. So far it includes, among others, guys like Matthew Arnold, F.O. Matthiessen, Leslie Fiedler, Lionel Trilling. And yes, they are all guys.
Tampilkan postingan dengan label bleg. Tampilkan semua postingan
Tampilkan postingan dengan label bleg. Tampilkan semua postingan
Sabtu, 01 Desember 2012
Senin, 17 September 2012
An Audio Intellectual History Bleg
A second little post for the day...
I'm trying to make out the last word in the introduction of Leo Strauss prior to his lecture on "The Socratic Question," given in Claremont, California, on February 15, 1968.* Here's the text of the introduction (as I hear it):
What do you hear at the end of the intro?
_____________________________________
* I've already sent a query to the Leo Strauss Center to identify the (presumably bald) speaker.
I'm trying to make out the last word in the introduction of Leo Strauss prior to his lecture on "The Socratic Question," given in Claremont, California, on February 15, 1968.* Here's the text of the introduction (as I hear it):
Several of us contended for this honor. And, in deference to that specific spirit that characterizes Professor Strauss--if not every, single syllable of his work--we tossed a coin, thinking by that means to avoid any conflict. In this instance, chance or fortuna seized me, I hesitate to say, by the forelock. Everyone in this room knows of Professor Strauss. There is thus no necessity, whatsoever, here to describe him to you. I therefore say this only: Since we know him, we know, therefore how fortunate and how honored CMC and Claremont Graduate School and Claremont are that he has chosen to retire here and to teach here. Those of us who have studied with him know what a blessing it is to be able to sit before him again. Those of us who are his friends keep silent in public as to the extent of our [????].You can find the audiofile of the lecture here. The introduction takes up the first minute-and-a-half or so.
What do you hear at the end of the intro?
_____________________________________
* I've already sent a query to the Leo Strauss Center to identify the (presumably bald) speaker.
Senin, 23 Juli 2012
BLEG: The History Of The Idea Of Multiculturalism
by Tim Lacy
With this post I am seeking to build a strong sense of historiography on the idea, or intellectual history, of multiculturalism. It seems, based on my own explorations and surveying colleagues, that no authoritative text exists, either in article or book form. But I have no high confidence in this assertion.
Although several books on my shelf touch on the emergence of multiculturalism in the 1970s, I will likely build my thinking on Rodgers' accounting in---you guessed it---Age of Fracture.
What texts have you found most useful for discussing the historical development of the idea of multiculturalism?
As a starting point for thinking about the idea's history, here is some excerpted material from the Oxford English Dictionary:
Definition (only one offered, surprisingly): The characteristics of a multicultural society; (also) the policy or process whereby the distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are maintained or supported.
First use recorded in OED: 1957 Hispania 40 349 The key to successful living here, as it is in Switzerland, is multilingualism, which can carry with it rich multiculturalism.
To add some subtlety, let's look at a few of the OED's entries for pluralism (using their number system):
3. Polit. A theory or system of devolution and autonomy for organizations and individuals in preference to monolithic state power. Also: (advocacy of) a political system within which many parties or organizations have access to power.
First used: 1917 H. J. Laski Stud. Probl. Sovereignty i. 6 Pluralism, in the ultimate sense, is..impossible, for it would make unintelligible any rational interpretation of society.
4. The presence or tolerance of a diversity of ethnic or cultural groups within a society or state; (the advocacy of) toleration or acceptance of the coexistence of differing views, values, cultures, etc.
First used: 1924 H. Kallen Culture & Democracy in U.S. 43 Cultural growth is founded upon Cultural Pluralism. Cultural Pluralism is possible only in a democratic society whose institutions encourage individuality in groups, in persons, [and] in temperaments.
And a bonus entry from the usage list: 1995 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 19 Oct. 30/1 The institutions and practices of liberalism are likely to open public space to previously repressed and invisible groups, turning a merely theoretical or potential pluralism into an actual on-the-ground pluralism.
So the key difference here between multiculturalism and pluralism seems to be, for the former, active maintenance and support of difference of ethnic and/or cultural groups. But the latter is characterized by more passive tolerance and acceptance. The bonus entry, furthermore, tells us that liberalism is perhaps more often associated with pluralism than multiculturalism (think of the consummate liberal Arthur Schlesinger here, and Rodgers' citation (p. 210-211) of The Disuniting of America in relation to intellectual opposition to multiculturalism).
I'm looking forward to your input!
With this post I am seeking to build a strong sense of historiography on the idea, or intellectual history, of multiculturalism. It seems, based on my own explorations and surveying colleagues, that no authoritative text exists, either in article or book form. But I have no high confidence in this assertion.
Although several books on my shelf touch on the emergence of multiculturalism in the 1970s, I will likely build my thinking on Rodgers' accounting in---you guessed it---Age of Fracture.
What texts have you found most useful for discussing the historical development of the idea of multiculturalism?
As a starting point for thinking about the idea's history, here is some excerpted material from the Oxford English Dictionary:
Definition (only one offered, surprisingly): The characteristics of a multicultural society; (also) the policy or process whereby the distinctive identities of the cultural groups within such a society are maintained or supported.
First use recorded in OED: 1957 Hispania 40 349 The key to successful living here, as it is in Switzerland, is multilingualism, which can carry with it rich multiculturalism.
To add some subtlety, let's look at a few of the OED's entries for pluralism (using their number system):
3. Polit. A theory or system of devolution and autonomy for organizations and individuals in preference to monolithic state power. Also: (advocacy of) a political system within which many parties or organizations have access to power.
First used: 1917 H. J. Laski Stud. Probl. Sovereignty i. 6 Pluralism, in the ultimate sense, is..impossible, for it would make unintelligible any rational interpretation of society.
4. The presence or tolerance of a diversity of ethnic or cultural groups within a society or state; (the advocacy of) toleration or acceptance of the coexistence of differing views, values, cultures, etc.
First used: 1924 H. Kallen Culture & Democracy in U.S. 43 Cultural growth is founded upon Cultural Pluralism. Cultural Pluralism is possible only in a democratic society whose institutions encourage individuality in groups, in persons, [and] in temperaments.
And a bonus entry from the usage list: 1995 N.Y. Rev. Bks. 19 Oct. 30/1 The institutions and practices of liberalism are likely to open public space to previously repressed and invisible groups, turning a merely theoretical or potential pluralism into an actual on-the-ground pluralism.
So the key difference here between multiculturalism and pluralism seems to be, for the former, active maintenance and support of difference of ethnic and/or cultural groups. But the latter is characterized by more passive tolerance and acceptance. The bonus entry, furthermore, tells us that liberalism is perhaps more often associated with pluralism than multiculturalism (think of the consummate liberal Arthur Schlesinger here, and Rodgers' citation (p. 210-211) of The Disuniting of America in relation to intellectual opposition to multiculturalism).
I'm looking forward to your input!
Senin, 24 Oktober 2011
"Positivism": A Bleg
 |
| A Word of Many Meanings |
Classical political philosophy--the political philosophy originated by Socrates and elaborated by Plato and by Aristotle--is today generally rejected as obsolete. The difference between, not to say the mutual incompatibility of, the two grounds on which it is rejected corresponds to the difference between the two schools of thought which predominate in our age, namely, positivism and existentialism. Positivism rejects classical political philosophy with a view to its mode as unscientific and with a view to its substance as undemocratic. There is a tension between these grounds, for, according to positivism, science is incapable of validating any value judgment and therefore science can never reject a doctrine because it is undemocratic. But "the heart has its reasons which reason does not know," and not indeed positivism but many positivists possess a heart. Moreover there is an affinity between present day positivism and sympathy for a certain kind of democracy; that affinity is due to the broad, not merely methodological, context out of which positivism emerged or to the hidden premises of positivism which positivism is unable to articulate because it is constitutionally unable to conceive of itself as a problem. Positivism may be said to be more dogmatic than any other position of which we have records.Strauss's identification of positivism and existentialism as "the two schools of thought which predominate in our age" may have been something of an exaggeration, but was, at the time in which he wrote these words in the late 1950s, at least grounded in intellectual reality. "Positivism" was a powerful, positive word in the American academy at the time, though it often meant different things in different intellectual places, from social scientists' adherence to certain empirical approaches to its use by early analytic philosophers, for whom the Vienna Circle's logical positivism was very important. In the context of legal scholarship, "positivism" has yet another set of connotations.
Today, Strauss's critique of positivism remains vitally important for younger thinkers in the Straussian vein. For example, Nasser Behnegar's Leo Strauss, Max Weber, and the Scientific Study of Politics (2005) is largely a recapitulation of Strauss's critique of positivism.
But what exactly do Strauss and his followers mean by positivism?
Political scientist Stanley Rothman, an early critic of Strauss and his school of thought, noted in 1962 that Strauss "never really defines with any precision" what he means by the label "positivist."*
And, as even some Straussians note, today the term "positivism," if it appears at all in American academic writing, tends to be a pejorative.** For example, "positivism" is the charge leveled against Sam Harris by Jackson Lears in a recent, scathing Nation review.*** And logical positivism, once a dominant view in philosophy of science, is in the words of John Passmore, "dead, or as dead as a philosophical movement ever becomes."****
But while it's clear that positivism's fortunes were up in the 1950s and down half a century later, the diversity of meanings attached to the term makes its history more difficult to grasp.
The term "positivism" was coined by the 19th-century French philosopher and sociologist Auguste Comte. The social scientific usages of "positivism" in the 20th century seem to be in many ways direct descendents of Comte's thought. But the stream of ideas that led to the Vienna Circle's logical positivism is usually seen as flowing from the philosophical work of Ernst Mach.*****
So here's the bleg: does anyone know of any fairly comprehensive treatment of the history of the term "positivism" in its various national and disciplinary contexts?
My hunch is that the role of positivism in Strauss's mature works of the 1950s and '60s has something to do with his international intellectual biography. His education took place in the early interwar period in German intellectual circles that had just finished beating back Machian positivism and were then battling the emergent logical positivism of the Vienna Circle. Strauss arrived in the quite different intellectual context of the U.S. in the late 1930s and took some years establishing himself as a major intellectual figure in his adoptive country. Strauss may well have recognized the ascendent positivism of the post-World War II American academy as an old, familiar foe. But was it, in fact, the same opponent?
___________________________________
* Stanley Rothman, "The Revival of Classical Political Philosophy: A Critique," The American Political Science Review, Vol. 56, No. 2 (Jun., 1962), 350.
** Strauss student Thomas Pangle in Leo Strauss: An Introduction to His Thought and Intellectual Legacy (Johns Hopkins, 2006) notes that "positivism" is currently out of fashion...though the thought is relegated to a footnote (pp. 135-6).
*** I thank Andrew Hartman for pointing me in the direction of this review in a post on this blog.
**** Quoted in the Wikipedia entry on logical positivism.
***** Mach's positivism and its relationship to the later logical positivism of the Vienna Circle is nicely covered in Edward Sidelsky's fascinating intellectual biography of Strauss's Doktorvater, Ernst Cassirer, who was himself a significant critic of logical positivism.
Kamis, 28 April 2011
Off-Topic Methodology Bleg: Teaching History Backwards
For about a month I have been pondering a radical revision to the way I teach U.S. survey courses. After witnessing students becoming more interested in the subject matter as we move closer and closer to the present, I have been wondering about getting this material to them earlier. For awhile I thought about a substantial introductory teaser unit. Perhaps by showing a solid documentary (e.g. *The Weather Underground* or *Fog of War*) and working over material from the 1960s to the present, for a few weeks, I might get them sufficiently excited to understand the virtue of working from the distant past to recent times. But I'm not happy about the potential for an abrupt content change in moving from the 1990s to, say, the 1890s. This has led me to think about conducting an entire twentieth-century survey, next year, in reverse chronological order. Yes, I may teach a survey backwards.There are two reasons for this. First, something internal and theoretical. I am intensely interested in the notion of an "archaeology of the present." To me, this is real, relevant (I see you wincing), and a radical change from the way most history is taught. It's fun to work from the news backwards.
My second reason for considering a reverse-chronological presentation is external. For students, meaning first-years and uninterested upperclass folks, I am convinced that the best way to show the 'relevance' (again, that dreaded word---for some) of history is to demonstrate that remnants of the past exist in everyday life. When I say everyday I mean materially and intellectually. I really do think that tracing ideas and topics backwards will give students a firm, personal, and empirical anchor for thinking about the past. I believe, or hope (depending on my mood), that this will excite those not previously enthused. Perhaps this is where I'm riding the line of gimmickry. My feeling is that this approach gives the students an anchor in things they know---never a bad idea when trying to stimulate skeptics. Anecdotally, I asked students in one of my upper-division courses for their reaction to this idea. Around 90 percent thought it could work, though one said she had a high school teacher who tried this and failed miserably.
Methodologically, I am aware of the pros (and here) and cons (and here). By following the links, particularly number two of my 'pros', you'll see that what I am proposing is not new; the idea dates to around 1971, and probably earlier. As for the cons, of course I don't believe I will get fired for this---or else I would not consider the change. Fears of traditionalists history professors and methodologically conservative skeptics also won't dissuade me.
I understand, however, the fears of presentism. In the study by Misco and Paterson, titled " An Old Fad of Great Promise: Reverse Chronology History Teaching in Social Studies Classes" (again, link #2 in the pros above), I think that some of their proposals border on the fallacy of presentism. You can't simply study history in its full breadth and contextual uncertainty by working backwards from the interests of students. I think the draw in teaching history backwards is viewing causation as something of a mystery, as an inductive process, which linear (i.e. textbookish) presentations avoid---to their detriment.
If I don't do this, it will be because I decide either (a) it won't work or (b) I don't have the time, this coming year, to institute the change with the necessary energy. I suspect (b) will rule my decision, but am curious to hear from others who have either done this or thought about it.
So here are my questions for USIH folks: How will this fail? What are the philosophical problems with teaching history inductively? What are the methodological issues? What am I downplaying or not considering? - TL
Off-Topic Methodology Bleg: Teaching History Backwards
For about a month I have been pondering a radical revision to the way I teach U.S. survey courses. After witnessing students becoming more interested in the subject matter as we move closer and closer to the present, I have been wondering about getting this material to them earlier. For awhile I thought about a substantial introductory teaser unit. Perhaps by showing a solid documentary (e.g. *The Weather Underground* or *Fog of War*) and working over material from the 1960s to the present, for a few weeks, I might get them sufficiently excited to understand the virtue of working from the distant past to recent times. But I'm not happy about the potential for an abrupt content change in moving from the 1990s to, say, the 1890s. This has led me to think about conducting an entire twentieth-century survey, next year, in reverse chronological order. Yes, I may teach a survey backwards.There are two reasons for this. First, something internal and theoretical. I am intensely interested in the notion of an "archaeology of the present." To me, this is real, relevant (I see you wincing), and a radical change from the way most history is taught. It's fun to work from the news backwards.
My second reason for considering a reverse-chronological presentation is external. For students, meaning first-years and uninterested upperclass folks, I am convinced that the best way to show the 'relevance' (again, that dreaded word---for some) of history is to demonstrate that remnants of the past exist in everyday life. When I say everyday I mean materially and intellectually. I really do think that tracing ideas and topics backwards will give students a firm, personal, and empirical anchor for thinking about the past. I believe, or hope (depending on my mood), that this will excite those not previously enthused. Perhaps this is where I'm riding the line of gimmickry. My feeling is that this approach gives the students an anchor in things they know---never a bad idea when trying to stimulate skeptics. Anecdotally, I asked students in one of my upper-division courses for their reaction to this idea. Around 90 percent thought it could work, though one said she had a high school teacher who tried this and failed miserably.
Methodologically, I am aware of the pros (and here) and cons (and here). By following the links, particularly number two of my 'pros', you'll see that what I am proposing is not new; the idea dates to around 1971, and probably earlier. As for the cons, of course I don't believe I will get fired for this---or else I would not consider the change. Fears of traditionalists history professors and methodologically conservative skeptics also won't dissuade me.
I understand, however, the fears of presentism. In the study by Misco and Paterson, titled " An Old Fad of Great Promise: Reverse Chronology History Teaching in Social Studies Classes" (again, link #2 in the pros above), I think that some of their proposals border on the fallacy of presentism. You can't simply study history in its full breadth and contextual uncertainty by working backwards from the interests of students. I think the draw in teaching history backwards is viewing causation as something of a mystery, as an inductive process, which linear (i.e. textbookish) presentations avoid---to their detriment.
If I don't do this, it will be because I decide either (a) it won't work or (b) I don't have the time, this coming year, to institute the change with the necessary energy. I suspect (b) will rule my decision, but am curious to hear from others who have either done this or thought about it.
So here are my questions for USIH folks: How will this fail? What are the philosophical problems with teaching history inductively? What are the methodological issues? What am I downplaying or not considering? - TL
Kamis, 31 Maret 2011
Bleg: The (Intellectual?) History of Oil
I am teaching a course in this coming fall titled "The History of Oil"---meaning petroleum, or crude oil. The class is meant to qualify as a world or transnational history, and is aimed at second, third, and fourth-year undergraduates. With that introduction, it is needless to say that this post is slightly off-topic in relation to our overall goals at USIH. But you will see by the end of the discussion that I am seeking cross-currents.
For starters, I'm excited about the course. It will combine elements of economic, political, environmental, and socio-cultural history, as well as the history of science. But I'm a bit disappointed, however, in my ability---thus far---to incorporate intellectual history into the course plan. My closest possibilities, it seems, are in relation to globalism, both as an economic and political program, as well as general economic theory.
Helping my case for intellectual history, I ran across an article by Chris Hedges in the online magazine Truthout, titled "The Collapse of Globalization." There's no denying that the article is polemical and indicative of authorial ideology. That said, here are a few passages that speak to the possibilities of incorporating intellectual history into a course section on globalism and the history of petroleum (bolds mine):
-------------------------------------------------
The ideological proponents of globalism—Thomas Friedman, Daniel Yergin, Ben Bernanke and Anthony Giddens—are stunted products of the self-satisfied, materialistic power elite. They use the utopian ideology of globalism as a moral justification for their own comfort, self-absorption and privilege. They do not question the imperial projects of the nation, the widening disparities in wealth and security between themselves as members of the world’s industrialized elite and the rest of the planet. They embrace globalism because it, like most philosophical and theological ideologies, justifies their privilege and power. They believe that globalism is not an ideology but an expression of an incontrovertible truth. And because the truth has been uncovered, all competing economic and political visions are dismissed from public debate before they are even heard.
The defense of globalism marks a disturbing rupture in American intellectual life. The collapse of the global economy in 1929 discredited the proponents of deregulated markets. It permitted alternative visions, many of them products of the socialist, anarchist and communist movements that once existed in the United States, to be heard. We adjusted to economic and political reality. The capacity to be critical of political and economic assumptions resulted in the New Deal, the dismantling of corporate monopolies and heavy government regulation of banks and corporations.
But this time around, because corporations control the organs of mass communication, and because thousands of economists, business school professors, financial analysts, journalists and corporate managers have staked their credibility on the utopianism of globalism, we speak to each other in gibberish. We continue to heed the advice of Alan Greenspan, who believed the third-rate novelist Ayn Rand was an economic prophet, or Larry Summers, whose deregulation of our banks as treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton helped snuff out some $17 trillion in wages, retirement benefits and personal savings. We are assured by presidential candidates like Mitt Romney that more tax breaks for corporations would entice them to move their overseas profits back to the United States to create new jobs.
-------------------------------------------------
I pose this extreme example of approaching the intellectual history of globalism to solicit your opinions of more moderate and thoughtful critics. Ideas?
And while we establish those authorities, what are your thoughts on an intellectual history approach to any commodity?
Do I need to dig out my copy of Nature's Metropolis and think through some social science theory, particularly Von Thünen's zones in relation petroleum development and exploration, as well as use for transportation theory? Will Imagined Communities suffice in relation to my presentation on the oil states? Will Carroll Pursell's work on the social history of machines (meaning the oil-using variety) in America help me enough in relation to oil-based technologies? Do you have any historical suggestions in relation to ideology and global-warming deniers (business and anti-intellectualism)?
Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
For starters, I'm excited about the course. It will combine elements of economic, political, environmental, and socio-cultural history, as well as the history of science. But I'm a bit disappointed, however, in my ability---thus far---to incorporate intellectual history into the course plan. My closest possibilities, it seems, are in relation to globalism, both as an economic and political program, as well as general economic theory.
Helping my case for intellectual history, I ran across an article by Chris Hedges in the online magazine Truthout, titled "The Collapse of Globalization." There's no denying that the article is polemical and indicative of authorial ideology. That said, here are a few passages that speak to the possibilities of incorporating intellectual history into a course section on globalism and the history of petroleum (bolds mine):
-------------------------------------------------
The ideological proponents of globalism—Thomas Friedman, Daniel Yergin, Ben Bernanke and Anthony Giddens—are stunted products of the self-satisfied, materialistic power elite. They use the utopian ideology of globalism as a moral justification for their own comfort, self-absorption and privilege. They do not question the imperial projects of the nation, the widening disparities in wealth and security between themselves as members of the world’s industrialized elite and the rest of the planet. They embrace globalism because it, like most philosophical and theological ideologies, justifies their privilege and power. They believe that globalism is not an ideology but an expression of an incontrovertible truth. And because the truth has been uncovered, all competing economic and political visions are dismissed from public debate before they are even heard.The defense of globalism marks a disturbing rupture in American intellectual life. The collapse of the global economy in 1929 discredited the proponents of deregulated markets. It permitted alternative visions, many of them products of the socialist, anarchist and communist movements that once existed in the United States, to be heard. We adjusted to economic and political reality. The capacity to be critical of political and economic assumptions resulted in the New Deal, the dismantling of corporate monopolies and heavy government regulation of banks and corporations.
But this time around, because corporations control the organs of mass communication, and because thousands of economists, business school professors, financial analysts, journalists and corporate managers have staked their credibility on the utopianism of globalism, we speak to each other in gibberish. We continue to heed the advice of Alan Greenspan, who believed the third-rate novelist Ayn Rand was an economic prophet, or Larry Summers, whose deregulation of our banks as treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton helped snuff out some $17 trillion in wages, retirement benefits and personal savings. We are assured by presidential candidates like Mitt Romney that more tax breaks for corporations would entice them to move their overseas profits back to the United States to create new jobs. -------------------------------------------------
I pose this extreme example of approaching the intellectual history of globalism to solicit your opinions of more moderate and thoughtful critics. Ideas?
And while we establish those authorities, what are your thoughts on an intellectual history approach to any commodity?
Do I need to dig out my copy of Nature's Metropolis and think through some social science theory, particularly Von Thünen's zones in relation petroleum development and exploration, as well as use for transportation theory? Will Imagined Communities suffice in relation to my presentation on the oil states? Will Carroll Pursell's work on the social history of machines (meaning the oil-using variety) in America help me enough in relation to oil-based technologies? Do you have any historical suggestions in relation to ideology and global-warming deniers (business and anti-intellectualism)? Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
Bleg: The (Intellectual?) History of Oil
I am teaching a course in this coming fall titled "The History of Oil"---meaning petroleum, or crude oil. The class is meant to qualify as a world or transnational history, and is aimed at second, third, and fourth-year undergraduates. With that introduction, it is needless to say that this post is slightly off-topic in relation to our overall goals at USIH. But you will see by the end of the discussion that I am seeking cross-currents.
For starters, I'm excited about the course. It will combine elements of economic, political, environmental, and socio-cultural history, as well as the history of science. But I'm a bit disappointed, however, in my ability---thus far---to incorporate intellectual history into the course plan. My closest possibilities, it seems, are in relation to globalism, both as an economic and political program, as well as general economic theory.
Helping my case for intellectual history, I ran across an article by Chris Hedges in the online magazine Truthout, titled "The Collapse of Globalization." There's no denying that the article is polemical and indicative of authorial ideology. That said, here are a few passages that speak to the possibilities of incorporating intellectual history into a course section on globalism and the history of petroleum (bolds mine):
-------------------------------------------------
The ideological proponents of globalism—Thomas Friedman, Daniel Yergin, Ben Bernanke and Anthony Giddens—are stunted products of the self-satisfied, materialistic power elite. They use the utopian ideology of globalism as a moral justification for their own comfort, self-absorption and privilege. They do not question the imperial projects of the nation, the widening disparities in wealth and security between themselves as members of the world’s industrialized elite and the rest of the planet. They embrace globalism because it, like most philosophical and theological ideologies, justifies their privilege and power. They believe that globalism is not an ideology but an expression of an incontrovertible truth. And because the truth has been uncovered, all competing economic and political visions are dismissed from public debate before they are even heard.
The defense of globalism marks a disturbing rupture in American intellectual life. The collapse of the global economy in 1929 discredited the proponents of deregulated markets. It permitted alternative visions, many of them products of the socialist, anarchist and communist movements that once existed in the United States, to be heard. We adjusted to economic and political reality. The capacity to be critical of political and economic assumptions resulted in the New Deal, the dismantling of corporate monopolies and heavy government regulation of banks and corporations.But this time around, because corporations control the organs of mass communication, and because thousands of economists, business school professors, financial analysts, journalists and corporate managers have staked their credibility on the utopianism of globalism, we speak to each other in gibberish. We continue to heed the advice of Alan Greenspan, who believed the third-rate novelist Ayn Rand was an economic prophet, or Larry Summers, whose deregulation of our banks as treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton helped snuff out some $17 trillion in wages, retirement benefits and personal savings. We are assured by presidential candidates like Mitt Romney that more tax breaks for corporations would entice them to move their overseas profits back to the United States to create new jobs.
-------------------------------------------------
I pose this extreme example of approaching the intellectual history of globalism to solicit your opinions of more moderate and thoughtful critics. Ideas?
And while we establish those authorities, what are your thoughts on an intellectual history approach to any commodity? Do I need to dig out my copy of Nature's Metropolis and think through some social science theory, particularly Von Thünen's zones in relation petroleum development and exploration, as well as use for transportation theory? Will Imagined Communities suffice in relation to my presentation on the oil states? Will Carroll Pursell's work on the social history of machines (meaning the oil-using variety) in America help me enough in relation to oil-based technologies? Do you have any historical suggestions in relation to ideology and global-warming deniers (business and anti-intellectualism)?
Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
For starters, I'm excited about the course. It will combine elements of economic, political, environmental, and socio-cultural history, as well as the history of science. But I'm a bit disappointed, however, in my ability---thus far---to incorporate intellectual history into the course plan. My closest possibilities, it seems, are in relation to globalism, both as an economic and political program, as well as general economic theory.
Helping my case for intellectual history, I ran across an article by Chris Hedges in the online magazine Truthout, titled "The Collapse of Globalization." There's no denying that the article is polemical and indicative of authorial ideology. That said, here are a few passages that speak to the possibilities of incorporating intellectual history into a course section on globalism and the history of petroleum (bolds mine):
-------------------------------------------------
The ideological proponents of globalism—Thomas Friedman, Daniel Yergin, Ben Bernanke and Anthony Giddens—are stunted products of the self-satisfied, materialistic power elite. They use the utopian ideology of globalism as a moral justification for their own comfort, self-absorption and privilege. They do not question the imperial projects of the nation, the widening disparities in wealth and security between themselves as members of the world’s industrialized elite and the rest of the planet. They embrace globalism because it, like most philosophical and theological ideologies, justifies their privilege and power. They believe that globalism is not an ideology but an expression of an incontrovertible truth. And because the truth has been uncovered, all competing economic and political visions are dismissed from public debate before they are even heard.The defense of globalism marks a disturbing rupture in American intellectual life. The collapse of the global economy in 1929 discredited the proponents of deregulated markets. It permitted alternative visions, many of them products of the socialist, anarchist and communist movements that once existed in the United States, to be heard. We adjusted to economic and political reality. The capacity to be critical of political and economic assumptions resulted in the New Deal, the dismantling of corporate monopolies and heavy government regulation of banks and corporations.
But this time around, because corporations control the organs of mass communication, and because thousands of economists, business school professors, financial analysts, journalists and corporate managers have staked their credibility on the utopianism of globalism, we speak to each other in gibberish. We continue to heed the advice of Alan Greenspan, who believed the third-rate novelist Ayn Rand was an economic prophet, or Larry Summers, whose deregulation of our banks as treasury secretary under President Bill Clinton helped snuff out some $17 trillion in wages, retirement benefits and personal savings. We are assured by presidential candidates like Mitt Romney that more tax breaks for corporations would entice them to move their overseas profits back to the United States to create new jobs. -------------------------------------------------
I pose this extreme example of approaching the intellectual history of globalism to solicit your opinions of more moderate and thoughtful critics. Ideas?
And while we establish those authorities, what are your thoughts on an intellectual history approach to any commodity?
Do I need to dig out my copy of Nature's Metropolis and think through some social science theory, particularly Von Thünen's zones in relation petroleum development and exploration, as well as use for transportation theory? Will Imagined Communities suffice in relation to my presentation on the oil states? Will Carroll Pursell's work on the social history of machines (meaning the oil-using variety) in America help me enough in relation to oil-based technologies? Do you have any historical suggestions in relation to ideology and global-warming deniers (business and anti-intellectualism)? Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
Rabu, 02 Maret 2011
Bleg: Request For Article Suggestions
Speaking of Professor Cotkin, here's a special request from him:
-------------------------------------
I am going to be teaching a reading seminar for M.A. students in U.S. Intellectual and Cultural History in the fall. Are there articles in the field that you think are must reads for the graduate students? If so, please let me know. Thank you for your help.
-------------------------------------
Thoughts? John Higham was an outstanding essayist. I would think something by him would float to the top. Also, David Hollinger's collection, In the American Province, seems like it would hold forth possibilities. -TL
-------------------------------------
I am going to be teaching a reading seminar for M.A. students in U.S. Intellectual and Cultural History in the fall. Are there articles in the field that you think are must reads for the graduate students? If so, please let me know. Thank you for your help.
-------------------------------------
Thoughts? John Higham was an outstanding essayist. I would think something by him would float to the top. Also, David Hollinger's collection, In the American Province, seems like it would hold forth possibilities. -TL
Bleg: Request For Article Suggestions
Speaking of Professor Cotkin, here's a special request from him:
-------------------------------------
I am going to be teaching a reading seminar for M.A. students in U.S. Intellectual and Cultural History in the fall. Are there articles in the field that you think are must reads for the graduate students? If so, please let me know. Thank you for your help.
-------------------------------------
Thoughts? John Higham was an outstanding essayist. I would think something by him would float to the top. Also, David Hollinger's collection, In the American Province, seems like it would hold forth possibilities. -TL
-------------------------------------
I am going to be teaching a reading seminar for M.A. students in U.S. Intellectual and Cultural History in the fall. Are there articles in the field that you think are must reads for the graduate students? If so, please let me know. Thank you for your help.
-------------------------------------
Thoughts? John Higham was an outstanding essayist. I would think something by him would float to the top. Also, David Hollinger's collection, In the American Province, seems like it would hold forth possibilities. -TL
Selasa, 15 September 2009
Bleg: Help Me Learn About Late Twentieth-Century American Neoliberalism
I beg your assistance and advice in helping me learn more about late twentieth-century Neoliberalism in the United States. I'm trying to get up-to-speed in two ways. First, I want to find the most authoritative voice or voices in specifically defining Neoliberalism. Second, I want to know something more about the most thoughtful, contemporary critics of Neoliberalism (I'm sure they trace their thinking back to C. Wright Mills somehow).
I make these requests because my graduate and undergraduate educations were deficient, by choice mostly, in terms of thinking about contemporary politics and economic practice. I suppose this isn't a surprising omission in terms of training for cultural and intellectual history, plus the history of education. With my specialties and weaknesses in mind, I need to learn something about the idea of Neoliberalism for a top-secret article on which I am presently working. I say "top secret" in jest, but all I want to say about it at this point is this: it is related to the history of education in late twentieth-century America. My problem with the already drafted article, and a problem seconded by early reviewers, is that it uses too many full-frontal terms like "greed" and hypocrisy in its analysis. It was suggested that Neoliberalism was the idea I was talking around. But to incorporate some more nuanced terminology related to Neoliberalism and its critics into my text, I need some books and names for my footnotes.
What do I know already? Well, not much aside from Mills, but here is what I have gathered so far:
(a) Neoliberalism is a market-oriented line of thinking with regard to the traditional projects of liberalism (welfare, health care, education, infrastructure, etc.). It seems to be a conciliatory political variation, safe for Democrats, of Milton Friedman's thinking.
(b) Bill Clinton and his community of discourse were highly influenced by Neoliberalism. This includes people like Robert Rubin [corrected from first post---see comment below].
(c) Thanks to an earlier post by fellow USIH contributor Andrew Hartman, I know that Eve Chiapello and Luc Boltanski's The New Spirit of Capitalism is a related theoretical text. I don't know whether their bias is critical?
(d) This Wikipedia entry on Neoliberalism looks helpful. What are its weaknesses? From the entry it looks like John Williamson's 10 policy points might be a nice starting point for a definition of Neoliberalism.
Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
I make these requests because my graduate and undergraduate educations were deficient, by choice mostly, in terms of thinking about contemporary politics and economic practice. I suppose this isn't a surprising omission in terms of training for cultural and intellectual history, plus the history of education. With my specialties and weaknesses in mind, I need to learn something about the idea of Neoliberalism for a top-secret article on which I am presently working. I say "top secret" in jest, but all I want to say about it at this point is this: it is related to the history of education in late twentieth-century America. My problem with the already drafted article, and a problem seconded by early reviewers, is that it uses too many full-frontal terms like "greed" and hypocrisy in its analysis. It was suggested that Neoliberalism was the idea I was talking around. But to incorporate some more nuanced terminology related to Neoliberalism and its critics into my text, I need some books and names for my footnotes.
What do I know already? Well, not much aside from Mills, but here is what I have gathered so far:
(a) Neoliberalism is a market-oriented line of thinking with regard to the traditional projects of liberalism (welfare, health care, education, infrastructure, etc.). It seems to be a conciliatory political variation, safe for Democrats, of Milton Friedman's thinking.
(b) Bill Clinton and his community of discourse were highly influenced by Neoliberalism. This includes people like Robert Rubin [corrected from first post---see comment below].
(c) Thanks to an earlier post by fellow USIH contributor Andrew Hartman, I know that Eve Chiapello and Luc Boltanski's The New Spirit of Capitalism is a related theoretical text. I don't know whether their bias is critical?
(d) This Wikipedia entry on Neoliberalism looks helpful. What are its weaknesses? From the entry it looks like John Williamson's 10 policy points might be a nice starting point for a definition of Neoliberalism.
Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
Bleg: Help Me Learn About Late Twentieth-Century American Neoliberalism
I beg your assistance and advice in helping me learn more about late twentieth-century Neoliberalism in the United States. I'm trying to get up-to-speed in two ways. First, I want to find the most authoritative voice or voices in specifically defining Neoliberalism. Second, I want to know something more about the most thoughtful, contemporary critics of Neoliberalism (I'm sure they trace their thinking back to C. Wright Mills somehow).
I make these requests because my graduate and undergraduate educations were deficient, by choice mostly, in terms of thinking about contemporary politics and economic practice. I suppose this isn't a surprising omission in terms of training for cultural and intellectual history, plus the history of education. With my specialties and weaknesses in mind, I need to learn something about the idea of Neoliberalism for a top-secret article on which I am presently working. I say "top secret" in jest, but all I want to say about it at this point is this: it is related to the history of education in late twentieth-century America. My problem with the already drafted article, and a problem seconded by early reviewers, is that it uses too many full-frontal terms like "greed" and hypocrisy in its analysis. It was suggested that Neoliberalism was the idea I was talking around. But to incorporate some more nuanced terminology related to Neoliberalism and its critics into my text, I need some books and names for my footnotes.
What do I know already? Well, not much aside from Mills, but here is what I have gathered so far:
(a) Neoliberalism is a market-oriented line of thinking with regard to the traditional projects of liberalism (welfare, health care, education, infrastructure, etc.). It seems to be a conciliatory political variation, safe for Democrats, of Milton Friedman's thinking.
(b) Bill Clinton and his community of discourse were highly influenced by Neoliberalism. This includes people like Robert Rubin [corrected from first post---see comment below].
(c) Thanks to an earlier post by fellow USIH contributor Andrew Hartman, I know that Eve Chiapello and Luc Boltanski's The New Spirit of Capitalism is a related theoretical text. I don't know whether their bias is critical?
(d) This Wikipedia entry on Neoliberalism looks helpful. What are its weaknesses? From the entry it looks like John Williamson's 10 policy points might be a nice starting point for a definition of Neoliberalism.
Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
I make these requests because my graduate and undergraduate educations were deficient, by choice mostly, in terms of thinking about contemporary politics and economic practice. I suppose this isn't a surprising omission in terms of training for cultural and intellectual history, plus the history of education. With my specialties and weaknesses in mind, I need to learn something about the idea of Neoliberalism for a top-secret article on which I am presently working. I say "top secret" in jest, but all I want to say about it at this point is this: it is related to the history of education in late twentieth-century America. My problem with the already drafted article, and a problem seconded by early reviewers, is that it uses too many full-frontal terms like "greed" and hypocrisy in its analysis. It was suggested that Neoliberalism was the idea I was talking around. But to incorporate some more nuanced terminology related to Neoliberalism and its critics into my text, I need some books and names for my footnotes.
What do I know already? Well, not much aside from Mills, but here is what I have gathered so far:
(a) Neoliberalism is a market-oriented line of thinking with regard to the traditional projects of liberalism (welfare, health care, education, infrastructure, etc.). It seems to be a conciliatory political variation, safe for Democrats, of Milton Friedman's thinking.
(b) Bill Clinton and his community of discourse were highly influenced by Neoliberalism. This includes people like Robert Rubin [corrected from first post---see comment below].
(c) Thanks to an earlier post by fellow USIH contributor Andrew Hartman, I know that Eve Chiapello and Luc Boltanski's The New Spirit of Capitalism is a related theoretical text. I don't know whether their bias is critical?
(d) This Wikipedia entry on Neoliberalism looks helpful. What are its weaknesses? From the entry it looks like John Williamson's 10 policy points might be a nice starting point for a definition of Neoliberalism.
Thanks in advance for your help. - TL
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)