CFP: US Thought and Culture between Practice and Paralysis

Call for Papers:

‘Making it Work: US Thought and Culture between Practice and Paralysis’,

April 5th-6th 2013.

University of Michigan US Literatures and Cultures Consortium*

Deadline for Proposals - January 8th 2013 (Notifications of acceptance by February 1st).

usistconference2013@gmail.com

Keynotes: 

Paul Taylor (Philosophy / African American and Diaspora Studies, Penn State): author of Race: A Philosophical Introduction

Lisi Schoenbach (English, University of Tennessee Knoxville): author of Pragmatic Modernism

 Are there distinctively American attitudes toward objectivity and truth, judgment and action?  Two of the most enduring cliches about US culture are, first, that its thought characteristically refuses universal grounds, and second, that it privileges material practicality over theoretical or metaphysical abstraction.  Yet without universal grounds, how can we be convinced that anything is worth doing?  Let’s grant that it is; such a groundless granting may initially let us act with a sense of freedom and unlimited potential, but justifying or revising that action requires us to establish provisional grounds that can themselves be hedged, negotiated, interrogated to the paralyzing point of infinity.  Which side of this tension to prioritize—whether to elide contingencies and reduce deliberative friction or to recuperate the experience of hesitancy and dwell in possibility—is a governing question for distinctively American thinkers from Jonathan Edwards to Audre Lorde, Emily Dickinson to Sidney Hook, Jane Addams to Timothy Leary.

With this interdisciplinary graduate conference, we, the US Literatures and Cultures Consortium at the University of Michigan, hope to foster cross-departmental discussion of questions like the following...

 How have objectivity, truth, rationality, and agency been represented and conceptualized in US thought and culture?  How have these models permitted or circumscribed action?  How have they informed individual and communal practices: from action planned or spontaneous, to decision-making public or private, to governance local and federal?  What universalist appeals do make their way into US culture?  How are shared belief and/or knowledge constructed, articulated, perpetuated, scrutinized and revised without universalist guarantees?  How have such modes of understanding interacted and conflicted? How, essentially, have US philosophers, artists, politicians and citizens forged justifications for acting and judging in a world without universal grounds?  And how and why have some of them found greater value in resisting just this rush to action?
 

Such questions might be addressed in relation to topics like, but not limited to, the following:
 

-the US-ness of US thought

-living with contingency

-specific artworks, historical and cultural events

-pragmatism, neo-pragmatism and other anti-foundationalisms

-metaphysics and materialisms

-epistemology and situated knowledge

-processes of investigation and discovery

-concrete realities and social imaginaries

-agency, deliberation and decision

-methods of social representation

-models of the public realm

-modes of belief, religious and secular

-individual and communal obligations

-art and social change

-educational methodology

Abstracts of up to 300 words for papers that will cast new light on these questions should be submitted by email to usistconference2013@gmail.comby January 8th 2013.  We seek submissions from fellow graduate students in any discipline, who work in any period of, and who take any approach to, US Culture.

Accepted presenters will be notified by February 1st.  

_____________________

*Ali Chetwynd, a PhD candidate in English at the University of Michigan and co-coordinator of Michigan's U.S. Literatures and Cultures Consortium, asked me to pass along this CFP, found at http://sitemaker.umich.edu/usists/conference_2013  

- LDB

The Future of the Humanities

[Updated 3/7/12]

After reading innumerable jeremiads about the bleak state of the humanities, the annexation of the academy to the marketplace, the demise of tenure, the diminution of academic freedom, and the commodification of academic labor -- and after writing a few dystopic blog posts of my own -- I sometimes find it hard going to be hopeful about the future of the humane arts and letters. 

I know I'm not alone.  Many of my fellow grad students are likewise worried.  This worry isn't simply a bit of careerist self-preservation.  Instead, many of us are concerned that in the continued diminution and devaluation of the humanities within and beyond the academy, our society risks losing something precious and irreplaceable. 

That's a heavy load of existential angst to carry.  Writing a dissertation is hard enough without feeling like your desk is bolted to the deck of the Titanic.  We PhD students in the humanities could use some perspective, some encouragement, and maybe even a little hope.  

So we have called in an expert.

On Saturday, March 24, Ben Alpers, my fellow USIH blogger and the S-USIH Publications Committee Chair, will be giving the keynote address at the 4th annual RAW Graduate Symposium at the University of Texas at Dallas.  Ben will be speaking on "The Future of the Humanities." 

The RAW symposium, sponsored by the Graduate Student Association of the School of Arts and Humanities, offers grad students a chance to present their work to their colleagues and receive critical feedback and comments from panel moderators and audience members. 

We have put together a great slate of panels that beautifully highlight one promising possibility for the humanities:  interdisciplinarity.  Here is a link to our provisional schedule -- check it out!*  You can tell just from the panel titles that this conference features an exciting, diverse group of young scholars.

What you may not be able see just by looking at the titles is the fact that each panel is made up of scholars from different disciplines, featuring some combination of historians, literary scholars, poets, performance artists, philosophers, digital artists, game theorists, or students of new media.  It's a very heady mix, and makes for a very thought-provoking day.

In the past, grad students from universities in the Dallas area have joined us for this conference; this year, for the first time, we have presenters coming in from out of state.

And we have Dr. Alpers.

Now, that doesn't necessarily mean we're going to get a heaping dose of hope.  Says Ben, "As I formulate it, the tone of my talk seems to swing back and forth between hope and despair. Best not to predict either."

Here's what I can predict, though:  a full day of fascinating discussions covering a broad range of topics and uncovering sometimes surprising connections -- some uncommon commonalities -- linking these diverse inquiries and disciplinary approaches.  It's going to be an exhilarating day.  In fact, it's quite possible that after participating in our conference, Ben Alpers might leave feeling more hopeful about the humanities than he normally is. 

If any of our USIH readers are planning to be in the Dallas area on March 24, please feel free to join us at the conference. 

As you can see from the schedule, registration begins at 8:30, and the conference kicks off at 9:00.  Ben will be delivering his keynote address, "The Future of the Humanities," at 1:45. 

At 2:30, I will be joining two of my colleagues in a discussion of "Why the Humanities Matter."  Michele Rosen will be making a case for the value of translation studies, Sara Keeth will speak up for the rewards of literary studies, and I will testify to the wonder-working power of studying history.  Our moderator for that session will be Dan Wickberg.

All the day's sessions promise to be interesting, and they're all free and open to the public.  (However, if you'd like to join us for lunch, there is a $10 charge.)  If you can't join us in person, you can follow the conference on twitter at hashtag #RAWconf.

The humanities do have a future.  Come see it -- or, rather, come meet us -- on March 24. 

-----------
*We're still lining up panel moderators, settling on room numbers, and formalizing the layout for printing.  When the final schedule becomes available, I'll update the link.  
3/7/2012 - 10:15 AM -- I have updated the link.

Symposium Announcement: "SELF AMONG SELVES" (Syracuse University)

If you live anywhere near Syracuse University, you might consider attending this one-day graduate symposium titled "SELF AMONG SELVES: EMOTION AND THE COMMON LIFE." It will take place Thursday, September 29, from 10:30 a.m. to 4 p.m. Details are available in this brochure.

The Conference Panel as Academic Technology

As a member of this year's USIH conference committee, I've been doing a lot of thinking in recent months about what makes academic conferences work.  Thanks to vast changes in digital technology, scholars have many more ways to share work than we did even fifteen years ago. Yet I think most of us continue to find academic conferences, at least well focused and organized ones, very valuable.  For me at least, the explosion in methods of communicating ideas with each other has helped me better distinguish what conferences offer that we don't get  from journals, blogs, listservs, social media, YouTube and the many other methods of scholarly transmission. 

What distinguishes conferences, at least good ones, from these other, often newer, technologies, is the exchange of ideas that takes at them. The first ingredient of this exchange is interesting people doing interesting work in areas of mutual interest. Good conferences attract such people as both participants and attendees. Often they're sharing work that is in its earliest, most protean form. And though exchanges take place not only in sessions, but outside of them--over lunch, dinner, and drinks--the life of a good conference should be the panels themselves.


The best panels feature interesting individual projects that somehow speak to each other and a respondent who is able to somehow tie them together. But most important of all, I think, is the discussion that follows the papers and the response. After all, many of the other technologies that I mentioned work fine as means of exchanging papers.  We can even watch whole conferences on YouTube these days. But we still need to be in the room to participate fully in that discussion.*

I've been meaning to blog a bit on the panel as an academic technology, in part because of a post by Paul Campos entitled "Why Do People Read Papers at Conferences?" that appeared several weeks ago on Lawyers, Guns, and Money, one of my favorite semi-academic blogs.**  Campos decried the practice of reading conference papers and received overwhelming agreement from his commentariat on this point.

I, however, want to mount at least a semi-defense of reading conference papers.

We've all had the experience of sitting in the audience as someone reads a conference paper badly.  We've all experienced papers that weren't written to be read out loud, that were wildly too long (leading to their being cut on the fly or, what's worse, simply taking up way more than the allotted time), or that were simply delivered in a way that was entirely soporific. A conference paper is a theatrical form, and like any piece of theatre, it can be badly written or performed. With that much I agree.

But reading from a prepared text makes sense for a variety of reasons. It makes it more likely that complicated ideas will be communicated precisely. Due to their brief length, conference papers require more concision than journal articles or books. Due to their oral presentation, they require even greater clarity of expression.  Writing down one's remarks in advance makes both of these things more likely. Moreover a conference paper written-to-be-delivered is one of the few ways to assure that the panel's respondent will be commenting on what the audience will actually have heard.

Now it should also be said that history is somewhat different from other fields when it comes to the significance of conference papers. More than any other discipline, historians tend to focus on producing books. A paper, even a published journal article, is very often part of a much longer work. In the sciences, hard social sciences, and even some other humanities, academic papers play a more important role as scholarly end products.  My sense is that in many of these other fields, conference papers are, almost by definition, shorter versions of longer scholarly papers, rather than stand-alone think pieces or parts of much larger projects.  My guess is this fact plays a role in how especially unpopular the practice of reading conference papers is outside of our discipline.

A final thought on the conference panel:  what I think of as the standard conference session--three (sometimes four) papers followed by a comment and discussion from the audience--is an incredibly entrenched format.

For as long as I've been attending scholarly conferences (which is now over twenty years), conferences have attempted to encourage scholars to present their work in non-traditional formats.***  This year's USIH conference committee tried to encourage such formats.  But other than a couple brown bags and a handful of roundtables (two of the more traditional alternative formats), nobody took us up on the suggestion.****

So despite occasionally griping about the format, historians, at least, seem fairly wedded to the traditional conference panel.

What do you see as the upsides and downsides of conference, panels and papers (read aloud or otherwise)?  What makes a conference a valuable experience?  How might we improve the format of conferences in the future?
_____________________
* And, no, I don't think even live teleconferencing provides the same experience.  Intellectual discussions are fundamentally embodied things. The really experience the best such discussions, you need to be in the room.

** The writers on LGM are all academics, but the focus of the blog is usually not academic.

*** In the early '90s, poster sessions seemed to be very popular. I never understood the point of these for most historical projects. 

**** I've always been a fan of session which discuss pre-circulated papers. This is the format of Princeton's Davis Seminar.  In many ways, it distills what's best about conferences, turning the entire session into an intensive exchange of ideas. It also allows for the discussion of longer works of scholarship than a conference paper. Its main downside is that those who fail to read the paper in advance are largely left out of the conversation. I would have loved to have one or more such sessions at USIH 2011, but none were proposed.

The Conference Panel as Academic Technology

As a member of this year's USIH conference committee, I've been doing a lot of thinking in recent months about what makes academic conferences work.  Thanks to vast changes in digital technology, scholars have many more ways to share work than we did even fifteen years ago. Yet I think most of us continue to find academic conferences, at least well focused and organized ones, very valuable.  For me at least, the explosion in methods of communicating ideas with each other has helped me better distinguish what conferences offer that we don't get  from journals, blogs, listservs, social media, YouTube and the many other methods of scholarly transmission. 

What distinguishes conferences, at least good ones, from these other, often newer, technologies, is the exchange of ideas that takes at them. The first ingredient of this exchange is interesting people doing interesting work in areas of mutual interest. Good conferences attract such people as both participants and attendees. Often they're sharing work that is in its earliest, most protean form. And though exchanges take place not only in sessions, but outside of them--over lunch, dinner, and drinks--the life of a good conference should be the panels themselves.


The best panels feature interesting individual projects that somehow speak to each other and a respondent who is able to somehow tie them together. But most important of all, I think, is the discussion that follows the papers and the response. After all, many of the other technologies that I mentioned work fine as means of exchanging papers.  We can even watch whole conferences on YouTube these days. But we still need to be in the room to participate fully in that discussion.*

I've been meaning to blog a bit on the panel as an academic technology, in part because of a post by Paul Campos entitled "Why Do People Read Papers at Conferences?" that appeared several weeks ago on Lawyers, Guns, and Money, one of my favorite semi-academic blogs.**  Campos decried the practice of reading conference papers and received overwhelming agreement from his commentariat on this point.

I, however, want to mount at least a semi-defense of reading conference papers.

We've all had the experience of sitting in the audience as someone reads a conference paper badly.  We've all experienced papers that weren't written to be read out loud, that were wildly too long (leading to their being cut on the fly or, what's worse, simply taking up way more than the allotted time), or that were simply delivered in a way that was entirely soporific. A conference paper is a theatrical form, and like any piece of theatre, it can be badly written or performed. With that much I agree.

But reading from a prepared text makes sense for a variety of reasons. It makes it more likely that complicated ideas will be communicated precisely. Due to their brief length, conference papers require more concision than journal articles or books. Due to their oral presentation, they require even greater clarity of expression.  Writing down one's remarks in advance makes both of these things more likely. Moreover a conference paper written-to-be-delivered is one of the few ways to assure that the panel's respondent will be commenting on what the audience will actually have heard.

Now it should also be said that history is somewhat different from other fields when it comes to the significance of conference papers. More than any other discipline, historians tend to focus on producing books. A paper, even a published journal article, is very often part of a much longer work. In the sciences, hard social sciences, and even some other humanities, academic papers play a more important role as scholarly end products.  My sense is that in many of these other fields, conference papers are, almost by definition, shorter versions of longer scholarly papers, rather than stand-alone think pieces or parts of much larger projects.  My guess is this fact plays a role in how especially unpopular the practice of reading conference papers is outside of our discipline.

A final thought on the conference panel:  what I think of as the standard conference session--three (sometimes four) papers followed by a comment and discussion from the audience--is an incredibly entrenched format.

For as long as I've been attending scholarly conferences (which is now over twenty years), conferences have attempted to encourage scholars to present their work in non-traditional formats.***  This year's USIH conference committee tried to encourage such formats.  But other than a couple brown bags and a handful of roundtables (two of the more traditional alternative formats), nobody took us up on the suggestion.****

So despite occasionally griping about the format, historians, at least, seem fairly wedded to the traditional conference panel.

What do you see as the upsides and downsides of conference, panels and papers (read aloud or otherwise)?  What makes a conference a valuable experience?  How might we improve the format of conferences in the future?
_____________________
* And, no, I don't think even live teleconferencing provides the same experience.  Intellectual discussions are fundamentally embodied things. The really experience the best such discussions, you need to be in the room.

** The writers on LGM are all academics, but the focus of the blog is usually not academic.

*** In the early '90s, poster sessions seemed to be very popular. I never understood the point of these for most historical projects. 

**** I've always been a fan of session which discuss pre-circulated papers. This is the format of Princeton's Davis Seminar.  In many ways, it distills what's best about conferences, turning the entire session into an intensive exchange of ideas. It also allows for the discussion of longer works of scholarship than a conference paper. Its main downside is that those who fail to read the paper in advance are largely left out of the conversation. I would have loved to have one or more such sessions at USIH 2011, but none were proposed.

Second Annual Conference on Public Intellectuals at Harvard University

Check out the program for what looks like an exciting conference. If only I had more travel funds.

Second Annual Conference on Public Intellectuals at Harvard University

Check out the program for what looks like an exciting conference. If only I had more travel funds.

14th Annual Brian Bertoti Innovative Perspectives in History Graduate Conference

The History Graduate Student Association of Virginia Tech is pleased to announce a call for papers from graduate and distinguished undergraduate students for the 14th Annual Brian Bertoti Innovative Perspectives in History Graduate Conference to be held at the Inn at Virginia Tech and Skelton Conference Center in Blacksburg, Virginia, from March 25-26, 2011. The interdisciplinary conference is intended to give young scholars the opportunity to present original research in a friendly yet scholarly atmosphere and to expand historical knowledge.

The two-day conference will begin on Friday, March 25, with a keynote address by Dr. Claudrena Harold, author of The Rise and Fall of the Garvey Movement in the Urban South. Dr. Harold will be visiting from University of Virginia, where she serves as an assistant professor in the Department of History and the African-American Studies Department . Her specialties are women's history, colonial history, and cultural resource management.

Presenters are asked to submit a one-page abstract and brief curriculum vitae by January 10, 2011, to Stephen O’Hara at HGSA.VT@gmail.com . For more information about the schedule, speakers, and accommodations, please visit the conference website at http://www.history.vt.edu/hgsa_website/bertoti.

*Cash prizes will be awarded to the outstanding papers at the conference.

14th Annual Brian Bertoti Innovative Perspectives in History Graduate Conference

The History Graduate Student Association of Virginia Tech is pleased to announce a call for papers from graduate and distinguished undergraduate students for the 14th Annual Brian Bertoti Innovative Perspectives in History Graduate Conference to be held at the Inn at Virginia Tech and Skelton Conference Center in Blacksburg, Virginia, from March 25-26, 2011. The interdisciplinary conference is intended to give young scholars the opportunity to present original research in a friendly yet scholarly atmosphere and to expand historical knowledge.

The two-day conference will begin on Friday, March 25, with a keynote address by Dr. Claudrena Harold, author of The Rise and Fall of the Garvey Movement in the Urban South. Dr. Harold will be visiting from University of Virginia, where she serves as an assistant professor in the Department of History and the African-American Studies Department . Her specialties are women's history, colonial history, and cultural resource management.

Presenters are asked to submit a one-page abstract and brief curriculum vitae by January 10, 2011, to Stephen O’Hara at HGSA.VT@gmail.com . For more information about the schedule, speakers, and accommodations, please visit the conference website at http://www.history.vt.edu/hgsa_website/bertoti.

*Cash prizes will be awarded to the outstanding papers at the conference.

Conference: The Role of Opinion Journalism in American Intellectual History

If only I lived in New York! Participants in this exciting half-day conference include two historians scheduled to speak on one of our plenaries at the upcoming USIH conference--Casey Nelson Blake and Rochelle Gurstein.

From the Columbia University website:

Columbia University to Host Conference on the Journalism of Opinion

The Friends of Columbia Libraries are pleased to co-sponsor a conference on opinion journalism in American intellectual history. The half-day conference, entitled “The Journalism of Opinion,” will take place on Friday, April 30, 2010, from 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm at the Lecture Hall on the 3rd floor of Columbia University’s Journalism School. The event is free and open to the public.

The keynote will be delivered by Victor Navasky, Delacorte Professor of Journalism at Columbia Journalism School and chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review. Panel participants include Casey Nelson Blake, Eric Alterman, Howard Brick, Rochelle Gurstein, Michael Kazin, Stanley Crouch, Andi Zeisler, and Mark Lotto. Dean Nicholas Lemann, Henry R. Luce Professor, Columbia Journalism School, will make the opening remarks.

The journalism of opinion has played a significant role in twentieth-century American intellectual history. From its beginnings in a paper-only format to today’s purely digital spaces, the influence of opinion journalism has remained strong, although the message has outlasted its original medium. This conference will offer thoughts on the journalism of opinion—past, present, and future—by scholars and writers.

The impetus for the conference is the presence at Columbia University of The New Leader magazine and archives. The event is co-sponsored by the Friends of Columbia Libraries and by Columbia University’s American Studies Program; Journalism School; Rare Book & Manuscript Library; and the Herbert H. Lehman Center for American History.

To register for this event visit www.alumni.libraries.columbia.edu and click on “News and Events” or send an email to cul-events@columbia.edu. For further information about the event, contact Eric Wakin (etw2@columbia.edu), Lehman Curator for American History, at Columbia University’s Rare Book & Manuscript Library

Conference: The Role of Opinion Journalism in American Intellectual History

If only I lived in New York! Participants in this exciting half-day conference include two historians scheduled to speak on one of our plenaries at the upcoming USIH conference--Casey Nelson Blake and Rochelle Gurstein.

From the Columbia University website:

Columbia University to Host Conference on the Journalism of Opinion

The Friends of Columbia Libraries are pleased to co-sponsor a conference on opinion journalism in American intellectual history. The half-day conference, entitled “The Journalism of Opinion,” will take place on Friday, April 30, 2010, from 1:00 pm to 6:00 pm at the Lecture Hall on the 3rd floor of Columbia University’s Journalism School. The event is free and open to the public.

The keynote will be delivered by Victor Navasky, Delacorte Professor of Journalism at Columbia Journalism School and chairman of the Columbia Journalism Review. Panel participants include Casey Nelson Blake, Eric Alterman, Howard Brick, Rochelle Gurstein, Michael Kazin, Stanley Crouch, Andi Zeisler, and Mark Lotto. Dean Nicholas Lemann, Henry R. Luce Professor, Columbia Journalism School, will make the opening remarks.

The journalism of opinion has played a significant role in twentieth-century American intellectual history. From its beginnings in a paper-only format to today’s purely digital spaces, the influence of opinion journalism has remained strong, although the message has outlasted its original medium. This conference will offer thoughts on the journalism of opinion—past, present, and future—by scholars and writers.

The impetus for the conference is the presence at Columbia University of The New Leader magazine and archives. The event is co-sponsored by the Friends of Columbia Libraries and by Columbia University’s American Studies Program; Journalism School; Rare Book & Manuscript Library; and the Herbert H. Lehman Center for American History.

To register for this event visit www.alumni.libraries.columbia.edu and click on “News and Events” or send an email to cul-events@columbia.edu. For further information about the event, contact Eric Wakin (etw2@columbia.edu), Lehman Curator for American History, at Columbia University’s Rare Book & Manuscript Library

Conference Announcement: C. Wright Mills

C. Wright Mills: "Taking It Big"
A conference in honor of the Fiftieth anniversary of C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination
October 16th-17th 2009
CUNY Graduate Center Recital Hall

Plenary (Oct 16):
5:30: Reception (Recital Hall Lobby)
6:30 to 8:00: Patricia Hill Collins, Stanley Aronowitz and Craig Calhoun

Program
Friday October 16th

10:00 to 12:00: On Class and Power
Presenter: Jerry Watts
Respondent: TBA

1:00 to 3:00: Mills’ Social Psychology
Presenter: Lynn Chancer
Respondent: Eli Zaretsky


3:15 to 5:15: On Intellectuals
Presenter: Russell Jacoby
Respondent: John Summers

Saturday Oct 17th

10:00 to 12:00: On Culture
Presenter: Marshall Berman
Respondent: Harvey Molotch

1:00 to 3:00: Social and Political Theory
Presenter: Stephen Bronner
Respondent: David Harvey


3:15 to 5:15: Politics and Political Writings
Presenter: Stanley Aronowitz
Respondent: Andy Greenberg

SPONSORS: CUNY Center for the Study of Culture, Technology and Work Institute for Public Knowledge

For more information or to register please contact:
Center for the Study of Culture, Technology and Work
The Graduate Center, The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016-4309
Phone: 212-817-2001
Email: greenbergandrew@gmail.com

Conference Announcement: C. Wright Mills

C. Wright Mills: "Taking It Big"
A conference in honor of the Fiftieth anniversary of C. Wright Mills’ The Sociological Imagination
October 16th-17th 2009
CUNY Graduate Center Recital Hall

Plenary (Oct 16):
5:30: Reception (Recital Hall Lobby)
6:30 to 8:00: Patricia Hill Collins, Stanley Aronowitz and Craig Calhoun

Program
Friday October 16th

10:00 to 12:00: On Class and Power
Presenter: Jerry Watts
Respondent: TBA

1:00 to 3:00: Mills’ Social Psychology
Presenter: Lynn Chancer
Respondent: Eli Zaretsky


3:15 to 5:15: On Intellectuals
Presenter: Russell Jacoby
Respondent: John Summers

Saturday Oct 17th

10:00 to 12:00: On Culture
Presenter: Marshall Berman
Respondent: Harvey Molotch

1:00 to 3:00: Social and Political Theory
Presenter: Stephen Bronner
Respondent: David Harvey


3:15 to 5:15: Politics and Political Writings
Presenter: Stanley Aronowitz
Respondent: Andy Greenberg

SPONSORS: CUNY Center for the Study of Culture, Technology and Work Institute for Public Knowledge

For more information or to register please contact:
Center for the Study of Culture, Technology and Work
The Graduate Center, The City University of New York
365 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10016-4309
Phone: 212-817-2001
Email: greenbergandrew@gmail.com