APSA 2008

I didn't have time for APSA blogging this year. Which is a shame since we were on a club floor with free internet and breakfast (why this is so extra special makes no sense--my hotel in Lima had great breakfast and fast wireless everyday). But, our room--at the Hyatt--was cramped and one of the lamps was broken (despite my daily requests that it be fixed).

Anyway, major high point: Cornell West. David Kim, from Connecticut College organized a session on West's Democracy Matters. West was passionate, funny, preacherly. I felt cleansed. It was also very cool that he had been hanging out with Beyonce and gave a shout out to Jane Bennett. So, Jane is known by someone who hangs with Beyonce. Tavis Smiley was also in the audience and West commended him as well.

In related news, Jane gave a fascinating paper on Thing Politics, her revision/extension of Latour (in conversation with Ranciere). But this already misrepresents the paper which, in the presented version, focused on worms. At the Foundations of Political Theory plenary, I introduced J.K. Gibson-Graham and Rom Coles commented. I tend to associate Rom with 'rethinking generosity,' and a strong emphasis on ethics and responsiveness to the exclusion of condemnation, division, and politics. I'm wrong about this--his view includes elements of critical line drawing and struggle. I had expected a love fest with Rom and Gibson-Graham, and he was enthusiastic in his praise. But, he did not put criticism and negativity aside and he emphasized that even a positive and hopeful approach to building non-capitalist opportunities (community economics) needed to keep the critical edge and spirit. Tom Dumm, Bill Connolly, Wendy Brown and I were on a panel on Legitimation Crisis (I was chairing and commenting). Bill offered a wild reading that emphasized resonances between Deleuze and Habermas. Wendy avowed a fervent desire that Al Gore run for president (she was serious). Tom pointed out that there are decisions for undecideability. He quoted Yogi Berra: if there is a fork in the road, take it.

Something I learned: some people will dismiss other people because their schools (where they teach as well as their PhD-granting institution). I was surprised (and dismayed) to hear this said, or, actually, done directly, in a group (rather than being a kind of open secret). Yet, even though this is a drag, it was also clearer to me than ever that it isn't determining--social networks matter. Remembering names, greeting people, friendliness, respect, all these make a difference and can compensate for lower positions on the food chain. It is also helpful to arrange panels in honor of other people. But, really, it's remarkable how remembering names, greeting people, and doing a good job on a high profile panel can build good will and regard.

Maybe I should have titled this post: how Jodi learned that being thoughtful and other-regarding wins more friends than being haughty and hostile. You'd think this was up there with stuff learned in kindergarten, but, well, too much graduate school and too many years in the academy made the idea feel like news, to me.

By the way, I will the be division chair for Foundations of Political Theory for the 2008 APSA meeting in Boston. This means that I choose the papers and panels that will be on the program.

Comments

[patrick j. mullins]

You're too modest about that. You are naturally thoughtful and 'other-regarding' (not that easy for me to use such terms out of quotes), and it's important to retain haughtiness for special moments.

I'm going to take this opportunity to be a real shit: I really find certain modern terms like 'food chain' and 'lower on the food chain' to be on the same level as 'meat world' (I don't think you use that one). Use them if you must, but I think they're sleazy. I just don't think they quite make the grade of 'I'm outta here!' said 3 months in advance of an exit. I don't like 'My bad' either, but I can live with it slightly easier. (I realize this is all off-topic.) Anyway, although I NEVER get to hear 'different from' anymore unless I say it, it seems, what really drives me fucking nuts is the way 'a couple of guys' or 'a couple of drinks' has become, even among the most literate, 'a couple guys' and 'a couple drinks'.

[Rant finished. Exeunt Patrick...]

[TomE]

These posts make me queasy.

Perhaps they're meant to. If anything, I applaud your honesty in registering (mostly without explicit comment) the comical hypocricy of an onstensibly Marxist scholar revelling in the benefits and networking of a high-end conference - with its accompanying (barf) foodchain. (with free breakfast!)

Your own haughtiness (very much in evidence, for instance, in your past, offputtingly snobby posts on graduate students and interview techniques) is pleasingly, if perhaps rather disingenuously, subverted by your accompanying recognition of the virtue of being accommodating to others - as if this is a virtue one shouldn't have learnt in grad school.

I'm a grad student at possibly one of the most elitist universities in the world - Cambridge - and if there's one thing that jars most disagreeably with respect to our purportedly 'left-wing' professors is their utter inability to realise their values in their teaching, and in their refusal to develop meaningful dialogue between faculty and students. I would even venture to say that those professors most known for their outwardly Leftist orientation are some of the most conservative when it comes to teaching practise and when it comes to reform of admissions procedures to ensure proper representation of lower-income students.

No idea where I'm going with this, except to say that it seems no contradiction to have self-reportedly 'radical' academics displaying, on the one hand, a vague and conveniently underdetermined desire for revolution and radicalism, while on the other rolling around like pigs in shit in their various privileges.

[bob allen]

Even in the blue collar world one has to play the game; I have a high end blue collar job and I have to display ideological compliance and technical proficiency in order to "compete" even though I consider myself a Marxist, otherwise I'll be "cast down into the (real) proletariat". So, these little criticisms should be taken with a grain of salt...

[jdean]

Patrick--rhetorical reflections notes; I don't use 'meat space,' as you rightly noted, but I do love 'food chain'--'between you and I' makes me absolutely bonkers. But the worst is 'meaningful dialogue.' What could that possibly mean? As opposed to silly dialogue? As opposed to manipulative faux-a-logue, which is an enjoyable art, despite its dangers.

Thank you, Bob.

Tom--graduate students are not the proletariat. I don't think that graduate students are exploited; I think many are privileged. I don't think that, under current conditions, graduate students have a right to be paid for their studies. Would I support a guaranteed income for all inhabitants of a state, one that would enable them to study rather than work at McDonalds? Yes.

I'm sure that there are all sorts of unbearable horrors forced upon the poor unfortunates trapped in graduate programs at Cambridge. No wonder those graduate students seem to be ones most seething in their resentiment of the tenured radicals they themselves are training to become.

[Badda Being]

I wonder if Tom is simply anti-social and consequently put off by the necessity of academic chumminess to compensate for unimpressive school affiliations, or, in his case, since he hails from Cambridge, just to command a professor's interest and get the meaningful dialog (pardon me) rolling.

Not that there's anything wrong with being anti-social. I'm anti-social myself. More so in meat space.

[TomE]

Jodi - Actually, I couldn't agree more. I feel (and am) hugely privileged to be able to spend my days reading and writing about something I'm passionate about. And you are, of course, right to highlight the essential complicity of my own position in all this. I don't think this need translate into haughtiness or an uncaring attitude towards those of use lower in the "foodchain", however, especially when we affect an egalitarian outlook.

Babbabeing - Just to clarify, I wasn't decrying 'academic chumminess' - in fact, quite the opposite.

[Jodi]

Tom--right: taking a degree from and/or getting a position at a school with low prestige is not the kiss the death, despite the fact that some people have inclinations toward such kissing. That's what this post was about. There is 'no need to translate into haughtiness,' yet some people do and, again, this post was about an effective way that such haughtiness can be combatted indirectly. It was actually meant as a post to reassure people who don't come from highly prestigious graduate programs or teach in top tier research universities (like myself) that being friendly can make up for quite a bit. In the internal hierarchies presupposed in this post, graduate students from Cambridge would be quite high on the food chain.

Babbabeing--your point is a good one; for people who might be fine scholars but put off by extensive demands of sociality, conferences are a nightmare (better ignored). If they come from high prestige schools or were fortunate enough to get good jobs early in their careers (and I know several folks in this group), then this won't be a problem. They can have comfortable academic lives (although they might have trouble finding people from other schools to serve on review committees or problems placing their graduate students). If they come from low prestige programs, then, they lose or forfeit one avenue for career advancement. This term, career advancement, may well be worse than the others. Yet, things like participating on the boards of editorial journals, learning about conferences, being introduced to editors (rather than having to send one's book manuscript out in a cold call) are forms of advancement.

[patrick j. mullins]

"This term, career advancement, may well be worse than the others.'

No, it's accurate because, as they say, 'that's the way things are.'

'Yet, things like participating on the boards of editorial journals, learning about conferences, being introduced to editors (rather than having to send one's book manuscript out in a cold call) are forms of advancement.'

Not necessarily. The 'cold call' is very libidinally energizing, and makes for the purest writing at the beginning. After that, then yes, because we all give in to the pleasures of connections when we have them, which is then (often hilariously) decried by alternative journals accusing the sellee of 'selling out', which he/she does do, and high time he/she did, too!

TomE is a spunky writer, though. As a corruptee candidate, he should realize that the way to use your prestige institution is to refer to it at different times as an 'elitist institution' from those in which he gives its proper name. If you do them at the same time, people will jump on you and you may lose the advantage temporarily. After all, even if you've been fortunate enough to get into a prestige institution, there's enough enmity going to come your way through the jealousies of others, so you might as well not waste any time leaving yourself open. One of the interesting phenomena of the most prestitigious academic institution of higher education is that the students love to talk about 'what a dump' the place is. I never did this at my prestige institution, nor believed it (can't remember the name of it...)

[Craig]

I often feel that there are two things holding me back insofar as my career is concerned: (1) I'm anti-social, hate going to conferences, and hate talking to people at receptions; (2) I'm lazy and, so, thinking rarely makes into writing which is to say that I don't "produce" via publication. Fortunately, Canadian sociology departments are rather insular and I'm in one of the best doctoral programs in the country, so that has to count for something. (Canadians looking to work in the US generally attend American doctoral programs - I'm not looking to move to a new country.)

[Badda Being]

Does the idea of cynicism in your "Distance and Defense" entry encompass the sort of "going through the motions" of an anti-social academic striving for career advancement?

[sixfootsubwoofer]

For a minute there, after reading Jodi's response to TomE's and Bob's comments, I thought there was actually a chance for "meaningful dialogue" here. Alas, it was short-lived.

Jodi, I think your problem with the term "meaningful dialog" is that there rarely is such a thing in the world of Leftist Academia. Much like the majority of your posts and the following comments, I find discourse by the majority of Leftist academes to be very short on actual substance or meaning and quite long on the type of language your mastery of which keeps you in a job. The two are often at odds, if not more often than not. I used to think I just didn't "get" the kind of rap you guys drop, but after years of Marxist and political theory auto-didacticism, I've come to the sad conclusion that the majority of theoretical language is the sorts of tempests-in-teacups that can only serve to obfuscate the fact that not much is really being said.

And this post just sort of seals the deal.

The fact that a "radical" Leftist professor has a housekeeper also sort of spills the beans about exactly how much we can expect from them. The revolution will not be matriculataed.

[Jodi]

Badda Being--I'm not sure if it is cynicism or maybe some kind of attempted behavioralism on one's self, some attempt to overcome one set of inclinations and adopt a new one. So, someone who is sociable, but, for example, obnoxious, would likely want to change that. I guess I think that the idea of cynicism is different here because the way you've suggested it be applied seems to suggest a kind of authentic self that has to pretend to be something it is not, rather than some kind of political or economic position that presents itself as something that it is not.

Craig--if you are still in graduate school, then your priority is the dissertation, not publications, right? Also, your point reminds us that there are differences in academic contexts and different kinds of academic careers. It seems to me, though, that in the US at least, the differences among kinds of careers are getting polarized into armies of underemployed adjuncts and people with permanent positions who have the privileges of writing and publishing. This, to me, is where I see the biggest divide in academia, and not between faculty and graduate students.

Patrick--not much academic writing is libidinally energizing, some, but not much and I don't think its energy comes from the relation to an academic publisher.

[Patrick J. Mullins]

Yes, I can see why it wouldn't necessarily be, or even usually--requires a lot of reliance on sources that aren't always fun to have to work with, and the strictures are probably often very great. Some of it is more rearrangement and re-assembly and often a feeling of the laborious more than that dynamic movement that seems to start moving by itself (that's not always a day at the beach either, and when you're fatigued, you even try to slow it down and stop it, but usually you realize you better go on and shove your way through it, or you'll lose it.)

[Badda Being]

"...seems to suggest a kind of authentic self that has to pretend to be something it is not, rather than some kind of political or economic position that presents itself as something that it is not."

These seem to be kind of the same thing to me except that they point to different levels of subjectivity, or whatever you call it -- subjectivity at the level of individual human beings versus at the level of the body politic, for example -- which, furthermore, strike me as being somewhat conflated in your distinction above.

Could we not say that the person who networks at high-end conferences despite being anti-social thereby positions himself politically with respect to his profession? Or that a government that calls itself compassionate despite being authoritarian thereby conceals its authentic self?

Maybe we should not get too hung up on the term 'cynicism' (or 'irony' or whatever) and all of its varying significations, as we seem to apply it mainly to the level of human subjectivity while the phenomenon under consideration seems (to me, at least) more pervasive than that.

Then again, I could be completely off base and confused about we're talking about. I'm just a proletarian :-)

[jon-jon]

My question: how do you do it?

You are world-traveling for lectures, teaching (presumably) at least two courses at a time, churning out books, reviews, and reviewing tenure cases. And now you've agreed to review and decide among several hundred (I'm guessing) APSA paper proposals and whatever panel coordination that comes with.

What is your secret? Two aspects to this question (which you needn't answer, of course). What is your technique for squeezing out so many work hours in a day? Is there something like a Protestant ethic motivating your ambition and productivity?

[Jodi]

Jon-Jon--I'll answer at the level of technique. The second question is what I talked about it analysis and will avoid here. For now.

How do I do it? Well, it isn't easy, but it gets easier. I don't have to do a lot of class preparation because I've taught some of my basic course rotation (Thucydides through Hobbes and Locke through Nietzsche) for years and years. Right now, I'm the chair of our faculty, so I have 2 course releases. But, I have to spend a lot of time in meetings, which is a pain. I'm worried about next year when I will have a couple of new preps.

Yet, and here is the second thing, I try to make sure that my teaching overlaps with stuff I want to think about, write about, and can then give as talks. Sometimes this is only indirect--I teach a seminar on fascism but don't write directly about the texts in the course. My friend Bill Connolly has a graduate seminar that generates an article for him every years, that is, the readings he does for the seminar lead to an article.

Traveling takes a bunch of time--I'm not as good as using that time to work as I should be.

APSA--they tell me that the bulk of this is concentrated in about a month of time.

Fitting in reviews and stuff--skimming, focusing on big questions. Recommendations for tenure, in my view, don't come down to tiny nuances in books and articles but to larger assessments of promise, accomplishment, productivity.