The Myth of the Common Good

I still haven’t gotten around to watching the much-vaunted Obama speech (I know, I know, for shame), but it’s been interesting to hear the conversations it has inspired among friends and in the media. I’ll be honest: some of the rhetoric concerns me. People seem eager to portray the U.S. struggle with racism using the narrative template of the American dream itself: overcoming ignoble, circumstantial origins (genocide, slavery) to rise to greatness through sheer will and hard work (Civil Rights Movement, enlightened public policy). As with the bootstrap fiction, there are winners without losers — or, as the moral of the story goes, a winner can achieve success without disadvantaging anyone else. It’s all a bunch of pareto improvements: making someone better off without making anyone else worse off.

You can probably tell where I’m going with this. It’s simply naïve to believe that we can rectify unjust inequalities at no cost to anyone. Even economists admit that the world does not work this way (though the neoclassicists argue it once did).

Those who do acknowledge the cost to justice, though, often paint it in the platitudes of undifferentiated, collective sacrifice. In the NYT today, pointing to research showing that “racial and ethnic diversity undermine support for public investment in social welfare,” Eduardo Porter resolves that “Americans must once again show their ability to transcend group interests for a common national cause.” Sure, okay. What gets lost in his insights, though, is the question of who must transcend which interests, and how this transcendence may differ among groups.

the suchness of academic writing and a short critique of it

a piece of academic writing strives to make explicit to a discerning, skeptical reader exactly what is sufficient to allow that reader to understand and subscribe to the writing’s assertions.

the institution of academic writing presupposes that the words of a well-formulated argument should at least logically signify if not communicate the author’s thesis.

in the ideal situation, the writing and the reader engage in a process of thinking together. the writing thinks a thought, speaks that thought, the reader thinks the writing’s thought, responds, then the writing thinks a thought and speaks it in answer to the reader’s response (though perhaps not immediately). this process continues until the piece brings the reader’s thoughts into alignment with its own.

i reject the notion that for every thought of worth, importance and profundity, there are words that can signify that thought.

i also reject the notion that it must be, that it should be, within the context of a particular thesis, the burden of the author to bring the reader’s thoughts into accordance with the author’s thoughts.

the greatest theses, i would say the wisest (as wisdom connotes the ethical) cannot be made explicit. they can only be housed in and commanded by the minds of those who grasp them. they may not even be articulable to those who command them.

that is why the wisest ones always tailor their teachings to individuals’ needs. they understand that words are received differently by and produce different thoughts in different people, that people occupy varying positions in the spaces of wisdom, meaning and experience and thus require different images, combinations of sounds, “triggers” if you will, to bring them into a state of understanding. that is why the wisest ones gesture around and toward their theses with flexibility.

when made explicit (and “explicit” here means rendered within the confines of language, which means that the explicit is paradoxically not explicit) great theses are stripped of their full profundity, exposed, naked, insufficient, incapable of moving the “skeptical” reader:

“not two.”

“do unto others, as you would have them do unto you.”

they cannot withstand interrogatories.

they are not meant to, because when articulated and put forth in writing, these theses are offered up, sacrificed to the reader. they are in effect, a sacrifice for the reader. if the reader accepts a thesis as a sacrifice for her, she will attempt to rise to it. she will accept, on faith, that she must change, and not the thesis. if she does not, she may attack its “logical fallacies”, blame the argumentation for not thinking its thoughts into her, or, ignore it altogether. part of the sacrifice of a great thesis is knowing it will invariably be treated this way.

i hope academic writing comes to understand its limitations.

Hey there, ‘member me?

Well, folks, sorry we never signed off before heading out last week: spring break disappeared me so quick I thought I was a civil liberty under the Bush administration. Thursday I trucked back up here to frigid, frigid Cambridge just in time for the Center For New Words’ annual Women, Action, and Media conference (WAM! 2008), which I may blog about this week, or just link to others who will blog about it, or simply keep the precious memories all to myself. Point is, my thesis is over: I can do what the hell I want.

For now, I’ll just say that it was a delight to see and meet in person some of the bad-assest feminist bloggers in the whole wide Interworld. The discussion on women of color bloggers — “We B(e)lo(n)g” — was especially fantastic: remarkably participatory, a loving space, so much collective wisdom represented in one room. It’s just a shame we didn’t have more time together.

I’ll be ducking out for the rest of the weekend, savoring the last, blissful hours of freedom in my final undergraduate vacation. But get ready for some more excitement and surprises next week, here on CC. Oh yes, I said surprises. Spring’s gonna be full of ‘em.

–Kloncke

5 Years Too Long

Today, President Bush once again declared mission accomplished in Iraq. Here at Harvard, we demanded peace!

Despite the cold and rain, an energetic group of us displayed our opposition to this war, right at the feet of John Harvard. Here are videos of two amazing students speaking to the crowd:

There’s A Rally In The Yard In 2 Hours. Come!

- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
*Rally to End the War in Iraq*
- – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - – - -
Wednesday, March 19
2:30 pm
Science Center

This Wednesday, March 19 join students, teachers, staff, and community members to rally against the war on the Fifth Anniversary of the Invasion and occupation of Iraq.

The rally will feature speakers Protest Literature Prof. Tim McCarthy, Harvard Divinity School Prof. Farid Esack, and Jane Collins (author of “For Love of a Soldier: Interviews with Military Families Taking Action Against the Iraq War”) as well as musical performances from Boston area bands.

At 3:30pm, the rally will march to the Boston Common to join a citywide vigil.

Bring All The Troops Home Now!
End All Funding for the Iraq War Now!
Don’t Attack Iran!
Support Our Communities, Fund Human Needs!
Stop the Attacks on Civil Liberties, Defend Human Rights!

Rally Co-Sponsored By:
Harvard Anti-War Coalition
Harvard College Democrats
Harvard College Global Health and AIDS Coalition
Progressive Jewish Alliance
Harvard-Cambridge Walk for Peace
HLS Peace
Harvard Libertarian Forum
Harvard Students for a Democratic Society
Harvard Students for Choice
Harvard Progressive Advocacy Group
Alliance for Justice in the Middle East (GSAS)
Boston Students for a Democratic Society
Burma Action Movement
National Lawyers’ Guild – HLS Chapter
Palestine Solidarity Committee
Radcliffe Union of Students
Student Labor Action Movement

What Does Feminist Solidarity Look Like?

From Jill at Feministe, who credits Religion Dispatches: an open letter by Piya Chatterjee & Sunaina Maira challenges feminists in this country to commit to a transnational solidarity that resists U.S. and U.S.-backed occupation and militarism:

The U.S., as well its proxy militias or client regimes, has inflicted violence on women and girls from Vietnam, Okinawa, and Pakistan to Chile, El Salvador, and Somalia and has avenged the deaths of its soldiers by its own “honor killings” that lay siege to entire towns, such as Fallujah in Iraq.

It is appalling that in these catastrophic times, many U.S. liberal feminists are focused only on misogynistic practices associated with particular local cultures, as if these exist in capsules, far from the arena of imperial occupation. Indeed, imperial violence has given fuel to some of these patriarchal practices of misogyny and sexism. They should also know that such a narrow vision furthers a much older tradition of feminist mobilizing in the service of colonialism–”saving brown, or black women, from brown men,” as observed by Gayatri Spivak.

While we too oppose abuses including domestic violence, “honor killings,” forced marriage, and brutal punishment, we are disturbed that some U.S. feminists–as well as Muslim or Middle Eastern women who claim to be “authorities” on Islam and are employed by right-wing think tanks–are participating in a selective discourse of universal women’s rights that ignores U.S. war crimes and abuses of human rights.

What does such a call mean for us here at one of the most powerful intellectual nodes of U.S. imperialism? I’ve seen some RUS/HAWC (feminist/anti-war) collaboration this year, which is awesome. How else can we refashion our own communities to oppose U.S. human rights abuses that harm women worldwide?

The full letter, after the jump.

An Eye For The Frivolous

Our “Friday Frivolity” feature of two weeks ago, Derrick Ashong, landed in the NYT today.

At a time when politics and popular culture are still in an awkward mating ritual, Mr. Ashong inadvertently tapped into the youthquake that is shaking up the campaign. While the clip could have been lost among some of the popular rubble at YouTube (“Let me see, do I watch a tutorial on health care or Tori Spelling on ‘Jimmy Kimmel’?”), Andrew Sullivan at The Atlantic blogged about it, as did Think on These Things, a political blog. Then The Economist chimed in, which led to an editor at The New York Times hearing about it and — well, you get the idea.

But look: they forgot to add CC (and my mama) to the list of amplifiers.

I’m hurt, NYT. Deeply hurt.

Thanks to Jacob Rus for sending the link over Dems-Talk!

Conservative Riddling

Q: Which group of people does Red Ivy characterize as “virtual nonentities notorious for their reckless consumption of reflex-hindering substances?”

Messed Up Priorities

Hello! My name is Kyle and I am so excited to be taking up residence here at Cambridge Common! I hope to bring the perspective of a male feminist, an insider and outsider of political action at Harvard, and much more to this vibrant community.

 

I come from a background of white, male privilege (among many others). As such, I am constantly striving to recognize my invisible benefits and to break the wall of silence about them. Many times I will say things that display my ignorance of my own special rights and I hope you will be patient with me and maybe even help point out that ignorance.

 

As an opening post, I want to be a little meta. Many people question the legitimacy of political/current events blogs. That is a big debate, and it is useful for informing how we invest time and energy online. Within this debate, Cambridge Common exists in a special environment.

 

Harvard is commonly referred to as being in a “bubble.” Within this bubble, there are certain institutions that posses a large amount of information capital. These institutions tend to adhere to a strange perspective on the Harvard universe and beyond. I will not try to characterize this perspective myself (Markus Kolic does a good job of it here). This situation plays itself out by molding the conversation on campus into one which is almost absurd.

Oh — One More Thing!

Ok, maybe two.

It’s no secret that I heart Markus Kolic, blogger extraordinaire and one of the smartest, leftiest folks they’ve got goin’ over on DemApples. (Eva Lam is also a winner.) I’m excited to engage with the DA crew again after Spring Break! Meanwhile, thanks for the link love today, Markus.

Even more thrilling, and speaking of fantastic bloggers, get ready for a new writer here on CC! She/ze/he/squee will be intro-posting sometime this weekend. Who will it be??? (Hint: as a mutual friend of ours once praised, “_____ totally gender-fucks the concept of a blonde bombshell.”)

Ooh, can’t wait can’t wait.

Later, y’all!

–Kloncke