Random thoughts from my regular job: Lit-crit bull-shit

[much much later update, as in no longer blogging update:
I just exchanged a few emails with Ms. Eoff, and she makes clear that she was a graduate student at the time the quote below was written and was herself frustrated at the academic culture requiring this kind of writing. I apologized to her in private and do so again here. All other individuals derided on this blog remain derided.]

"William Gibson's Virtual Light: The Conversational Construction of Chevette Washington," by Amy K. Eoff:

Femininity is a social construct. Science Fiction is a literary construct. In William Gibson's "Virtual Light", femininity and science fiction intersect in the person of the protagonist Chevette Washington. Chevette is a woman built of words. A feminine, literary construct in a science fiction novel. The writer, the narrator, other characters, and Chevette herself employ words, specifically conversation, to build her physicality, personality, and selfhood. Chevette Washington is both a personality and an act of discourse to examine. I apply both speech act theory and conversation analysis to "Virtual Light", arguing that William Gibson endorses and advances the concept of total personhood proposed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton in her famous 1892 speech "The Solitude of Self"...

This passage just forced an end to my workday due to the contusions I suffered as head repeatedly met desk. Normally when I mention my job here, it will more likely be in reference to propaganda and obfuscations found in history, economics, political science, and similar fields (i.e. the productions of Chomsky's "New Mandarins"), but I had to highlight this because it demonstrates two particular things I loathe about lit-crit. A) I find it far more likely that Professor Eoff "endorses and advances the concept of total personhood proposed by Elizabeth Cady Stanton" than I find believable the proposition that Gibson's cyberpunk is based on the speeches of 19th century feminists.* B) How can one make one's living working with literature and still manage to write in such a stultifying manner? That's the opening paragraph for crissakes!

* [added later] Not that I necessarily wish to abuse the "concept of total personhood"** and perhaps an argument could be made that Gibson's writings, or at least his creation of Chevette Washington as "both a personality and an act of discourse" echoes Stanton's views. But "endorses and advances"? Puhleaze. What I'm saying is that lit-crit is far too often an excuse to advance whatever the politico-cultural agenda of the academic may be rather than any thing that actually may be found in the text. I mean, sure, one can always find multiple meanings in texts, dependent on the receiving audience, the temporal and cultural contexts, yada, yada, yada, but it hardly means that every bit of meaning later readers can extract in order to advance towards tenure was consciously intended by the author and, contra academe, the intentions of the author remain important for assessing a book.

** Of course one might want to assess Stanton's "concept of total personhood" against comments such as this: "With the black man we have no new element in government, but with the education and elevation of women, we have a power that is to develop the Saxon race into a higher and nobler life." [emphasis mine] (From Ishmael Reed's criticism of the Clintons' racist-tinged Obama bashing, which I recommend while simultaneously reserving the right to bash Obama as a cog of the imperialist machine. Yes, not as bad as either of the Clintons, but his identical voting record with the NY Senator on funding the war and his comments on the campaign trail concerning military actions against Iran and Pakistan leads me to suspect that his relative lack of warmongering enthusiasm*** is only due to "lack of experience.")

*** Shockingly suggesting, for example, that dropping nuclear bombs on small terrorist camps in ostensibly allied countries--camps no doubt unerringly identified by that ever-reliable creature operating under the nom-de-guerre of the "US Intelligence Community"--might not be the wisest course. Hillary used this blindingly-obvious-to-all-but-the-most-monstrous observation to suggest that Obama was not ready for imperial prime time: "Presidents should be very careful at all times in discussing the use or non-use of nuclear weapons," Clinton said. "Presidents since the Cold War have used nuclear deterrence to keep the peace. And I don't believe that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the use or non-use of nuclear weapons"****

**** What? You would prefer endless parentheticals?

Random thoughts from my regular job: Stakeholders

I hate with a passion the relatively new capitalist--and now apparently imperialist (but I'm getting to that... and of course they're related)--apologist/obscurantist term "stakeholders," which is intended to defuse popular global calls for democratic control over their own lives in the political and economic spheres, where such call exist in any strength.

I come across it a lot in the economics literature that crosses my desk. Also, significantly, in the reports that are issued by the United Nations, the international monetary institutions, by the US government (although more so under Clintonites than Bushies), European governments, and governments toadying up to the "Washington Consensus." A "stakeholder," for those of you who may be unfamiliar with the term, is any party who may have some concern in some "development" activity: the profiteers, the government, the international development complex......and.......the workers together with the regular other folks in the neighborhood who might get polluted, displaced by dams and such, have their farms sprayed with unwanted pesticides, be subject to destabilizing forest cuts that might lead to landslides on their head, watch their marshlands disappear no longer to protect them from hurricanes, and, well shit if you extend the metaphor to its logical conclusion, all the poor coastal people all around the world who are well and truly fucked when those ice caps melt (Alexander Cockburn, much as I generally approve of him, notwithstanding*). So right there's the pernicious thing about the term "stakeholder." It places these parties of unequal power on the same unequal playing field; it mishes and mashes a few sham community forums and meetings attended by "workers representatives" who may or may not actually represent the interests of the workers; and it then pretends that this process represents a process of equality in which all "stakeholders" have been heard from.

But the following represents the first time (and please leave links in comments if you've seen others, he says to the nonexistent readership)... the very first time I've seen it used to refer to actual state-to-state-satrapy relations. Promoted from comments to Barnett Rubin's post on the recent bombing of the elite hotel over at the group Informed Comment Blog** one Farid Maqsudi makes these observations:

"The key to success for Afghanistan and stakeholders such as USA and the international community, is the shift of burden from US and international community to Afghans.

The accountability for the success and failure needs to be with the Afghans and the Afghan government.

A common Afghan knows what he/she wants and needs for better life.

I agree in principle with the government's position that aid should flow through it. But as President Karzai acknowledges the increasing corrupt environment, he must first take serious action against the corrupt culture to gain the confidence of the donors, citizens and the private sector.

I am involved in the reconstruction economy of Afghanistan and from experience, I can tell it is better for Afghanistan and the world to stop with much of the technical studies and consultants to consultants in the reconstruction projects.

Afghans are hearing about billions and billions of aid money but they don't see it benefiting them. Let's talk smaller money and extend it directly to the people so they appreciate the challenges of reconstruction as well as the benefits.

The Afghan government should promise and deliver to its citizens a number of high impact projects that will boost the confidence of its citizens and stakeholders.

No doubt that various entities in Pakistan*** are taking detrimental actions against Afghanistan but Pakistan is not the entire cause of the problems in Afghanistan. The Afghans on both sides of the border should demonstrate their patriotism for Afghanistan by taking constructive and peaceful actions.

It is high time that we address the basics.

It is time for President Karzai to take the respectful robe off and pull up the shirt sleeves.

It is time for President Karzai to spend several continuous months in each regional capitals like Kandahar, Mazar-e-Sharif and Herat to bring attention to security and reconstruction.

It is time for the international community to support Afghans.

It is time for the country to come together."

Now aside from other evidence of willful ignorance about the basic power equation (Karzai pull up your shirt sleeves indeed! Maybe Hamid should go cut some brush?) and some small bit of valid observation ("Afghans are hearing about billions and billions of aid money but they don't see it benefiting them."), let's just look at the explicit and implied use of the term "stakeholder." The first stakeholders mentioned are the "USA and the international community." See how that works? The US and the "international community" are now on an equal moral par with the Afghans themselves concerning the fate of the country. Or maybe not, because shortly afterwards, the commenter mentions "citizens and stakeholders." So clearly they're not the same. Then who should have more legitimacy and control? Well, given my experience with the literature I mentioned above, I rather suspect that most people using such language will de facto support "USA and the international community," in that order, at least until the power equations change.

* Here George Monbiot calls him basically a "9/11 truther" for that piece.

** Informed Comment: Global Affairs is an alternately fascinating and infuriating read. Infuriating especially if you have to swallow as much imperial academese as I have to in my regular job. Fascinating because...well, look at what you learn from this eyewitness report of the population at the Serena hotel at the time and in the immediate aftermath of the recent attack on Kabul's elite luxury hotel. Listed in order of mention, but minus the bombers themselves, they include: Rubin's correspondent "Naser Shahalemi, an Afghan-American friend living and working in Afghanistan," Shahalemi's cousin Arif, Shahalemi's "office manager," "4-6 guards posted outside, one a good friendly face Aghai Sultan always gives me a friendly wave and waves my car in after checking the vehicle," "the friendly hostess," "a few friendly faces," "Serena employees,"

"Amongst us is the Norwegian Foreign Minister, and his security contingent. Also is the UN Human Rights activist Sima Samar [she is Special Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council on the situation of human rights in the Sudan], also a former Women's Minister of the Karzai Administration [and Chair of the Afghan Independent Human Rights Commission]. We get in the cafeteria and more Afghan politicians are amongst us, with Europeans and foreigners. Karzai''s oldest brother is also trapped with us and he is pacing frantically as we are unaware of what is going on in the lobby,"

"Zina a very pleasant Filipino Girl who was just doing her job working in Afghanistan to support herself and family abroad," "president of the Olympic Committee, Mr. Anwar Khan Jagdalak [a former mujahidin commander of Jamiat-i Islami] ," the "doorman [who] had passed out from all of the events he saw," "two Russian girls," and after some hours "two U.S. Marines" "armed to the teeth," and "Hundreds of Afghan Secret Service and NDS [National Directorate of Security, Amaniyyat-i Milli] guards."

Anne Patchett's got nothing on that!

*** Note that "various entities in Pakistan" are not "stakeholders."

Random thoughts from my regular job: Community

I love/hate the term "US intelligence community," which is faithfully used even by ostensible critics. Do we ever use the term "intelligence community" to refer to the spy agencies of official enemies of the US? No, in that case it becomes the "spy apparatus" or equivalent.

Similar for the term "international community," which in the US press is a euphemism for American imperialism and whatever other countries it could bribe, bully, or cajole into supporting the particular policy in question. Thus the US-French-Canadian overthrow of Haiti's Aristide becomes the "will of the international community," as does the US-British-and-assorted-hangers-on (but not France or Canada) overthrow of Saddam Hussein.

This post brought to you by the Curmudgeon Community (as I've found one other, albeit anonymously sourced, curmudgeon who agrees with me).