the day began pretty cerebral, i finished my take home midterm from dr. de dios. thankfully, it all seemed to come together in the last minute. good work, pleased with it. later in the afternoon, watched the ateneo-ust football game, don't know what came of it because maita and i left to attend the queer theory talk, which was pretty interesting, and also profitable, because im beginning to piece together the reasons why maita and i, on occasion, seem to be on totally different wavelengths.
one big thing, is, both of our conception of the term neo-liberalism. for me, it begins and ends with the economic theory behind it, and i always assumed that other people appreciated that this what my treatment of it. i never went to the politics behind it. and it's true what dr. manalansan says. neoliberal (spanish) for these bolivians and mexicans. it's not an academic term. it's imbued with more meanings -- the politics behind it. so when i called myself a neo, a Davos person and not a Punto Alegre one, people saw Bush, Giuliani. there is a big gap between what i seem to represent and what i actually conceive in my mind.
anyway, these are just more piece of the puzzle coming together. it's a good thing. the queer theory talk, well it wasn't anything new to me really. but it did re-awaken /remind me of how public spaces are destroyed and taken over by other forces. yes.
brief tidbits: a. the speaker answering the question of what to do --> that one flew over my head. steering away advocacy of only one issues. different marginal groups coming together to advocate for each other, maita will have to explain that more to me. b. marx is still a dirty word in the american academe c. scary revelation; i think more like the american academe than i realize and remember (and this is not in the good sense, but in the more of you-were-clueless as to the roots of your thinking sense) c. he forgot to mention why he didn't like using the word gentrification
p.s. we drew with UST. 1-1. good 'coz we were behind most of the way
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
hey, who gave this talk?
hello.
nice seeing you last night. too bad that you and maita had to leave right after the talk.
ang dami niyang kwento tungkol sa american academe! :)
RC: you should post some of his kwento here. ;)
He said that Berkeley is such a cheap place. One time, he gave a lecture there, and aside from the main lecture, he had to go to 3 classes plus a brown bag/informal discussion towards the end of the day -- all for a few hundred dollars. What’s worse is that he got his pay five months after the talk.
He also mentioned that Judith Butler looks like a janitor and is quite nonchalant about her status as a theorist. One time, he went to this conference where Butler was supposed to introduce a speaker. At that time, Butler was incoherent and unprepared. In the middle of her piece, Butler went "by the way, somebody died yesterday. Was it Deleuze? Or was it Guattari?" Needless to say, Butler elicited laughter from the audience.
Hmmm. What else? Oh yeah, he mentioned that there are a lot of hottie academics in Illinois. :p
i really should read this guy's stuff. he's pretty well cited actually...was he any good though?
the kuwento's hilarious. i was thinking berkeley'd be a nice place to study, but they do seem terribly kuripot.
hotties in illinois? why am i doubtful...
rc: thanks for the kwento. now i have to find out who Judith Butler is. ;)
bob: i thought his talk was pretty good, he knew what he was talking about, no phoniness/pretense if that's what you're wondering. this talk was a first encounter for me of someone who talked "political science", and it was a good balance in that i was at times busy absorbing, occasionally struggling, gaining insight. maita liked him.
fabes: i'm going to write an entry on this. :)
bob: yup, he was really good. you would've liked it, i know i did. he was a queer theorist, but auto-critical -- he discussed the hierarchies (and pitfalls) about gender turning into identity politics, muting a more comprehensive understanding of marginalisation. he talked about how gender has been reduced to single-issue politics dominanted by rich, white, male gays, blind to the issues of race and class. i really appreciated this, but what really struck me was how sincere and open he was.
Post a Comment