Pisha [she/her, they/them]

  • 3 Posts
  • 185 Comments
Joined 4 years ago
cake
Cake day: December 23rd, 2020

help-circle
  • I’ve got a question for all of you: What’s the best way to run a leftist reading group? And where to start? For context, this is going to be a small number of young people who do not habitually read, so my academic instincts are useless here. Someone suggested reading during the meeting, which is maybe more approachable but I don’t see how would this work logistically (do we read out loud? Do we wait for the slowest reader to finish and then talk?). And I need to suggest a text. Presumably, people would get intimated by Capital, so something introductory with short chapters might be better. Any ideas?







  • Anthropology has a lot to answer for. Back in the 90s, a transphobe named Serena Nanda turned the gaze of the university onto the issue of gender in India and we are still living with the consequences. With the power of imperial knowledge-making behind her, she has laid down the dogma that only (educated, middle-class, white) Westerners claim to be trans women while those Indians we call hijra are actually a third gender. All the cis academics since agree with her and even the Indian courts cite her, so it must be true, right? So if you see photos of a protest with signs like “Hijras are women” or Indian trans women saying that they’re trans women, you can rest assured that’s that just our malign colonial influence. The exotic truth, on the other hand, is safely preserved in the centers of power of the Anglophone world thanks to the daily labor of cis academics everywhere – preserved from the colonial force of white trans women who threaten to extend their reach everywhere.





  • If I had some time, I’d try and find out where our “common sense” notions of art come from. Like art being subjective, which is taken to mean that it is something like a kaleidoscope where no two people can be sure to see the same thing in it and every statement about it is just based on fleeting, un-shareable impressions. Obviously that’s nonsense, but if you try debating people on the internet over whether something is well-written or if it negotiates a certain theme, they bring out clichés like this. Or the idea that art is produced by an individual in a semi-mystic, almost unconscious act which broods no further analysis or introspection – though just as often you see this as a strawman attributed to an author’s opponents. In any case, I assure you that no notable Romantic ever believed this and that the concept of “genius” has never meant this in any serious author. These are just common sense clichés that come from nowhere and are seemingly everywhere.









  • This is maybe a bit inside baseball, but Christian Lorentzen’s review essay about some recent sociological books about literature production is upsetting me. This is because he’s aiming at the right issue, which is that these books follow a reductive, cynical and capitalist theory of literature under the guise of empiricism, but what he puts up against that is just nostalgia for mediocre post-war “intellectuals” and second-rate romanticism. Like, he states that publishers consume literature instead of producing it (because novels apparently just spring fully-formed from the secret source of writers) – how naive is that! And his whole pose of defending intellectualism from the cynical rationality of career academics rings hollow to me when he’s putting CIA-funded antisemites on a pedestal while writing a Substack on the side. You can’t act like you’re defending literature from the vagaries of our times when your political analysis is that blind. Basically, he’s a smug git and I never want to hear from him again.