Here's just one sentence from the 35 pages I have to finish reading by class on Friday:
So unbudgeably hegemonic has been this historicism of theoretical consciousness that it has tended to occlude a comparable critical sensibility to the spatiality of social life, a practical theoretical consciousness that sees the lifeworld of being creatively located not only in the making of history but also in the construction of human geographies, the social production of space and the restless formation and reformation of geographical landscapes: social being actively emplaced in space and time in an explicitly historical and geographical contextualization.
Pardon me while I go cry.
15 Comments:
Pretend some cheerleaders holding signs, *hegemony* writer wants you to believe he is too brilliant to be understood by mere mortals.
Oh man, I couldn't get past the three four words. Is that English?
What is the subject? Is there one? yikes!
The subject of the chapter is "History: Geography: Modernity."
TWO colons -- is that even grammatically correct?
It's from a book titled "Postmodern Geographies." I don't know the author's name because it's a handout. One of three this week.
Before you comment about the writing in class . . . make sure the professor didn't write it?
I would probably comment BEFORE asking and . . . at the very LEAST hurt someone's feelings . . . okay piss them off.
Maybe offer editing/writing services???
She didn't write it .... This is my third class with her and I wouldn't post about it if I thought there was a chance I'd offend her.
She's one of my very favorite teachers -- she manages to take this incredibly intellectual stuff and parse it into English for us. But first we have to hack away at it ourselves.
This is almost obscene. And unneccessary. And makes me suspect that the author does not know what s/he is trying to say.
Classic 'educational' English.
Incredible! My hat's off to you for wading through this!
Sharon, yep, classic "Academic Speak." Ugh.
Bitterroot, THANK YOU, I needed that!
I managed to get a first read-through done tonight. Tomorrow night I'll do a second pass and try to actually make some sense of it.
Hey Patia - I couldn't help myself and I popped over to Amazon.com and am reading a bit of the book. It looks great. Just break it down into parts:
1) bad guys (historicists) are winning, therefore
2) nobody wants to examine the importance of where we live for making us who we are
3) where we live is as important as when we life
4) we actively (re)create the 'where'
5) who we are... well he repeats point 3.
I think the main gist is that everyone (well, heady philosophers at least) talks about 'the spirit of our times' or the 'consciousness of our age' - but that's stupid, because the 'spirit of the '70s' for instance was very different for Montanans than for kids at Berkeley, or those living in Manhattan.
Post Modernists do tend to get wrapped up in their own lingo (one them, somewhere, will spend 12 pages defining a term, and then everyone else will through it around like it's always existed), and they think they're on to a whole new revolution in thought that the Modernists never even conceived of, which is false (imho).
Oh well, good luck, have fun with it (highlight and memorize one of the most pretentious sentences and then blurt it out in class, saying you think it sums up the whole argument).
Justin, I could hug you! But how did you find the book on Amazon? I tried searching the chapter title and some of the text but got nothing. (Except some "Recommended for you" suggestions -- three Martha Stewart books -- definitely more my speed!)
Anyway, your breakdown makes perfect sense. (Imagine that.) Where we live is as important as when we live. Well, yeah!? Any dumb schmuck could have told me that. Why did the author have to hide it behind so much intellectual gobbledy-gook?
So, if I look at all three chapters I'm reading, it sounds like these guys are saying that we should bring geography, architecture and even city planning into literary criticism. Does that sound right?
I might add: What about home decor? I think Martha could hold her own with Certeau and Foucault. :-)
This whole conversation reminds me of a quote I somewhat snarkily used when editing the UM Style Guide:
"When I read some academic writing
I marvel that as common and everyday as language is, it would have the effrontery to get in the way of all that thinking."
Richard Hugo, "The Triggering Town"
Addendum:
So, if I look at all three chapters I'm reading, it sounds like these guys are saying that we should bring geography, architecture and even city planning into literary criticism.
Not just literary criticism, but cultural studies.
That sounds like something out of the reading for a grad class in archeological theory I took.
Heya Patia, here's the amazon link: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0860919366/sr=8-1/qid=1141367099/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-2998868-4716920?%5Fencoding=UTF8
If that doesn't work, try searching for Edward W. Soja .
I'm glad my break-down made sense :) The author is probably just writing for that small audience who is presumably well versed in the jargon. I think you're right that they want to bring all the physical location (etc) issues into literary and cultural studies.
Home decor certainly should be included (I'm not sure if they do). You could analyze it in all the ways you would a city layout. Good luck with introducing Martha into the discussion :)
Good Lord, I actually understand this sentence now.
Translation to follow.
Thanks, Justin; I forgot I did have the book title.
Post a Comment
<< Home