From: Fellhand-AT-aol.com Date: Fri, 1 Mar 1996 17:44:12 -0500 Subject: Re: nomad dominic writes > >crispin---I don't beleve it (well, belief should be another thread)-- >but you give the best outline for a pragmatics of nomadism yet in the >first part of you post and then go on to this "disarticulation" biz. >they're quite contradictory positions. How are you going to be >interdisciplinary >after you have disarticulated the disciplines? We need more disciplines. And >many very well-articualted micro-disciplines. Minor-disciplines with their >own budgets. This is how more critical and political leverage on the major >disciplines is created, not through some subtle influences from within. >Watch how fast English Depts, when they pretend interdisciplinary study, >quickly form a limited canon of hip extra-canonical texts. You will NEVER >find that happening across depts of different disciplines except maybe in >the smallest religious schools. Who wants to take a psychology course from >a sociologist? >fuck. more disciplines would be good, i guess. it's impossible to imagine academe without its departments. what i'm saying is that each deterritorialization that actually is effected is already reterritorialized into the disciplinary taxonomy/institutiona economic structure. but what the hell, you know? i waffle between thinking we academics can accomplish various subversions and thinking we cannot; certainly we aren't going to change the world much, at least until we've changed ourselves beyond recognition. i'm particularly bitter ight now because i think i should be doing very well on the job market, and people keep rejecting me on the grounds that i'm insufficiently specialized (probably also because i don't quite act appropriately). i'd knuckle under if i knew how, because i'n trying to get a job that will keep me close to my kids. if my students go nomadic i get worried! i had a kid to whom i taught kierkegaard and he decided to move to california and live for faith. his parents called me, distraught. i was afraid of having effects! in fact, isn't that one of the joys of our deal?: action without effect. so if i fuck up on my interpretation of foucault or publish a strange book, no one really cares anyway; nothing really turns on it. maybe action without effect is nomadic? crispin ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005