littlemsmack: (Default)
Ontology: Be.
Ethics: Be kind. Be likable.
Politics: Be just.
Epistemology: Be known.
Aesthetics: Be kinda like just y'know "perfect."

Courtesy of @janmpdx (https://twitter.com/janmpdx/status/600284282012053505)

Because every now and again, it's good to remember the basics.
littlemsmack: (Default)
Turgenev famously said: “We all came out from under Gogol’s coat.” He was talking about Russian literature but he might also have been describing form’s ability to speak in what Frank O’Connor called “the lonely voice” – to create a space where the marginal and the odd can be heard;

from
http://www.newstatesman.com/culture/2015/02/distraction-techniques-neil-gaiman-s-new-book-proves-you-can-t-read-short-story

I was reading the article because it was about Gaiman, who I love as an author; because it was about short stories as a genre, which I find interesting in general; because it discusses the power and necessity of the written, printed word, which is a debate I'm interested in following; because....

And the list could go on and I. But the passage above caught my eye. And lingered. Partly, I am caught up by what it means in the context of this article, but for the rest I am (with PhD-head on) caught on the Poststructural reference. Because in particular here, it translates theory from something abstract and academically debated, to something that is translated into "real life" meaning.
littlemsmack: (Default)
The following call for papers landed in my inbox. Not something I would be able to contribute to, but hugely interesting. Wounds as a way of mapping and measuring...my fellow PhD victim made me articulate why I was using gender as my yardstick to measure conceptualisation over the other day. But she did so by asking what other means I could have used, and wounds was certainly not something that crossed my mind. I feel this is prodding some thoughts - what, I'm not yet sure of. But its certainly starting...something.

Thousands of soldiers are returning to their respective home fronts––such as in the U.S., Fiji, Canada, Britain, Puerto Rico, Australia, and Sweden––after their tours of duty in the U.S.-led Global War on Terror in Iraq and Afghanistan. Scholars, policy experts, and the public are increasingly turning their attention to the multiple struggles of veterans’

experiences––such as the visible and invisible wounds of war––on both the homefront and the warfront. These national and global discourses on the soldier’s wounded body often circulate through dominant narrative practices and multiple transnational media imaginaries. Veterans returning from war set “the standard of soldiering” (Eichler 2013) and these standards are often measured according to national discourses of the Wounded Warrior Hero whose honour is valorised through the visible and tangible appearance of missing limbs and other bodily mutilations categorized as official combat wounds.

These hegemonic narratives however conjure up several questions: How does the privileging of combat wounds address, marginalize, or make invisible other forms of wounding that may be produced by processes of militarization? How does multiplying our understandings of “injuries” sustained through “service” provide a more nuanced conceptualization of the military as a gendered institution? This panel presents a series of papers which probe the meaning of military wounding through investigations of combat wounds, sexual assault in the military, post-traumatic stress disorder, and the “visible” and “invisible” effects of war on soldiers’ and civilians’ bodies on the homefront/warfront. It seeks to interrogate sustained gendered, racial, sexual, and colonial hierarchies and their implications for gendered citizenship both in relation to military service and in contemporary national and global cultures.

--

Stephanie Szitanyi

PhD Candidate, Department of Political Science Rutgers University Hickman Hall

89 George Street, New Brunswick, NJ 08901

littlemsmack: (CHARGE!)
Arriving in the post today, my latest PhD-collection acquisition: Jim George's Discourses of Global Politics: A Critical (Re)Introduction to International Relations. Very much interested in revising my MA in International Politics from this differing perspective, as well as seeing how such a re-framing can help my engagement with defence also from a non-Positivist, non-IR sense.

If, that is, I find the time to read the thing. The stack of "books to read" currently stands as tall as me.

May 2015

M T W T F S S
    123
45678910
11121314151617
1819 2021222324
25262728293031

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Friday, 21 July 2017 08:40
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios