The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time
Friday, December 24, 2010
The Most Important Free Speech Issue of Our Time
Thursday, December 23, 2010
Paris Review - The Art of Fiction No. 207, Jonathan Franzen
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
An open letter to George M Philip, President of the State University of New York At Albany
Dear President Philip,
Probably the last thing you need at this moment is someone else from outside your university complaining about your decision. If you want to argue that I can't really understand all aspects of the situation, never having been associated with SUNY Albany, I wouldn't disagree. But I cannot let something like this go by without weighing in. I hope, when I'm through, you will at least understand why.
Just 30 days ago, on October 1st, you announced that the departments of French, Italian, Classics, Russian and Theater Arts were being eliminated. You gave several reasons for your decision, including that 'there are comparatively fewer students enrolled in these degree programs.' Of course, your decision was also, perhaps chiefly, a cost-cutting measure - in fact, you stated that this decision might not have been necessary had the state legislature passed a bill that would have allowed your university to set its own tuition rates. Finally, you asserted that the humanities were a drain on the institution financially, as opposed to the sciences, which bring in money in the form of grants and contracts.
Let's examine these and your other reasons in detail, because I think if one does, it becomes clear that the facts on which they are based have some important aspects that are not covered in your statement. First, the matter of enrollment. I'm sure that relatively few students take classes in these subjects nowadays, just as you say. There wouldn't have been many in my day, either, if universities hadn't required students to take a distribution of courses in many different parts of the academy: humanities, social sciences, the fine arts, the physical and natural sciences, and to attain minimal proficiency in at least one foreign language. You see, the reason that humanities classes have low enrollment is not because students these days are clamoring for more relevant courses; it's because administrators like you, and spineless faculty, have stopped setting distribution requirements and started allowing students to choose their own academic programs - something I feel is a complete abrogation of the duty of university faculty as teachers and mentors. You could fix the enrollment problem tomorrow by instituting a mandatory core curriculum that included a wide range of courses.
Young people haven't, for the most part, yet attained the wisdom to have that kind of freedom without making poor decisions. In fact, without wisdom, it's hard for most people. That idea is thrashed out better than anywhere else, I think, in Dostoyevsky's parable of the Grand Inquisitor, which is told in Chapter Five of his great novel, The Brothers Karamazov. In the parable, Christ comes back to earth in Seville at the time of the Spanish Inquisition. He performs several miracles but is arrested by Inquisition leaders and sentenced to be burned at the stake. The Grand Inquisitor visits Him in his cell to tell Him that the Church no longer needs Him. The main portion of the text is the Inquisitor explaining why. The Inquisitor says that Jesus rejected the three temptations of Satan in the desert in favor of freedom, but he believes that Jesus has misjudged human nature. The Inquisitor says that the vast majority of humanity cannot handle freedom. In giving humans the freedom to choose, Christ has doomed humanity to a life of suffering.
That single chapter in a much longer book is one of the great works of modern literature. You would find a lot in it to think about. I'm sure your Russian faculty would love to talk with you about it - if only you had a Russian department, which now, of course, you don't.
Then there's the question of whether the state legislature's inaction gave you no other choice. I'm sure the budgetary problems you have to deal with are serious. They certainly are at Brandeis University, where I work. And we, too, faced critical strategic decisions because our income was no longer enough to meet our expenses. But we eschewed your draconian - and authoritarian - solution, and a team of faculty, with input from all parts of the university, came up with a plan to do more with fewer resources. I'm not saying that all the specifics of our solution would fit your institution, but the process sure would have. You did call a town meeting, but it was to discuss your plan, not let the university craft its own. And you called that meeting for Friday afternoon on October 1st, when few of your students or faculty would be around to attend. In your defense, you called the timing 'unfortunate', but pleaded that there was a 'limited availability of appropriate large venue options.' I find that rather surprising. If the President of Brandeis needed a lecture hall on short notice, he would get one. I guess you don't have much clout at your university.
It seems to me that the way you went about it couldn't have been more likely to alienate just about everybody on campus. In your position, I would have done everything possible to avoid that. I wouldn't want to end up in the 9th Bolgia (ditch of stone) of the 8th Circle of the Inferno, where the great 14th century Italian poet Dante Alighieri put the sowers of discord. There, as they struggle in that pit for all eternity, a demon continually hacks their limbs apart, just as in life they divided others.
The Inferno is the first book of Dante's Divine Comedy, one of the great works of the human imagination. There's so much to learn from it about human weakness and folly. The faculty in your Italian department would be delighted to introduce you to its many wonders - if only you had an Italian department, which now, of course, you don't.
And do you really think even those faculty and administrators who may applaud your tough-minded stance (partly, I'm sure, in relief that they didn't get the axe themselves) are still going to be on your side in the future? I'm reminded of the fable by Aesop of the Travelers and the Bear: two men were walking together through the woods, when a bear rushed out at them. One of the travelers happened to be in front, and he grabbed the branch of a tree, climbed up, and hid himself in the leaves. The other, being too far behind, threw himself flat down on the ground, with his face in the dust. The bear came up to him, put his muzzle close to the man's ear, and sniffed and sniffed. But at last with a growl the bear slouched off, for bears will not touch dead meat. Then the fellow in the tree came down to his companion, and, laughing, said 'What was it that the bear whispered to you?' 'He told me,' said the other man, 'Never to trust a friend who deserts you in a pinch.'
I first learned that fable, and its valuable lesson for life, in a freshman classics course. Aesop is credited with literally hundreds of fables, most of which are equally enjoyable - and enlightening. Your classics faculty would gladly tell you about them, if only you had a Classics department, which now, of course, you don't.
As for the argument that the humanities don't pay their own way, well, I guess that's true, but it seems to me that there's a fallacy in assuming that a university should be run like a business. I'm not saying it shouldn't be managed prudently, but the notion that every part of it needs to be self-supporting is simply at variance with what a university is all about. You seem to value entrepreneurial programs and practical subjects that might generate intellectual property more than you do 'old-fashioned' courses of study. But universities aren't just about discovering and capitalizing on new knowledge; they are also about preserving knowledge from being lost over time, and that requires a financial investment. There is good reason for it: what seems to be archaic today can become vital in the future. I'll give you two examples of that. The first is the science of virology, which in the 1970s was dying out because people felt that infectious diseases were no longer a serious health problem in the developed world and other subjects, such as molecular biology, were much sexier. Then, in the early 1990s, a little problem called AIDS became the world's number 1 health concern. The virus that causes AIDS was first isolated and characterized at the National Institutes of Health in the USA and the Institute Pasteur in France, because these were among the few institutions that still had thriving virology programs. My second example you will probably be more familiar with. Middle Eastern Studies, including the study of foreign languages such as Arabic and Persian, was hardly a hot subject on most campuses in the 1990s. Then came September 11, 2001. Suddenly we realized that we needed a lot more people who understood something about that part of the world, especially its Muslim culture. Those universities that had preserved their Middle Eastern Studies departments, even in the face of declining enrollment, suddenly became very important places. Those that hadn't - well, I'm sure you get the picture.
I know one of your arguments is that not every place should try to do everything. Let other institutions have great programs in classics or theater arts, you say; we will focus on preparing students for jobs in the real world. Well, I hope I've just shown you that the real world is pretty fickle about what it wants. The best way for people to be prepared for the inevitable shock of change is to be as broadly educated as possible, because today's backwater is often tomorrow's hot field. And interdisciplinary research, which is all the rage these days, is only possible if people aren't too narrowly trained. If none of that convinces you, then I'm willing to let you turn your institution into a place that focuses on the practical, but only if you stop calling it a university and yourself the President of one. You see, the word 'university' derives from the Latin 'universitas', meaning 'the whole'. You can't be a university without having a thriving humanities program. You will need to call SUNY Albany a trade school, or perhaps a vocational college, but not a university. Not anymore.
I utterly refuse to believe that you had no alternative. It's your job as President to find ways of solving problems that do not require the amputation of healthy limbs. Voltaire said that no problem can withstand the assault of sustained thinking. Voltaire, whose real name was François-Marie Arouet, had a lot of pithy, witty and brilliant things to say (my favorite is 'God is a comedian playing to an audience that is afraid to laugh'). Much of what he wrote would be very useful to you. I'm sure the faculty in your French department would be happy to introduce you to his writings, if only you had a French department, which now, of course, you don't.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised that you have trouble understanding the importance of maintaining programs in unglamorous or even seemingly 'dead' subjects. From your biography, you don't actually have a PhD or other high degree, and have never really taught or done research at a university. Perhaps my own background will interest you. I started out as a classics major. I'm now Professor of Biochemistry and Chemistry. Of all the courses I took in college and graduate school, the ones that have benefited me the most in my career as a scientist are the courses in classics, art history, sociology, and English literature. These courses didn't just give me a much better appreciation for my own culture; they taught me how to think, to analyze, and to write clearly. None of my sciences courses did any of that.
One of the things I do now is write a monthly column on science and society. I've done it for over 10 years, and I'm pleased to say some people seem to like it. If I've been fortunate enough to come up with a few insightful observations, I can assure you they are entirely due to my background in the humanities and my love of the arts.
One of the things I've written about is the way genomics is changing the world we live in. Our ability to manipulate the human genome is going to pose some very difficult questions for humanity in the next few decades, including the question of just what it means to be human. That isn't a question for science alone; it's a question that must be answered with input from every sphere of human thought, including - especially including - the humanities and arts. Science unleavened by the human heart and the human spirit is sterile, cold, and self-absorbed. It's also unimaginative: some of my best ideas as a scientist have come from thinking and reading about things that have, superficially, nothing to do with science. If I'm right that what it means to be human is going to be one of the central issues of our time, then universities that are best equipped to deal with it, in all its many facets, will be the most important institutions of higher learning in the future. You've just ensured that yours won't be one of them.
Some of your defenders have asserted that this is all a brilliant ploy on your part - a master political move designed to shock the legislature and force them to give SUNY Albany enough resources to keep these departments open. That would be Machiavellian (another notable Italian writer, but then, you don't have any Italian faculty to tell you about him), certainly, but I doubt that you're that clever. If you were, you would have held that town meeting when the whole university could have been present, at a place where the press would be all over it. That's how you force the hand of a bunch of politicians. You proclaim your action on the steps of the state capitol. You don't try to sneak it through in the dead of night, when your institution has its back turned.
No, I think you were simply trying to balance your budget at the expense of what you believe to be weak, outdated and powerless departments. I think you will find, in time, that you made a Faustian bargain. Faust is the title character in a play by Johann Wolfgang von Goethe. It was written around 1800 but still attracts the largest audiences of any play in Germany whenever it's performed. Faust is the story of a scholar who makes a deal with the devil. The devil promises him anything he wants as long as he lives. In return, the devil will get - well, I'm sure you can guess how these sorts of deals usually go. If only you had a Theater department, which now, of course, you don't, you could ask them to perform the play so you could see what happens. It's awfully relevant to your situation. You see, Goethe believed that it profits a man nothing to give up his soul for the whole world. That's the whole world, President Philip, not just a balanced budget. Although, I guess, to be fair, you haven't given up your soul. Just the soul of your institution.
Gregory A Petsko
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
The silencing of radicals such as Davis, who had been a member of the Communist Party, although he had left it by the time he was investigated by HUAC, has left academics and intellectuals without the language, vocabulary of class war and analysis to critique the ideology of globalism, the savagery of unfettered capitalism and the ascendancy of the corporate state. And while the turmoil of the 1960s saw discontent sweep through student bodies with some occasional support from faculty, the focus was largely limited to issues of identity politics—feminism, anti-racism—and the anti-war movements. The broader calls for socialism, the detailed Marxist critique of capitalism, the open rejection of the sanctity of markets, remained muted or unheard. Davis argues that not only did socialism and communism become outlaw terms, but once these were tagged as heresies, the right wing tried to make liberal, secular and pluralist outlaw terms as well. The result is an impoverishment of ideas and analysis at a moment when we desperately need radical voices to make sense of the corporate destruction of the global economy and the ecosystem. The “centrist” liberals manage to retain a voice in mainstream society because they pay homage to the marvels of corporate capitalism even as it disembowels the nation and the planet.
The Origin of America's Intellectual Vacuum
Monday, November 1, 2010
And because it's being done in a data-based way, the techniques which will solve the problem will solve it for all languages, not just the big important ones. So even remote Aboriginal groups will benefit – maybe a generation later, maybe sooner. And when that happens, people will be able to fulfil themselves through their own language, which is what they always wanted to do anyway.
Well, it's happening gradually. But I want to draw a distinction between a language which is spread through nurture, a mother tongue, and a language that is spread through recruitment, which is a lingua franca. A lingua franca is a language that you consciously learn because you need to, because you want to. A mother tongue is a language that you learn because you can't help it. The reason English is spreading around the world at the moment is because of its utility as a lingua franca. Globish – a simplified version of English that's used around the world – will be there as long as it is needed, but since it's not being picked up as a mother tongue, it's not typically being spoken by people to their children. It is not getting effectively to first base, the most crucial first base for long-term survival of a language.
My bright idea: English is on the up but one day will die out | Technology | The Observer
Saturday, October 30, 2010
The pamphlet appeared calculated to intimidate workers into voting for Republican candidates by making a direct reference to their wages and benefits, said Allen Schulman, a Democrat who is president of the Canton City Council and said he obtained a copy of the pamphlet on Wednesday.
The pamphlet said: “If the right people are elected, we will be able to continue with raises and benefits at or above the current levels. If others are elected, we will not.”
It then named three Republican candidates after stating, “The following candidates are the ones we believe will help our business move forward.”
McDonald’s Workers Are Told Whom to Vote For - NYTimes.com
That we are experiencing a relapse into this ethnic understanding of our liberal constitution is bad enough. It doesn’t make things any better that today leitkultur is defined not by “German culture” but by religion. With an arrogant appropriation of Judaism — and an incredible disregard for the fate the Jews suffered in Germany — the apologists of the leitkultur now appeal to the “Judeo-Christian tradition,” which distinguishes “us” from the foreigners.
Nevertheless I do not have the impression that the appeals to the leitkultur signal anything more than a rearguard action or that the lapse of an author into the snares of the controversy over nature versus nurture has given enduring and widespread impetus to the more noxious mixture of xenophobia, racist feelings of superiority and social Darwinism. The problems of today have set off the reactions of yesterday — but not those of the day before.
Leadership and Leitkultur - NYTimes.com
Thursday, October 28, 2010
Sunday, October 24, 2010
Sunday, October 17, 2010
The open letter of Harcharan Bains, media adviser to the Chief Minister of Punjab, should be archived in the cultural studies departments of the world's universities.1 It is such a model illustration of how ideology functions in these times.
If it is a calculated attempt to put the case of 'injured merit' (here the government's) before the 'discerning' readers of The Tribune, the calculation appears to have gone fatally wrong. As a signed statement that purports to answer a former minister's charges against the leadership of the principal ruling party and the CM and the Deputy CM, the letter merits serious scrutiny. But what a scrutiny reveals is that the answer does not really answer anything. The official media adviser has penned, actually, a personal letter.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Dear S. Malhans,
I take your observations with gratitude. You have obviously spent a good deal of time and care to comment on my short review.
I will try to respond one by one to the points you have raised.
My ideal reader is not a lazy person. I do not write for those who would expect me to "summarise" the text for them. Moreover, I do not see how a reviewer's summary can be treated as objective and hence relied on by a reader to arrive at a fair assessment of the review.
I do not deny the uses of "structural logic" but I would like to be alert to its own logic. The search for structural logic may, in some cases, arise from a deeply insecure conservative impulse. Structural logic can function as the Great Secret Validator: to explain away and justify everything. Indeed I do not think that in the name of structural logic we can even condone a writer's poor handling of dialogue and lack of homework. The writer as an artist and thinker is answerable to her readers by virtue of her decision to publish; she cannot hide behind any "structural logic".
But I would like to also ask: By what logic can the structrual logic of a text exclude its unconscious and subconscious?
Your comments suggest that you treat the reviewer's introducing/summarising the text and explaining its structural logic as the essential components of any review. This is, in my opinion, a rather narrow view of the review as a form of critical analysis.
As for your remark about sexuality, it seems you missed my point by a wide margin. I am not commenting on the appropriateness or otherwise of a village girl's reaction to her encounter with lesbians, but on the writer's reluctance to engage with sexuality in this instance and others. And please remember that I have traced a triptych of sexuality, class and war. See them together as I do, and then you may see what I mean.
Your related (un-relatable by me, to speak the truth) admiration of the "exposure" of "'terrorism'" is something on which I cannot go with you. You may disagree but I am of the considered opinion that only a naive reader would be impressed by such an "exposure". Similarly, what you think is a "[delicate handling and description]" of a romantic situation is to me a pedestrian and stock treatment. (It could be a matter of taste, mine being rather perverse).
You ask why my reader should accept my "interpretation" as "objective ...[and] accurate". I shall only say, with all solemnity, that I'd be guilty of a grave logical error if I expected an interpretation to be objective and accurate An interpretation can only be an interpretation; it cannot claim to be more.
Now to return to where you begin. To state on the basis of only two reviews you have read and commented on that my evaluations are "often harsh" is not a very rigorous way of judging a reviewer. In the present instance, you somehow ignore the several good things I have said about the book. Critical integrity and forthrightness should not be perceived as "harshness". If these are, so be it. Criticism is not the craft of making pleasant noises but the art of a patient and sympathetic surgery.
Rajesh K Sharma
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
By Rajesh Kumar Sharma
Surinder Neer's maiden novel Shikargah shows she is a gifted story-teller. I choose the word 'gifted' to indicate her ability to tell her story engagingly and without straining herself. Besides, she has a profuse invention: she does not run out of absorbing situations and manages to sustain the reader's interest in most of them. She has as much strength to dwell on sorrow and death as the sensibility to register the magic of everyday life. Dying and loneliness do not scare her, which is no small virtue in a writer in these days of profit-driven cultural production.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
The Supreme Court having dismissed a Special Leave Petition seeking deferment of the Allahabad High Court judgement which was slated to be delivered on the 24th of September, the decks have been cleared for the said judgement to be pronounced now at 3.30 afternoon tomorrow, the 30th of September, 2010.
At the heart of the issue in court is a title suit to determine who is in rightful possession of the site where the demolished mosque stood—a Muslim organization or a Hindu one.
Remarkably, after some sixty years of litigation in the matter, all parties to the dispute have welcomed the prospect of a legal determination regardless of who wins or loses, or whether the judgement-to-come confronts the parties with a mixed bag of determinations. But leaving the way open to all to go in appeal to the Supreme Court depending on how the chips fall.
It is to be recalled that one justification preferred for the demolition of the Babri mosque in 1992 was that the courts were taking forever, and that the Rambakhts were thus obliged to take matters into their own gruesome hands to level the ground for the construction of a “grand” temple to lord Ram, who they simply believe was born at the very exact spot where the main dome of the mosque stood.
Interestingly, the BJP whose stalwarts were in the forefront of the demolition event on December 6, 1992, and which till now had been holding to the view that the Constitution and the Courts have no locus standi in the matter of “civilizational” convictions, seems suddenly as fervently favourable to the judicial pronouncement as the Muslim litigants who have consistently argued that any final legal determination of the matter will be accepted by them without demur, however it turns out for their side.
The BJP’s new stance of course may not be as straightforward or upright as it seems. As much as we can forsee, having understood that the national mood in India is visibly transformed, it will be their further tactics to “go to the people” come national hustings and ask for a legislative majority in parliament so as they can legislate that “grand temple” to be “lawfully” constructed at Ayodhya—something they have tried before and failed to achieve. Which suggests importantly (something that tends to be brushed under the polemical carpet) that however they have sought to make the temple issue a “Hindu” one, endorsement for such a read has not been forthcoming. Remarkably, to this day, the BJP has failed to obtain the electoral patronage of some 70% among the Hindu electorate.
Cannily, most Hindu Indians who after all are not averse to a Ram temple being built also understand that it is not the temple so much that the BJP and the Sangh Parivar want as an anti-Muslim political and civilizational assertion, and a seal on the fascist view that the concerns and convictions of the sectarian-cultural majority must take precedence over electoral majorities as mandated by the Constitutional regime. A programme that ordinary Indians across the board do not concur with.
We have often defined India’s democracy as indeed still work-in-progress. There has been no better evidence of that than the manner in which two momentous arms of the state have through the years tended to deal with the Ayodhya imbroglio, namely the Executive and the Media.
In 1992, the year of the watershed demolition of the mosque, the central government led by the “secular” Congress party simply went into deep siesta the whole day long, allowing the vandals and the criminals to finish off the job in glee and glamour. And even now when there is overwhelming demand on all sides that the court be allowed to pronounce on the title suit, the characteristic pusillanimity of the Congress remains unaffected: it would much rather avoid having to assert the Constitutionally obligatory mandate of the State to sort out the publicly disorderly consequences, if any, of the judicial pronouncement, but will reluctantly do so if the parties to the suit fail to reconcile—something they have failed to do over six long decades of trying.
All that in stark contrast to its willingness to launch “operation greenhunt” against recalcitrant tribals in some six states of India and to fire real bullets at stone-pelting teenagers in the valley of Kashmir.
At the heart of the pusillanimity, let us repeat, has been the peculiar version of secularism adopted by the State from its inception, namely not a separation of church and state, but an “equal” regard of all religious faiths.
Clearly, where some 85% of all Indians are Hindus of one kind or another, that mandate of “equal” regard finds its own disequilibrium in the politics of “mainstream” India. Just as dependable citizenship remains coloured by denominational proclivities and preferences.
For those reasons, therefore, (and especially when a “new” young India refuses to be much drawn to the dispute), it will remain to be seen how the Congress party and the state led by it now rise to the occasion. No more inspiring words than those of the Supreme Court that just as the judiciary cannot be prevented form doing its job, it is for the State to do its.
As to the Media, especially of the big corporate variety: its class allegiance willy nilly obliges it to oscillate between the Congress and the BJP, its dream of long that such a two-party dispensation comes to gel to the exclusion of the plethora of other political formations whose agendas tend to be either inimical to big business or wholly localized and “socially retrograde.”
And between the Congress and the BJP, it has tended to prefer the latter for its more openly and completely market-friendly predilections. And where the BJP practices a non-lethal variety of religiosity, this is also seen as a boon, to the extent that such a stance taps the energies of the mass of working Hindus whose devotions to the deities are legendary, keeping them away from mobilizing on livelihood issues. No better ploy to keep the pretentious politics of the Left in its sidelined place. It is only when a communal mayhem is let loose that the corporate media begins to fidget, since the image of an India on the march to accumulation and profit maximization is then severely dented and thwarted.
In the current moment, there is evidence that some sections of this media are more boldly out to support the Constitutional assertion of the judiciary and the state than they have been hitherto.
Some others who have been more closely in embrace with the BJP are strangely and distressingly heard to counter the general mood in favour of a judicial determination of the Ayodhya issue with the old “tea party” argument about the non-justiciability of “faith.” A sort of back-up to the clandestine BJP position which the party itself for now seems to have suspended in the hope that any further prolonged career of the dispute in the Supreme Court will open the route to its demand for an electoral majority so that the temple construction be legislated.
But, finally, more than all these, a great deal of what may or may not transpire will depend on new civil society and mass attitudes to the judicial verdict due tomorrow.
A distinct watershed moment then in the post-Independent history of “modernizing” India which will tell us whether the Constitutional clock moves ahead or suffers a circum ambulatory regression in time.
Friday, September 24, 2010
However you may cavil,
We got the game, the game;
However it may unravel,
We have no shame, no shame.
Only a hundred workers lost their lives,
Only a footbridge fell;
Only the beggars were put to the knives,
Our hands remain in the till.
The white man does not appreciate
How well we negotiate
Reality and bluster,
Third world and first world state.
Our metaphysics teaches us
To look with benign eye
On scoundrels and scalawags
Who leave us high and dry.
O India we assure you
Your image shall not be dented;
However the shit may hit the fan,
Our glories shall be scented.
Be not the anti-national wag,
Sing praise to national pride;
Whatever be the price to pay,
We shall bring in the bride.
And when we do the beggars will
Be back where we know them;
And they will so rejoice with us
When we show them
All the infrastructure we built
While they were in quarantine;
They will dance to national pride,
They will say it is fine
If they never have a belly full,
Or a shanty in their fate,
So long as the Queen acknowledges
How the games made India great.
Friday, September 10, 2010
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Seligman, in contrast, puts the emphasis on the remembering self. "I think we are our memories more than we are the sum total of our experiences," he says. For him, studying moment-to-moment experiences puts too much emphasis on transient pleasures and displeasures. Happiness goes deeper than that, he argues in his 2002 book Authentic Happiness. As a result of his research, he finds three components of happiness: pleasure ("the smiley-face piece"), engagement (the depth of involvement with one's family, work, romance and hobbies) and meaning (using personal strengths to serve some larger end). Of those three roads to a happy, satisfied life, pleasure is the least consequential, he insists: "This is newsworthy because so many Americans build their lives around pursuing pleasure. It turns out that engagement and meaning are much more important."
Science of Happiness: New Research on Mood, Satisfaction -- Printout -- TIME
Tuesday, September 7, 2010
David A. Bell Reviews Mark C. Taylor's "Crisis On Campus: A Bold Plan For Reforming Our Colleges And Universities" | The New Republic
David A. Bell Reviews Mark C. Taylor's "Crisis On Campus: A Bold Plan For Reforming Our Colleges And Universities" | The New Republic
from London Review of Books
Papers speak through their writers. And of all the London Review’s writers Frank Kermode was the one through whom we spoke most often and most eloquently. In all he wrote nearly 250 pieces for the LRB, the first in October 1979, a review of J.F.C. Harrison’s book on millenarianism, the last, in May this year, a review of Philip Pullman’s The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ. ‘Eloquently’: was that the right word? Not really. Frank’s writing was so much more exact, more stylish, more patient, more ironic, more playful, more attentive, more cunning, more cagey than ‘eloquence’ can suggest. ‘Stealthy’ is another possibility – a word Michael Wood used in introducing the collection of Frank’s essays we published to mark his 90th birthday. But as I pile on the epithets I hear Frank’s voice in my head and I stop.Link:
LRB · Mary-Kay Wilmers · Frank Kermode
Sunday, September 5, 2010
Much is happening around the country right now to inflame hatred toward Muslims and Arabs. As one dear colleague noted today with understandable alarm, “I am deeply worried about the poisonous environment swirling around the Park51 initiative. Glen Beck and his ilk have given public permission to revile and attack Muslims and their institutions. Mosques are being burned, there is a threat to torch Qur'ans on 9/11, and individuals are being physically assaulted.”
Further, those of us with origins in South Asia or the Middle East (Muslim or not) – that is, those of us who are perceived as Muslim or Arab based on our phenotype or our dress – are also beginning to catch the fire.
As educators or as individuals otherwise concerned about civil rights and civil liberties, we need to be on the alert and be prepared to do whatever we can to speak up and to educate.
At the very minimum, we could take a few minutes of class time to address this burgeoning social issue and help in raising our students’ awareness of how such bias might hurt and scar real human beings around us.
We could also consider developing and sharing information sheets or power-points on Islam & Islamophobia for our courses and offer some programs for campus at large.
Have a good Labor Day weekend, Amrit
Friday, September 3, 2010
It wasn’t until recently that I was forced to reevaluate my stance on the e-book. While researching the negative effects of e-book sales on brick and mortar bookstores, I came across an essay by the science fiction author Charlie Stross. In the essay, “CMAP #5: Why Books are the Length they Are,” Stross lends his support to the e-book, stating that the success of the e-book may lead to a revival of non-novel formats, like novellas and serials, which have been floundering for some time.
With this one simple statement, Stross brought me over to the dark side and showed me the brilliant light I’d been missing there all along. If the e-book can revive dead formats, it can also create new ones. We are now in a position wherein we can drastically redefine what counts as a book. As Stross says in his essay, the processes and costs of printing and binding usually dictate the lengths of books, and we have come to define books according to the very narrow specifications of publishing companies. But the e-book frees books from these constraints, giving writers more room to experiment and making it easier for readers to engage with these experiments.
Daily Targum - Electronic books turn new page in literature
‘When do I start?’ the war artist asked.
The captain glanced at his watch, his thin lips pressed into a sliver. Thirty seconds passed.
‘Today,’ he said.
From down the hallway a pistol shot rang out, followed by the sprightly pop of a champagne cork.
‘Right now, in fact.’ He handed the war artist a neatly folded uniform, saluted her, and walked out the door.
The War Artist | Online Only | Granta Magazine
By Rajesh Kumar Sharma
A friend, who also is a teacher, recently sent an sms: satinder singh passed away this morning.
Satinder Singh introduced me to the art of reading literature. He taught us to read patiently, to wait like birds even as reading hatched taking its own time. And he taught us to navigate literary works like wayfarers exploring the labyrinthine patterns of some Persian carpets.
I remember the day -it must have been in 1980- I first went up to Satinder Singh. As always, he was there outside the classroom well before the class began. I had been reading a poem by Tennyson and had some questions. He heard me out and asked me to see him again the following day.
'Read this book over the weekend and come back to me,' he said, handing me The Complete Poems of Alfred Lord Tennyson. I looked apprehensively at the forbidding tome but he reassured me, 'You'll read it through, I know.' And he smiled, patted my shoulder and walked into the class.
I was in the first year of my Bachelor's course and full of doubts, including those about my ability. But he seemed to know his students better than we knew ourselves. He believed in us and made us believe in ourselves as if by magic. He was the only one who used Goethe, Kierkegaard, TS Eliot, e e cummings, Stephen Spender, Milton and Voltaire in composition and translation classes. He would often stay with a word or line for a whole hour, mining and polishing its gold. At times, he would spend days on a short passage. He taught, and taught us to read, unhurriedly.
It so happened once that he had to share a course with another teacher. He taught Julius Caesar, while she did poetry. She sliced her way through poems at such a pace that she often ended up finishing off three poems in forty minutes. 'A teacher's test is how long his cupped hands can hold water,' he had once remarked. He was so right, I realized.
After one of his brightest students did his Master's with a gold medal, he said, 'I want you to be a teacher. Because you are one of the best.'
His house overflowed with books just as he did with kindness, affection and modesty. Such men are lonely seekers of wisdom. Several among his colleagues secretly envied him, often letting the envy show itself, in unguarded moments, as scorn. They bought shares and land and enlarged their houses, while he quietly laboured to enlarge his library and mind.
When I went to Panjab University to continue my Master's, he was probably the happiest among my teachers at Government College, Hoshiarpur. 'We've given you whatever we could. Now you need more. Learn and grow.'
I last met him some fifteen years ago. He asked me, 'Do you still read books? Or have you stopped reading?'
Thursday, September 2, 2010
|From:||Z Net - The Spirit Of Resistance Lives|
/“Life, like a dome of many-coloured glass,/
/Stains the white radiance of Eternity.”/
Shelley was never more wrong, but to that I shall return.
Currently, one of the “burning issues” on media channels here in India is what colour we may ascribe or not ascribe to terror. A conundrum, if there ever was one.
The matter has arisen from a comment made by the honourable Home Minister (read Minister of the Interior, incharge of “security” of the realm) to a conclave of senior law-enforcement officers on the state of alertness required of them in these troubled times.
Detailing the many sources and forms of terror that now bedevil the even march of the country towards progress and “development,” he made a politic or impolitic “depending on who is listening” reference to a newer source of terror, namely, “saffron” terror, since many cases have come to notice since 2006 that involve terrorists aligned to organizations with classical Hindu names: Abhinav Bharat, Sanaatan Sanstha, Hindu Janjagruiti Manch and so on.
Individuals close to the RSS as well seem under scrutiny, while many are indicted and in jail.
At which the cry has gone up from predictable quarters that such a nomenclature is calculated to malign all Hindus, since saffron is a shade sacred to Hindus, and one that adorns Hindu rites and rituals. There is also the case that saffron forms the topmost strip of the national tricolour. That the tricolour also has a green (an Islamic hue) strip is another matter, and usually a discomforting reminder to the espousers of Hindutva who regard India as in essence a Hindu nation. Reason why the RSS refused to acknowledge the tricolour as the national icon till some two years after Independence, being then forced to do so as a quid pro quo to the release of its Chief from jail where he was placed after the murder of Gandhi.
So what are we to think and do?
The naming of names remains a fraught enterprise; and the current lot of protestors are right that many peace-loving and secular Hindus who oppose Hindutva the most are also likely to feel uncomfortable with the “saffron” allusion.
Such, infact, has been the argument adduced by civil society at large whenever Muslim names have come up during investigations into terrorist activity that rubrics like “Islamic terror,” or “Jehadi terror” etc., likewise malign some 99.9% of Muslims who equally oppose terror conducted in the name or on behalf of Islam. Never mind that the Hindutva brigade never quite admitted that argument until the boot came to be on the other foot.
Thus it came to be that on a talk show the other day, a happy resolution was found. Ergo, if terror has a colour, it can only be “black.”
Now, as any student of world history would know, black has been everybody’s bug bear. If among the Christian world, Satan is the Prince of Darkness, and all things evil happen by night (God, you remember, is the “Light”) among us dried-in the-wool Aryan sun-worshippers, it is no different. The authentic Brahmin brow has always been thought to be /“tejaswaie”/, to wit, burnished with light, since the Brahmin was anyway born of Brahma’s brow, and the shades got darker with declension into the shoulders, the limbs, and the feet, as the lower orders of castes also emerged. You can see why some historians should conclude that the genesis of the Indian caste system lies in a racial idea (/“varna” /in Sanskrit literally meaning colour).
Now if all terror, in essence, is “black,” it must be concluded that the chief terrorist sits in the Whitehouse, not to speak of the whole continent of Africa and wherever else black folks live and do good work. Not a workable idea, you would concede.
Which brings me to my own take.
Any good Physicist will tell you that black is infact the most unmixed and uncontaminated of colours, wholly itself and none other.
And that the colour that has gone down in history as the purest of the pure is the one, in scientific fact, that harbours a conglomerate of colours, namely White.
No finer lay evidence for that startling fact than the rainbow. It is when white light is refracted that them colours can be seen which make up the “white.”
Now apply that discovery to the history of the world and you might get a colossal rainbow of terror -- 50 million dead in the slave trade (all black), millions during the colonization of the Americas, of Africa, and of Asia, hundreds of thousand in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, 6 million we are told in the Holocaust, millions in the Gulag, hundreds of thousand again in Vietnam (ah that saffron Agent Orange), a million or more again in Iraq and Afghanistan, and who knows what is to come.
And all under the camouflage of the colourless (sic) White, with the black, the brown, the pale, and all shades in-between at the receiving end.
I say therefore that be it the red, the black, or the green, or the saffron varieties of terror, they are all midwifed by the great White. That is the one that has the hugest of Jaws, and the most insatiable appetite for violence and grab. Is it a surprise that many hopefuls worldwide who had expected peaceful and peace-loving things from Barrack Obama today conclude that he is proving to be just another White, after all?
What the lovely Shelley seems not to have known is that the “many-coloured glass” of his lament is indeed the manifest of Eternity which he supposed to be an unsullied White.
If you have a better case, do let me know.
Tuesday, August 31, 2010
from The New York Times
It has been a bumpy year for Barnes & Noble, the country’s largest book chain, with 720 stores. Sales and store traffic have suffered as the book business has shifted online; Amazon has held its early lead in the e-reader war; and early this month, Barnes & Noble put itself up for sale and is now in the midst of a battle for control of the company with Ronald W. Burkle, the billionaire investor.
People browsing at the Lincoln Center store on Monday lamented the loss of one of the city’s largest and most prominent bookstores, a sprawling space with a cafe on the fourth floor and an enormous music selection. For devoted theatergoers, it was a reliable site for readings and events that focused on the performing arts. (Still on the fall schedule are appearances by Patti LuPone and Elaine Paige.)
But many of those same people conceded that they have not bought as many books there as they did in the past. Some said they were more likely to browse the shelves, then head home and make purchases online. Others said they prized the store most for its sunny cafe or its magazines and other nonbook items.Complete text:
At Bookstore, Even Those Not Buying Regret Its End - NYTimes.com
from The New York Times
It is lunchtime at what may be the world’s largest free eatery, the langar, or community kitchen at this city’s glimmering Golden Temple, the holiest shrine of the Sikh religion. Everything is ready for the big rush. Thousands of volunteers have scrubbed the floors, chopped onions, shelled peas and peeled garlic. At least 40,000 metal plates, bowls and spoons have been washed, stacked and are ready to go.
Anyone can eat for free here, and many, many people do. On a weekday, about 80,000 come. On weekends, almost twice as many people visit. Each visitor gets a wholesome vegetarian meal, served by volunteers who embody India’s religious and ethnic mosaic.
Amritsar Journal - A Sikh Temple Where All May Eat, and Pitch In - NYTimes.com
Monday, August 23, 2010
As a scholar, Mr. Kermode sought to bring new ideas on literary theory into the classroom, helping introduce French theorists such as Roland Barthes and Michel Foucault into British academia in the 1960s. He later distanced himself from some of their more arcane notions of literary interpretation but remained committed to academic freedom.
He left his prestigious job at University College London in 1982 after an unsuccessful battle to achieve tenure for a younger colleague who advocated a structuralist view of literature and film.
British literary critic Frank Kermode dies at age 90
The Face That Launched a Thousand Drones? | ShahidulNews
Sunday, August 22, 2010
Frank Kermode | Tribute | John Naughton | Books | The Observer
Friday, August 20, 2010
Frank Kermode, who rose from humble origins to become one of England’s most respected and influential critics, died Tuesday at his home in Cambridge, England. He was 90.
His death was announced by The London Review of Books, which he helped create and to which he frequently contributed.
Frank Kermode, Literary Critic, Dies at 90 - Obituary (Obit) - NYTimes.com
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
They meander and glide. They unfurl with the rage of monsoon fury. Quietly they flow in the misty winter morn. Rivers thread the fabric of our land. Embroider patches of fertile delta. They are the nakshi kantha of our rural folklore. Life giver, destroyer, enchanter, they have inspired the greatest myths, formed the tapestry for the most endearing love songs. Our Bhatiali has been shaped by the lilt of the boatman’s lyrics drifting across the waves.
Kabir Hossain homeward bound
Monday, July 19, 2010
From The New York Times
JERUSALEM — Amid the horrors of the Holocaust, the atrocities perpetrated by a few brutal women have always stood out, like aberrations of nature.
There were notorious camp guards like Ilse Koch and Irma Grese. And lesser known killers like Erna Petri, the wife of an SS officer and a mother who was convicted of shooting to death six Jewish children in Nazi-occupied Poland; or Johanna Altvater Zelle, a German secretary accused of child murder in the Volodymyr-Volynskyy ghetto in Nazi-occupied Ukraine.
The Nazi killing machine was undoubtedly a male-dominated affair. But according to new research, the participation of German women in the genocide, as perpetrators, accomplices or passive witnesses, was far greater than previously thought.
The researcher, Wendy Lower, an American historian now living in Munich, has drawn attention to the number of seemingly ordinary German women who willingly went out to the Nazi-occupied eastern territories as part of the war effort, to areas where genocide was openly occurring.
Link to complete text
Friday, July 16, 2010
(From Badri Raina's Znet Page)
O Brave New India that hath such Creatures in it.
Clap clap, and clap again.
India’s GDP is set to grow at 9.4%, sayeth the oracle of the World Bank.
So, where is the high table, and why aren’t we on it yet? And what is a mere G-20; it is the permanent membership of the Round Table we seek and deserve. Our knights now shine too resplendentally, O Arthur-Sam. So, move over, you defunct old inheritors of defunct old glory. Our charge now resistless indeed.
Which is perhaps why the evil ones conspire to stymie that charge with ill-intended facts and figures. Familiar colonial perfidy alive and well still, epicentred where else but in that decrepit Oxford.
They now unleash another GDP to undermine our Icarian flight, namely, Gross Destitute People.
Some busybody Director of the Oxford Poverty and Human Development Initiative brings out a Report on world poverty based on Multi-Dimensional Indices, calculated wickedly to show us down.
And it would have us believe that actually, in point of fact, as they say in Oxford, there are an aggregate of more poor people in just eight Indian states than in all of Africa’s poorest 26 countries; roughly, more than some 410 million Indians. That them Africans there have better access to “good cooking fuel,” “schooling,” “electricity,” “nutrition,” “sanitation,” and so on than eight of our resource-rich states! Perish the perfidy.
And, as if to mock our GDP I thesis, they also rub in the view that “low per capita GDP income doesn’t necessarily mean high poverty.”
Clearly, waka waka Shakira, whom Oxford loves, brand ambassador for the rainbow nation down south in Africa, must have something to do with this inspired computation. We love Shakira too (or do we?) but to say that 26 of the poorest African nations are less poor than Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, West Bengal, Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Jharkhand, and Chattisgarh—well who else but the knowledgeable would believe such calumny?
And who cares for the knowledgeable? Certainly not our corporate channels and print media who spread the word on India’s GDP of the first order, namely, Gross Domestic Product. Gross indeed.
As to GDP II, did you tell us something we did not know? And is it to be thought that any nation can increase GDP I without simultaneously increasing GDP II as well? Dammit, somebody has got to pay the price for the frontline few to conquer the world.
Progress—it poureth like ungentle torrents from heaven (as it is doing now in India’s showpiece Capital); and when it does, is it your view that roads, shanties, bridges, trees, electric poles and mobile towers, even neighbourhoods next to where the Primum Mobile lives will not, or should not, be washed away? Or that only a few should lose their lives? Strange notion of progress you must have indeed.
Don’t think for a moment we are not wise to you and your anti-national shenanigans.
You are of the tribe who filed that writ in the Supreme Court of India, challenging the validity of Section 2 of the Constitution (42nd amendment) by virtue of which the word “socialist” was inserted in the Preamble of the Indian Constitution.
And who also challenged Section 6 of the Representation of People’s Act, 1989, which makes it incumbent on every political party registered in India to pledge allegiance to the socialist ideal, failing which such a party can be deregistered.
So you would blow the whistle on us, would you? You would like to tell the world how we are not a Democracy but a Hypocrisy. As if the world does not know.
You think good governance entails an honest adherence to what we profess rather than what we do. Alas, how Kautilya and Confucious must turn in their realpolitik graves at the enormity of your naivete.
Know then that good governance means first and foremost feeding words to the 410 million, with an odd “gurantee scheme” thrown in, and wealth to the handful whose accumulations alone may take India to the Round Table. Elementary, my dear nincompoop, who it seems takes too much to heart what ablutions we make to the “socialist” ideal when them votes are needed.
Just as we pay homage to the Father of the Nation, that naked fakir, when all else fails to mollify the mob. Returning to designer lifestyles the minute the mayhem dies down.
As to those 26 African nations; have you no concern for Africa where, after all Bapu Gandhi first blew the whistle? How is Africa to seem to move forward if we do not step back that little bit? And what is 410 million but precisely “that little bit”?
Your problem is that you dig for dirt because you are at bottom a leveler. And you think God truly created all of us as equals with them unalienable rights etc., Not true. Read any of our Hindu scriptures and you will know otherwise. Why else would we fall into unreconcilable castes and gotras we ask you? And not a one of those 410 human beings, we tell you, may seek parity with a Garuda, a Ganesha, or a Hanuman, although not even human those. Such is the genius of mystery. Such are the things between heaven and earth that your philosophy will never understand. Your problem entirely.
When in the history of our colonial slavery did Oxford bode any good to us? So, why should it now?
It made us slaves then, and it sheds crocodile tears at the slavery we have made for ourselves as free republicans. Surely, a perfidious second colonization is being forged, using, cunningly, the very tools we supply. To Oxford we thus say, leave us be; our poor are our own, and they understand us better than you do. So do not stir the pot, which is already on the boil anyway. What is a nation where everybody is fed the same ration? A spectacle of dead uniformity from whence no great deeds can emerge. Know that it is difference, as the philosopher has taught us, that lends meaning to us severally. Sameness of well being is a mere recipe for sloth and slouching. It is hunger in the extreme that seeks new recipes and transforms the cuisine. Worry thou about quality, not about quantity. And learn for god’s sake that Indian “socialism” is different, pretty much now like the Chinese, and finds directions to glory through indirections of policy. Too much for Oxford to understand.
Which is not to say that we will not send our children to Oxford if Oxford
Just a way of the empire striking back, you moron.