Blogs, again

Adrian tells us to ‘hold [y]our fire’, but I think that the one negative post on crit-geog-forum was indicative of a much wider held belief. I do think some people find blogs threatening. There is an interesting analysis here (via here), especially about the question of exposure. This has also now been picked up by an academic ‘career coach’ (whose comment to my original blog post is worth reading) and blogging described as another way of extracting academic surplus-value.

The Brassier interview I linked to, and quoted from, has caused a bit of a stir. There are a couple of comments to the post which are in agreement. A few noticeable people have, perhaps wisely, chosen not to respond. But Eric Schliesser at APPS is critical, and Peter Gratton at Philosophy in a Time of Error more balanced. Peter’s comments pick up on the disparaging tone of Brassier’s remarks about grad students. They would have been offensive from anyone, but Brassier isn’t that far beyond that stage of his career himself.

The question to Brassier was probably provocative – ‘love affair’ – but imagine if he’d responded to say: “well, it was a conference or two, and we were doing different things so there wasn’t much of a movement. I have some serious disagreements with the others. It’s been developed by people since, especially online, but personally I’m not convinced blogs are great venues for philosophy”. Is it perhaps telling that Brassier, in an online interview, falls into the same kind of incendiary rhetoric that is often associated with email lists and, perhaps, blogs?

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Blogs, again

  1. Mark says:

    Most of the comments refer to the tone of Brassier’s interview, and his references to Grad students rather than the content which is a bit worryingly. My bias is that I find the underlying pan-physchism is problematic in ooo or speculative-realism.

    Those who advocate ooo (and those who are so inclined you are welcome too) should be more cautious in engaging in a polemics of tone as some of Graham Harman’s comments are hardly complimentary of other thinkers such as Derrida.

  2. stuartelden says:

    I’m not an advocate and my own work is in a very different register. I’m not qualified, or inclined, to engage with the specific critique. But I do think the tone was misjudged and unnecessary. How Harman engages with Derrida seems to me to be entirely off the point – why shouldn’t I be critical of Brassier’s manner of responding?

  3. Mark says:

    Fair enough, and of course you can be critical of Brassier’s tone, though my parallel with tone of some of Harman’s pieces I would argue is not entirely off point, yes Brassier is not certainly not Harman, but in the wider milieux the tone in some pieces of speculative realism can be, at least for myself too polemical for my taste.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s