The Southern Journal of Philosophy – Spindel supplement on Critical Theories of the Present (open access)

Update 1 September 2017: the issue appears to be open access

stuartelden's avatarProgressive Geographies

untitledThe proceedings of last year’s Spindel Conference at the University of Memphis on the topic “Critical Histories of the Present” have now been published in The Southern Journal of Philosophy. Edited by Verena Erlenbusch, it has contributions from Bilge Akbalik, Amy Allen, Shouta Brown, Andrew Daily, Andrew Dilts, Stuart Elden, Bryan Kimoto, Colin Koopman, Jordan Liz, Mary Beth Mader, Ladelle McWhorter, Maia Nahele, Kevin Olson, Tuomo Tiisala, Jasmine Wallace, and Jim Zubko. The issue requires subscription, unfortunately.

[Update 1 September 2017: the issue appears to be open access]

My contribution is entitled ‘Foucault and Shakespeare: Ceremony, Theatre, Politics‘. A preprint is available here. Here’s the abstract:

Foucault only refers to Shakespeare in a few places in his work. He is intrigued by the figures of madness that appear in King Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth. He occasionally notes the overthrow of one monarch by another…

View original post 420 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

David Harvey, Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reason – now out

Out today…

stuartelden's avatarProgressive Geographies

9781781258743David Harvey, Marx, Capital and the Madness of Economic Reasonforthcoming in August

Marx’s Capital is one of the most important texts of the modern era. The three volumes, published between 1867 and 1883, changed the destiny of countries, politics and people across the world – and continue to resonate today. In this book, David Harvey lays out their key arguments.In clear and concise language, Harvey describes the architecture of capital according to Marx, placing his observations in the context of capitalism in the second half of the nineteenth century. He considers the degree to which technological, economic and industrial change during the last 150 years means Marx’s analysis and its application may need to be modified. Marx’s trilogy concerns the circulation of capital: volume I, how labour increases the value of capital, which he called valorisation; volume II, on the realisation of this value, by selling it and…

View original post 81 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Birkbeck Law Review Annual Conference 2017 – ‘Law and the City: Exploring the Urban Revolution in Critical Legal Studies’

Birkbeck Law Review Annual Conference 2017 – ‘Law and the City: Exploring the Urban Revolution in Critical Legal Studies’

Saturday 16 September 2017, Clore Management Building, Birkbeck, University of London

The Birkbeck Law Review is pleased to announce its 2017 Annual Conference, entitled ‘Law and the City: Exploring the Urban Revolution in Critical Legal Studies’, to be held on Saturday 16th September 2017 at the Clore Management Centre, Birkbeck, University of London.

Almost fifty years ago the French philosopher Henri Lefebvre declared that ‘society has been completely urbanized’. Today, more than half the world’s population live in an urban environment, and it is difficult to ignore the totalising trajectory of global urbanisation. For researchers, analysts and the inquisitive, the nature of collective existence cannot be separated from the urban condition. The urban has without doubt now become a primary domain of debates and struggles concerning social justice, and urbanism has taken on a renewed primacy in contemporary critical theory, social sciences, humanities and beyond. For those engaging in critical legal approaches, engagement with law and society now requires critical engagement with the urban. This conference seeks to explore and connect law’s urban dynamics, and, vice versa, the urban’s legal dynamics.

Law and legality play a significant role in the production of the urban. Legal norms and rules shape the city materially, politically and socially. Law also shapes (and perhaps limits) our conceptions and imaginations of how the city and society should and could be constituted. As the critical legal tradition has continually sought to question and expose the role of law in the production of power and collective life, it is necessary to further our engagement with how law and urbanity intertwine and the form collective urban life takes: interrogating its injustices, problems and potentials, and how law and power shape the city. In other words, it is more important than ever to critically assess and challenge the nature of the urban world we are inhabiting and producing, with a particular focus on the role of law and its dynamics in urban production.

This conference seeks to further these explorations and reflections between law and the urban. It seeks to further pollinate thinking between disciplines, and to encourage engagement with how law and the urban intertwine, exploring the dynamics of power, injustices and potentials in law’s shaping of the city. This conference seeks to address the status and trajectory of critical legal urban scholarship and identify research gaps and further avenues of investigation. It further seeks to bring together scholars, practitioners and activists working on law and urban issues to develop networks and collaborations. We hope you can join us.

Keynote speakers

Andreas Philippopoulos-Mihalopoulos, University of Westminster

Anne Bottomley, University of Kent

Mariana Valverde, University of Toronto

Programme

All panels and talks will take place on Saturday 16th September at Birkbeck College, London, from 09:30 to 17:30, followed by a drinks reception. Full schedule of the day available here. Registration via Eventbright online.

Queries to the Conference Editors: Harley Ronan (h.ronan@bbk.ac.uk) and Hysha Smith (admin@bbklr.org).

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

David Berliner, How to get rid of your academic fake-self?

Some interesting and good advice from David Berliner, How to get rid of your academic fake-self?

Principle of care:
– Substitute a politics of competition by an ethics of care (for yourself and for others). Science is about collaborative knowledge and not a massacre.

Principle of incompleteness:
– Acknowledge that you have not read everything and that you cannot debate all topics. Learn to say: “I don’t know anything about Derrida. Maybe one day, I will read him, or not”.

Principle of honesty:
– Train yourself to say publicly: “I am not researching anything new at the moment, nor writing”. When a colleague asks you “what are you working on?”, learn to say “I don’t know. I am teaching and that already takes a considerable amount of time. I have nothing to publish right now”.

Principle of irony:
– Always have a big critical laugh at metrics and other tricks of neoliberal evaluations. They only painfully reopen your narcissistic wounds.

Principle of self-preservation:
– Try to avoid – as much as possible – toxic colleagues who never ask you how you are, but only list their own academic achievements and focus on lauding their cv.

If it doesn’t work, double the dose and try again.

David Berliner, anthropologist.

I can’t claim I always follow these, but they are good ideas, and if more people followed at least some of them, then academia would become a much more pleasant place.

[Update: A response from Mathijs van de Sande which points out the challenges for earlier-career academics and the structural context is here. Thanks to Nadim Khoury for this link.]

Posted in Uncategorized, Universities | 1 Comment

The Southern Journal of Philosophy – Spindel supplement on Critical Theories of the Present (open access)

untitledThe proceedings of last year’s Spindel Conference at the University of Memphis on the topic “Critical Histories of the Present” have now been published in The Southern Journal of Philosophy. Edited by Verena Erlenbusch, it has contributions from Bilge Akbalik, Amy Allen, Shouta Brown, Andrew Daily, Andrew Dilts, Stuart Elden, Bryan Kimoto, Colin Koopman, Jordan Liz, Mary Beth Mader, Ladelle McWhorter, Maia Nahele, Kevin Olson, Tuomo Tiisala, Jasmine Wallace, and Jim Zubko. The issue requires subscription, unfortunately.

[Update 1 September 2017: the issue appears to be open access]

My contribution is entitled ‘Foucault and Shakespeare: Ceremony, Theatre, Politics‘. A preprint is available here. Here’s the abstract:

Foucault only refers to Shakespeare in a few places in his work. He is intrigued by the figures of madness that appear in King Lear, Hamlet, and Macbeth. He occasionally notes the overthrow of one monarch by another, such as in Richard II or Richard III, arguing that “a part of Shakespeare’s historical drama really is the drama of the coup d’État.” For Foucault, the first are illustrations of the conflict between the individual and the mechanisms of discipline. The second are, however, less interesting than moments when the sovereign is replaced, not with another sovereign, but with a different, more anonymous, form of power. Yet, in his 1976 Collège de France course, Society Must Be Defended, where he treats the theme at most length, he intriguingly suggests that Shakespearean historical tragedy is “at least in terms of one of its axes, a sort of ceremony, or a rememorialization of the problems of public right.” Foucault was long fascinated by the theatre, and especially its relation to political ceremony. Drawing especially on his 1972 lectures in Paris and a related presentation in Minnesota, this paper asks how we might understand the relation between ceremony, theatre, and politics in Foucault and Shakespeare. Many of Shakespeare’s plays, both histories and tragedies, thus demonstrate the importance of ritual and ceremony, a political theatre. Examining the disrupted ceremony of King Lear, the repeated ceremony of King John, the denial of ritual in Coriolanus, and the parody of the ceremonial in Henry IV, Part One opens up a range of historical, theoretical, and political questions.

As with all the papers, it is followed by a commentary, in this case from the insightful Bilge Akbalik in a piece entitled ‘The Modern Drama of coup d’État and Systems of Discipline: Foucault and Political Ceremony’.

The objective of my comments is to draw attention to the complex relationship between the juridico-political model of sovereignty and disciplinary power in Foucault’s work. I suggest that Elden’s reading of Foucault and Shakespeare opens up new ways to understand contemporary forms of governmentality through a genealogy of political ceremony and theatricality. More specifically, my comments seek to show that an examination of the ceremoniality of coup d’État in connection with what Foucault calls the “democratization of sovereignty” is potentially fruitful for examining modern forms of the government of civil society and counterconduct.

My thanks to Bilge for her commentary, and to Verena for organising the event.

I have a second piece on Foucault and Shakespeare forthcoming, this time in an edited book on Foucault, theatre and performance. That second piece looks at what I call the ‘theatre of madness’. Both pieces link the two main projects I’ve been working on over the past several years.

Posted in Foucault's Last Decade, Foucault: The Birth of Power, Michel Foucault, Shakespearean Territories, The Early Foucault, Uncategorized, William Shakespeare | 2 Comments

How to really ensure ‘no posthumous publications’ – Pratchett vs Foucault

I have never read a Terry Pratchett novel, but he has ensured that no-one will read the ones he left incomplete at his death. The hard-drive of his computer was, according to his wishes, crushed by a steamroller. Story in The Guardian here.

Foucault of course wanted ‘no posthumous publications’, and initially this was strictly followed, then interpreted generously, and is now being entirely contravened (a bit more on that here). Foucault apparently asked Hervé Guibert to destroy the drafts and preparatory materials for the History of Sexuality after his death. He also said various things about destroying drafts himself. It is unclear what, if anything, was actually destroyed, but History of Sexuality volume IV is not the only thing to survive.

Posted in Michel Foucault, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

The 2017 Antipode RGS-IBG Lecture – “Retelling Stories, Disrupting ‘the Social’, Relearning the World” by Richa Nagar

Details of Richa Nagar’s Antipode lecture tomorrow, along with a number of open access papers linked to the topic.

Antipode Editorial Office's avatarAntipodeFoundation.org

The 2017 Antipode RGS-IBG Lecture

Retelling Stories, Disrupting “the Social”, Relearning the World

Richa Nagar (University of Minnesota)

The 2017 Antipode RGS-IBG Lecture will take place on Wednesday 30th August between 16:50 and 18:30 in the Ondaatje Theatre at the Royal Geographical Society (with IBG), 1 Kensington Gore, London, SW7 2AR. The Lecture will be followed by a drinks reception sponsored by Antipode’s publisher, Wiley.

The dominant landscape of knowledge and policy rests on a fundamental inequality: bodies who are seen as hungry or precarious are assumed to be available for the interventions of experts, but those experts often obliterate the ways that the hungry actively create politics and knowledge by living a dynamic vision of what is ethical and what makes the good life. Such living frequently involves a creative praxis of refusal against imposed frameworks. For Nagar, learning from such refusals requires “hungry translations” that are…

View original post 901 more words

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Foucault, History of Sexuality Vol IV, Les Aveux de la Chair scheduled for January 2018

I’ve mentioned before that the fourth volume of Foucault’s History of Sexuality, Les aveux de la chair, was finally going to be published. It is now appearing in online bookstores with a January 2018 date – see, for example, Les Libraires. It is going to be published by Gallimard, but doesn’t yet appear on Gallimard’s site. I understand that it has been edited by Frédéric Gros. [Update 1: it looks like the date has slipped to February; Update 2: the Gallimard page, with description, is here.]

I previously posted about this, with some answers to some frequently asked questions.

Update: now that the book is published, there is a Warwick news release with some commentary by me about it.

Posted in Michel Foucault, Uncategorized | 5 Comments

The Early Foucault update 10: translations of Binswanger, von Weizsäcker and by ‘G-J Verdeaux’

After a too-short holiday, I’ve been back working on the Foucault book. Although I’d drafted some of this material before, my focus has been on the translations of Binswanger and von Weizsäcker. With Binswanger’s ‘Dream and Existence’, Foucault was not listed as a translator, which was credited to Jacqueline Verdeaux alone, but all the accounts point to his significant role.

I’m working with the German text, Verdeaux and Foucault’s translation, the English translation by Forrest Williams and, to a lesser extent, the 2012 French translation by Françoise Dastur. Foucault was brought into the project because of his knowledge of German philosophy, especially Heidegger. Binswanger makes extensive use of Heideggerian terminology. In the early 1950s almost none of Heidegger’s work was translated into French, and so there are some choices about core terminology which are interesting. In as much as anyone has looked at this before, the one thing remarked upon is the translation of Dasein by présence, but I think there is much more to say.

There is a change between the 1930 original of Binswanger’s text and the 1947 version which was translated (the version reprinted in later German collections). So I’m now looking to find the 1930 original for the missing passage, and the 1947 version for the note explaining the change. The English translation notes these; the French doesn’t. That will make four versions of the German I’ll have consulted. One of the things that has slowed down the work is looking for specific editions of texts – not just the text itself. I’ve mentioned this before in relation to Foucault’s writings – there are a couple of instances where Dits et écrits doesn’t include material from the original version. So it’s useful, but painstaking work – I have a list of six London libraries and two Paris ones I need to visit just for this chapter…

There are some notes to the French translation which were added by Foucault (he is credited for this), and I’ve been writing a bit about them. Most notes are editorial – filling in some, but by no means all, references. But two are interesting because they talk about translation choices and I’m reproducing, translating and discussing them. The translation is reprinted in a later collection, but Foucault’s role is even less apparent there, and the notes are incorporated as editorial material. As far as I can tell that later reprint did not make any changes to the actual translation, even though by then lots more Heidegger was in French and practices had changed. Dastur’s translation illustrates that shift.

All this is of course before I come to discuss Foucault’s introduction to the text…

With von Weizsäcker’s Der Gestaltkreis, there is only the German original and Foucault and Daniel Rocher’s translation to look at – there is no English translation. It did take me a long time to find a copy of the French version, but I do now have it. The editorial problems here are much less significant, but the text is substantially longer – a book compared to an essay – and it’s conceptually more challenging, at least for me. One thing this text has is a Glossary, provided by von Weizsäcker with specialist terms and explanations. The translation of that is very helpful in illuminating Foucault and Rocher’s translation choices – there are only two translator notes in the text, in part because this Glossary obviates the need.

While Binswanger was really important to Foucault – he wrote the long introduction, taught him, and filled pages with notes from his works – von Weizsäcker seems anything but. As far as I’m aware Foucault doesn’t discuss him elsewhere, and I’ve not found any notes on his work. So there is a curiosity to this translation project, which slow work on the text is beginning to reveal some interesting linkages to other interests.

IMG_2785

Biographies of Foucault often mention his enthusiasm for Rorschach tests. But it seems that it was more than a mere passing interest. There are some notes on his reading about these tests in the archive, for example, and he lectured about them. His collaborator on the Binswanger ‘Dream and Existence’ translation, Jacqueline Verdeaux, had previously translated a book by Roland Kuhn into French as Phénoménologie du masque à travers le Test de Rorschach. It was Kuhn that introduced Verdeaux to Binswanger, and Foucault and Verdeaux visited them both in Switzerland.

A previous French translation, this time of a work in English, was also on this topic. Ruth Bochner and Florence Halpern’s The Clinical Application of the Rorschach Test appeared in French as L’application clinique du test de Rorschach in 1948, with the translators credited as Dr André Ombredane and Dr G.-J. Verdeaux. The research for the work was carried out in the Bellevue Sanatorium in Switzerland – a clinic founded by Binwanger’s grandfather and now run by him. But who were the translators? Ombredane was a fairly well-known doctor and psychologist, but I cannot find any trace of ‘G.-J. Verdeaux’ beyond this one book.

Worldcat Identities lists the book among the publications of Jacqueline Verdeaux, and this would make sense, though it would be her only translation from English. Foucault’s biographers attribute it to her. But if it is her then why is it signed ‘G-J’? Did she have a hyphenated name, of which she later dropped the first part? Foucault was of course originally Paul-Michel. It could be her husband, Georges Verdeaux, who was also a psychologist, though all his other works seem to just be credited to ‘Georges’; or perhaps ‘G-J’ means  ‘Georges-Jacqueline’ as a credit for both of them.

I’m curious with this as it certainly make sense to be Jacqueline – the Bellevue connection to Binswanger; the Rorschach connection to Kuhn. Jacqueline’s other translation from this period was Jakob Wyrsch’s Die Person des Schizophrenen – another link to Binswanger, who published four detailed case studies of schizophrenia, one of which Verdeaux also translated. It’s clearly credited to ‘Jacqueline Verdeaux’.

 

The previous updates on this project are here; and Foucault’s Last Decade and Foucault: The Birth of Power are now both available from Polity. Several Foucault research resources such as bibliographies, short translations, textual comparisons and so on are available here. On the related Canguilhem project, see this page.

Posted in Michel Foucault, The Early Foucault, Uncategorized | 1 Comment

Jo van Every on ‘using all three types of writing time’, and some thoughts

The always interesting and useful Jo van Every has a post on using all three types of writing time. These range from ‘full days’, to ‘longish periods’, to ‘short snatches of time’.

I think this is helpful – too many people seem to get into a habit of only thinking they can write if a whole day or more stretches ahead of them (and then sometimes feel so daunted by it they get little done). I think Jo is right to say that four hours in a full day is probably about right, with six as a maximum. Few people seem to be able to sustain the intensity of writing for that long – though it of course depends on what you mean by writing. I will frequently work for far longer than six hours on a full writing day, and on that project alone, but it’s not always what everyone would see as writing in a narrow sense.

The ‘longish periods’ are also important. Jo describes these as ‘meetings’ with your writing – perhaps of one or two hours, in a day filled with other things. Last academic year I tried to write for two hours before I went into work each day – not always successful, but more often than not it was, and it did pay off. With term fast approaching I’m going to try to do the same thing again. Blocking this into a calendar/diary is, I think, important. Last year I tried hard to protect the early morning; other times I’ve needed to be more flexible. I’ve said before how at my busiest, when someone else could schedule meetings in my diary, I insisted that while these writing slots could move around to accommodate other things, they could not be deleted.

Perhaps most important in the post is the suggestion that you can do something useful in even short bursts – 10 to 30 minutes. As with the ‘longish periods’, it’s a lot easier to get back into a project quickly if it is only a day or two since you last worked on it. If it’s a week or more, waiting for that ‘clear day’, then it can take a while to get going again, and the time slot may have gone. Jo insists on the idea of ‘moving your writing and research projects forward in tiny increments’, and remaining engaged with it. I’d really stress her point about how writing a note on what to do next at the end of one session can be a useful spur at the beginning of the next.

If you believe that anything that moves the writing forward counts, then when not feeling so inspired you can fill these little periods of time with mechanical tasks – references, checking style guides, downloading articles, sourcing books, etc. See also her good post asking ‘Is tidying your desk procrastination?

Jo has another good recent post on ‘Maintaining your writing practice when things get busy‘ which is also helpful, there is loads of other good advice on her site and I should recommend, again, her little book The Scholarly Writing Process.

 

There are lots of other posts and links on writing and publishing from Progressive Geographies archived here. Some of these link to other people’s advice or suggestions; some to my own.

Posted in Uncategorized, Writing | 1 Comment