Ta-Nehisi Coates Rules, The Thread

Yeah idk. I hear a lot of liberal discussions on the internet and irl that feel like people are reading off a script and it makes me uncomfortable, even when I largely agree with them. But absent the language of internet social justice culture, these people would probably just adopt other cliches.

cliches are... the ultimate truth a glimpse inside my twitter drafts

sometimes i'll read something of his and go "yeah, that's true" but i also kind of feel like he inflates the problem way way beyond its importance. i mean snotty clickbait-y "left" takes on everything are annoying, but the percentage of the u.s. population that actually pays attention to that stuff has to be beyond miniscule. i don't even think most self-described liberals care about the kind of infighting FDB seems to obsess over.

Don't forget he's also a TA and professional grad student, so the joke about academia applies 100% - "the battles are so fierce because the stakes are so low."

admittedly I had to look up "intersectionality"

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 July 2015 21:17 (Yesterday) Permalink

wow

Gender studies and social theory aren't my specialties, and then there's my well-documented suspicion of jargon.

Me, I like writing

yeah, i know, that's why all your posts are 8000 words long

admittedly I had to look up "intersectionality"

― The burrito of ennui (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Tuesday, 14 July 2015 21:17 (Yesterday) Permalink

wow

― supreme problematics (D-40), Tuesday, July 14, 2015 10:12 PM (47 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

obvs not a big consumer of social justice social networking

or… ilx… somehow

who is social justice -- have I met him

It's hard not to, v outgoing

Btw I actually hear "intersectional" is on the way out

what's it being replaced with? the return of baggy pants?

the best way out of an intersection is to exit the vehicle on foot and toss the keys to a beaming child

people who drive are savages imo

privilege speaking

more leftists should just ignore all other leftists & argue with economists and liberals to their right straight up

actually talked about this with a socialist poli sci prof over the weekend & he suggested that while arguing with liberals is fun af its "as much a fool's errand as arguing with anyone to the right of clinton"

it cant be more of a fools errand than arguing with leftists

http://gawker.com/making-peace-with-the-chaos-an-interview-with-ta-nehis-1717839272

someone talk to me abt why ppl are saying "bodies" as in "black bodies" instead of "people"

history of objectification

it seems like just another hopelessly awkward academic construct?

the the only time its used is in the context of oppression you dont need to shoehorn odd shorthand for the oppression in there when youre already talking about the thing

also clearly oppressors throughout the ages have been very interested in their targets as psychological beings too as thats one of the many tools of oppression

^all this, but also, it's a stylistic affectation

resonates w/ abhorrence at control of women's bodies, highlights unsavory implications wrt slavery and male violence, slight creepfactor

the mainstreaming of academic language is one of the worst things about online

http://i.imgur.com/P9JnBBP.png

good convo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tl1dc2cEJfs

just bought the book maybe i will read it even

someone talk to me abt why ppl are saying "bodies" as in "black bodies" instead of "people"

― lag∞n, Wednesday, July 15, 2015 3:28 PM (27 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

also seen this as "trans bodies," "queer bodies," etc--was explained to me that "bodies" *centers* the dehumanization of the subject

"female bodies"

i think this approach doesnt really "get" how language works but i cld be wrong

i know you already saw it since you linked to the article, but

Q:There are two terms invoked constantly throughout the book: “body” and “plunder.” There is a physicality to both, a totality in each when you use them, that is terrifying. I’m interested in this idea of choosing the word “black body” as opposed to saying, “the black mind” or “the black soul.”

A: I think the body is the ultimate thing. The soul and mind are part of the body. I don’t think there is anything outside of that. Your physical self is who you are. Some people feel that that is reductionist, but I don’t think it is. It’s just true.

Q: It’s your vessel.

A: But not even your vessel. It’s the thing. The body is the mind. The mind is housed, as far as we know, within an organ—the brain. The brain is part of the body. And when people speak about the soul, they are speaking about certain sensations that they feel as a result of nerves and other organ systems within the body. For me specifically, not really coming out of a religious tradition, that’s how I understand black people. It very much clarifies for me the idea of physical violence. There is a tradition within black America, that I quarrel with, that says: They can do things to our body, but they can’t really trap our minds. I disagree with that. Every assault upon the body is, in fact, also an assault upon the mind. I don’t think there is any way to get away from that.

Freddie ‏@freddiedeboer 2h2 hours ago

Please, inform me: what level of overwrought hagiography am I meant to achieve in order to properly signal my moral character?

I'mm violating my own advice by de boring is hard to resist

xxp yes that's another note to the academic rhetoric too: 'bodies' stands in for references to the worst that can be done because in that context there's nothing worse to be done than something done to a body

i know you already saw it since you linked to the article, but

― 1992 ball boy (Karl Malone), Wednesday, July 15, 2015 12:05 PM (10 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

lol i didnt get that far

A: But not even your vessel. It’s the thing. The body is the mind. The mind is housed, as far as we know, within an organ—the brain. The brain is part of the body. And when people speak about the soul, they are speaking about certain sensations that they feel as a result of nerves and other organ systems within the body.

basically redefining body to mean person

i think using "bodies" instead of "people" or "subjects" is one of those things that attempts to reflect dehumanization but ends up seeming to enact it, at least for me. TNC's idea that it's about grounding the subject in materiality to call attention to the urgency of political struggle makes sense, but i think other writers who use it are less deliberate about their ontological positions. i guess also i am resistant to framing oppression as being at the core of identity: it's something that happens to people, and shapes them, but doesn't produce their subjectivity in some ultimate way, as postmodernists, i think, will sometimes claim as a challenge to the cartesian subject. so maybe i disagree with TNC's materialist ontology too

basically redefining body to mean person

why would anybody do this

"bodies" will always remind of flattened out art/dance/poetry criticism that reduced humans to objects in a landscape (i.e. "Bodies moving through space")

"the body" was a term of critical fascination in lit studies, idk, 15-20 years ago?

heyo

https://granta.com/issues/granta-39-the-body-3/

xp to get rid of this nonsense about souls and bodies as vessels for something else

i think it's foucault's fault

There is a tradition within black America, that I quarrel with, that says: They can do things to our body, but they can’t really trap our minds.

This same dualism has historically been used to justify slavery by suggesting that the harm of slavery "only" happens to the body. From Seneca:

It is a mistake to think that slavery goes all the way down into a man. The better part of him remains outside it. The body belongs to the master and is subject to him, but the soul is autonomous, and is so free that it cannot be held by any prison....It is the body that luck has given over to the master; this he buys and sells; that interior part cannot be handed over as property.

Yeah but phenomenologically we don't experience ourselves as just bodies, even if we believe only our body is ultimately real, ya know? Also casting off the soul is nice and all, but I don't understand the necessity of this for emancipatory struggle. It's a huge paradigm shift but what's the payoff? How will this understanding help people fight injustice? It seems just as likely to do the opposite

Ah sorry, xp to flappy bird

think i've seen that use of 'bodies' traced back to douglass, as foregrounding certain things about the specific embodiedness of african-american experience and the constitution of blackness, i could be wrong w/ that vague detail but it certainly long predates postmodernism in some guise

I think there's some foucaultian biopolitics stuff in its genealogy too

Xp jmm, interesting passage. But materialist monism could also be used to justify slavery, e.g. people are just their social condition, there is no inherent right to freedom that society should acknowledge. The whole doctrine of human rights is founded on an implicit dualism, or an idea of an inherent value or dignity in human nature that makes things like slavery abominable. It's just hard for me to see either position as inherently progressive.