Post by amandaucsc on Oct 29, 2007 17:55:01 GMT 7
Hello everybody,
I went to a lecture given by Dr. Amy Kaplan (UPenn) today and it was quite fascinating--she discussed issues of race, nation, citizenship, imperialism, empire, and multi conscious identity in WEB Du Bois's Darkwater (and his life in general), though the lecture was less literary and more historical. I found it particularly enlightening because I could see potential comparative work with similar figures in modern Chinese and Japanese history (and especially in the same time period--1890s-1920 or so), and because I am interested in the global movement and spread of ideas, especially nation, race, etc. (Not to mention Dr. Kaplan is a good speaker and the lecture only had about 20 people in attendance so there were plenty of opportunities to ask questions!)
So anyways, I thought I'd go ahead and pass along the info on the other lectures this week. The info, posted on the bulletin board downstairs at ICLP, is also available on the web at homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~forex/Colloquium/Colloquium.htm.
If you want to go, they start at 3pm and are in the College of Liberal Arts building across the way from Burger King (to the right of the bicycles). I have class until 2:55 and won't be leaving until after that. You can meet me in the lounge if you want to walk to the building together.
Here is that info:
Amy Kaplan is Edward W. Kane Professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania and President of the American Studies Association. A scholar of American literary and cultural studies, she is the author of The Social Construction of American Realism (1988) and The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U. S. Culture (2002) and co-editor of Cultures of U. S. Imperialism (1998).
Wednesday's lecture, on Imperial Melancholy:
homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~forex/Colloquium/abstract/20071031-Kaplan.html
3pm, Venue: College 20th Classroom, 1F College of Liberal Arts, NTU
This lecture raises the question of how the threat of loss haunts representations of empire. As J.M. Coetzee writes in Waiting for the Barbarians, “One thought alone preoccupies the submerged mind of Empire: how not to end, how not to die, how to prolong its era.” While we tend to think of imperialism in terms of territorial expansion, this is an inquiry into the temporality of empire, its colonization of time. Focusing on the American expansion at the turn of the twentieth century, I examine two literary phenomenon that implicitly deal with this theme: the proliferation of utopian and dystopian fiction, by writers such as Mark Twain, Edward Bellamy, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Pauline Hopkins, and the popularity of Rome as an analog to the US in one of the most popular novels of the 19th century, Ben Hur by Lew Wallace and its later film adaptations in the 20th century.
The model and specter of Rome has shadowed U.S. self conceptions since at least the coincidence of the 1776 publication of Gibbon’s, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The cyclical nature of imperial time has plagued the self image of the US as a “nation of futurity,” a “redeemer nation,” whose exceptional character projects an endless rise without a corresponding fall. At the turn of the 20th century, this question of the future had special urgency in the nostalgic lament for the close of the frontier, which informs the utopian fiction of the era. What is the relation between utopia and nostalgia in these texts? What does it mean to pursue an empire overseas in the anticipation, fear and denial of its impending loss? I will conclude by comparing the obsession with Rome a century ago to the current fascination with Rome in journalism and political commentary, film and TV, to ask what looking backward at Rome tells us about the temporality of empire today.
Friday's lecture: In the Name of Homeland Security
homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~forex/Colloquium/abstract/20071102-Kaplan.html
3pm, Venue: College Conference Room, 2F College of Liberal Arts, NTU
This lecture explores the multiple meanings of the keywords “homeland” and “security” in contemporary political culture in the U.S. The ubiquity of the word “security” has come to encompass more and more realms of social, psychic, economic, existential, and political life. In contrast to “defense,” “security” breaks down the boundaries between the domestic and the foreign, between inside and outside, the private and the public as it enables the merging of the military, border patrol, and police. How does security rely on the evocation of insecurity and reinforce the exercise of state violence?
This paper presents a historical and cultural genealogy of this concept starting with a brief consideration of its significance in 18th century political philosophy. I then ask about the relation between the idea of social security—in its broadest sense of common welfare—and the idea of national security—with its emphasis on militarism and intelligence, and how these come together in the recent creation of the Homeland Security Department. The word “homeland,” despite its ancient ring” is strikingly new in the post 9/11 political lexicon, and it has xenophobic and racialized implications as well as gendered connotations that merge the private home with the national homeland.
Whereas David Harvey sees “freedom” as the keyword of neoliberalism, I argue that “security” has supplanted “freedom” as a discursive engine for U.S. imperialism in the response to the ravages of neoliberal globalization. It does the work of projecting, blurring and combining perceived overlapping threats: “urban criminals,” “illegal aliens,” and “terrorists,” all of which have racial connotations.
My analysis draws on three examples:
*
Parallels between the language of Bush’s National Security Statement of 2002 and brochures for home security systems;
*
The shift from “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to the “Security Plan for Bagdad”
*
The relation between the new “Border Fence” between the US and Mexico and Israel’s “Security Fence” around Palestinian communities in the West Bank.
In each case, I pay attention to the relation between language and space and suggest that security is about temporal as well as geopolitical expansion. In addition to using the tools of close reading and rhetorical analysis, I turn to theories of Agamben and Foucault to ask about their relevance in understanding the securitization of modern life and language.
I went to a lecture given by Dr. Amy Kaplan (UPenn) today and it was quite fascinating--she discussed issues of race, nation, citizenship, imperialism, empire, and multi conscious identity in WEB Du Bois's Darkwater (and his life in general), though the lecture was less literary and more historical. I found it particularly enlightening because I could see potential comparative work with similar figures in modern Chinese and Japanese history (and especially in the same time period--1890s-1920 or so), and because I am interested in the global movement and spread of ideas, especially nation, race, etc. (Not to mention Dr. Kaplan is a good speaker and the lecture only had about 20 people in attendance so there were plenty of opportunities to ask questions!)
So anyways, I thought I'd go ahead and pass along the info on the other lectures this week. The info, posted on the bulletin board downstairs at ICLP, is also available on the web at homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~forex/Colloquium/Colloquium.htm.
If you want to go, they start at 3pm and are in the College of Liberal Arts building across the way from Burger King (to the right of the bicycles). I have class until 2:55 and won't be leaving until after that. You can meet me in the lounge if you want to walk to the building together.
Here is that info:
Amy Kaplan is Edward W. Kane Professor of English at the University of Pennsylvania and President of the American Studies Association. A scholar of American literary and cultural studies, she is the author of The Social Construction of American Realism (1988) and The Anarchy of Empire in the Making of U. S. Culture (2002) and co-editor of Cultures of U. S. Imperialism (1998).
Wednesday's lecture, on Imperial Melancholy:
homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~forex/Colloquium/abstract/20071031-Kaplan.html
3pm, Venue: College 20th Classroom, 1F College of Liberal Arts, NTU
This lecture raises the question of how the threat of loss haunts representations of empire. As J.M. Coetzee writes in Waiting for the Barbarians, “One thought alone preoccupies the submerged mind of Empire: how not to end, how not to die, how to prolong its era.” While we tend to think of imperialism in terms of territorial expansion, this is an inquiry into the temporality of empire, its colonization of time. Focusing on the American expansion at the turn of the twentieth century, I examine two literary phenomenon that implicitly deal with this theme: the proliferation of utopian and dystopian fiction, by writers such as Mark Twain, Edward Bellamy, Charlotte Perkins Gilman, and Pauline Hopkins, and the popularity of Rome as an analog to the US in one of the most popular novels of the 19th century, Ben Hur by Lew Wallace and its later film adaptations in the 20th century.
The model and specter of Rome has shadowed U.S. self conceptions since at least the coincidence of the 1776 publication of Gibbon’s, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The cyclical nature of imperial time has plagued the self image of the US as a “nation of futurity,” a “redeemer nation,” whose exceptional character projects an endless rise without a corresponding fall. At the turn of the 20th century, this question of the future had special urgency in the nostalgic lament for the close of the frontier, which informs the utopian fiction of the era. What is the relation between utopia and nostalgia in these texts? What does it mean to pursue an empire overseas in the anticipation, fear and denial of its impending loss? I will conclude by comparing the obsession with Rome a century ago to the current fascination with Rome in journalism and political commentary, film and TV, to ask what looking backward at Rome tells us about the temporality of empire today.
Friday's lecture: In the Name of Homeland Security
homepage.ntu.edu.tw/~forex/Colloquium/abstract/20071102-Kaplan.html
3pm, Venue: College Conference Room, 2F College of Liberal Arts, NTU
This lecture explores the multiple meanings of the keywords “homeland” and “security” in contemporary political culture in the U.S. The ubiquity of the word “security” has come to encompass more and more realms of social, psychic, economic, existential, and political life. In contrast to “defense,” “security” breaks down the boundaries between the domestic and the foreign, between inside and outside, the private and the public as it enables the merging of the military, border patrol, and police. How does security rely on the evocation of insecurity and reinforce the exercise of state violence?
This paper presents a historical and cultural genealogy of this concept starting with a brief consideration of its significance in 18th century political philosophy. I then ask about the relation between the idea of social security—in its broadest sense of common welfare—and the idea of national security—with its emphasis on militarism and intelligence, and how these come together in the recent creation of the Homeland Security Department. The word “homeland,” despite its ancient ring” is strikingly new in the post 9/11 political lexicon, and it has xenophobic and racialized implications as well as gendered connotations that merge the private home with the national homeland.
Whereas David Harvey sees “freedom” as the keyword of neoliberalism, I argue that “security” has supplanted “freedom” as a discursive engine for U.S. imperialism in the response to the ravages of neoliberal globalization. It does the work of projecting, blurring and combining perceived overlapping threats: “urban criminals,” “illegal aliens,” and “terrorists,” all of which have racial connotations.
My analysis draws on three examples:
*
Parallels between the language of Bush’s National Security Statement of 2002 and brochures for home security systems;
*
The shift from “Operation Iraqi Freedom” to the “Security Plan for Bagdad”
*
The relation between the new “Border Fence” between the US and Mexico and Israel’s “Security Fence” around Palestinian communities in the West Bank.
In each case, I pay attention to the relation between language and space and suggest that security is about temporal as well as geopolitical expansion. In addition to using the tools of close reading and rhetorical analysis, I turn to theories of Agamben and Foucault to ask about their relevance in understanding the securitization of modern life and language.