Well, I confronted the crap out of a...uh, teenage kid. It turns out the slamming in the apartment below was indeed caused by the moving-in of new neighbors, now featuring kids (tm). Why they were up until 2:00am the other morning I have no idea. Anyway, this kid that looked like a chubby Harry Potter grunted at me while I talked to him about sound travelling and last night there were just a few minor bumps.
Either way, I drank a little too much 2-buck Chuck after dinner and left the bunny out all night (she was fine. She just pooped on the carpet a lot and was happy to see us this morning.)
My latest attempt to make a grad-school point: I started getting annoyed with the introduction to an anthology I'm presenting on in my World History training seminar next week. The editors were taking pot-shots at contributors for being insufficiently historical. "But there
is no cultural essence! And "freedom"
is historically constructed! And citizenship
was contested!" I have read equivalent assertions ad naseum for the last three years and I'm getting tired of it...not because they're not true (OF COURSE abstract terms don't define concrete social phenomena; they're TERMS), but because it's the most pedantic, boring, predictable trope of academic historical writing to insist on greater specificity and greater historicity. When it's a corrective on an overly-crude summary, fine. But it seems like it's usually just problematizing-for-the-sake-of-problematizing-for-the-sake-of-getting-something-published.
The problem is that intelligibility
hinges on abstract concepts. All of my friends, particularly at Oregon, who claimed to "hate theory" were, in a sense, in bad faith. We
all use theory, explicitly or implicitly, to make sense of the cacophony of things going on around us or things that happened in the past. Likewise, we
need to categorize things to make them comprehensible.
It was Adorno that insisted on the need of the most careful rhetoric in philosophy (and hey, kids, we're pursuing doctors-of-PHILOSOPHY degrees here [PhD], so bear with me...) because "constellations" of truth are all we get in a world without recourse to empirical standards and those constellations have to be built very carefully out of language. So I sympathize with historians who take issue with crude categorical language, and I regret dumbing-down Marx's problem with Hegel in class the other day. But I get sick of the use of deconstruction for purposes of making things less intelligible, especially in academia. If we aren't here to make MORE sense of things (albeit very carefully), why don't we all just go become performance artists?