36 Matching Annotations
  1. Nov 2017
    1. the corpo- rate

      This is a very interesting idea, but I disagree that it is solely corporate use. I think that the managed heart is much broader, and traces its origins back to social engineering in general, whether corporate, revolutionary, of otherwise. When, say, the communist party held rallies in the USSR, forcing people to cheer and speak patriotically, they were managing the outer expressions of the heart as much as United Airlines, and indeed, it lead to a similar increase in the value people put, however secretly, on "legitimate," uncoerced feeling.

    2. behind the mask, they lis- ten to their own feelings at low volume.

      Perhaps we are no longer learning well enough to "fake it."

    3. nd feel bad about it

      But why should she feel bad about removing her inner self from her work? What inherent bad is there in maintaining a separate inner life and outer action, assuming that the outer shell is not in and of itself objectionable? This is, to some extent, the modern culture of authenticity at work: when we put too high a value on the idea of revealing all, baring ourselves to the world in confession and public shame, we demonize the most unobjectionable, simple, and effective way of maintaining societal harmony and internal calm: pretending, disassociating outside from inside, and maintaining separate spheres and layers of privacy.

    4. and so it has organized it more efficiently and pushed it further.

      As capitalism is wont to do, it develops what it finds useful to extremes with a power and efficiency unmatched by other driving forces, but one that similarly develops unintended consequences at enormous scale, without pausing to consider their effects or mitigation.

    5. What was once a private act of emotion management is sold now as labor in public-contact jobs.

      This at least correlates with, and is perhaps even a result of, the incessant drive away from individual privacy and the inviolability of the mind starting in the twentieth century and accelerating into our own.

    1. t is as though he decides thatsince it makes no sense to try to be true to the facts, he must therefore try insteadto be true to himself.

      (I'll stop spamming annotations, I promise)

      In my opinion, the attitude here is really just lazy narcissism, given excuses and explanation by sympathetic and culpable philosophizers and artists.

    2. anti-realis

      Attitudes essentially nonexistent before the World War I, and essentially commonplace afterwards.

    3. responsibilityof a citizen in a democracy to have opinions about everything

      And this is a recent development, not fundamental to democracy. America was founded under the ideal of representative democracy, with the express aim of allowing the citizenry to choose politicians on the basis of character and reputation, and perhaps a few major issues, and who would then take on the job of learning about and managing all of these things that the citizen cannot be expected to.

      This idea, fortunately or unfortunately, depending on your views, has been consistently, and with ever greater speed, eroding, leading to the situation the author identifies.

    4. in the same game

      And bullshit, I would posit, is often the result of the games people are forced to play.

      Consider, for example, modern publication, both academic and not: a writer's goal is publishing, regardless of the value of their work, and a "perverse incentive" is thus created for them to bullshit: produce material towards an end of acceptance with no regard for its quality or truth.

    5. motive guiding and controlling it is unconcerned with howthe things about which he speaks truly are.

      Can this be reconciled with "bullshit" situations where someone truly comes to believe their own bullshit because it serves their purpose or biases?

    6. y guess is that the recommendation offered byArthur Simpson’s father reflects the fact that he was more strongly drawn to thismode of creativity, regardless of its relative merit or effectiveness, than he was tothe more austere and rigorous demands of lying

      Moreover, it reflects the fact that lying, if we take this definition, requires one to know the truth and therefore deliberately withhold it. Bullshitting, on the other hand -- under this definition -- does not require one to know the truth, and so can be called into action simply as a substitute when truth is required but not available. This aligns, for example, with many colloquial uses of the term: when a student proposes to "bullshit an essay," they are intending to do so not as a deliberate substitute for a truth they possess (in this case a good essay), but precisely for the reason that they do not possess a truth, and are unable, for whatever reason, to procure one.

    7. a concern with the truth

      We're returning here to the idea of intention presented above in the earlier commentary on the definition of "humbug."

  2. Oct 2017
    1. Identities expressed In African-American musical fonns such as hip hop are constructed wtthln the geographic and social boundaries that historically have bounded race and racial difference In the US and ure solidified by tt commercial music industry market-ing racial and ethnic diversity

      A central, and perhaps the central, point of the argument.

    2. The United Stateslan

      An unusual formulation, "United Statesian..."

      Contrary to what many of these cited writers seem to think, inventing a grand pile of unnecessary new terms is not the road to clarity and quality in expression or thought.

    3. gndn m authentidty that cllstlnguisbes nip as a DlDlic genre

      This seems to contradict the sentiment implied later in the article that the explicit images of criminality and gang violence in the lyrics are actually metaphors or somehow are not literal descriptions of life in the mentioned areas of LA.

    4. Ell:abtth Gr1111t Is a Ph.D. studtnt In tht AnltTlaln lllKf c.m.t1'ln StudJts Dll!purnitnt at tht U11iwrsl1y of 81nnlngl111111. UK.

      Depending on your view, this either makes Grant a completely ridiculous commentator on this subject, or a useful external perspective.

      And yes, this can be framed as an authenticity claim: is it authentic for a Ph.D. student in the UK to comment on the subtle dynamics of the U.S. urban environment?

      (I intentionally did not say "objective commentator," since this article is anything but an objective account.)

    5. Placing the relationship between popular culture and racial ldeotity within the process of urban spatial formation. this article explores the construc-tion of an Afrtcan-Amcdctan Identity within Los Anseles. as well aa the broader implications ol' th1s spattalllled identity structure oo race relations within LA between 1988 end 1992

      Grant, in a sense, "spacializes" her own argument about "spacialization": she explicitly restricts the scope of her claim to a specific location and past time period, leaving both no room for extrapolation and no room for misapplication. This is a double edged sword; though it makes one's argument stronger, overusing the tactic can narrow your argument to a point where all sense of import (motive) is lost.

    1. sincerity

      Sincerity, or narcissism?

    2. When trying to discuss one medium using another, no matter how careful the analyst or thoughtful the translation, some information and accuracy will inevitably be lost. Unfortunately, writers often don’t even try to be careful. Certainly, as this piece does, an argument, and a convincing one at that, can be made about the effect of authentic lyrics and subject on popularity and success. But this piece neglects the music itself. There are other kinds of authenticity in music – authenticity of style, of rhythm, of form and instrumentation and harmony. I’m putting this recording up because it’s a good illustration of this fact, as well as being a particular favorite of mine. This music has a power of authenticity: people talk about it being “real jazz” (authentic to a style); they feel moved and touched by it; it represents (and what is authenticity but faithful representation) a specific point in time, culture, and musical history for them. Yet there are no lyrics, indeed no voice at all; no subject, and no words save the title, “Freddie Freeloader.” Our author and all the rest of us would do well to remember that only writing is just words – reducing music, or dance, or theater, or even spoken word poetry to just the words is, well, inauthentic.

      “Freddie Freeloader” by Miles Davis: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPfFhfSuUZ4&list=PL8F6B0753B2CCA128

    3. personal authenticit

      Continuing to refine my impression of a broken record, I will continue to ask the same question: authenticity, to what? The author states it clearly here -- authenticity to self -- but then proceeds to use the naked "authenticity" for the rest of the discussion. This is valid, expected even -- but it is worthwhile for us to remember that just because a song isn't personally authentic doesn't mean it's inauthentic: it could just be authentic to something outside of the self.

      This is what lets us understand how the rest of the blues mentioned, despite not being autobiographical, could still have an "authentic" appeal.

  3. Sep 2017
    1. anti-pluralism

      Certainly an academic term; not so much because of the hyphenated construction, but because "pluralism" is a very vague term that is often used to mean something completely different in academic discourse than its normal definition implies.

    2. Historians would not generallyargue that a proper understanding of socialism needs to make room forNational Socialism just because the Nazis called themselves socialists

      I am unconvinced by the sentiment expressed in this and the previous sentence. Words are given meaning by their use; they have no intrinsic meaning. Certainly, when all people use the word "banana" to refer to the yellow, oblong fruit, it is objectively wrong for a single person to then use it refer to an elm tree. But political terms like "socialist" have no real prior meaning. They are given their connotations and implications by their use, by those who are named by others or themselves* as such.

      When the Bolsheviks marched on Moscow, did it matter whether Marx would have considered them communists? They were communists to themselves, they were communists to the people fleeing the battle, they were communists to the royalists they fought, and they were communists to the Tzar they killed.

      I have to think more about how this fits into the larger puzzle, but I am convinced it cannot be irrelevant.

    3. Populism is also not a matter of advancing particular policies.

      Muller, aware that he is entering a discussion in which almost nobody agrees on the definition of the central term, takes the time in this section to, paragraph by paragraph, approach each of the other major definitions and demonstrate their incorrectness.

    1. recognition

      Taylor's piece hinges on this one word, "recognition." But what does he mean by it? He never defines it, and having read the article over a few times now, I begin to think that he never defines it because its hiding something.

      What is recognition? In the most literal sense, it is being noticed. But being noticed can be good or bad; if someone tells me they hate me, haven't they recognized me as much as if they told me they loved me?

      There is a second meaning, that which we use when talking about prizes, for instance: "John Smith and Jane Doe were recognized for their work in the field of basket weaving with an award." This meaning has positive connotations, connotations of third party approval.

      Interpreted in the light of the first definition, Taylor's arguments are nonsensical; in that case, the projection of a "demeaning or contemptible" is still a recognition of some kind and the argument falls to shreds.

      No, by "recognition," Taylor really means approval. If "nonrecognition" and "misrecognition" are, as he defines them, considering a group somehow "bad" and expressing that, then by negation, "recognition" is considering them "good," approving of them.

      Why does Taylor not simply say "approval," then? There are many possible reasons. Perhaps he felt "approval", "a demand for approval" sounded bad. Perhaps he is relying on the double meaning to make his argument, implicitly switching meanings when convenient while seeming to be referring to the same idea. Whether that is a legitimate argumentative tactic or a cheap cop-out, I can't say. But I think it's very important not to gloss over the central idea here as if its meaning is settled and clear.

    2. monologically

      From the OED:

      Of, relating to, or of the nature of (a) monologue

    1. This morning when we got to the meeting place, the foreman wasn’tthere. So the men squatted along the railroad track and waited.

      I have never seen an author use dialect as effectively as Hurston.

      So as not to break the flow of the story (which is as good as making it inauthentic, for it places a veil of commentary and technique between the events and the reader), she maintains dialect even in her third person narration between direct quotations when she is in a story, clearly demarcating it from her personal and philosophical paragraphs earlier.

    2. I don’t remember what the quotais. Perhaps I did hear but I forgot. One woman had killed five when Ileft that turpentine still where she lived. The sheriff was thinking ofcalling on her and scolding her severely.

      It's hard to tell, without more context, whether this is meant as a dry satire on the law's lack of desire to prosecute these crimes or as a simple statement of fact. Perhaps Prof. L. has some context he can provide.

    3. Folks ain’t ready for

      Interestingly, though placed in quotation marks, it seems relatively clear from context that this story is not a direct quote from another book or someone's speech. It is Hurston's own writing, which, in order to make it more authentic, she has written in dialect, and which, to make it feel more like one of the stories told on the stoop just mentioned, she has situated like a direct quote from one of the storytellers.

      (Unless it is a direct quote and I'm completely wrong, but I'm willing to take that risk given the lack of the citation one would expect in a published work if it was a direct quote.)

    1. Villiam here conceived the notion of writing an ode upon the affecting subject of those relics of hun1an society found in that grand and solitary region.

      I cannot help but wonder if this was the inspiration for Michael, which begins with such a "reli[c] of human society" (the organized but unused stones of the sheep-fold) in the same "grand and solitary" landscape.

  4. Aug 2017
    1. WhomI already loved;--not verilyFor their own sakes, but for the fields

      Through a short, pithy reflection on himself, I think Wordsworth here successfully sums up the driving force behind the recurring fascination with the rural, simple, and close to nature that has appeared every decade or so ever since Greek and Roman times. We become fascinated with people close to nature and the lives they lead not because they are, as a class, so superior or so markedly different from any other cross-section of humanity, but because they live in circumstances that often appeal to us, aesthetically, morally, or otherwise.

    1. concurring testimony of ages

      Wordsworth's sudden willingness to use tradition and past consensus as an argument for the value of meter is striking in the context of the eleven proceeding pages of constructive arguments and opposition to settled poetic norms. Though he goes on to elaborate somewhat on the value and role of meter in poetry, despite saying himself that many critics "greatly underrate the power of metre in itself," he gives it little credit and a strangely limited role.

      It seems to me that meter is one of the two columns of poetry, language being the other, and that its role, though simple, is absolutely crucial: it provides a shortcut directly to the deep, emotional parts of our minds, to the passions, as it was said in Wordsworth's time.

      I realize that the focus of the piece is not on meter since Wordsworth is not disputing its use in poetry, but in the context of arguments otherwise so thoroughly made which lay such a strong claim to being a general theory of poetry, I find it strange that such a central part of the art is relegated to the metaphorical corner throughout the next few paragraphs.

      I would be interested to hear what anyone else thinks of this.

    2. ’such as Angels weep,

      A quotation from Milton's Paradise Lost, from Book I, line 619/620.

      Source: http://www.dartmouth.edu/~milton/reading_room/pl/book_1/text.shtml

    3. yet I am sensible, that there would be something like impropriety in abruptly obtruding upon the Public, without a few words of introduction, Poems so materially different from those upon which general approbation is at present bestowed.

      This is a fairly clear, straightforward statement of motive: Wordsworth writes to convince the general public (his audience) of the acceptability and value of his works as poetry (his motive).

    1. and that you have a system for annotation

      Do you expect us to maintain our personal annotations and notes in Hypothes.is or simply in any reasonably organized form? In a similar vein, will you be asking to see our annotations/notes on the readings?