Keynes and the making of “the economy” : part 1

In The General Theory of 1936, Keynes pictures banknotes buried in abandoned coal mines to explain the need for governments to organize the domestic circulation of money:

If the Treasury were to fill old bottles with bank notes, bury them at suitable depths in disused coal mines which are then filled up to the surface with town rubbish, and leave it to private enterprise on well-tried principles of laissez-faire to dig the notes up again … there need be no more unemployment and, with the help of the repercussions, the real income of the community, and its capital wealth also, would probably become a great deal greater than it actually is.

John Maynard Keynes, 1936. The general theory of employment, interest, and money, London: Macmillan, 129.

Trackback from http://wellesleyunderground.com/

Discrimination, you ask? Oh absolutely.

Suppose you want a job somewhere abroad. Why not, right? You’re qualified, you speak the language fluently, and you even went to college there, so you have a decent network. Pretty soon you’re even getting interviews, and they’re going fairly well because frankly, as an entry-level applicant, all you have to prove is a cheerful willingness to do grunt work and that you’re reasonably socially adjusted.

And then something happens. The tone changes, caution levels rise. Your interviewer asks you—fairly gingerly—what your citizenship status is. Easy question you think, and you answer truthfully. And before you know it, the conversation ends and you’re back at square one, wondering what could possibly have gone wrong.

Well guess what? This is probably what happens to many of your recently graduated international friends from Wellesley—at least the ones who even attempt to get non-corporate or non-technical jobs in America. And this is what is happening to me.

Forget the fact that most of the jobs companies advertise are protected by the Equal Employment Opportunities Act; one that’s supposed to protects job applicants from being discriminated against on the basis of race, color, religion, sex OR national origin. Or the fact that the Immigration Reform and Control Act ‘makes it illegal to for employers to discriminate with respect to hiring, firing, or recruitment or referral for a fee, based on an individual’s citizenship or immigration status.’ But unfortunately for many companies, the extra money, paperwork and effort that go into issuing work visas to qualified, legally authorized foreign employees usually acts as a deterrent to hiring them in the first place. (The economy sucks, and so on.)

And why not? Axing the foreigners seems like a harmless way to decrease the applicant pool. They don’t have voting rights, so who cares? And hey, they can go back home! Right?

Not for me. Sure, there are plenty of women who will endure a severe downgrade in independence and mobility, not to mention the very real prospect of being sexually harassed and humiliated on the street on a regular basis—all in the day of a working woman in the male-dominated environment back home. And I salute them. But can you blame me for wanting more than that? Especially after going to Wellesley?

But the saga continues. One by one, my international friends—all equipped with fantastic liberal arts degrees—are heading home disheartened and empty-handed. Because for many of them, a US degree won’t really make too much of a difference to their job prospects at home, especially if they aren’t already too well connected. Not to mention the tremendous social pressure to get married and have an army of children. So much for overcoming cultural adjustment, homesickness and that all-too-familiar guilt for leaving home for greener pastures—our reward is an international walk of shame to a fate that we couldn’t escape.

Most of us don’t even bother to fight it. Some of us are forced to consider options with less-stringent visa restrictions, such as non-profit jobs, or grad school. I know some people who got lawyers, but the fee was astounding, and the results, grim.

Ladies, I think it’s time you knew. It’s time you knew that for many of us, unemployment woes go beyond inner battles of pride, entitlement and whether or not we should get health insurance—it’s that sinking feeling of realizing that despite securing a number of great job interviews, something as arbitrary as our lack of citizenship will probably determine how employable we are. It’s time you knew that we continue to fight against the low odds of our success, while most Americans are oblivious that this is happening. It’s time you knew that discrimination in the workplace goes even deeper than you had imagined, and this needs to change. Because equal employment will certainly never exist otherwise. And if you believe that it should exist, then yes, it’s time you knew.

-Saba Sulaiman ‘09

http://wellesleyunderground.com/post/29019365004/no-foreigners-allowed-an-international-wellesley-alum

“Writing machines”

“Of course, even where the instruments and strategies of post-structuralist thought have been enthusiastically adopted, they have often served as a modish disguise. Thus the reception and broad dissemination of Derrida in the United States has taken a shape as a blending of New-Critical immanent interpretation, on the one hand, with a negative theology of the literary work in which texts figure as the hopefully hopeless allegory of their own failure, on the other. The difficult term deconstruction has become a laxly used synonym for negative critique. Advocacy of this sort, held in thrall to fascination, is merely the inverse of the accusation of fashionableness. Information, according to Gregory Bateson’s definition, is a difference that makes a difference. By consigning post-structuralism to the realm of fashion, American literary criticism has systematically refused to be informed.”

[…..]

“The precondition of this unweaving is the minimal experimental condition of psychophysics: that writing, as writing, be written down. In order for this detachment of writing from subjectivity to occur, however, inscription has to become mechanized, and this happens with the typewriter. The typewriter, Heidegger noted, alters our relationship to being: it takes language away from the hand, which – and here Heidegger is faithful, as so often, to Aristotle – distinguishes “man.” Kittler, without sharing the philosopher’s nostalgia, renders this Heideggerian intuition historically concrete. The typewriter frees writing from the control of the eye and of consciousness; it institutes spacing as the precondition of differentiation; it stores a reservoir of signifiers that strike the page much as Ebbinghaus’s syllables strike the body’s sensory surface. Nietzsche’s notion of moral inscription is modeled on the typewriter, one of the earliest versions of which he owned and used. Saussure’s linguistics, in Derrida’s reading a linguistics of arche-writing, has its technological correlate in the typewriter. Freud’s psychic apparatus, as he called it, is a writing machine. Moreover, as Kittler shows, the literacy production of the era is no less dependent, in conception and practice, on the new technology of the letter. Mallarmé calls for the disappearance of the elocutionary subject and derives poetry from the 26 letters of the alphabet and the spaces between them. Kafka’s instruments of torture are writing machines. Morgenstern develops a poetics of autonomous punctuation. Like psychophysics (for which it is a technological precondition as well), the typewriter alters the status of discourse and repositions literature, science, and theory. The end of “man” postulated by Foucault is brought on by a mechanism that writes writing.”

Wellbery, David E. Foreword to Discourse networks 1800/1900 by Freidrich A Kittler. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1990.

Extract from an interview with J. Z. Smith

SS: You mentioned that your teaching style is peculiar. Can you describe what you mean by that?

JS: Oh, I don’t know. Well, first of all, given the range of religions I teach, the issue of where I stand in relation to them is moot. And most people who teach religion have a clear relationship with the religions. I cannot. Obviously, most of them are dead, I would get in trouble with the ASPCA [American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals] if I sacrificed a bull ox to Zeus. I have a friend who recently died, but he actually decided to show kids what a sacrifice looks like, so he sacrificed a lamb at Easter time. “We talk about it so much—here’s what it looks like!” Half the class puked, half the class had angry letters from mommy and daddy. But he did demonstrate that it’s not just a metaphor. It’s a messy and not altogether pleasant process. Since [then] we’ve converted it entirely into an economic question. I ask students the meaning of sacrifice, and they always start talking about “mommy and daddy sacrificing so I could go to college.” We’ve been at war for four years, and I haven’t heard one person yet say some soldier sacrificed themselves. That language is gone. It’s entirely economic. One kid whose name I sent to the Development Office said sacrifice was joining a golf club for the four years that he was here, so he would have money to go to Europe when he graduated. I thought Development ought to keep an eye on that kid. I rarely do that, but I turned him in. That’s just his notion, but it’s the same idea—it’s economic: “I give up something now to get a better thing in the future.” Well that’s a shitty theory of sacrifice. But that’s the kind of thing I try to do, I try to make students answer questions, and not in class, but in writing.

On the whole I don’t teach seminars. I used to teach a lot of seminars. It’s a young man’s game. Some people like [U of C Classics professor James] Redfield can keep it up. I can’t; it’s very tiring. To really keep track of what everybody’s saying is like a computer dating service—”You should really talk to him,” or “Come on, stop talking!”—it’s like conducting an orchestra. And I can’t do it any longer. So I mostly talk. And I let them talk back in writing basically. And sometimes I’ll identify who asked something—it depends on how many people are in the room. If there’s 20, I’ll identify them. If there’s 80, I won’t. I try, I suppose, very hard—someone once said religion is a topic you have to un-teach before you teach, because in some sense, everybody comes in with an idea in their head, so they’re obviously sure that they know something about it. Your job is to suggest, without being incredibly in their face, that they don’t. So you have to take it apart, respectfully, but nonetheless take it apart. And sometimes you try juxtaposing it to something, you sometimes try asking an awful long question about it, sometimes you play dumb. Sometimes you do some history, say, “You know, it wasn’t always like you just said,” and there’s a reason behind why you’re saying what you’re saying, because something happened that caused people to talk like that. No one until Charles Darwin ever knew the Bible had no errors. No one in the history of Christianity has ever claimed until Christianity that the Bible had no errors, so why suddenly did they have to announce the Bible had no errors, at the beginning of the 20th century? It’s not an internal religious movement, it’s what they perceive as an external threat. Of course after that you drop the second shoe, which is, the sentence continues: “It’s only an error in the original autograph.” Well, fat chance you and I are ever going to see that one! And fat chance there ever was one, incidentally. The whole damn thing, written down in the same handwriting, all at once? No way. So you ask questions. That’s what you do. And most religions that are interesting spend a lot of time asking questions.

The difference I think is when religion is left alone to ask questions, they can actually be far more daring than I can be in a classroom. And usually people who ask questions are fairly comfortable with their religion. They ask the craziest—I mean I wouldn’t dare ask some of these questions. But they’re never going to leave, because the answer to that question—that’s who they are, and they just want to find out more about it. And if it leads them to things that make them say, “My God, yuck,” they’re still not going to say, “So, tomorrow I’m going to join some other group.” Whereas when you deal with a mixed audience, when you deal with somebody else’s faith, it gets tricky.

I loved teaching Self, Culture, and Society. It was I think my favorite teaching I’ve done here. And I would come in the winter quarter when they did religion, with Durkheim, Levi-Strauss, all those good people. And one year we read a book about education by Derek Bok and another former president of another university, called something like The Shape of the River, and it was an argument basically for the educational requirement for diversity. It was the book the University of Michigan used before the Supreme Court to make its argument about what Republicans like to call quotas. They’re targets. A quota means you have to reach it. A target means you try, and there’s a big difference, and they know damn well there’s a big difference—anyway, that’s neither here nor there. It’s remarkable because since they were the president of Princeton and the president of Harvard, they got access to everybody in the business and they got access to everybody’s files. And so they were able to give us longitudinal surveys of attitudes over a 20-, 30-year period. Alumni associations have polls, Harvard has a continual poll that they bother people with until they die. Some other places do the same thing. And they tried to summarize—and I was fascinated by a discrepancy, it seemed to me, in two questions. They said, “Do you think it is important to go to school with people of other cultures?” And I don’t care what population you were looking at, the answer was always in the high nineties. Old, young, black, white, rich, poor—not so poor, for the surveys these places were doing—but still, everyone said, “Yes, it’s important educationally to go to school with someone from different cultures.”

But 150 pages later, they said, “Do you think it’s important to go to school with someone of different beliefs?” Thirty-eight percent was the highest “yes” on that one. I looked at that. I said, “You know, I don’t consider my classroom a zoo where I have to have a specimen of every animal. So clearly what I want is I want people from different places because they bring with them different beliefs. So what the hell is the difference between those two?” As interviewers sometimes do, they reword the same question and ask it. I asked Bok, who I know, and he said, “No, no, that wasn’t it at all.” He hadn’t noticed the discrepancy. Well I said, “You’re no God damn use, I’ll ask my students.” They’re the ones who presumably fill out things like this, so I asked them. And they thought I was crazy to think there was a contradiction. First of all for them the word belief means only religious. I’d never quite realized this before. They don’t have beliefs about science, or beliefs about Obama or beliefs about War and Peace. They only have beliefs about religion. If you say “what do you think about…” that’s not beliefs! So somehow beliefs isn’t about thinking about, first of all; that’s the first thing I learned from my students.

Secondly, though we had read Clifford Geertz’s arguments, which tell you that culture, science, everything is a matter of belief, they obviously didn’t believe him. And that pissed me off, because I’d just given out some As for their reading of Clifford Geertz. And now they’re telling me religion is the only thing you could believe in. All right. Now I’m beginning to catch on, aha. Well if they all read it that way, yeah I guess I see, but still. Didn’t they know different beliefs were going to come with all these different cultures, even if it’s religion? I thought it was fascinating and horrifying—the students weren’t horrifying but it was…. If there was someone from some place else, if there was someone from India, I could go to their house, I could like their food, I could like the samosas and go home. Or I could go to an ethnic fair and enjoy all the different—and that’s a zoo!—all the different dances, foods, costumes, and all of that, and I go home. If I like someone else’s religion, I have to leave and convert. I can’t go home. And I listened to that, and I thought, “My God. Your choice is to be a tourist or to be a convert, there’s nothing in between.” There’s a whole world in between! You don’t have to run fast through a museum from Greek art through French impressionism, watching your clock because you have to go to a natural history museum in a couple hours. You don’t have to do that. There’s other things you could do. You could slow down a little bit. But you also don’t have to become an apostle—there’s a lot of room in between. And that really got me all reanimated about this business. I was quite struck—and I suspect they were telling me much the same things from the minds of the [surveyed] people, that explains the gap.

I thought that was quite amazing. So the question is, how can you look, like you look at a museum at something, look at it, without having to run to something else right away, but without saying—I’ve seen very few paintings where I’d like to live in what I see, but it doesn’t stop you from looking at them for a while, trying to figure out, “What the hell’s going on here, how did they do that?” You know, all the questions you ask yourself. The same kind of thing should somehow happen in the world of beliefs, even religious beliefs.

http://chicagomaroon.com/2008/06/02/full-j-z-smith-interview/

An open invitation to ‘sense politics’

This is a collective reading, hearing, and listening journal, a chronicle of passages, words and expressions, images both still and moving, acoustics, and memoranda towards unimagined futures waiting to be discovered.

I will share some visions, masquerading as guidelines if you may, on how this space could be used:

1. You come across a passage, image[s], sequence[s] in a film, sounds or a combination that you, for some reason, would like to extract and share it on thoughtsickle.

2. Log in to wordpress, compose and submit a new post with only the extract. List the source of your chosen extract at the end of your post.

3. Try to keep your reasons to yourself, if possible, unless introductory, biographical, or other forms of commentary are in someway vital to your extract.

That’s it, truly. That’s all there is to thoughsickle. There are, as you are already aware of, many academic blogs offering a range of opinions on several fields of thought. I do not want thoughtsickle to be a space for us to comment on the extracts we choose to share, however witty, insightful, crass, condescending and effusive it may be. Some commentary, as we all have come to experience, is inevitable and should be filed under the comments category of the respective post.