[Linganth] It turns out that Jane Hill is white(!)

Sat Feb 7 22:23:01 UTC 2015

Isn't this great timing - was listed on Google News in the top hits tfor
linguistics:

Western professor offers insight into linguistic racism:

Western Washington University anthropology professor Judy Pine presented
her linguistic perspective on racism in a crash course discussion at the
university’s Linguistics Club, Tuesday, Feb. 3.

http://www.westernfrontonline.net/news/article_57c9d0c2-ad03-11e4-b63f-070060521797.html

Stephanie Feyne
NYC

On Sat, Feb 7, 2015 at 5:00 AM, William Leap <wlm at american.edu> wrote:

> Mark, "theory" doesnt  "....try to differentiate its language from
> everyday terms... "   It is people that do that.   And that   question of
> agency and responsibility --  may be the central to the discussion here. .
>
> We have been struggling with this issue for some years at the Lavender
> Languages conference. how to talk about sexual transgression and  sexual
> "difference"  [different from what ? ] without falling deeply into an
> esoteric  vocabulary that   few  understand and fewer  value. .
> Conversations with the media about queer linguistics -- try it !
>
> Hegemonies of whiteness and related issues are on the program.,
>
> Join us next week (Feb 13-15, 2015) ,
> www.american.edu/cas/anthropology/lavender-languages
>
> Wlm L. Leap
> Professor, Department of Anthropology, American University, Washington DC
> 20016
> Co-editor, Journal of Language and Sexuality
> http://www.benjamins.com/#catalog/journals/jls
>
> "It is not very hard to silence us, but that is not because we cannot
> speak."    --  a Bengali villager once remarked to Nobel prize winning
> economist  Amartya Sen  (The Argumentative Indian, Picador Books, 2005:
> xiii)
>
> "Don't be a drag, just be a queen."  Lady Gaga
>
>
>
>
> From:        "Peterson, Mark" <petersm2 at miamioh.edu>
> To:        Frank Bechter <fbechter at gmail.com>,
> Cc:        "Linguistic Anthropology Discussion Group \(
> LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org\)" <LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> Date:        02/06/2015 10:31 PM
> Subject:        Re: [Linganth] It turns out that Jane Hill is white(!)
> Sent by:        "Linganth" <linganth-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
> That's true Frank, but it is also strategic. Critical theory often tries
> to differentiate its language from everyday terms because those terms are
> weighted by their associations with positions the scholars are trying to
> critique. This kind of alienating vocabulary is common in any science where
> specialized vocabularies emerge. But when media coverage of physics or
> chemistry occurs, the media producers generally seek to translate the
> concepts for their audiences. Here, they were deliberately making use of
> Malinowski's "coefficient of weirdness" to make the discourse alienating.
>
> Mark Allen Peterson
> Professor and Chair, Department of Anthropology
> & Professor, International Studies Program
> 120 Upham Hall
> Miami University
> Oxford, OH 45056
> 513 529-5018
> petersm2 at miamiOH.edu
> *www.connectedincairo.com* <http://www.connectedincairo.com/>
>
> On Fri, Feb 6, 2015 at 11:38 AM, Frank Bechter <*fbechter at gmail.com*
> <fbechter at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Critical scholars, take a critical look at your own discursive practices.
> If the question is how to get the helpful message across, be willing to see
> your own bad chess moves. We see in this piece,
> *http://jezebel.com/watch-these-two-white-ladies-freak-out-about-asus-white-1681368338*
> <http://jezebel.com/watch-these-two-white-ladies-freak-out-about-asus-white-1681368338>,
> that Fox leads with a string of specific words -- indeed, a string of
> specific *types* of words -- found in the *course description* of the
> disputed course, U.S. Race Theory and the Problem of Whiteness:
> "... postcolonialist, psychoanalytic, deconstructionist, feminist, new
> historicist." The anchor omits the lead phrase, "Major critical schools of
> recent decades," so as to make the wash of hyper-intellectual terms as
> incoherent as possible. They are as alienating as possible, thus allowing
> any construal of "whiteness" or "problem" to fly. One cannot stop Fox and
> misguided students from selectively omitting phrases, but one should wonder
> whether the string of words that Fox did latch onto for its own purposes
> are actually helpful in any other way, i.e., in the goal of greater
> critical awareness in the world at large, or especially in a course
> description. If your goal is to equip students with tools to fight
> institutional racism and disenfranchisement, these terms are not helpful.
> They are not tools. To the contrary, they -- especially when you rattle
> them off all in a row -- are the very discursive forms which can ensure, in
> the minds of many readers, your complete irrelevance and hauteur. To me,
> they ensure that you probably don't know what you're talking about. If
> critical scholarship is to be useful in the world (which, of course, need
> not be its function), then hit hard in your advertisements of it, explain
> any big term you use, or simply don't use it. Realize what you're up
> against. If a wash of such terms actually attracts select students and
> colleagues who are content to have this discourse remain provincial,
> consider how many more you will attract with terms that are designed to
> arrest a much bigger audience, which hopefully is the real goal.
>
> Frank Bechter
> Charlottesville, VA
>
> On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM, Matthew Bernius <*mbernius at gmail.com*
> <mbernius at gmail.com>> wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Peterson, Mark <*petersm2 at miamioh.edu*
> <petersm2 at miamioh.edu>> wrote:
> What we think of as "objective" journalism evolved in a particular
> historical and economic context. Before that, it was not at all uncommon to
> have the Republican and Democratic newspapers in the same city, each
> sniping at different targets the other supported.
>
> And to that point, when one looks at the entire history of American
> Journalism, the "objective period" (which I'd argue we are approaching the
> end of) is more of a historical anachronism rather than the norm. To Mark's
> point, the reality is that the Fox News approach is, in many respects,
> closer to the traditional form of the press.
>
> Great discussion all,
>
> - Matt
>
> -----------------------------
> Matthew Bernius
> mBernius at gMail.com | *http://www.mattbernius.com*
> <http://www.mattbernius.com/> | @mattBernius
> My calendar: *http://bit.ly/hNWEII* <http://bit.ly/hNWEII>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linganth mailing list
> *Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org* <Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org>
> *http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth*
> <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linganth mailing list
> Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Linganth mailing list
> Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org
> http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://listserv.linguistlist.org/pipermail/linganth/attachments/20150207/a67c361e/attachment.htm>