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

Sun Feb 8 03:06:28 UTC 2015

The irony of it is that I had scheduled this talk for Linguistics Club back in September or October.  Serendipity!

Judy

Sent using OWA for iPad
________________________________
From: Linganth <linganth-bounces at listserv.linguistlist.org> on behalf of Stephanie Feyne <stefeyne at gmail.com>
Sent: Saturday, February 7, 2015 2:23:01 PM
Cc: LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org
Subject: Re: [Linganth] It turns out that Jane Hill is white(!)

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<mailto: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<http://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<mailto:petersm2 at miamioh.edu>>
To:        Frank Bechter <fbechter at gmail.com<mailto:fbechter at gmail.com>>,
Cc:        "Linguistic Anthropology Discussion Group \(LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org>\)" <LINGANTH at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto: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<mailto: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<tel:513%20529-5018>
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<mailto: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, 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<mailto:mbernius at gmail.com>> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 12:01 PM, Peterson, Mark <petersm2 at miamioh.edu<mailto: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

_______________________________________________
Linganth mailing list
Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth

_______________________________________________
Linganth mailing list
Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto:Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org>
http://listserv.linguistlist.org/mailman/listinfo/linganth

_______________________________________________
Linganth mailing list
Linganth at listserv.linguistlist.org<mailto: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/20150208/3a1587ec/attachment.htm>