Профиль

Given the official confirmation of El Niño this year, here's my recent proposal to bring equity to climate (and other environmental) dialogues by making the Global South (always the brunt bearer) the leading voice. Open-access, short article from Public Humanities (can also be assigned for class!) 👇

Friends: I was recently in touch with the journal @culturalcritique.bsky.social and if you'd like to review Postpolitics and the Aesthetic Imagination, I can put you in touch with them, or you can do so directly. The journal should be able to arrange for you to get a copy through the press.

Postpolitics and the Aesthetic ImaginationIgniting political power through the lens of art and the imaginationPostpolitics and the Aesthetic Imagination investigates the erosion of meaningful politic...www.upress.umn.edu

@philosopher1923.bsky.social has a great list of books they're looking to review, including my edited volume Postpolitics and the Aesthetic Imagination (w/ @uminnpress.bsky.social). If you're interested in reviewing it, check their list 👇 and get in touch with them! See below the table of contents!

What's the point if you go up to a scholar after their lecture and they can only parrot what the parrot machine spat out? Expertise does not reside in producing an amazing sentence/talk/paragraph/whatever. It's about knowing and understanding content, context, nuance, and shifts in perspective.

Having written a book about dialogue, a both have a lot of thoughts in general and also don't want to be a pain, but I think the so-called AI revolution should (might?) through dialogue into a new light. It's not about "winning" an argument, which the "debate-centric" element in the OP, but ...

Quentin Vijoux @quentinvijoux.bsky.social

it isn't just AI that's the issue. in a debate-centric culture which is always centered around arguments, however detailed they may be, what do we count as thinking? for myself, i want to see how it is we even get the questions that matter in the first place. i want to know that we're observing

i think that especially in this age of AI, your notes, your incomplete drafts, your ramblings have incredible value. like, even before AI, we have finished products everywhere. and they're good! and they are real contributions! and i don't know. i want to see more proof of work, more apparatus

Organizing an ACLA panel on "Speculative Infrastructure" with Philip Bonnano (Penn State) for the 2027 meeting. Please submit! (Or, you know, send a proposal!) www.acla.org/seminar/6efc...

Consider submitting an abstract for our ACLA in-person seminar on "Embodiment Hunger: Reading Bodies in Community after AI"! w/ Anna Mukamal, UNC-Chapel Hill, www.acla.org/seminar/7c63.... As the CFP says: This seminar asks how embodied readers and communities still matter after AI. +

CFP: "Views from the Global South: New Horizons in World Literature" ACLA 2027 seminar! It explores new disciplinary horizons that emerge from the comparative friction between the categories “world literature” and “Global South.” There are plans for a possible follow-up publication.

I mean, even putting social media aside (mentioned in the thread), academia is a huge social network with elevators to the moon if you are connected to the right people.

Check out my CFP, "Views from the Global South: New Horizons in World Literature," for ACLA 2027. It will be online, and there are plans for a follow-up publication.

If you like the phrase "elevators to the moon" to describe academia's power system you should see the rest of my writing

One last reminder to publish a shortened version of your Weird Modernisms conference paper, organized by BAMS!

The idea that we all want an "assistant" is revolting

Still baffled that some will think anonymizing someone else is simply not naming them while describing a related matter in so much detail that other people in this person's orbit will instantly recognize them, which might have repercussions. That's not anonymizing. It's like pixelating their shoes.

A while back I read a "hyperpolitics" essay that I assume the book is an extension of, and I still have to read the book itself (though whether I do depends on limited time etc), but I am still not convinced about the hyperpolitics thesis. Also, that Guardian article wasn't great.