1. Devin Shaw has a post up on last week’s RPA (I appreciate his kind comments), and I agree on his own paper being about Benjamin, not Agamben. His comments on Bat-Ami Bar On’s plenary are right on, though of course, he’s agreeing with me, so that seems a weird way of agreeing with myself. (I do!) There’s this strange tick that those who seem least prepared to talk about something go on and on about how others should do research in that area (one sees this with the sciences all the time). Maybe it’s that people take their own initial ignorance when they came across the topic—after all, they hadn’t heard of it—and think that this ignorance is widely shared. Of course, maybe you knew that already…

2. Levi Bryant has been energetically going into Sartre’s CDR, though I wonder if this long post doesn’t make too much of “antipraxis” (ok, but what of the inertness of the practico-inert? Calagno didn’t insert “experience” into Sartre’s account for little reason. But it’s good to push him in the other direction, and I look forward to Levi’s post on later sections).

3. Infinite Thought has a great set of pics up cheerfully taking the Evening Standard to task for its headline that said leftist professors were grading “Full Marks For Riots, Say Leftist Professors.” Just go see it and you’ll get the point. I think I’ll have to print some of them up for my door at work. (Will it go with my poster a student made of all the personages in Dante’s Inferno? Why not?)

4. Here’s a wishlist for changes to the APA-East. Some of the suggestions are good (can we stop dragging jobless students to the APA-east for interviews, costing at least $175 in hotel fees for the privilege? It just seems an extra kick to graduating Ph.D.s in this market…when the technology is easily available to avoid this [and would mean wider committees from the institutions themselves, since they wouldn’t be limited by who could be in Boston at such and such a time…])

5. Scu has a post of books that changed his mind. (I hope to change his mind on his belief that Foucault only held sovereign power to be reactive and deductive…)

6. Not good news out of my alma mater.

7. More bad news at an of U of C regents meeting, where police pulled a gun and pepper sprayed student protesters for being protestors or something…

8. And pulling it all together, here’s Protevi on “security theater.”


  1. That is actually a good thing to clarify. I read both Homo Sacer and State of Exception before I read, say, Security, Territory, Population. Foucault doesn’t treat sovereignty in merely reactive or repressive ways in those lectures. It would not be that hard to convince me that I had a bad reading of some of Foucault’s earlier writings. Or even that Foucault’s notion of sovereignty might have changed.

Comments are closed.