The academic culture over here fantastically contrasts that to which I've been exposed in Canada. Granted, I was at the University of Brighton's Centre for Applied Political Philosophy and Ethics -- the crowd seemed to reject academic elitism as a matter of politics. This made for a hugely enriched atmosphere and authentic knowledge exchange. Only after the conference closed did I consider that we, most of us strangers from over a dozen countries, achieved kind and respectful debate that I've only ever dreamed of. Also, the attendees were just genuinely cool. We drank beer (they drank a lot of beer), told crass jokes (they told really crass jokes) and acknowledged things about our mortality that I think academic "minds" often forget, or at least pretend to - we're all just bags of bones in a slow rot toward death. So let's make the most of it. Have another pint. Laugh about sex. Eat chocolate. Etc.
My talk was the first on Friday morning, the third and final day of the conference. When skimming over my notes the night before, I noticed that many of the words I had so carefully chosen had been nuanced and complicated, heralded and rejected, by other speakers over the course of the previous days. Panic and exhilaration consumed me as I scribbled in the margins reminding myself to allude to what others had already said.
I shared a panel with an admired Dutch philosopher named Evert. He's an established scholar in Europe so I was incredibly appreciative that he took the time to reassure me of how excited he was to be speaking alongside each other. His kindness helped allay my anxiety immensely. Nice guy.
A bit on his talk to preface reflection on my own, Evert argued for the taking up of certain political virtues in international relations. To develop his argument, he insisted upon suspending moral judgment when both politicizing acts in the pubic sphere and rethinking democratic values in general. Referring to the riots in London, several historical acts of murder or kidnapping that have been individualized and/or criminalized as acts of "madness," and the September 11, 2011 attacks on the WTC and Pentagon, he claimed that each act is political, regardless of the conscious motives of the perpetrator, and needs to be viewed as such. Acknowledging this allows us to truly reflect on the cultural state(s) of things. His examples bled splendidly into my talk, as he slammed our pathologizing of the suicide bombers at 9/11 as "irrational" or "fundamentalist" or even simply guided by religious doctrine. I hung on his every word. In the dialogue that followed his talk, philosophers (constructively) condemned his use of masculinist language/aims (particularly his use of the word virtue) and his slightly ideological leanings. I soaked that part in like a sponge too.
When I began speaking, my jitters subsided. I even got the guts to take up a dare from a (scary) British(Marxist) professor (who looked like a member of the Hell's Angels) to somehow insert the phrase "wanking and weight-lifting" into my introductory comments. "After some wanking and weight-lifting alone in our rooms," (people were very shocked at the deadpan delivery of this phrase by the tiny Canadian) ... I announced my thesis and set off like a racehorse to defend myself (read: I spoke too quickly). For some reason, there was a lot of laughter during my talk, which I choose to interpret as the natural reaction to my satirical commentary on US pop culture... and not to my crude references to and frequent dismissal of the entire European philosophical canon post-enlightenment. Haaa.
I think it went over okay on the whole, though I'm sure my lack of philosophical depth on the notion of time was fairly obvious to the experts in the room. They were kind to me, though, and even though the first inquiry tossed my way asked me to explain how my argument complemented or rejected that of Immanuel Kant's in Pure Reason (fuck) (!!!!), I'd say I still offered something from Indigenous and feminist thought that contributed some speckle to the week's handling of 9/11 discourses. I'd even say I bullshitted my way through Kant with relative eloquence by quoting him and then referring to theorists of supernaturalism who approach the same language from entirely different subject positions. This seemed to puzzle the crowd, which I think may have also impressed them. Nobody hugged me after or gave me any presents (academia sucks!), but I felt relatively heard, and I guess that is what to hope for.
If I could, I'd make my life a conference. I had so many meaningful encounters this week that clarified my personal/professional values and aims. The group plenary alone served to remind me that there are a pile of lefty academics who dedicate their lives to understanding the state of democracy in this world. At a time of neocon backlash in global politics and a time in my studies when I was lacking motivation, I've been refreshed! Now off to London to spread optimism and luv.
Wow. They whacked you with Kant! Tough crowd indeed. Sounds like you left them laughing. I think that academics like to leave laughing, or else really pissed off - anything that inspires them to run home and write. I can only speculate though, not having read Kant.
ReplyDelete