Do we need human?

http://www.npr.org/2013/02/25/172900833/do-we-need-humans

Husserl and Space

A quote I found on a phenomenology blog.  I need to follow up and read "Ding und Raum":

"...the constitution of space presupposes the constitution of one's own body: "Ding und Raum", where Husserl provides us with a phenomenological explanation of space constitution, does not give evidence for the process of one's own body constitution. The only passage in which Husserl speaks about the constitution of the body is notoriously to be found in "Ideas II". The touching-touched hand explains how my body can constitute itself contemporaneously as a Leib and as a Körper. It is important to stress this fact: the body can be constituted only insofar as it is apprehend both as my body (Leib), experienced subjectively, and as a thing (Körper) among other things in an objective space. 

So, you see that a circle seems to threaten Husserl's phenomenology of space:

- space is constituted through body's experience;

- the constitution of one's own body presupposes the constitution of space."

CUNY Pathways: An Assault on Orality and Performance-based Learning

I teach in the Humanities Department of NYCCT, CUNY.  CUNY is currently going through a university-wide restructuring of the curriculum called Pathways.  A longer description of Pathways (which has been publicly condemned by the Modern Language Association) is available here:  http://www.psc-cuny.org/our-campaigns/faculty-staff-and-students-mobilize-pathways-town-hall.  In short, all courses on the books on each and every campus--from Brooklyn to the Bronx-- has to go through a rigorous review and application process to see if it fits into the new core curriculum.  If a course is not accepted in the university-wide core curriculum, the course cannot be be included as a "Pathways Certified Course" on a student's transcript.  What this means is that if a transferring student has taken Chinese Language I at CAMPUS A, but that course was not accepted into Pathways, the credits will not be counted towards a language requirement at CAMPUS B.  So the student will have to take language from scratch again.  By the way, the process for approval happens at the college level; so the success of a course depends entirely on the review process at the local level -- there is no coordination between campuses about requirements for similar courses.

The consequences of not getting a course into Pathways have been enormous.  Students do not consider taking non-Pathways courses because they recognize the limitations on the course -- non-transferrable and not available for financial aid.  Registration numbers have fallen in non-Pathways elective courses, sections have disappeared, and the need for instructors of these courses has gone with them.

So, what kinds of courses are having trouble making Pathways? Performing arts courses are rejected outright.  Music Theory could make Pathways, but Music Performance will not (Theatre History: yes; Acting: no, etc. -- though there is no guarantee that history or theory would make the cut either).  Six definitional categories within Pathways have been established ("Individual and Society, "U.S. Experience" etc.), and course applications for Pathways must justify their adequacy for one of the six categories.  

I teach in the Humanities Department at NYCCT. Based on my own experience there, I can attest to the fact that courses in Communication, Theatre, and Music have been routinely rejected from the Pathways core curriculum. What I find disturbing about this fact is that the pedagogical engine of these courses runs on the energy of oral transmission and construction of knowledge. Learning outcomes in speech, communication, and performance courses are built around living, social activities that cannot always be evidenced in writing. By its own design, Pathways has marginalized courses that champion vocal and somatic expression. To someone who has read his share of Bhabha and Spivak, this is an alarming regression. Like the histories and customs non-Western cultures that were extinguished through the colonial suppression of oral and performance practices, spoken-word curricula are under attack at one of the most culturally diverse universities in the United States.

In particular, I can speak to how our Voice and Diction course has been damaged. The strictness of Pathways and a severe constriction of liberal arts electives that students can take has caused a dramatic drop in enrollment. Sections have been cancelled and adjunct faculty have lost teaching opportunities. Changes in TAP funding, which will no longer pays for an elective unless it's required or recommended, has discouraged enrollment as well. 

Unfortunately, Voice and Diction is a course that so many of our students (and some faculty) desperately need. Research has shown that articulate, comprehensible, and expressive speech is crucial in order to establish oneself as an effective and functional participant in academic and social communities. It is the single most important quality a majority of employers seek in potential employees.  At our technical college where career development is a basic objective, courses like Voice and Diction should be permanent, core fixtures. On practical, professional, and intellectual levels, without Voice and Diction a very large portion of our student body will not be able to function or advance in their chosen disciplines. 

The King in the Car Park

This Channel5 documentary (England) -- and the "performance" of Philippa Langley (lead Richardian in the restoration of King Richard III's historical and material images) in particular, is an incredible study in theatrical reanimation.  Restored behavior -- as defined by R. Schechner -- but with particular effort to fight theatre with theatre.  Shakespeare's play about the last Plantagenet King is, of course, not the only piece of Tutor propaganda supporting the playwright's contemporary rulers -- but it is the most famous and the most influential.  No other vehicle been more effective in disseminating a narrative of cruelty and deformity than Shakespeare's history play.  On the other hand, the discovery of Richard's bones in a parking lot is a drama for 21st-century audiences that matches the play's pathos, but in order to flatter rather than disfigure.  (I want to make it clear that as far as I'm concerned, I've never read Shakespeare's play as a wholly unsympathetic attack on the king--I think the Richardian's are a bit too literal minded.  For one, the character's cunning is not an entirely unlikable feature.)

When I say Ms. Langley is 'performing,' I mean so in a number of senses, not the least of which is her performance of research, discovery, and restoration.  There is also more than a small amount of theatricality to her persona, as one can see clearly in the documentary on the recovery of Richard's bones from the parking lot (see below).  Most interestingly, the protagonist of the drama is not a living human being, it is an object: the bones of the fifteenth-century English king.  Reminiscent of Hamlet at Yorick's grave, the work of the supporting players in the documentary is to bring Richard's bones back to life.

I am not particularly interested in confirming the validity of the King Richard III Society's claims, or duplicating their affections for the king; nor do I condemn Ms. Langley for her (unacknowledged) theatrical investigation of an historical subject.  What I am interested in is how the recovery of Richard intersects at the history of his body.  Further, I find it astonishing (but not surprising) that the work of reconstruction done in the documentary and at the University of Leicester is wrapped in multiple, supple layers of drama: a plot devised as a detective story, 3-D mask-making, deep emotionality (occasionally cut with a dose of irony), revelation, peripeteia, and finally resolution in the public display of Richard's bust.  Near the end of the documentary, Ms. Langley states (with Richard's clay head peering at us over her shoulder): "...after everything that's happened, after everything we've been through, to see the real Richard III [she points to the painted, clay resemblance of Richard III]...um...I'm just full of joy."

violence and the slippery slope

Three seemingly unrelated events occurred this past week:

1. While preparing my students for the written final exam for history of theatrical space/design, a student complained that courses (like mine) that require a fair amount of writing a) bring down his grade point average, and b) are a waste of time since they will not make him a better electrical engineer. After pointing out that a reason for "a" could be the assumption of "b," I explained the not-too-revolutionary concept that a functioning democracy requires good critical thinking skills on the part of its citizens.

2. 26 women and children were killed by a deeply troubled individual with a semi-automatic assault weapon.

3. The first public figure "brave" enough to defend the current federal laws on gun ownership after the massacre--Louie Gohmert, Republican, congressman from Texas--argued (via fallacy) that restrictions on assault rifles are wrong because "Once you start drawing the line, where do you stop?"
___________

If more U.S. citizens demanded sound reasoning from their leaders, perhaps life in the U.S. would be less absurdly violent.

Is Stephen Greenblatt a victim of his own method?

There has been a piling on effect in criticism of Stephen Greenblatt's 2011 love letter to the European Renaissance.  There is much head-scratching and outrage in this LA Review of Books: Swerve article and the blogasphere (In the Middle) about the awards that have been heaped upon a book full of historical inaccuracies, oversimplifications, and barely disguised anti-religious rhetoric--an argument based on antithesis, a sermon on the evils of medieval culture that will soothe its reader with a sense of historical certitude.

Therefore, I commit myself to piling on.  But I also want to raise a question that may not have been mentioned yet.  To put it blandly (and I'm not sure New Historicism deserves a subtler spin), if the works of individuals or intentional communities do not contribute to the construction of the archive, and the contours of culture are formed on the surface of insidious, unrecognized micrologies of power only, is it possible too that historical narratives can emerge from a Foucauldian morass without the benefit of intentional, self-aware scholarship? As a tenured professor at Harvard, Greenblatt has been afforded oodles of time to catch up on fifty years of medieval scholarship that has sunk the boat of the dark "Dark Ages."  How did he miss the sinking boat?  Maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt and suggest that as a diagnosed (but untreated) New Historicist, Greenblatt should not bother to consider counter-narratives, since, in the end, the currents of history and history-telling will inevitably push us where they will, despite our own best efforts.

simulation and imitation

A phrase that often slips (too easily) off my tongue during a class session is "in the real world" (i.e., "someplace other than this classroom").  The classroom is both simulation and imitation.  The hours of labor arbitrary, the intellectual groups randomly assembled.  A space for play, technology, and introspection.  If simulation means imitation without human (or thing) presence, the classroom can do that too.

The video is of a fictional World Cup match between St. Kitts and Mexico on FIFA soccer.  Vacillating between innovation and pure mimesis, this video game does a phenomenal job of recreating offensive strategies, defensive attacks, and multiple trajectories of the ball.  The Scottish accent of the announcer brings the viewer right to the edge of "the real world," arousing a sense of competitive excitement.

Which is more enjoyable to watch: the video simulation or a video recording of a match between humans?  Both offer their own set of pleasures.  But I suggest that the simulated version might work better in a jock classroom.  Unlike human players, these avatars never get tired and they ALWAYS know the right place on the field to occupy when they are without the ball.  Watch the Lilliputian players from Mexico from 2:45-3:10: stacking one beautiful passing triangle on another as they go up the field.  Barcelona's Ineista and Xavi might come close to this kind of brilliance, but they will never surpass it.  An archetype and prototype extracted from concrete moments of play.  How better to describe inductive reasoning and information coagulation in the classroom?