Katabasis

We're all F'd—And what to do about it

Fri, 30 Mar 2012 06:11:30 -0700

A classmate, and good friend, got a job offer this week. Mixed in with the usual offers of congratulations among the other grad students in the department was a sense of relief and collective joy because this is only the second guaranteed job for anyone this year. So while the inner circle of friends were genuinely thrilled to hear the news that our friend got a job, the rest of the department partook in a shared sense of optimism.

Which basically means that we are F*cked. The job market in the academy has been bad for years and there is no sign that it is going to get better. But rather than face that reality, far too many of us ignore the facts, truck along with our education, and have taken no proactive steps toward managing their career plans. It is as if no one between their first year and somewhere around the half-way point of dissertation writing ever gives a moments thought about the market, jobs, and what it will take to get a hired.

So what we do about it? For one, we can stop reading GradHacker and start focusing on long term planning. Ok, that was cheap shop. I love GradHacker, but when my classmates only consider the short-term challenge of surviving the week, the month, or the semester, they undermine their ability to focus on the long-term.

Write this down (so you don't forget)

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 10:13:00 -0800

Write this down (so you don't forget):

Publish your conference papers online. It both helps build your online presence and has something more substantive to show hiring committees when you hit the market.

Two Conversatons

Mon, 30 Jan 2012 06:58:32 -0800

One: On Road Trips

“How was the drive,” goes the usual question.
“You’ve seen the film, Mad Max, haven’t you?
“Yes, but what does that have to do with driving to and from Austin?”
“Well, that’s what it’s like driving through west Texas along the 10. Except, sometimes I think Mad Max had more people. I’m not kidding. It’s just brutal.”
“Then why do you do it?
“Because I have to. It’s the only way to get back and forth and, more importantly, have a care while I’m in California.
“Oh, I see. Seems… like it isn’t worth the hassle.
“Lots of things seem like they are not worth the hassle until you do it: then you realize it’s worth all the trouble and probably much more.”

Two: Kill Bill, Vol. 2 as a metaphor for Graduate School

“How’s the grad program going, Luke?”
“Have you ever seen, Kill Bill? Volume 2?”
“Uh, yes—I think so.”
“You know the scene when Beatrix Kiddo finally meets Pai Mei for the first time?”
“Yes.”
“When he tells her to attack him”
“Yes?”
“She’s convinced she’s a bad ass—that if she won’t win, she can at least hold her own.”
“Uh, where are you going with this? I want know how your program is going.”
“I’m getting there. You see, graduate school, especially a Ph.D. program is like that scene. In fact, that whole sequence must have been ripped from the pages of typical grad-school life. Every day you get your ass kicked. Every day you think that it didn’t matter how much A-game you brought: it wasn’t enough. You’re tired, broken, and on the verge of eating rice out of the bowl with your bare hands—but the Kung Fu Master forbids it. Thing is, eventually—a very long long eventually—you learn the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique. You look back in retrospect and realize that your game got better, sharper, faster, and stronger without your notice. You just have to survive. You have to keep on pushing, not getting discouraged by setbacks, criticism, or disheartened.”

These are variations on conversations that I’ve had over the last few years. First when I was completing my Master’ degree, and more recently as I’ve begun the doctoral program in political theory. I’ve driven to and from Ohio and Philadelphia for years, and now that my drive is only effectively half the distance from California as before, the dread to which west Texas can be mirrors the way in which many approach the long road toward the Ph.D. It’s often used phrase to say a doctoral program is a marathon not a spring; and while there is some truth to that, the road trip is more apt because it’s a project that requires much planning, contains many opportunities for things to go run that are beyond your control, and offers little celebration at the end other than the simple pleasure other than some decent rest (until the job starts—if one finds a job). Still, many of us wouldn’t want to be anywhere else. The pay sucks, the hours are long, and workload difficult; but the social milieu is a perfect mix of inspiration, dialogue, and structure to foster creative research endeavors.

A discussion on Egypt

Sun, 13 Feb 2011 23:00:17 -0800

A discussion on Egypt:

I had a chat with a friend of mine about Egypt. The file is hosted on my primary website. If you like this, and want more. Tell me. I want to post several more like these in the coming months more as exercise in self-edification than anything else.

Republicans are Evil; Democrats Hate America

Mon, 10 Jan 2011 10:12:36 -0800

or, a brief lesson in why rhetoric is here to stay

It seems that everyone has an opinion on political rhetoric, its use, misuse, and abuse in modern political discourse. At least that is quickly becoming the developing meme after Saturday’s violence in Tucson, Arizona. What’s missing, however, in all these exhortations to more civilized politics is a clearer understanding of the driving forces behind political rhetoric. The unfortunate reality is that modern-liberal politics leaves us with little else. [NB: By modern-liberal, I include all practitioners of American politics because we are all liberal in that we believe in rights, liberty, democracy, etc…]

Rhetoric in American Politics

Politics is, by and large, a contest between parties for about the proper way to live and to govern: healthcare, national defense, abortion, taxes, and so on, take your pick. In every aspect of social life there are disagreements about the proper way to live and the role (or lack of role) government should have in that arena. But in the American democratic regime, citizens are lead to build particular habits, namely the desire for equal treatment under the law. The egalitarian nature of our social structure engenders a belief that we should all be subject to the same laws, regardless of social status. And most of the time, this makes sense. It is a basic presumption in liberal politics. The problems arise when we start thinking about particular laws and policies because each separate group of citizens will have a different view as to be best way to make laws and policies. This is not a profound insight.

James Madison diagnosed this phenomena at America’s Founding. In Federalist 10, he wrote that there are two responses to faction in a free society: remove the causes, or mitigate its effects. Removing the causes, no doubt, is attractive because without faction, government can go about the people’s business. But as Madison points out there are only two ways to remove the causes of faction: “the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.” Neither of these solutions is ideal. “Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires.” But without liberty, we could not advocate for our own positions, policies, and political preferences. We have to maintain and protect free speech for all citizens or else we risk losing it for ourselves.

The second “solution” is a little more complex, but no less ideal a response to political conflict and faction. It is impossible to give “every citizen the same opinions.”

As long as the reason of man continues fallible, and he is at liberty to exercise it, different opinions will be formed. As long as the connection subsists between his reason and his self-love, his opinions and his passions will have a reciprocal influence on each other; and the former will be objects to which the latter will attach themselves.

In other words, every man, woman, and child on the planet reasons imperfectly and as such, we all will reason to different conclusions. But we are emotionally attached to our reasoned conclusions and as a result it is very difficult to persuade us against that which we have already directed our passion. Our diverse interests and passions lead men and women “more more disposed to vex and oppress each other than to co-operate for their common good.”

a Goods vs. the Good

But even talk about the common good will necessarily breed contempt, distrust, and conflict for much the same reason that conflict exists in the first place. All political action is directed at some idea of a good, whether it is to preserve against decay, or to bring about reform and improvement. Progressives typically think about improving society though new laws and new rights, conservatives direct their efforts toward a faithful obedience to the vision of the American Founders. What is common is that each group has an idea about the best way to govern. Even within the large groupings of left/right, there are smaller factions who agree on a principle but not on the policy solutions to bring those principles into fruition.

The point that I am trying to make here is different groups have a different vision about what is the good, or rather, what is the highest good that governs political society. Because people disagree and because the stakes are so high (who thinks “the highest good” is not a big deal?), when interacting in the public sphere there is bound to be heated discourse because the passions of citizens are deeply connected to their belief in the good. Few, if anyone, with an ardent belief in the best way to govern will want to acquiesce, or compromise because even a small concession is often viewed as the first step toward ultimate defeat. And since “our opponents” are not interested in making concessions, “we” are left with no choice but to de-legitimize them. If the other side is not considered a legitimate player, then “we” do not have to consider their appeals, interests, or otherwise account for them. Democrats and Republicans are inclined to this kind of logic. It is not difficult to find examples from both the right and left casting their opponents as illegitimate: remember, former President Busch wasn’t just wrong about Iraq, he was a war criminal, heartless, and often was seen depicted as Hitler or Satan; likewise, liberals are not simply wrong about national defense, they hate America and want to transform it into something entirely entirely different through Orwellian tactics.

Concluding thoughts

It is unlikely that Saturday’s horrible events will have any lasting impact or change on the collective behavior in American politics precisely for these reasons. Everyone involved in politics sees too much at stake if their side loses, and with so few people willing to listen and be persuaded by sound arguments, there is little recourse other than to brand the political enemies in harsh terms and to use the language of warfare, sports, and hunting when talking about how to win elections and policy debates.

But I also suspect the deeper culprit is the dearth of sound reasoning in America writ large. No longer are children taught the fundamentals of logic in grammar school, or college students required to master the arts of persuasion and genuine rhetoric. Indeed, even in my own field of political science, most students at the graduate level are more interested in “proving” assumptions that they already believe—i.e. the logical fallacy of a priori reasoning—rather than investigate the truth of political phenomenon. Until we revive the learning and mastery of these basic principles of sound reasoning, propaganda will continue to dominate political discourse. America will be worse off until then.

On Resolutions We are what we do. This is the lesson from Aristotle. At least, this is pretty much...

Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:02:00 -0800

On Resolutions

We are what we do. This is the lesson from Aristotle. At least, this is pretty much all that I can remember from reading the Nicomachean Ethics in a reading group several years ago. But truth be told, one does not need to read ancient Greek philosophy to understand this axiom of human behavior: no doubt that any line of inquiry in science, anecdotal observation, or moral philosophy will conclude something similar. What is unique is the equally ubiquitous observation that so many people fail at their new year’s resolutions. I have no hard data to verify this claim, but I don’t need any because the claim is so widely accepted as to be common sense.

What does interest me is the reason why we can’t follow through with our resolutions. My own best guess is that we fail to follow through because we fail to make clear, actionable, goals to pursue. For example, the number one news year’s resolution is to lose weight, just google it. But this number one goal demonstrates why people fail. They cannot act on it. What do I mean? Simply put, “lose weight” says nothing meaningful to the person who makes this goal because the goal itself is too vague and abstract. It is kind of like a politician saying they will “build the economy” without giving explicitly clear policies and actions that will work toward that end. If you want to achieve a goal, you can’t work toward that goal unless you first state the actions that are related to that goal.

This brings me back to Aristotle and my new year’s resolutions. I have a list of personal and professional goals that I want to accomplish this year. [Before you ask, no “losing weight” is not included; but I do specific physical activities like rock climbing and surfing.] On this blog I only want to list my professional goals and then perhaps explain the underlining logic behind them:

Write 1000 every weekday
Complete a writing course
Read the following books:

William Zinsser’s On Writing Well

Steven King’s On Writing

Leo Strauss’s City and Man

Deleuze’s Kafka & Strauss’s Persecution and the Art of Writing (read them together)

Gilson’s Christian Philosophy of Saint Augustine

Octavio Paz’s The Labryinth of Solitude

It isn’t hard to see the two main themes, writing and philosophy. Even the philosophy of Deleuze, for example serves the purpose of writing because that work is Deleuze’s treatise on “minor literature,” something that Strauss called esoteric writing. I’m interested in exploring how these two seemingly unrelated, disparate philosophers have a theory of writing that, on first impression, seem to converge. Related to this theory of writing is my own effort to improve however much that I can, my own writing skill. Dedicating time every day to writing at least a 1000 words will aid this effort, as will a focused course on professional academic writing. The thing about writing is that it is hard work. Just as a professional athlete has to engage in deliberate practice over a range of skills and then bring them together in sport, so too must a professional writer work on the craft by breaking down the various parts and practice each of those skills.

As for the other books on the reading list, they all touch on various themes of future research projects that I have in mind. I don’t know where I am going for a Ph.D. this fall, and if I did know, it would be foolish to attempt to game my preparation by reading what I think will make me a better student. Instead, I want to read a small collection of works that I have been meaning to read for my own self-edification and consider what research agendas I can pursue in my future. That’s why I have what looks like a random set of unrelated works, because I do.

I know what you’re thinking. You’re wondering why I don’t have Aristotle in my list if I opened with him. I listed him in my “personal” list of new year’s resolutions. But that is a different piece of writing for a different day.

Beyond Rhetoric: net neutrality vs. free and open web

Thu, 23 Dec 2010 01:27:40 -0800

The recent decision by the FCC to impose new regulations in the name of “net neutrality” has certainly got the attention of major GOP and conservative opinions leaders. (Soon to be) Speaker of the House John Boehner spoke out against it on Twitter. Michelle Malkin, writing on NRO, elegantly highlighted the influence by leftists who are pursuing “media justice” and sorely misguided attempts by the left to identify internet access as a civil right.

What is lost, however, in these partisan battles over the right and extent to internet access is the very protection of free speech. The idea of net neutrality is simple enough: enact protections against charging different rates for date depending on the type of media or the source of the data. Imagine being charged ten cents per megabyte of data if you go to YouTube for video, but only charged one cent per megabyte if you go to MSMBC because NBC is affiliated with your internet service provider. On the other end of that equation, imagine content producers and alternative news sites being charged more for the bandwidth they use to upload content. Sites like biggvernment.com, Townhall, and others could see their internal costs go up because the companies that service the backbone of the internet want to make deals with major media outlets.

But here is where everything gets very complicated, very fast: “net neutrality” can either accelerate the arrival of this hypothetical scenario, or prevent it because almost everyone has a different meaning in mind when they talk about net neutrality. Moreover, few if anyone in government truly understand how the internet works on a technical/engineering level. Remember the now famous comment by the late-Senator Stevens that the internet was made of tubes. More than fodder for the late-night comic shows, it highlighted this dearth of understanding. And it is here that conservatives are missing a great opportunity to seize the discussion rather than dismiss it.

It does not matter if data is being accessed via wireless, mobile devices, or hardline, without protecting data—not “guaranteeing access”—and in effect guaranteeing that all data will be treated and charged the same by both internet service providers, and the firms that handle the backbone traffic, free speech on the internet could be detrimentally hindered in the future.

Conservatives are right to reject Orwellian schemes designed to increase government control of yet more aspects of our lives. But instead of responding with a rejection “net neutrality”outright, we need to formulate a principled response so that we can have a free and open internet.