Friday, December 14, 2007
natalie dessay
This is one of my favorite singers performing one of my favorite airs: the last air of "Bellezza" in Händel's oratory "Il Trionfo del Tempo e del Disinganno". Nothing is left to say...
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
past kirov glory
Natalya Dudinskaya and Nicholas Sergeyev of the Kirov in the 50s in Swan Lake. Then a pas de six starring the young Nureyev and Ninel Kurgapkina. Note how he is already imitating the feminine elongated style of the ballerina, still far away from true partnering, yet already creating his own powerful style in Laurentia. Enjoy!
Monday, December 10, 2007
words kill, and so do arguments
Sometimes I wonder at how many libraries of Babel (let's be annoying, so yes: cf. Jorge Luis Borges) the academic world manages to produce. Not that I am principally against the reproduction of ideas in various schemes and frameworks, in fact I find it quite inspiring to read what different scholars do with similar ideas. In case anyone is actually reading this blog, you may by now have noticed that I am currently engaged in some form of research about 1950s China. Actually, what the project I work for aims at doing is to discover elements and structures of ritual within the process of establishing the humanities in China during the 50s. May sound a little awkward, but the idea is actually quite intriguing (learn more on my website or the site of the project). And guess what? Our project is not the first to steer in that direction...
So I am currently reading the Ph.D. thesis by Cheng-chih Wang entitled Words Kill: Calling for the Destruction of "Class Enemies" in China, 1949-1953 (N.Y./London: Routledge, 2002). Dr. (I presume) Wang basically argues that the assumed domestic genocide (which in this case he defines as directed against political enemies) in China at the time was linguistically legitimized by the all-encompassing propaganda machinerie the P.R.C. had at its disposal. Regardless of how compelling the reader may find the genocide argument, Wang's method of textual analysis is what instinctively drew me to reading his work, as it reminds me strongly of what I spend much time with these days: Wang wishes to establish the theory that (1) not only did a genocide take place in China between 1949 and 1953, but that (2) this genocide was legitimized by words, by language, by subtly constructing an apparent reality that could not but lead the (literate) public to believe and accept that certain governmental actions of a lethally violent nature were legal and justified. What else is this if not an inquiry into a ritualization process?
So what does the formerly aspiring Dr. Wang do to prove his case? He resorts to textual analysis, specifically all the Renmin ribao (People's Daily) editorials of the period, sorting them by paragraph, topics (main- and subthemes) and ideological terminology which defines, classifies and proposes measures against "the enemy". The case I am stating is of course by far less provocative: I am simply trying to understand the ritual, rather than its actual political effects. So I am engaging in a similar type of research, though the discovery of recurring themes and patterns in the case of our project becomes an end in itself. And this is exactly the point at which I think mere textual and proto-linguistic research (I use colors and a lot of pencilled comments instead of complicated phrase-pattern-formulas, something my linguist friends probably smile at with a benign shake of the head...) should conclude its scope.
As far as I can tell, Dr. Wang has been extremely thorough in sifting through the RMRB as his primary source material. But everything else, all the talk of the atrocious political consequences of his linguistic studies seems to rest on secondary source material only. I do not wish to say that it is impossible to agree with Dr. Wang's conclusion, but I somehow doubt that his research - or rather his type of research - really amounts to the evidence needed to support his intial presumption.
In conclusion, I think that Words Kill is a great documentary on how to tackle written source material in trying to detect certain ritualistic patterns. The question remains how far one can actually draw a political conclusion that in its implications is distinct from the textual source by just analyzing the language of the media.
So I am currently reading the Ph.D. thesis by Cheng-chih Wang entitled Words Kill: Calling for the Destruction of "Class Enemies" in China, 1949-1953 (N.Y./London: Routledge, 2002). Dr. (I presume) Wang basically argues that the assumed domestic genocide (which in this case he defines as directed against political enemies) in China at the time was linguistically legitimized by the all-encompassing propaganda machinerie the P.R.C. had at its disposal. Regardless of how compelling the reader may find the genocide argument, Wang's method of textual analysis is what instinctively drew me to reading his work, as it reminds me strongly of what I spend much time with these days: Wang wishes to establish the theory that (1) not only did a genocide take place in China between 1949 and 1953, but that (2) this genocide was legitimized by words, by language, by subtly constructing an apparent reality that could not but lead the (literate) public to believe and accept that certain governmental actions of a lethally violent nature were legal and justified. What else is this if not an inquiry into a ritualization process?
So what does the formerly aspiring Dr. Wang do to prove his case? He resorts to textual analysis, specifically all the Renmin ribao (People's Daily) editorials of the period, sorting them by paragraph, topics (main- and subthemes) and ideological terminology which defines, classifies and proposes measures against "the enemy". The case I am stating is of course by far less provocative: I am simply trying to understand the ritual, rather than its actual political effects. So I am engaging in a similar type of research, though the discovery of recurring themes and patterns in the case of our project becomes an end in itself. And this is exactly the point at which I think mere textual and proto-linguistic research (I use colors and a lot of pencilled comments instead of complicated phrase-pattern-formulas, something my linguist friends probably smile at with a benign shake of the head...) should conclude its scope.
As far as I can tell, Dr. Wang has been extremely thorough in sifting through the RMRB as his primary source material. But everything else, all the talk of the atrocious political consequences of his linguistic studies seems to rest on secondary source material only. I do not wish to say that it is impossible to agree with Dr. Wang's conclusion, but I somehow doubt that his research - or rather his type of research - really amounts to the evidence needed to support his intial presumption.
In conclusion, I think that Words Kill is a great documentary on how to tackle written source material in trying to detect certain ritualistic patterns. The question remains how far one can actually draw a political conclusion that in its implications is distinct from the textual source by just analyzing the language of the media.
Monday, December 3, 2007
friedrich gulda
This man proves that professionalism does not have to be restricted to one area of expertise, and thus that a determination to combine, to mix and mingle is everything. I think one could apply his philosophy to academia and interdisciplinarity, or (academic) writing in general. Or to anything in life that is meant to make things fun...
Sunday, December 2, 2007
arguably its/it's style
It is happening again: I am reading a book with a smashing title and a very intriguing concept about the political dimensions of Chinese party rhetorics in the period between 1949 and 1953, and I find myself already exasperated by the first chapter. I cannot help beginning to suspect that academic writing is at times a popularly accepted euphemism for bad writing.
The first problem that I have with this book is that the concept of "making an argument" is often conflated with authoritative quoting...lots of it. In a way I empathize with the author, because I remember comitting the same blunder when I was writing my M.A.-thesis. It was actually only until I had given my first chapter (which I was at the time immensly proud of even having completed) to a friend to proofread, that I was made to realize that extensive quoting of other people's definitions and arguments didn't serve to substitute my own wording. So what is it with all the quotes and references that are - irritably enough - thrown into otherwise probably stringent sentences, thus detracting one's attention from the content of the argument? I do not see the appeal (cf. Lerner 1991, p. 37) of a sentence (Chomsky 1979) that goes on to argue (cf. Therone 1995, pp. 45 f.) the value (Kern 1983) of a judgement (cf. Justin 1988, pp. 201-202) or opinion (Read 2003, Allen 2004) in this or a similar manner, but maybe that's just me (cf. Strauss, 1981, p. 11).
Then there is the problem of language - I realize how difficult it is to write and publish in a foreign language, but if you're not sure whether it's "the Great Britain", "the great Britain", or simply "Great Britain", you might want to have someone look at your text before submitting it to a publishing house that doesn't put much effort in the editing process itself. Why do people believe that "the their style of written the language and it's spelling is'nt conducive to the forming of their opinion the reader's"? Seriously...
And what really puzzles me is the fact that it could be so simple, if you have a great idea and are willing to work hard for it, to sell it well. There's nothing more frustrating than realizing that you principally agree with someone who is making the worst of his initiative. Why do some academics still believe that people are going to read their stuff out of mere interest for the matter, when there are other works on the topic out there that are simply well-written??
So much for my sad ramblings (cf. Libel 2001, p.34) for the day, I will conclude at this point (Nureyev, 1967) and hope that the betterment is enhanced by the reader of my opinion. Great Britain!
The first problem that I have with this book is that the concept of "making an argument" is often conflated with authoritative quoting...lots of it. In a way I empathize with the author, because I remember comitting the same blunder when I was writing my M.A.-thesis. It was actually only until I had given my first chapter (which I was at the time immensly proud of even having completed) to a friend to proofread, that I was made to realize that extensive quoting of other people's definitions and arguments didn't serve to substitute my own wording. So what is it with all the quotes and references that are - irritably enough - thrown into otherwise probably stringent sentences, thus detracting one's attention from the content of the argument? I do not see the appeal (cf. Lerner 1991, p. 37) of a sentence (Chomsky 1979) that goes on to argue (cf. Therone 1995, pp. 45 f.) the value (Kern 1983) of a judgement (cf. Justin 1988, pp. 201-202) or opinion (Read 2003, Allen 2004) in this or a similar manner, but maybe that's just me (cf. Strauss, 1981, p. 11).
Then there is the problem of language - I realize how difficult it is to write and publish in a foreign language, but if you're not sure whether it's "the Great Britain", "the great Britain", or simply "Great Britain", you might want to have someone look at your text before submitting it to a publishing house that doesn't put much effort in the editing process itself. Why do people believe that "the their style of written the language and it's spelling is'nt conducive to the forming of their opinion the reader's"? Seriously...
And what really puzzles me is the fact that it could be so simple, if you have a great idea and are willing to work hard for it, to sell it well. There's nothing more frustrating than realizing that you principally agree with someone who is making the worst of his initiative. Why do some academics still believe that people are going to read their stuff out of mere interest for the matter, when there are other works on the topic out there that are simply well-written??
So much for my sad ramblings (cf. Libel 2001, p.34) for the day, I will conclude at this point (Nureyev, 1967) and hope that the betterment is enhanced by the reader of my opinion. Great Britain!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
