Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, February 24-27, 2011

Keynote address by Harry Cleaver
Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Texas at Austin, and author of ‘Reading Capital Politically’

The SSPP’s second Roundtable will explore Volume One of Marx’s ‘Capital’ (1867). We chose this text because the resurgence in references to and mentions of Marx – provoked especially by the current financial crisis and global recession, but presaged by the best-seller status of Hardt and Negri’s ‘Empire’ and Marx’s surprising victory in the BBC’s “greatest philosopher” poll – has only served to highlight the fact that there have arguably not been any new interpretive or theoretical approaches to this book since the Althusserian and autonomist readings of the 1960s.

The question that faces us is this: Does the return of Marx mean that we have been thrust into the past, such that long “obsolete” approaches have a newfound currency, or does in mean, on the contrary, that Marx has something new to say to us, and that new approaches to his text are called for?

The guiding hypothesis of this Roundtable is that if new readings of ‘Capital’ are called for, then it is new readers who will produce them.

Therefore, we are calling for applications from scholars interested in approaching Marx’s magnum opus with fresh eyes, willing to open it to the first page and read it through to the end without knowing what they might find. Applicants need not be experts in Marx or in Marxism. Applicants must, however, specialize in some area of social or political philosophy. Applicants must also be interested in teaching and learning from their fellows, and in nurturing wide-ranging and diverse inquiries into the history of political thought.

If selected for participation, applicants will deliver a written, roundtable-style presentation on a specific part or theme of the text. Your approach to the text might be driven by historical or contemporary concerns, and it might issue from an interest in a theme or a figure (be it Aristotle or Foucault). Whatever your approach, however, your presentation must centrally investigate some aspect of the text of ‘Capital’. Spaces are very limited.

Applicants should send the following materials as email attachments (.doc/.rtf/.pdf) to papers@sspp.us by September 15, 2010:
• Curriculum Vitae
• One page statement of interest, including a discussion of a) the topics you wish to explore in a roundtable presentation, and b) the projected significance of participation for your research and/or teaching.

All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process via email on or before October 15, 2010. Participants will be asked to send a draft or outline of their presentation to papers@sspp.us by January 15, 2011 so that we can finalize the program.

The SSPP panel at SPEP — Anarchism and Philosophy — attracted quite a crowd, wit people standing and sitting on the floor. Conversation rotated around the degree to which anarchism was taken seriously as theory, as philosophy, and whether this was the right question altogether. Is there something in anarchist thought that is inherently hostile to systematization? Conversely, when anarchists have turned to philosophical theories, what have been the hesitations? What political failures could be traced to failures of the imagination, and how can some strains of anarchist thinking help us to overcome these failures?

Our panel at the APA Eastern — Envirnmental Philosophy as Political Philosophy — was also well attended and lively. I’m hoping to bring some first hand reports to the blog soon.

Finally, several SSPP members presented at the Historical Materialism conference in NYC in January. The conference was quite lively, quite youthful, and quite exciting, and every panel seemed to attract more people than the room could hold.  Bill Lewis presented on Henri Lefebvre’s philosophy of science; Hasana Sharp presented on Spinoza’s theoretical antihumanism; Jason Read presented on transindividuality and species being; and I presented on Paolo Virno’s reading of Aristotle.  I haven’t memorized the membership, so if other members presented, please let me know and I’ll add you to the list.

December 6th

Fourteen women were killed twenty years ago today for being women. Fourteen others were injured, including four men. The ripples of violence continued as some survivors killed themselves, only to be followed by the suicides of grief-stricken parents. This was a surprise attack by a heavily armed assailant intent on mass murder and suicide. Some students never even saw the shooter before being hit by a bullet. Some students were able to bar him out with a locked door; at least one woman argued with him; many fled; many hid; two huddled women were discovered and executed; some got help in time; fourteen did not. Fourteen women were killed for being women, and many more people were hurt in ways that remain incalculable. There is almost nothing these women could have done. Most violence against women is not like this.

Violence against women, as any shelter or crisis center can attest, is pervasive. The numbers are shocking. Domestic violence is the leading cause of injuries to women ages 15 – 44, more common than automobile accidents, muggings, and cancer deaths combined. Many, many women are harassed, attacked, raped, beaten, and too many are killed. When women are beaten, raped, and murdered, it is usually by a lover, a former lover, or a spouse. It is usually in their own homes. Women as a population are subject to disproportionate violence, a miserable state of affairs, which is markedly worse for women of color and poor women.

Women suffer violence not because we are physically meek or simply because men are aggressive and hormonally aflame. Women are attacked, at least in part, because we are powerful, because we are important, because we matter, and because we represent a threat. The women at the Ecole Polytechnique, just over the mountain, were killed because the killer felt that they had taken something from him. They were “feminists” by virtue of occupying traditionally male roles and assuming a power that, to his eyes, was not supposed to be theirs. Batterers often first abuse their partners when they become pregnant. In this case, a woman’s love is experienced as so essential, so necessary, so intrinsic to his sense of self that the threat of being eclipsed by his child provokes a drive to assert his dominion. In an extreme case, he would rather kill her than witness a bond between mother and child greater than the one he experiences with her. Without her love, he risks becoming nothing. So he demands her obedience with his fists, his invective, and her blood.

Men, whether they are queer or straight, need and depend on women – as friends, colleagues, lovers, or mothers – both to get by in life and to feel like worthy people. But, in a society that views such urgent need, dependency, and desire for connection as a form of servitude, it is all too difficult to for boys to grow up without hating the love they feel for women, to hate what ties them down, to kick against the “ball and chain.” It is all too difficult for a society that views dependency as weakness and infantile pathos to cease producing battering men who equate freedom with “rambling” and flying way, free as a bird.

We require a notion of masculinity that is not incompatible with a profound need for connection. While we are at it, we all could use a notion of strength that includes receptivity and responsiveness. Strength and power are not just exerted over others or oneself, but manifest in being able to be touched, helped, and transformed by others. Exposing oneself, earnestly and bravely, is what I call “bad-ass.” We need more men who can love women well. (Hell, we need more women who can love women and ourselves well, too, but I am talking about men right now.) Loving women well—whether those women are mothers, lovers, or friends—means being able to accept our radical need of other people, our need of women. Loving women well also involves being able to respect and to foster women’s power and freedom. It means not only tolerating shows of strength and autonomy in women, but desiring and encouraging them, even when it costs you something. To affirm that they need women without transmuting that dependence into domination, men must affirm that women are free either to give or not to give them what they desire. This is an arduous task and a responsibility that men themselves need to take on.

The massacre twenty years ago today has divided people over whether it was a crime against women or a crime against humanity. In an article in Le Devoir yesterday it was suggested that the film Polytechnique, a film I appreciated in several ways, evinces the maturity of Quebec society, since it shows “both sides.” It shows how men and women were hurt by the brutal attack. Feminism’s divisive lens that highlights the tragic consequences for women and the larger context of misogyny, it is implied, is immature. Feminism’s concern with violence against women ostensibly comprises a narrow perspective, a partisan and partial angle on a larger tragedy. Considering a focus on violence against women to be backward and narrow, I submit, does not betray a laudatory transcendence of feminism’s imagined partiality. The idea that a crime against women is not a crime against humanity presupposes both that women are not human and that violence against women does not hurt men.

Consider the fact, pointed out by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, that 65% of young men in prison for homicide in the US are there for killing their mother’s batterers. Violence against women gravely hurt these boys, and the many more who will grow up with an ugly vision of love, possibly to become abusers themselves. Men need to do something about violence against women not only because it is the right thing to do, but because it is one of the main ways that they can hope to enjoy love, connection, and the caress of someone who is an equal in their own eyes, someone whose power doesn’t represent a threat to his manhood.

In the meantime, while men get their shit together, women need to remember that our power lies not only in the soul-sustaining care, affection, companionship, labor, and intellectual rapport that we can offer others. When we are attacked, our power lies also in our ability to break boners, twist scrotums, scratch eyes, stomp on feet, and, especially, to yell, shout, and scream. Despite what the media might suggest, most women who are attacked get away. For every successful rape by a stranger, three women successfully fight him off. These women are not ninjas. They usually have no special training. They simply fight for their lives, and it usually works. It doesn’t always work and there is no foolproof escape. The women who do get raped – and there are way too many – usually fight, too.

Even if it doesn’t work every time, it is worth remembering that there is overwhelming evidence that immediate and forceful resistance dramatically reduces the likelihood of rape and the severity of physical injury. Even when an assailant has a gun or knife, fighting and yelling helps. No matter how small, young, or old we are, fighting helps. Many women, however, act like human beings and attempt to plead and reason with an attacker. This usually encourages attackers; it gives him them notion that it is up to them to assault us or not, it confirms their fantasy that the power is in their hands.

There are many stories of women succeeding with a loud “NO,” a “GO AWAY,” a shout of “911,” a kick, or a jab to the eyes. There are also some stories of ingenuity. With no one around to hear, a friend of mine was jogging at age fourteen at a park in the middle of the day. Her ankles were grabbed. She was pulled underneath some bushes and a man laid upon her. She could barely move. He covered her slight body. She put her arms around him and whispered in his ear, “Sshhhhh, it’s okay, it’s okay, you really don’t have to do this.” The man began to sob and fled. She was small, she was young, she was immobilized and alone, but she was stronger than him.

Consider the story of performance artist Diamanda Galás: “When I almost got raped for the fifth time in my life, this […] guy came up to me while I was opening a door and said (in the dark), ‘This is a rape!’ I said in a bored voice, ‘Oh, really? It’s been a long day. Could I ask you a question—do you have a knife?’ ‘No.’ ‘Then why don’t we just call it off?’ And he called it off! … And as he walked downstairs with me I said, ‘Next time you should be careful, because I could have had [a knife].’” She concludes her story with the remark, “You can get to the point where you’re not afraid – then people see that and what can they do?”

Of course, if they are determined, they can do a great deal. But often, in a world where power seems hard to come by, only accessible to a few, and only available at the expense of others, sad, disfigured men seek out fear and submission as compensation for their lack of any real strength. Sometimes it is all too much for us and the bastards take what they want. Women are not to be blamed for this. But, when we muster the strength, when we gather our forces and support one another without compromise, we contribute to a new world. When our mutual dependency on each other – the women, men, and otherwise gendered who can bare a love of women undiminished by hatred – shows its disruptive and oppositional force, we not only resist, we win. We win a new sense of self; we construct a different form of freedom; we give life to something that can never be killed.

Associate/Full Professor of Philosophy, Director of the Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics and Criminal Justice Ethics (Routledge) journal editor. Beginning Fall 2010. Ph.D. required. This appointment is envisioned at the Full Professor level; however, extraordinary candidates at a lower rank will be considered. Opportunity to teach in the Criminal Justice – and, through the CUNY Graduate Center — Philosophy doctoral programs. We seek a researcher and teacher committed to public higher education. AOS: Criminal Justice Ethics, or a willingness to move in the CJE direction and one of the following AOS: Professional Ethics/Applied Ethics, Human Rights, Political Philosophy; AOC: Open. Expectations: Distinguished scholarship and ideally national/international recognition. Editorial experience. Track record of grant achievement. Interest in organizing ICJE sponsored workshops/conferences. Demonstrated excellence in teaching. Applicants should send a letter of application, CV, recent writing sample, three letters of reference, sample syllabus, statement of teaching philosophy, and teaching evaluations to Professor John P Pittman, Chairperson, Philosophy (CJE Search), John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 899 Tenth Avenue, Suite 325T, New York, NY 10019. Complete applications must reach the department by 30 November 2009 for proper review. Faxed materials will NOT be accepted. The department will hold interviews at the APA Eastern Division Meeting in New York City, December 27-30,2009. Inquiries may be directed to the chairperson by email at jpittman@iav.cunv.eduor by telephone at (212) 237-8331. John Jay College is an EO/AA/IRCA/ADA Employer.

 Roundtable on Marx’s Capital

  Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, February 24-27, 2011

Our second Roundtable will explore Volume One of Marx’s Capital (1867).  We chose this text because the resurgence in references to and mentions of Marx – provoked especially by the financial crisis, but presaged by the best-seller status of Hardt and Negri’s Empire and Marx’s surprising victory in the BBC’s “greatest philosopher” poll – has only served to highlight the fact that there have not been any new interpretive or theoretical approaches to this book since Althusser’s in the 1960s.

The question that faces us is this: Does the return of Marx mean that we have been thrust into the past, such that long “obsolete” approaches have a newfound currency, or does in mean, on the contrary, that Marx has something new to say to us, and that new approaches to his text are called for?

The guiding hypothesis of this Roundtable is that if new readings of Capital are called for, then it is new readers who will produce them.

Therefore, we are calling for applications from scholars interested in approaching Marx’s magnum opus with fresh eyes, willing to open it to the first page and read it through to the end without knowing what they might find. Applicants need not be experts in Marx or in Marxism.  Applicants must, however, specialize in some area of social or political philosophy.  Applicants must also be interested in teaching and learning from their fellows, and in nurturing wide-ranging and diverse inquiries into the history of political thought.

If selected for participation, applicants will deliver a written, roundtable-style presentation on a specific part or theme of the text.  Your approach to the text might be driven by historical or contemporary concerns, and it might issue from an interest in a theme or a figure (be it Aristotle or Foucault).  Whatever your approach, however, your presentation must centrally investigate some aspect of the text of Capital.  Spaces are very limited.

Applicants should send the following materials as email attachments (.doc/.rtf/.pdf) to papers@sspp.us  by September 15, 2010:

1. Curriculum Vitae
2. One page statement of interest in the Roundtable.  (Please include a discussion of the topics you would be willing to explore in a roundtable presentation.  Please also discuss the projected significance of participation for your research and/or teaching.)

Ben Fowkes’ translation of Capital (Viking/Penguin, 1976) is the official translation for the Roundtable, and should be used for page citations. However, applicants are strongly encouraged to review either the German text of Capital (the 2^nd edition of 1873 is the basis for most widely available texts) or the French translation (J. Roy, 1872-5), which was the last edition Marx himself oversaw to publication; both of these are widely available on-line.

All applicants will be notified of the outcome of the selection process via email on or before October 15, 2010.  Participants will be asked to send a draft or outline of their presentation to papers@sspp.us by January 15, 2011 so that we can finalize the program. 

In order to participate in the Roundtable (but not to apply or to be selected), you must be a member of the Society in good standing. You can become a member of the Society by following the membership link at: www.sspp.us

Would any members be interested in joining me in putting together a panel to present at the Historical Materialism Conference, January 14-16, 2010 in NYC?  The due date is November 1, so we would have to work fast.  I was thinking about us maybe discussing the place of Marxian methodology in academic philosophy &/or political theory in the united states, but I am open to any suggestions.

Respond in comments below, please, and, if we get a core group, we can coordinate the submission by email.

thanks,

William Lewis, treasurer and e-board member

The executive board would like to reduce our membership fees significantly.  We currently charge between $30 and $45 USD.  Our fees are necessary to support our events, administration costs, and publication schemes, but we are in the process of exploring alternative avenues for publication and society administration at this time.  For a more inclusive society, we move that regular membership be reduced to $5 USD per year.  We will offer a graduated fee structure for those who interested in becoming supporting members at $20 USD/ year, and, as a non-profit organization, we can accept donations as well.

We are asking members to vote YES or NO to “new fee structure” by email, since not everyone will be at SPEP for our annual business meeting. Please vote by 29 October, 2009 from the institutional address we have on file for you: information@sspp.us

The Eastern APA (American Philosophical Association) in 2010

The SSPP invites papers for two conference panels. We are seeking papers that address issues pertaining to:

Politics of Hope / Politics of Fear

Hobbes famously wrote, “The passion to be reckoned upon is fear.” The connection thus established between the state and fear has been the basis not only of various political regimes, but of political theory by philosophers such as Spinoza, Hegel, Arendt and Massumi. In an age of color-coded warning systems, terrorism, and pandemic disease, the essential link between fear and politics seems beyond dispute, and demands investigation: How does fear work? Does it always reinforce authority, as Hobbes imagined? Can there be a revolt of fear? What is the connection between the fear that the masses fear and the fear they evoke in the corridors of power? More importantly, what remains of fear’s opposite, hope, in this Hobbesian world? How can hope function in a world overrun by fear? Does hope require a vision of a better world? Is there anything beyond the relation of hope and fear, a politics beyond the vacillation of these affects? For this panel we invite papers that examine either the “politics of fear” or the “politics of hope” in terms of both broad theoretical discussions (including examinations of the politics of the affects and imagination) and specific investigations into regimes of fear and hope.

Complete papers of 3000-5000 words (that can be summarized and presented in 20-30 minutes) should be submitted for consideration for the 2010 meeting (deadline: March 1, 2010). The APA Conference scheduled for December 27-30, 2010, in Boston, MA.

Authors should include their name(s) and contact information on the cover page ONLY.

Papers should be emailed as attachments in Word or RTF format to: papers@sspp.us

SPEP (Society for Phenomenology and Existential Philosophy) in 2010

The SSPP invites papers for two conference panels. We are seeking papers that address issues pertaining to:

Politics and Ontology

We seek to explore and challenge the hypothesis that all political theory presupposes an ontology. From the presumption of universal rationality, to the potency of class consciousness, to the privileges shaped by the social existence of race, gender and sexuality, political order always is or implies an ontological order. In many respects, the ontological question is the political question. Struggles for political change are as much about the expansion (or contraction) of shared ontological categories as they are about the rewriting of legislation or the redistribution of power and resources . The traditional allocation of rights, for instance, has been determined almost entirely on the basis of who, or what, one is presumed to be. While ontology and politics share a long, interconnected history, for much of modern history the connection between them has been downplayed or denied, since liberalism is premised on bracketing such supposedly insoluble and inherently conflictual metaphysical questions. In recent decades, however, this has changed. The explicit investigation of political ontology has taken center stage and, as a consequence, what we understand to be political or ontological has changed as well. Politics is no longer limited to the state, but permeates all of social existence to include the terrain of imagination, emotions, and representation. Ontology is no longer an ultimate foundation, but is constituted through relations of power and affects. In the works of such authors as Gilles Deleuze, Elizabeth Grosz, Giorgio Agamben, William Connolly, Alain Badiou, Jacques Rancière, Jean-Luc Nancy, Antonio Negri, and many others, the subject of political ontology has surfaced in an array of new formulations. For this panel, we invite papers that extend this investigation or that challenge this resurgence, both within the context of work that has already been done and in anticipation of work yet to be conceived.

Complete papers of 3000-5000 words (that can be summarized and presented in 20-30 minutes) should be submitted for consideration for the 2010 meeting (deadline: March 1, 2010). The SPEP Conference is scheduled for October 2010, in Montreal, Canada.

 Authors should include their name(s) and contact information on the cover page ONLY.

 Papers should be emailed as attachments in Word or RTF format to: papers@sspp.us