the lyricism of oppression: against beasts of the southern wild

Two critical views from Jayna Browne and Christina Sharpe at Social Text

http://www.socialtextjournal.org/blog/2013/02/beasts-of-the-southern-wild---the-romance-of-precarity-i.php

How does a little black girl child orphaned and abandoned become a vision for climate resistance for so many people who watched the film?  It is precisely this kind of misprision, this not feeling or seeing, that subtends  an event like the death of Glenda Moore's sons during Hurricane Sandy.  Riffing on Invisible Man, optic white does not see your plight. 

http://www.socialtextjournal.org/blog/2013/02/beasts-of-the-southern-wild---the-romance-of-precarity-ii.php

This isn't the first case of black children being depicted as insensitive to pain, or of black suffering and survival being used to symbolize American democracy….The film romanticizes their abject poverty….This is no maroon society, nor is it like any community of generationally poor people in the US or the global south I have ever seen. Instead the film recapitulates the continuing currency of black suffering, and acts as a kind of "crisis porn," showing how black pain is erotically charged.

bell hooks: http://newblackman.blogspot.com/2012/09/bell-hooks-no-love-in-wild.html

Sadly, all the vibrancy in this film is generated by a crude pornography of violence. At the center of this spectacle is the continuous physical and emotional violation of the body and being of a small six year old black girl called Hushpuppy …. Subject to both romanticization as a modern primitive and eroticization, her plight is presented as comically farcical.  Some audiences laugh as Hushpuppy, when enraged at the antics of her disappearing alcoholic oftentimes abusive wild man dad Wink, burns her shanty house. … Hushpuppy has a resilient spirit. She is indeed a miniature version of the ‘strong black female matriarch,’ racist and sexist representations have depicted from slavery on into the present day. Like the unrealistic racist/sexist stereotypical images of grown black women in the recent blockbuster film The Help … Hushpuppy is a survivor. From the onset of the film, she is depicted as a wild child, so at home in the natural wild of the Gulf of Mexico bayou world

http://filmdrunk.uproxx.com/2012/12/the-cast-against-beasts-of-the-southern-wild

Screenwriter Lucy Alibar originally wrote Beasts of the Southern Wild as a play called Juicy and Delicious, which was about an 11-year-old white boy and his father in southern Georgia, where she grew up. In adapting it to a 6-year-old black girl in the Louisiana swamps, Queens-bred director Benh Zeitlin turns it into a maudlin exercise in cultural tourism

the reviewer for Forbes liked it, which is a bad sign

http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2013/03/10/beasts-of-the-southern-wild-review-an-american-fairy-tale/

http://thefeministwire.com/2013/02/beasts-of-the-southern-wild-an-affective-review/

Beasts of the Southern Wild . . . . seemed to devolve into a kind of poverty porn . . . . with noble intentions attempting to redefine the spaces in which poor, rural communities exist in an American framework, but in my opinion, just keeping those same communities positioned as the strange, freaky, idiosyncratic Other. What’s worse here is that Beasts of the Southern Wild plays out as a kind of poverty porn put into black face, with no actual mention of blackness or race as a presence.

thinking wars

Thinking, the creation of meaning, the internal pact we make with words that they will be moments of human sincerity, the reconstitution of near-historical texts attesting to intellectual lineages—all of these stand in the face of the Orwellian speech of generals, press secretaries, and government leaders obsessed with ensuring their class positions.

--Joan Nestle, "Wars and Thinking." Journal of Women's History 15.3 (Autumn 2003): 49-57.

universities under attack (in britain as elsewhere)

Keith Thomas in the LRB:

Advanced study and research are essential attributes of a university and some of that research will have vital social and industrial applications. But that is not its primary purpose, which is to enhance our knowledge and understanding, whether of the physical world or of human nature and all forms of human activity in the present and the past. For centuries, universities have existed to transmit and reinterpret the cultural and intellectual inheritance, and to provide a space where speculative thought can be freely pursued without regard to its financial value. In a free and democratic society it is essential that that space is preserved.

Yes, the model of the university has been a residuum of the middle ages, a feudal formation changed by its recontextualization in later capitalism. But now it is even later for capitalism. While I share the intent to resist the commodification of the university, I suspect we have to develop something new, rather than simply try to preserve the old frame for cultural transmission, transformation, and creation.

Then there's Brian Holmes on the financialization of the university, arguing that "most of US universities have become systemically corrupt --that is, captured by interest groups - in the course of the neoliberal period, essentially since the passage of the Bayh-Dohl act in 1980 which reengineered the conditions under which knowledge is patented and sold by the intellectual property departments"; and raising "questions about the "public" nature of education where undergraduate tuition pays for the administrative execs, real-estate deals, six-figure professors and corporate labs." Although

"in an era where the critique of public institutions is carried on by the corporate class, the point is not to destroy those institutions .... However, what has actually happened in the UC system and in many other cases . . . is not so much the destruction as the appropriation and remodeling of those formerly public institutions. The ground has already changed beneath our feet. So to worry about whether we are losing the Enlightenment, at this point when the universities massively manufacture, not only neoliberal subjectivities but also neoliberal policy and technology, is . . . to be exactly the kind of humanist that the Frankfurt School thinkers would have excoriated for being unable to see that - how did Adorno put it? - "the whole is the untrue." "To defend the university as it is, means defending a highly advanced state of corruption."

no government better than any government

Or, the value of continuing to spend, from John Lanchester in LRB:

Quarterly GDP data don’t, on the whole, tend to make the person studying them laugh out loud. The most recent set, however, are an exception, despite the fact that the general picture is of unrelieved and spreading economic gloom. Instead of the surge of rebounding growth which historically accompanies successful exit from a recession, we have the UK’s disappointing 0.2 per cent growth, the US’s anaemic 0.3 per cent and the glum eurozone average figure of 0.2 per cent. That number includes the surprising and alarming German 0.1 per cent, the desperately poor French 0 per cent and then, wait for it, the agreeably frisky Belgian 0.7 per cent. Why is that, if you’ve been following the story, laugh-aloud funny? Because Belgium doesn’t have a government. Thanks to political stalemate in Brussels, it hasn’t had one for 15 months. No government means none of the stuff all the other governments are doing: no cuts and no ‘austerity’ packages. In the absence of anyone with a mandate to slash and burn, Belgian public sector spending is puttering along much as it always was; hence the continuing growth of their economy. It turns out that from the economic point of view, in the current crisis, no government is better than any government – any existing government.

marx's recent popularity

Facts for Working People, "Capitalist Class Worried about Marx's Popularity" (via Links):

Coy attacks Marx through his followers, who were some of the 20th century’s worst “mass murderers”. He starts with Lenin, who was a Marxist but Coy gives no examples of mass murder on Lenin’s part. He cites Mao who was not a Marxist, certainly not in practice. The next Marx follower is Pol Pot and what he has to do with Marxism heavens knows; and lastly Stalin, who may have had Lenin poisoned, murdered all the Marxists in the leadership of the Russian revolution and sent hundreds of thousands more to the gulag and had already abandoned any pretense to Marxist ideas or way of looking at the world except in name only. Coy's point here is to scare us, not educate us which shows how weak his position is. He wants us to associate Marx with dictatorship and the denial of basic democratic rights that Marx, and those who agree with him have fought for throughout recent history against fierce resistance from people like the economic editor of Business Week and the magazine's billionaire owner.

It's like saying that christianity is obviously bogus because look at the Inquisition.

It's an ad hominem argument, or something, not about Marx (or Xst) but about his followers.

But Louis Proyect on Bourgeois Pundits not getting Marx right anyway, either (via pink scare).

That is something that bourgeois economists can’t seem to get their head around. It is not just that the masses lack consumption power; it is that the “revolutionization” of the means of production continues to replace living labor with dead labor to the point that more and more workers either become unemployed or underemployed. That is a dilemma that no amount of “helicopter drops of money” can solve.

state murder

"What then is capital punishment but the most premeditated of murders, to which no criminal's deed, however calculated it may be, can be compared. For there to be an equivalence, the death penalty would have to punish a criminal, who had warned his victim of the date at which he would inflict a horrible death on him, and who from that moment onward had confined him at his mercy for months. Such a monster is not encountered in private life." - Albert Camus "Reflections on the Guillotine" 1957.