My name is Emily, and I'm learning how to be a historian. Generally you'll find me at my usual website, or on Facebook.

 

who pays any attention/ to the syntax of things/ will never wholly kiss you

e e cummings, “since feeling is first”, via Ben.

Note to self

ερως αδυνατος is almost “impossible loyalties.”

Activism at Princeton

akuat:

echomikeromeo:

akuat:

College rankings are an audience-grab and a crapshoot, I know. They’re not scientific. Still, I couldn’t help but be disappointed that Princeton was #7 on Newsweek/The Daily Beast’s list of Top Colleges for Activists. (ETA: disappointed that we made it so high, that is.) I’ll get into this in a more sustained way later, but I actually think there’s a lot of resistance to activism on campus (particularly with regards to feminism and gender activism, see above), and that in some ways it’s been institutionalized out of existence. I’d rather not congratulate us just yet; there’s lots of work to be done. 

What do Princeton people think?

- - -

I spent the first half of my Princeton career as an activist. I helped to organize two anarchic, eye-catching protests, one against Proposition 8 and one against the National Organization for Marriage; I helped get Princeton its first gender-neutral housing policy; I wrote about left-wingy and gay things for campus and national periodicals; I put eighty kids on a bus and got us all to D.C. to participate in the 2009 National Equality March. The <i>Tory</i> (a campus right-wing magazine) called me a “campus radical” as if it was a slur. Minor national far-right celebrities character-assassinated me. I was all set to become a minor celebrity too, for being loud and in-your-face and An Activist.

Then I stopped—thanks to Princeton. For one thing, as my academic obligations multiplied, I had no time to organize protests or take days off to go to D.C. or write for campus publications. In my junior fall, my JP took up every spare moment, and there has literally not been a day since then that I have done no academic work. Furthermore, Princeton—and its faculty—helped me to see myself as a historian, a scholar, and to see my academic work as something worthwhile. My mentors helped me to begin to shut off the voices in my head that tell me I am a terrible person, and so I threw myself into my academic work as the Thing I Am Going to Do With My Life. In light of that, I saw aggressive political stances as something antithetical to being a good teacher. I took the partisan bumper stickers off my computer and notebooks. As I started to become an expert in the history of sexual identity, I also began to doubt many of the core assumptions about the “LGBT rights movement” that had informed a lot of my previous activism, and to disagree with the goals of many of the activist projects I could have continued to be involved in.

It’s true that there is a culture at Princeton that punishes taking aggressive political stances on anything. One is supposed to be seen as too clever for partisanship, hence the “apathy” that is also said by those outside Princeton—and anyone inside it who has ever tried to get people to show up to a protest or demonstration—to characterize its students. Maybe this culture permeated my unconscious while I was strategizing about how to be taken seriously by my peers and mentors. But I’ve never really toned down my political views—to many readers, my Facebook page remains as “radical” as ever, and I’ve taken to my blog or the pages of the <i>Prince</i> when I’ve really felt as if I have something to say. Instead, I think I stopped organizing protests because I need to focus on my thesis; because I don’t want “campus radical”—or “queer”—to be the only thing people think of when they hear my name; and because Princeton has taught me that a Facebook post, a dining-hall conversation about my Victorian men who found identity in the writing of Plato and Whitman, or coming to class having done the reading and ready to engage with its and my classmates’ ideas are all forms of activism too.

- - -

Thanks, Emily. I’m especially on board with your last paragraph. I’ve talked to people about how Princeton functions as a finishing school, and part of that is that we’re taught to handle problems in quieter ways: by thinking about them, having precept discussions about them, and eventually publishing a paper or assembling a working group on the issue. I wonder sometimes if that’s a more realistic and effective way of creating change, or if it’s just the substitution of good manners for good politics.

Good manners can be a part of good politics, especially if it gets the right people listening. Sometimes I think the administration needs a louder wakeup call than I can give them now that I serve on their committees and am implicit in their institutional politics—not so much about teh gayz, but about things like the rhetoric of capitalism and what a liberal-arts degree is for and the ethics of how the endowment is managed. But small, good things can happen within the corridors of power once one has infiltrated them: I remember one meeting of the financial aid committee where, as the only workstudy student in the room, I was able to tell the administrators what it is actually like to work eight hours a week in addition to all my other obligations—something it hadn’t really occurred to them to ask. I don’t think my point—that my work is stressful and takes away time that my friends who aren’t on aid can devote to their studies—really sunk in. Maybe it would if a lot of people stood outside West College and shouted about it, but maybe then the administrators would just have shut their windows. It’s hard to say.

Activism at Princeton

akuat:

College rankings are an audience-grab and a crapshoot, I know. They’re not scientific. Still, I couldn’t help but be disappointed that Princeton was #7 on Newsweek/The Daily Beast’s list of Top Colleges for Activists. (ETA: Disappointed that we made it so high, that is.) I’ll get into this in a more sustained way later, but I actually think there’s a lot of resistance to activism on campus (particularly with regards to feminism and gender activism, see above), and that in some ways it’s been institutionalized out of existence. I’d rather not congratulate us just yet; there’s lot’s of work to be done. 

What do Princeton people think?

I spent the first half of my Princeton career as an activist. I helped to organize two anarchic, eye-catching protests, one against Proposition 8 and one against the National Organization for Marriage; I helped get Princeton its first gender-neutral housing policy; I wrote about left-wingy and gay things for campus and national periodicals; I put eighty kids on a bus and got us all to D.C. to participate in the 2009 National Equality March. The <i>Tory</i> (a campus right-wing magazine) called me a “campus radical” as if it was a slur. Minor national far-right celebrities character-assassinated me. I was all set to become a minor celebrity too, for being loud and in-your-face and An Activist.

Then I stopped—thanks to Princeton. For one thing, as my academic obligations multiplied, I had no time to organize protests or take days off to go to D.C. or write for campus publications. In my junior fall, my JP took up every spare moment, and there has literally not been a day since then that I have done no academic work. Furthermore, Princeton—and its faculty—helped me to see myself as a historian, a scholar, and to see my academic work as something worthwhile. My mentors helped me to begin to shut off the voices in my head that tell me I am a terrible person, and so I threw myself into my academic work as the Thing I Am Going to Do With My Life. In light of that, I saw aggressive political stances as something antithetical to being a good teacher. I took the partisan bumper stickers off my computer and notebooks. As I started to become an expert in the history of sexual identity, I also began to doubt many of the core assumptions about the “LGBT rights movement” that had informed a lot of my previous activism, and to disagree with the goals of many of the activist projects I could have continued to be involved in.

It’s true that there is a culture at Princeton that punishes taking aggressive political stances on anything. One is supposed to be seen as too clever for partisanship, hence the “apathy” that is also said by those outside Princeton—and anyone inside it who has ever tried to get people to show up to a protest or demonstration—to characterize its students. Maybe this culture permeated my unconscious while I was strategizing about how to be taken seriously by my peers and mentors. But I’ve never really toned down my political views—to many readers, my Facebook page remains as “radical” as ever, and I’ve taken to my blog or the pages of the <i>Prince</i> when I’ve really felt as if I have something to say. Instead, I think I stopped organizing protests because I need to focus on my thesis; because I don’t want “campus radical”—or “queer”—to be the only thing people think of when they hear my name; and because Princeton has taught me that a Facebook post, a dining-hall conversation about my Victorian men who found identity in the writing of Plato and Whitman, or coming to class having done the reading and ready to engage with its and my classmates’ ideas are all forms of activism too.

The New Atheism | Books | The Guardian

This is the Victorian condition
LOVE the idea of religion sitting in the space between metaphor and literality; really explains why I’ve found it so slippery and agonize about which bits to say in church
Of course he’s right about the Dawkinsians
I’m not a huge novel person, but people like Dostoevsky or Eliot do suggest the way that religion can be a way of getting on, getting out of muddles, negotiating too-muchness, for ordinary lives. A larger point that I think Wood doesn’t *quite* get to is that novelists—especially Victorian novelists—often find themselves in the position of writing about unhistoric lives. While someone like Dawkins needs to assert his own intellectual *elitism*, I’m cleverer than you.

I’m going to try to make more of an effort to repost stuff from fb I want to save

On “Princeton to ban freshman affiliation with fraternities, sororities as of fall 2012

The campus pub is definitely happening AFAIK (the questions are more like how and when), and that’s something it’s easy for me to get emotionally invested in as A Good Thing. I’m having a harder time caring either way about fraternities/sororities, however. They’ve had such a low impact on my life at Princeton—and my ability to find friends and a social space where I feel comfortable—that I neither will miss their absence nor am fully convinced that they are a sufficiently insidious force to merit a ban. The sorts of freshmen who would join fraternities and sororities in order to associate with likeminded individuals and/or because they are feeder groups to certain eating clubs are going to find alternate ways to do this. Clubs will retain their stereotypes. I guess who this could help are individuals who join a Greek organization because in their part of the world/culture/where their parents or friends went to college that’s just what you do. It’s a good message to send that you don’t have to join Kappa just because your mother was a Kappa, or whatever, and giving freshmen more time to make friends in other places may make that less of an issue.

Bottom line: I don’t know. I hope this will result in more cohesion e.g. among freshman zee groups and other res college communities, which generally seems to me like A Good Thing, but I’m skeptical when so many freshmen come in with or form early on outside affiliations: athletes, people who went to certain high schools, early a cappella/performing groups recruits, etc. still clique up within the first few weeks. And it’s ill-advised as well as undesirable to try to crack down on this kind of cliquing. People *do* clique. And it’s interesting that some cliques (like the recently founded selective Behrman Undergraduate Society of Fellows in the Humanities, whom Tilghman has addressed a few times and which receives a decent chunk of university funding) get a lot more administrative imprimatur than others.

[…]

I said I hope this will result in more cohesion among zee groups, etc., but on further reflection I’m not sure the university should see this as the ultimate goal for all students. I got on really well with my freshman-year roommates and all due respect to them and the rest of my zee group, etc., but I found most of my friends and mentors outside of that group—albeit still in the college structure, such as other RCAs and definitely RGSs. Today I remain more invested in/passionate about the college system than just about anyone I know, but I would still have been stifled if my social circle was delimited to the people I lived near. It’s hard to keep reminding myself that other people’s eating clubs—and perhaps frats/sororities and other organizations—do for them what Rocky has done for me (and did for me my freshman year in particular!), but it’s still only fair to try to bear that in mind.

I should really put the effort into an actual commonplace blog….

If we are to have sex handled openly in literature—and I do not see why we should not have it, or how we are to avoid it—surely it is better to be in the company of poets like Aeschylus and Whitman, who place human love among the large and universal mysteries of nature, than to dwell with the theologians who confound its simple truth with sinfulness, or with self-dubbed ‘psychologues’ who dabble in its morbid pruriences.

Symonds, Walt Whitman: A Study

INTERVIEWER: You describe learning, as a young teenager, that a sexual fantasy you hadn’t yet written down could be eked out for a number of days or even weeks, whereas putting it on the page—using what you call “the whole narrative excess we think of as realism”—would make it briefly far more exciting, but then leach it of all subsequent erotic charge. Do you still feel that tug between the urge to put something into language and the urge to fend off writing?

Interview with Samuel Delaney, Paris Review No. 197