Dress codes in schools have long been a source of intergenerational conflict, control, and increasingly obvious, a way to police gender norms and sexuality. In an article that interrogates these instances of specific gender and sexuality “violations” through clothing and accessories, we can see both an increase in apparel as a means of identity formation and exploration but also a trend that has received little attention. Why is it that anytime a child or teen decides to transgress norms through clothing in particular there is an assumption of gender ambiguity and homosexuality? Certainly when women first began to wear pants in place of skirts they were not necessarily declaring their lesbianism nor a desire to be men. The ability to use clothing as an expression of the exploration of gender, of sexuality, of trans identities is certainly an important aspect of psychological development but so too is using clothing to articulate a sense of individual identity, to challenge parental authority, to mark oneself as part of a collective. This notion that somehow a boy who wears a dress is automatically gay and feminine only reveals what Judith Butler argued in Gender Trouble, that we continue to uphold a binary gender system that is perfectly mapped onto a particular sexual binary. In other words, a girl who wants to wear a tuxedo probably wants to be a boy, and gay. As the saying goes, the clothes make the man (as long as he is attracted to girls and wears pants!)

NYTimes, “Can a Boy Wear a Skirt to School?”

Judith Butler in the Blackwell Companion to Social Theorists

David Letterman´s affairs with female staff members yielded an interesting moral issue: the Paradox of Blackmail. This is not the “newest news”, yet I just read it and had to share it with you all. The article from The New Yorker can be read here. The main point is that Robert Joel Halderman is now being prosecuted under the accusation of committing blackmail: threatening to expose Letterman’s affairs, unless the talk-show host gives him some money.
But where lays the Paradox? If we break the action of blackmailing into two separate parts, we end up having the following: firstly, Halderman threatens to expose publicly some information; secondly, he asks for some money as part of a business transaction. Analyzed in this way, both actions are perfectly legal. Nonetheless, when put together, they characterize blackmail and trigger moral repulse. And there lays the Paradox…
Some philosophers have attempted to explain the Paradox of Blackmail. Saul Smilansky believes that blackmail is actually a fairly standard capitalist practice, and even though we have no god reasons to legalize it, our repulse towards the practice is unjustified.
I believe the best explanation was given by Richard Epstein (University of Chicago and NYU). He explains the moral and legal condemnation of blackmail through a sort of kantian argumentation. In an article called “Blackmail, Inc.”, he argues that if we hypothetically consider a world where blackmail is legal, then the consequences are morally objectionable – given that it would lead ultimately to lying, and lying is wrong. Thus our response to the practice would be justified.
If this solves the problem or not is still an open question… either way, interesting philosophical discussion!

Related Articles
A Primer on the Distinction between Justification and Excuse

By Andrew Botterell , University of Western Ontario
(Vol. 3, December 2008)
Philosophy Compass

See http://www.onlinecourses.org/2009/11/09/100-best-blogs-for-the-literati/

K-Punk (aka writer Mark Fisher) writes about possible responses to the BNP on his blog:

“Much of the BNP’s appeal derives from its granting of legitimacy to those feelings of resentment and aggrievement – yes, it says, you’re right to feel angry and betrayed…Here, class emerges…But this brief flash of class antagonism is immediately subsumed by race-logic”.

Later on he notes that any effective response to the BNP cannot simply argue with the BNP within the current framework, but seek to undermine the framework itself, this thing that sublimates class differences into racial differences. He describes this process using a particularly philosophically-loaded term: Narrative.

Narrative is that which gives structure to everyday human existence – it is historical, social. In After Virtue, Alasdair Macintyre argues that the self is a “narrative self” (as opposed to an “emotive self”) – identity is constructed by the myriad roles an individual plays in multiple systems. The good for an individual must therefore be “the good for one who inhabits these roles” (AV, 220). If Macintyre’s argument holds water, this means that social critiques – such as the one detailed in the previous paragraph – have not only political implications, but moral ones.

Related articles:

Contemporary virtue ethics
By Karen Stohr, Georgetown University
(Vol. 1, February 2006)
Philosophy Compass

Race, Colorblindness, and Continental Philosophy
By Michael J. Monahan , Marquette University
(Vol. 1, September 2006)
Philosophy Compass

Map of Gaza Strip

by smteixeirapoit

Palestinians have created hundreds of tunnels under the Gaza Strip-Egypt border to circumvent the Israeli blockade. In the border town of Rafah, Palestinians secure employment in these tunnels, smuggling goods such as food, livestock, appliances, and electronics. The work in the tunnels is not only dirty, but also dangerous. Sometimes, Israel bombs the tunnels or the tunnels collapse. Oftentimes, workers are buried alive.

One might question: Why would Palestinians choose to work in these conditions? In the Gaza Strip, the unemployment rate is around 80 percent. Palestinians with few employment opportunities – even young children – decide to work in the tunnels because of the financial appeal. For instance, some children earn up to $100 per day working in the tunnels.

Smuggling Tunnel in Rafah *** Photograph Courtesy of Marius Arnesen

Dr. Iyad Saraj, a child psychologist in the Gaza Strip, explains: “There is a pushing factor for the children, pushing them out in the streets because the house is so deprived. And there is a pulling factor in the tunnel business or any business to tell them, ‘You can make some money there.’ So the children are entangled into this cycle.”

Robert Merton identified a disjuncture between goals and the legitimate means to achieve goals in modern society. When people experience this disjuncture, they respond in various ways: conformity, innovation, ritualism, retreatism, or rebellion. For example, although Palestinians accept the goal of making money, some cannot work in the formal economy because of the high unemployment rate in the Gaza Strip. As a result, some innovate by working in the smuggling tunnels so that they can become financially sustainable.

Read More

“Robert K. Merton” By Piotr Sztompka

by paulabowles

Philip Laing, the 19 year old student from Sheffield Hallam University has become the latest focus for the media. Recently photographed urinating upon a poppy wreath at a Second World War Memorial, Laing has attracted an enormous amount of negative attention. Although, Laing claims he was drunk at the time, and remembers nothing of the events of that evening, he did make ‘a full and complete admission’ when confronted by the photographic evidence. Upon appearing in court this week the teenager was warned that he may face a custodial sentence for what the judge described as a ‘disgusting and reprehensible’ act.

Although, many may agree with the judge’s comments, it seems that this case offers an outlet for many emotive concerns, not least binge drinking. Although, Laing has admitted his actions, and apologised profusely for them, the judge has raised concerns about the culture surrounding binge drinking. Carnage, the company responsible for arranging the pub crawl, has come in for particular censure. In the week leading up to Remembrance Sunday, which has seen increasing numbers of British deaths in Afghanistan, this case was bound to raise disquiet. However, by focusing on the actions, albeit distasteful, of one teenager, we run the risk of creating little more than a smokescreen. Thus, avoiding much wider and more important debates such as the nature of nationalism, patriotism and pacifism, together with growing concern over the continuing British military presence overseas.

Read More

Andy Ruddock on ‘Media Studies 2.0? Binge Drinking and Why Audiences Still Matter’

Keep an eye out for this great special issue coming soon in Literature Compass! The line-up is as follows:

“Scholarly Editing in the Twenty-First Century” – Preface’, Regenia Gagnier, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00672.x

“Scholarly Editing in the Twenty-First Century” – Introduction’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00673.x

‘Electronic Archives and Critical Editing’, Jerome McGann, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00674.x

‘Theorizing the Digital Scholarly Edition’, Hans Walter Gabler, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00675.x

‘Editing Without Walls’, Peter Robinson, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00676.x

‘Our Affection for Books’, Susan J. Wolfson, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00677.x

‘His Days Among the Dead Are No Longer Passed: Editing Robert Southey’, Lynda Pratt, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00678.x

‘Different Demands, Different Priorities: Electronic and Print Editions’, Stuart Curran, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00679.x

‘Editing Manuscripts in Print and Digital Forms’, Arthur F. Marotti, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00680.x

‘All of the Above: The Importance of Multiple Editions of Renaissance Manuscripts’, Steven W. May, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00681.x

‘Editing Early Modern Women’s Manuscripts: Theory, Electronic Editions, and the Accidental Copy-Text’, Margaret J.M. Ezell, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00682.x

‘Different Strokes, Same Folk: Designing the Multi-form Digital Edition’, Daniel Paul O’Donnell, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00683.x

“Scholarly Editing in the Twenty-First Century” – A Conclusion’, Laura Mandell, Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00684.x

“Scholarly Editing in the Twenty-First Century” – Combined Bibliography’, Marotti et al., Literature Compass 6 (2009), 10.1111/j.1741-4113.2009.00685.x

—————————-

Image source: Jef Poskanzer, Wikimedia Commons

By Rachael Liberman

Academia has never been immune to charges of elitism, sexism, or racism. From the use of socially questionable theories as “objective truth” to the absorption of meritocracy, academia does not necessarily evoke thoughts of “fairness” or “transparency.” As a doctoral student myself, I have encountered inconsistencies and political posturing within the “ivory tower.” Unfortunately, however, I have to play by the rules of the field, as Bourdieu would say, in order to successfully claim a position in academia. Sustainability in this field, however, is another story. As a woman, I have become familiar with statistics on the number of female professors with tenure – as well as the pay gap – at my university. It’s hard to digest. However, a group of women at DePaul University (Chicago) seem to be questioning the notion of academic capital, to use Bourdieu again, and are actually suing the university for not receiving tenure. Their grounds? Gender discrimination.

According to Denise Mattson, DePaul University’s vice president for public relations, the university does not condone gender discrimination. She is quoted in a Chicago Tribune article as stating: “Every faculty member seeking tenure is held to the same standards: scholarship, service and teaching.” However, Lynne Bernabei, the attorney of the four women who are suing DePaul, feels that the potential for bias is built into the system, pointing to the final academic board, which is comprised of members outside of the applicant’s discipline. In the same Chicago Tribune article, she states: “How does, say, a physics professor decide who is more deserving of tenure, someone in English or maybe engineering? When there is no objective criteria, there’s a tendency to fall back on stereotypes.”

This specific story has been framed, in the media, by the experience of Melissa Bradshaw, a professor of women’s and gender studies. Since her initial tenure rejection in May, through her appeal over the summer, to the final verdict on November 1^st, students and faculty members have been demonstrating and picketing in support of Bradshaw. At a recent student protest, allegations of anti-gay sentiments have been attached to her tenure rejection. Bradshaw is a founder of DePaul’s minor in the Lesbian/Gay/Bi/Transgender/Queer Studies program. DePaul, however, is a Catholic university – which makes the existence of this program inherently problematic due to competing ideologies. Interestingly, Bradshaw reports that she was questioned by the tenure board regarding the number of male students in her classroom. She notes: “You wouldn’t ask that of a male professor.”

It appears that this scenario can be critically unpacked by using Bourdieu’s theory of power and practice. Due to the fact that the tenure appointment processes is both objective and subjective, academic capital is used as guiding principles for those holding positions that influence academic reproduction. According to these female faculty members, it appears that DePaul University has constructed a notion of symbolic capital, which influences academic capital, that has a questionable stance towards women. Off the 33 faculty members up for tenure this year, seven were turned down – and five of them were women. According to the Chicago Tribune, of the 18 male professors up for tenure, 16 got in. Hopefully the court proceedings will end positively for these female faculty members, but in the end, the fact that this decision has been challenged at all can serve as a model for current and future female members of the academy.

Understanding Employment Discrimination: A Multilevel Approach