Digital resources in the Social Sciences and Humanities OpenEdition Our platforms OpenEdition Books OpenEdition Journals Hypotheses Calenda Libraries OpenEdition Freemium Follow us

writing seminar, task for session #13: writing and revising for broader impact

Find an example of an academic article or other scholarly work that also engages broader audiences through supplementary writings, translations, presentations, etc. Come prepared to discuss how it extends the research impact. Look at your own paper topic and think of 2–3 ways the core findings or ideas could be reframed and translated for non-academic audiences.

All by Thursday 18.1.2024 6 PM.

biopolitics, compensatory task for January 8

Unfortunately I will not be able to hold our discussion session today on biopolitics in Palestine as planned, due to being out indisposed. I apologize for the late notice and inconvenience.

Instead, please spend this time reading the assigned text below and completing the following task:

Carefully read through the excerpt provided and make notes on the key terms, concepts, and frameworks that the author refers to or utilizes. Consider what the author intends to convey through their use of each of these elements. How do these ideas and lenses shape the author’s analysis? Also re-read and think about how Jasbir Puar is utilizing terms such as biopolitics. 

Feel free to post your thoughts and interpretations of the reading in our course blog. This will allow us to begin a written dialogue even in my absence. We can pick up an in-depth discussion when we meet again on January 15th at 11am to discuss this task and chapter 4. Please note that this is a change from our original plan; I will update the course blog accordingly.

I hope this alternative assignment provides a productive way for you to engage with the materials for today. Please let me know if you have any other questions. I look forward to being back in class next week.

Wishing you all the best.


Necropolitical Ends: Biopower and Debility Across the Palestinian Closures Regime

Israel wields the full array of biopolitical stratagems in managing the boundaries of Palestinian civic life. The archipelago of strategic barriers, checkpoints, and permit regimes constitute what Foucault terms an enclosing ‘biopower’ – one calibrating movement of populations to carve the occupied landscape into discontiguous Palestinian zones. Life within these enclaves incubates contagious risks and debilities from cramped quarters lacking medical infrastructure or clean water. Israel’s periodic blockading of nutrition, sanitation equipment, and medicinal goods cannot but weaponize the biological vitality of Gazans contained inside a besieged strip. The microbes of infants wasting without milk come to manifest both the productivity and expendability of certain ‘Othered’ bare lives.

Psychologically, the internalization of occupation emerges clearly in UN interviews documenting cases of ‘checkpoint syndrome’. Mundane passages through militarized chokepoints instill trauma and anxiety in Palestinian citizens that biometric monitoring reduces to quantifiable behavioral data, further rationalizing these encounters through a biopolitical logic. According to prevailing neoliberal thought, such internalized responsibilization marks out modern governance. Yet indefinite delays also incubate cabals of young men, baking in their abjection until properly ‘feral’ – suggesting that disorder can likewise scaffold certain agendas. Fragmented roads and lands produce social isolation and communal violence that panoptic IDF overlooks exploit, particularly during flareups used to justify further territorial incursion.

Ultimately then, this regime’s biopolitical gambit for protected majoritarian life requires the calculated debilitation of minority existence across fractal borders. Clinical language of ‘maintaining necessary pressure’ reduces millions to statistics tweaked towards optimized outcomes behind securitized perimeter walls. Between dystopian literature tropes of citizenship and exception, the gradients of distorted life stretch from gestating bodies to burning effigies – each productive of their locality in the differential biopolitical field.

writing seminar, task #10 (deadline January 4)

Finalize your first draft. Revise the paper’s framing and structure to demonstrate value to readers. Rewrite your introduction to strengthen the reader-centered focus on establishing value.

All by Thursday 4.1.2024 6 PM.

REMEMBER, we will NOT meet on campus on January 8 for this course; ideally, you have more time to write and research your topics.

biopolitics, recaps of the first chapters of “The Right To Maim”

Recap #1

Preface: Hands Up Don’t Shoot!

  • Context: The writing was intensified by the events of Summer 2014 – the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the Israeli siege of Gaza.

Key Concepts:

  • The Right to Maim: A political theory that relates to the power dynamics in the control of populations, especially through targeted bodily assaults.
  • Settler Colonialism: Links between the situations in Ferguson and Gaza, highlighting the violence and control exerted over populations.
  • Intersectionality: The interconnectedness of various forms of oppression and resistance, emphasizing solidarity movements like Ferguson-to-Gaza.
  • Examples: Police brutality in the U.S. and Israeli military actions, both exemplifying the power to either kill or maintain debilitated populations under control​.

Recap #2

Introduction: The Cost of Getting Better

  • Focus: Analysis of media attention to gay youth suicides in 2010, highlighting how neoliberalism impacts bodily capacity and debility.

Key Concepts:

  • Bodily Capacity and Debility: The relationship between individual physical/mental abilities and the pressures of societal structures.
  • Neoliberalism and Slow Death: The idea that neoliberal policies contribute to ongoing structural inequality and suffering.
  • Examples: Discussion of the “It Gets Better” campaign, questioning the effectiveness of neoliberal approaches to addressing systemic issues of inequality and marginalization​.

Recap #3

Chapter 1: Bodies with New Organs: Becoming Trans Becoming Disabled

  • Focus: The chapter investigates how transgender bodies are shaped and influenced by political, legal, and social frameworks. It particularly focuses on the intersections of transgender issues with disability, exploring how both are subjected to biopolitical control and normativity within societal structures.

Key Concepts:

  • Trans(homo)nationalism: Refers to the recognition and assimilation of transgender identities into national discourses and legal frameworks, often reinforcing normative standards.
  • Biopolitical Control: The state and societal practices that regulate bodies, particularly focusing on transgender and disabled bodies, in terms of medical, legal, and social norms.
  • Transnormativity: The normalization of certain transgender identities, often aligning with white, able-bodied standards.
  • Examples:
    • American Disability Act (ADA): Discussed in relation to transgender rights, highlighting how the ADA’s approach to disability intersects with transgender issues.
    • Transgender Media Representation: Examines the media representation of transgender individuals and its impact on societal perceptions and legal rights.
    • Intersection with Race: Analysis of how transgender and disabled identities intersect with race, emphasizing the heightened vulnerability of trans individuals of color.
    • Medical and Legal Systems: The chapter scrutinizes how medical and legal systems both enable and constrain transgender identities, particularly in terms of access to healthcare and legal recognition.

Recap #4

Chapter 2: Crip Nationalism: From Narrative Prosthesis to Disaster Capitalism

  • Focus: The chapter explores the relationship between debilitation (a process of physical and social weakening) and disability within the contexts of labor, war, and state apparatus. It delves into how these forces shape perceptions and experiences of disability, particularly in capitalist societies.

Key Concepts:

  • Debilitation: The intentional weakening or damaging of bodies as a strategy of control by capitalist and state systems. It is a prerequisite for the production of disability.
  • Crip Nationalism: The idea that disabled bodies are co-opted by nationalist and capitalist agendas, often in the guise of empowerment or inclusion but ultimately serving state and capitalist interests.
  • Biopolitics of Debilitation: The state and capitalist practices that create and exploit debilitated bodies for economic and political gains.
  • Examples:
    • War and Labor: The text links the organization of labor and war as mechanisms of debilitation, with disabled bodies emerging as a byproduct of capitalist and state violence.
    • ADA (Americans with Disabilities Act): Puar critiques the ADA for not addressing the broader structures that produce disability, suggesting it inadvertently supports capitalist exploitation of disabled bodies.
    • Global South: The chapter also discusses how capitalist exploitation leads to disability in the Global South, highlighting the unequal global distribution of disability and its ties to imperialist practices.
    • Racialized Disability: The chapter touches on how race intersects with disability, noting how racialized bodies are often more susceptible to debilitation due to systemic inequalities.

Most important arguments made in chapter 3:

Most Important Arguments Made in the Chapter 3: Disabled Diaspora, Rehabilitating the State: The Queer Politics of Reproduction in Israel/Palestine

  1. Israel’s promotion of LGBT rights serves as a strategy to distract from its occupation of Palestine and to position itself as a modern, democratic state in contrast to the allegedly backward Palestinian society.
  2. The occupation itself is a form of biopolitical control, manipulating both Israeli and Palestinian bodies through various means including sexual regulation, reproductive policies, and the framing of disability.
  3. The chapter challenges the simplistic view of Israel as a singularly progressive state in terms of LGBT rights, arguing that these rights are used instrumentally in the context of broader socio-political goals.
  4. Puar argues that pinkwashing is a tool in the larger context of Israeli settler colonialism, where it serves as both a form of preemptive securitization against Palestinians and a mechanism for internal colonization
  5. The intersection of disability with settler colonialism is highlighted, showing how disability rights are entangled with nationalistic and colonialist agendas.
  6. Puar critiques the Israeli state’s pronatalist policies and their intersection with nationalist and racialized agendas, particularly in the context of reproductive technologies and practices.

writing seminar, essay on the subjectivity hidden in academic ‘objectivity’ – unveiling the masquerade

In the grand theater of academic writing, we’ve been sold tickets to a show titled ‘Objectivity.’ But as the curtain rises, we find ourselves witnessing a performance where subjective narrators, clad in the garb of neutrality, orchestrate a symphony of so-called unbiased truths. It’s a masquerade, dear readers, where the masks of objectivity barely conceal the human countenances underneath. Consider this an invitation to peek behind the curtain, where the subjective orchestrators wield their pens. It’s here, in the dimly lit corners of the writer’s mind, where personal experiences and cultural influences choreograph the ballet of ‘facts’ and ‘findings’. This is not to discredit the performance, but to appreciate the artistry and human essence that underpin it.

Let’s ponder this: When a scholar writes about the socio-political dynamics of the Middle East, do we not detect the faintest hue of personal perspective, tinted by their experiences, biases, and the very zeitgeist they breathe in? Each word chosen, each fact highlighted, is akin to a brush stroke on a canvas, painting not just a picture of the world, but of the painter as well. Take, for example, the writings on the Arab Spring. Each analysis, whether hailing the uprisings as a democratizing force or criticizing them as destabilizing, tells as much about the author’s political stance as it does about the events themselves. The Middle Eastern canvas is never neutral; it is imbued with the colors of the writer’s own ideological palette.

Consider the historian dissecting events of yesteryears. Can they truly extricate their today from the yesterday they write about? The past is often a mirror reflecting our current beliefs and biases. Our historian, in their quest to present an ‘objective’ account, inadvertently weaves a tapestry rich with the threads of their own temporal and cultural fabric. Edward Said’s seminal work, ‘Orientalism,’ serves as a prime example. It challenges the Western historical narrative on the East, revealing how these accounts were less about the East itself and more about the West’s perception of it. Said’s critique underscores how even historical analysis is a product of its time, shaped by contemporary cultural and political contexts.

Dive deeper into the scientific realms, and the waters get murkier. The scientist, with their beakers and numbers, claims a monopoly on objectivity. But isn’t the choice of what to study, what variables to consider, and what constitutes ‘significant data’ a subjective decision? The path from hypothesis to conclusion is not a straight line but a meandering river, guided by the scientist’s own biases and assumptions. Consider Thomas Kuhn’s assertion in ‘The Structure of Scientific Revolutions’ that scientific progress is marked by paradigm shifts rather than cumulative advancements. This perspective suggests that scientific ‘truths’ are often reframed by new paradigms, shaped as much by the scientific community’s prevailing beliefs as by empirical evidence. The very act of choosing a research topic is influenced by subjective factors – what the scientific community deems important or what society prioritizes.

Now, let’s not forget the ethicist, perched on their philosophical pedestal, proclaiming moral truths. Even in their lofty proclamations, the whispers of personal morality echo. Ethics, dressed in the garb of universal truths, often turns out to be a cultural narrative, shaped by the philosopher’s own societal norms and personal experiences. Reflect on the divergent paths of Kantian deontology and Mill’s utilitarianism. While Kant emphasizes duty and universal moral laws, Mill advocates for the greatest happiness principle. These contrasting views don’t just outline ethical frameworks; they reveal the philosophers’ own perceptions of human nature and society. The philosophical debates around ethics thus become windows into the souls of those who argue them, tinted with their cultural backgrounds and personal convictions.

What of literature, you ask? Ah, literature! It unabashedly revels in subjectivity, yet even here, critics mask their interpretations as ‘definitive readings.’ Each analysis is but a reflection of the critic’s mind, a subjective journey through the text, masquerading as an objective exploration. The subjective nature of literary criticism becomes evident when we compare different interpretations of the same text. Take Shakespeare’s ‘Hamlet,’ for instance. Is it a tale of tragic indecision, a study in madness, or a political commentary on power and corruption? Each critic’s interpretation is a mosaic of their educational background, personal beliefs, and the critical theories they align with, illustrating that literature is a mirror reflecting the myriad faces of its interpreters.

Amidst this dance of subjectivity, there’s a golden thread that guides us through the labyrinth of academic writing. It’s not the quest for unattainable objectivity but the pursuit of traceability. Academic writing, at its core, is about laying a breadcrumb trail of thoughts and references, allowing readers to trace the journey of the author’s reasoning. It’s less about erasing the author’s footprint and more about making those footprints clear and discernible. Rachel Carson’s ‘Silent Spring’ epitomizes this principle of traceability. Her groundbreaking work on the environmental impact of pesticides didn’t just present a scientific argument; it provided a map of her research journey, complete with references and methodologies. This transparency allowed readers to follow her thought process, challenge her conclusions, and embark on their own journeys of discovery. Thus, traceability in academic writing serves not just as a beacon of clarity, but as an invitation to dialogue and exploration.

In every academic piece,, the writer leaves a trail. This trail includes the insights gathered, the methodologies applied, the data scrutinized, and the references consulted. Traceability is the map that readers use to navigate the writer’s intellectual terrain. It provides transparency, allowing readers to see the ‘how’ and ‘why’ behind each conclusion drawn, each theory proposed.

The strength of an academic argument lies in its ability to be followed, questioned, and understood. When a scholar cites sources, they’re not just bolstering their argument; they’re providing coordinates for readers to find the same information and potentially draw their own conclusions. When a scientist details their experimental procedure, they’re not just showcasing their methodology; they’re inviting others to replicate or challenge their findings. In essence, traceability is the backbone of academic integrity and scholarly dialogue.

So here we are, in this grand masquerade ball of academia, where everyone is both a spectator and a performer. The masks of objectivity are donned, but the eyes behind them sparkle with personal narratives, beliefs, and biases. And as I pen down these thoughts, my own mask slips slightly. Yes, even this critique is not devoid of subjectivity. I, too, am dancing at this ball, my steps choreographed by my experiences, my views, and yes, my biases.

But fear not, for there is beauty in this revelation. It is in the acceptance of subjectivity that we find authenticity. Let us embrace this dance of perspectives, for it is here, in the acknowledgment of our subjective selves, that intellectual exploration begins. In the end, the show of ‘Objectivity’ is but an illusion. We are all subjective beings, trying to make sense of the world through our tinted lenses. And perhaps, in this realization lies the path to a deeper understanding, not just of the world we study, but of ourselves as well.

biopolitics, essay on chapter 3: Disabled Diaspora, Rehabilitating State – The Queer Politics of Reproduction in Palestine/Israel

Let us traverse the tangled terrain of “pinkwashing” – an intriguing concept indeed! As Edward Said’s seminal Orientalism unveiled, narratives create mythic dichotomies between West and East, moderns and ancients. Here too, Israel deploys tropes of progress and tradition to veil complex truths. I am reminded of Plato’s allegory, where the unenlightened see mere shadows on the cave wall, oblivious to realities hidden behind them. Palestinians become those shadows – rendered backward, monolithic, their truths eclipsed by this political art of camouflage.

Yet such dichotomies rarely capture lived complexity, wouldn’t you agree? As Gloria Anzaldúa wrote, borderlands foster “technicolored” mestizaje identities that defy rigid binaries. Might diverse LGBTQ perspectives lurk behind this pink façade? As we traverse beyond Puar’s framework, let us give voice to marginalized narratives on all sides. Can we envision a discourse revealing varied dreams, fears, loves and hopes within both communities? One acknowledging minorities within minorities? After all, to quote Audre Lorde, “revolution is not a one time event.”

Homonationalism: A Mirror of Contradictions

This “homonationalism” also intrigues – nationalism’s dance with gay rights makes queer bedfellows indeed! As Foucault exposed, sexuality and state power entwine like vines. Which identities flourish in this bramble, and which are choked? Puar reveals the double-edged sword, where heralded progress for some obscures others still struggling for liberation.

I am reminded of activist Audre Lorde’s words: “I am defined as other in every group I’m part of.” Like Russian nesting dolls, minorities hide within minorities in manifold ways. In gazing at Israel’s homonationalist facade, let us ask – what stories of identity and exclusion are not being told? What voices yearn to breathe free from this cultural glue bonding citizenship and sexuality?

Rather than framing queer Israeli identities as automatic accomplices to the state, might we make space for diverse experiences? Could Israel’s LGBTQ communities themselves have complex, conflicting views on immigration policies affecting Palestinian kin? As Walt Whitman wrote, we “contain multitudes” of connections and contradictions within the self. Before making judgments, we would do well to listen to marginalized voices from across this metaphorical border wall. Only then can equivalence and empathy guide us forward.

The Biopolitics of Debilitation and Rehabilitation

And when it comes to disability – the body politic bared! Palestinian figures cast as broken, dependent…fragile merchandise of occupation’s brutal machinery. An ironic contrast emerges – the “rehabilitated” state turns caretaker nursemaid for its wounded wards.

Yet I hesitate to embrace this metaphor wholeheartedly. Does it not risk flattening the manifold ways disability mingles in Palestinian experience? As Judith Butler wrote, which bodies “qualify” as “grievable” enough for notice? The discord between populations ought not blind us to discord within.

Might we move past imagery of nameless invalids aided by magnanimous Israel? Let us conceive instead of individuals, families and communities adapting creatively to impairment’s challenges. Of neighborhoods and nations re-envisioning access, equity and empowerment even amidst hardship. Of pride and solidarity thriving alongside struggle. For as disability activist Eli Clare wrote, “complex embodiment ought not be reduced to simple spectacle.” In gazing past façades, we must make space for nuance – honor the once invisible.

The Fertility Front: Biopolitics of Population Poetics

Now to the fertile terrain of population policies – the bedroom intimacies colliding with statecraft! Israel’s pronatalist incentives expose motives consonant with occupying regimes through history…the demographic battleground where bodies become soldiers.

Yet, I am reminded of Arundhati Roy’s words: “There’s really no such thing as the ‘voiceless’. There are only the deliberately silenced, or the preferably unheard.” If we peer past policy, might we glimpse the secret poetry of individual choice when reproductive futures hang in balance? What inner songs sound out when families weigh scientific possibilities against cherished beliefs? When genetic “defects” are defined, by whom – and by whose authority sentenced or spared?

This discourse would thrive, I believe, from embracing reproductive decisions not just as byproducts of state power but as complex personal turning points – crossroads of compromise between conscience and external constraints. Policy is but one vector; lived realities far messier and more multidimensional. Perhaps in listening to marginalized experiences around fertility, abortion and surrogacy, we may better stand in solidarity.

Surrogacy and LGBTQ Rights: Weaving Coatlicue’s Serpentine Identity

Now, surrogacy unfurls as a colorful fringe in this tapestry, interweaving queer family histories with state demographic designs. As previously discussed, the acceptance of formerly marginalized groups often correlates with positions of influence.

Yet even ingestion into the body politic rarely comes without complexity, as Anzaldúa’s mestiza consciousness knows. We contain diversity akin to ancient goddess Coatlicue’s serpentine locks – not easily subsumed or homogenized! I am reminded too of James Baldwin’s words: “I love America more than any other country in the world.” Yet also that “I refuse to accept…the things that white Americans have said they love.” Critical patriotism…loyalty laced with dissent.

In this spirit, could we move past framing Israeli LGBTQ citizens as simplistic pawns or proxies? Might some champion surrogacy rights precisely to resource those otherwise outcast? Could others within the community adopt critical stances – even opposing state policies seen as oppressing Palestinian kin, while benefiting from security and belonging themselves? Perhaps in exploring complexity within LGBTQ experience, new solidarities may emerge on all sides.

Retexturing the Narrative

Thus concludes our journey beyond borders – not into some utopian fantasy, but rather a landscape brimming with complications and contradictions everywhere transformed into opportunity! For in gazing past façades, essentialisms dissolve to reveal intricate humanity in all its forms.

Where to now? Perhaps a new discourse awaits – one truly incorporating voices once marginalized, addressing complex audiences, empowering testimony from multitudes. A platform nurturing empathy for struggles in all camps, binding up wounds from an insufficiently nuanced past.

As we have seen, simple binaries serve poorly to depict profound experience. Rather, reality resembles Gloria Anzaldúa’s coatlicue state – that fertile creative matrix, simultaneously constructive and destructive, harboring tremendous generative potential born of turbulence. Shall we midwife such creation together?

For beyond deconstructing oppression lies the creative burden – transmuting critique into care, spinning inclusion from threads of dissent, till a vibrant mosaic of liberation is all that remains. Who will take up such delicate work with me? Who will stand to retexture these tangled narratives into new patterns – both preserving uniqueness, yet interwoven and resilient enough for ardors ahead? Our work has just begun.