二つ、二日連続の企画のお知らせです。ひとつは、レイモンド・ウィリアムズ研究会主催による、マンチェスター大学のDavid Alderson氏の特別講演会です。チラシをご参照ください。（講演の梗概を追加しました（3月10日記）。）
It is often argued that capitalism is progressive in relation to sexuality, with Marx being invoked in order to render this plausible for the left. This paper interrogates such claims by critically returning to the arguments of Herbert Marcuse, and highlighting that we must understand the impact of production, not merely consumption, on sexuality. It also rejects the tendency within much queer theory to elide neoliberalism with neoconservatism as a means of justifying the radicalism of its own project. The alternative proposed here is to interrogate what we mean by progress, and not assume that it is something that must be done to us.
もうひとつは新自由主義研究会です。Alderson氏を招いて、今回は英語でやります。
The 44th Meeting of the Neoliberalism Reading Group
Date & Time: 12 April 2015, 16:00-18:00
Venue: Seminar Room2, LS/CGE Building (Kokusai Kenkyu Kan) 5F, Hitotsubashi University (Building#44 in the map below.)
http://www.hit-u.ac.jp/eng/about/direction/guide/campus/e-campus/index.html
Book for Discussion: Michael Denning, Culture in the Age of Three Worlds. London: Verso, 2004.
Discussants: Ryota Nishi, Masashi Hoshino, Shintaro Kono, Ayumu Tajiri
(The meeting will be conducted in English.)
The book we take up this time is Michael Denning’s Culture in the Age of Three Worlds (2004). In this book, the energetic American historian, greatly influenced from CCCS, seeks to historicize British Cultural Studies movement and “the cultural turn” in the Cold War period, mapping them onto what he calls “the global cultural turn” in “the age of three worlds.” As an extension of what we have read, Denning’s understanding of “the cultural turn” would be helpful in reexamining the notions of “culture”: “culture” as a metaphor of unacknowledged social realities depoliticized in the course of the practice of tolerance (W. Brown), or “culture” as a new concept emerged within the dream and catastrophe of mass production and mass sovereignty (S. Buck-Morss). His attitude toward culture and “the cultural turn” itself would also have to be examined carefully, because if his own account of this book, “a product of, and reflection on, that cultural turn,” is accurate, his attitude toward, or distance from, the radical studies of culture may explain the neoliberalist hostile apathy toward them, which we are facing now as the university reform. In addition, some means to contextualize the prosperity of so-called postcolonial theories may be pursued in the session.
