Thursday, November 19, 2015

Remembering the struggles and achievements of Māori filmmaker Barry Barclay.

While filming Barclay's Tangata Whenua television series in 1972, cameraman
Keith Hawke has the camera about 10 meters from the people on the porch,
leaving them as free as possible from the paraphernalia of filmmaking.
Image: Pacific Films.

Māori media researcher

It has been more than 25 years since the acclaimed Māori filmmaker Barry Barclay’s book Our Own Image was first published. So what has since happened in Māori filmmaking? Quite a lot, I would argue, but with some reservations.

The handful of films released over the last five years with stories written and driven by Māori includes Boy (2010), Mt Zion (2013), The Pā Boys (2014), and the recently released Born to Dance (2015). It is arguable as to what constitutes a ‘Māori film’, and perhaps not always a useful exercise but, as Barry said, Māori are forced to do this for funding purposes within a white system. It also makes visible Māori access or lack of access to feature film funding in Aotearoa New Zealand.

Our early Māori dramatic feature filmmakers, in particular Barry, Merata Mita, and Don Selwyn, paved the way for future generations. Today, many Māori filmmakers acknowledge these pioneers and build on their vision; The Pā Boys has a dedication to the memory of Barry, Merata, and scriptwriter Graeme Tetley.

Barry laid a foundation and fought for a cinematic space where Māori filmmakers could present Māori stories. He argued that Māori needed and had a right to opportunities to speak to a Māori audience first, without explanation, and others could listen in. Barry’s notion of talking in, which centres the indigenous voice, remains a useful theoretical tool.

Barry argued that Te Tiriti o Waitangi (Treaty of Waitangi), an agreement between iwi and the Crown, promised equity, extending this to the right of Māori to tell their own stories and access to funding to enable this. The historical pattern of underfunding Māori productions led Barry to take action and seek solutions. His unwavering determination and unspoken advocacy was a bold move for a filmmaker reliant on funding from these institutions.

I remember attending the 2007 formal launch of Te Paepae Ataata, an initiative supported by the New Zealand Film Commission that was set up to nurture and fund the development of Māori feature films. Te Paepae Ataata came about through tireless advocacy by Māori involved in media production, including Barry. He stood up that evening with optimism and good faith, announcing that “the house is now restored” and he would not pursue WAI 748, a Te Tiriti o Waitangi claim, lodged nine years earlier. The claim charged the New Zealand Film Commission (the major funder of films in Aotearoa New Zealand) with not meeting its obligations under the Treaty. The Pā Boys was the first feature film developed with Te Paepae Ataata support; however, this fund no longer exists. There appear to be no Māori specific funding provisions; instead Māori may apply alongside Pacific filmmakers to the New Zealand Film Commission’s He Ara – Māori and Pasifika Pathways scheme. Sadly, the house is in need of restoration.

Master carver Piri Poutapu chats with Tangata Whenua series writer/
interviewer Michael King and Waikato elder and facilitator Te Uira Manihera
on the porch of Mahinarangi meeting house, Turangawaewae marae,
Ngaruawahia, in 1972. Image: Pacific Films.

Returning to Our Own Image, how has this early conversation progressed and uplifted Māori filmmaking? Barry’s book provides an important record and reminder of the struggles and achievements he and others faced. Barry was innovative, pushing boundaries and challenging the status quo. He established ways of working grounded in Māori worldviews and concepts. His example provided legitimation and support for Māori filmmakers working or wanting to work in similar ways and offering a path for future generations of filmmakers.

His transformational practices were conceived during the making of the Tangata Whenua (1974) television series and expanded and refined during the production of his first dramatic feature film, Ngati (1987). He advocated for a sustainable Māori cinema and workforce leading him to train and employ Māori on Ngati.

Barry’s sense of accountability, apparent in his writing, guided his work with communities. He generously gave his time when I was writing a thesis, which included filmmaking theory and practice. He was careful to stress that process is crucial rather than a prescribed set of rules, saying: “My starting position is to say I’m an outsider. I know nothing about anything when I go into a community. I’m an ignoramus. I’m there at their sufferance. And I use the word sufferance deliberately…You get weighed by the results.”

Barry was very aware of wider connections and responsibilities not only to Māori but to indigenous people globally. Our Own Image plants the seeds of theoretical thinking that Barry expanded on throughout his life. His notion of Fourth Cinema is the result of a strategic creation of an indigenous cinematic space where none previously existed. It was apparent that Barry loved to engage with ideas and could immediately see the resonance between Fourth Cinema and Kaupapa Māori film theory, pointing to a shared language and understanding. Barry was always looking to create that safe and supported space for Māori cinematic voices.

Barry’s contributions reach beyond filmmaking. Generous with his ideas, we have learned much from him, and the re-release of Our Own Image will reacquaint some with his legacy and introduce him to new audiences. Our Own Image, one of many gifts Barry left, is a reminder to reflect on both struggles and achievements, continuing to build on the legacies left by Barry and those of his generation who envisaged a brighter future.


Angela Moewaka Barnes is a Māori social scientist based at Te Ropu Whariki, Massey University, Auckland, Aotearoa New Zealand. She has a track record of research using kaupapa Māori methods on a range of topics including media. Her doctoral thesis, Ngā Kai Para i te Kahikātoa: Māori Filmmaking, Forging a Path (2011), examined Māori dramatic feature film and filmmaking, in particular the work of Barry Barclay, Merata Mita, and Don Selwyn, alongside the development of a Kaupapa Māori Film theoretical framework. Angela’s field of research interests includes media, Kaupapa Māori, identity, health, and wellbeing.

Barry Barclay (Ngāti Apa) (1944–2008), author of Our Own Image, is an award-winning New Zealand filmmaker, writer, and philosopher. He coined the term Fourth Cinema and has been honored with a Laureate Award from the Arts Foundation of New Zealand and the New Zealand Order of Merit.

"In Our Own Image, Barry Barclay produced a manifesto for indigenous cinema. Both intellectual exhortation and community document, it is driven by a ferocious critical intelligence and a commitment to a practice and understanding of cultural representation based on principles of justice and self-determination. It deserves to be seen as a major contribution to global film studies."
—Stuart Murray, University of Leeds

Friday, November 13, 2015

#UPWeek finale: More authors on working with a university press

On Monday, we kicked off University Press Week with a tremendous blurb from Nona Willis Aronowitz about the value of working with a university press. Today, we are pleased to wrap up #UPWeek with not one, but THREE more blurbs from beloved authors who value our particular model of publishing.

Working and publishing with a university press means I can count on the editors and the whole team. They are the supporting quality control who tell when something works and when it doesn’t, and pushing my writing and the arguments to improve. The best editor encourages you to be provocative and to experiment but to always remain rigorous. It’s this level of engagement that makes our work as writers and academics motivating. 
—JUSSI PARIKKA, professor in technological culture and aesthetics at Winchester School of Art, University of Southampton. Author, with Minnesota, of A Geology of Media, The Anthrobscene, and Insect Media.

I regularly felt like my editor "got" me. That means a lot of things. One, he knew where my book fit in my field as well as other fields, and really encouraged me to make my book accessible to a variety of audiences. My editor also understood that my publication process needed to fit into a tenure clock and what that meant in terms of timelines for me. I also felt like I always knew what was going on in the book production process and what was expected of me. I never felt in the dark with UMP, and am positive that the success of my book is largely attributed to the care they took in producing it. That care and all of these particular benefits, I felt, came directly from dealing with a nonprofit university press. 
—ADRIENNE SHAW, assistant professor of media studies and production at Temple University and author of Gaming at the Edge.

University presses still value quality over quantity in the publishing of books, and while they may move a work to completion more slowly, university presses still care for the details of language and layout. University presses also take on works that commercial publishing houses would never touch, book projects whose importance and influence outweighs the relatively small readership they might receive. These presses are truly a national treasure. 
—THOMAS FISHER, director of the Metropolitan Design Center at University of Minnesota. Author of Designing Our Way to a Better World, The Invisible Element of Place, and Salmela Architect.

In the wrapping up of #UPWeek, a number of presses are publishing content in conversation with authors. The Chicago Blog has a useful roundup of today's posts.

In addition, we recommend checking out a video posted earlier this week, "Opening Access: The Reinvention of the Academic Book," featuring, among many esteemed speakers, discussion with Matt Gold about our Manifold Scholarship project.

Happy reading! #ReadUP.

Monday, November 9, 2015

#UPWeek Day One: Nona Willis Aronowitz on working with a university press

For me, working with a university press was absolutely the right choice. I didn't just feel like one of a million authors at the mercy of a breakneck publishing schedule; I got tons of personal attention and received insightful advice from my editor. The publicists were strategic and inventive. Since I was collecting my mother's anthologies for posterity, I took comfort in the fact that they'd stay in print longer than at a trade publisher. And the copy editing was some of the best I've ever received—a true old-fashioned (and endangered) comb-through that's so much more than proofreading. 
—NONA WILLIS ARONOWITZ, editor of The Essential Ellen Willis (2014) and Out of the Vinyl Deeps: Ellen Willis on Rock Music (2011). 

This week is University Press Week, and in honor of the week and all that it celebrates, we've asked our authors to tell us a bit about what they value in working with a university press. We'll post our responses throughout the week.

All members of the American Association of University Presses will be posting various exciting content each day this week; University of North Carolina Press has a great roundup of today's posts. On Thursday, we've got something special in store to honor our 90th anniversary this year. Stay tuned!

Wednesday, November 4, 2015

The Birchwood Cafe Cookbook: Good, real, seasonal food inspired by Southern family traditions.

The Birchwood Cafe's strawberry and rhubarb cornmeal
cobbler makes a tasty breakfast or dessert dish. See recipe below.

Founder and owner of the Birchwood Cafe in Minneapolis

Written by Tracy Singleton on the occasion of the publication of The Birchwood Cafe Cookbook: Good Real Food, which features recipes from the restaurant's light-hearted, innovative, sustainably minded menu, divided by eight seasons: Spring, Summer, Scorch, Autumn, Dusk, Frost, Winter, and Thaw.

The Birchwood Cafe Cookbook is truly a labor of love—more than 10 years in the making. Chef Marshall Paulsen, writer Beth Dooley, and photographer Mette Nielsen and I have pored through twenty years of Birchwood recipes, selecting those that hold special meaning for us and for our customers. Our goal is to provide recipes that reflect Birchwood Cafe’s philosophy and that can be made easily at home.

My journey into local, sustainable food began in my great-grandmother’s home and it continues through the food you’ll find at the Birchwood Cafe today. Take, for example, Summer’s Strawberry Rhubarb Cobbler and our Stone Fruit Quinoa Crisp from Scorch. Both spark my earliest food memories of summers spent with my Nanny in a small town in Georgia, miles away from my parents in Minnesota.

On those long, lazy summer afternoons in Nanny’s kitchen, I learned how food is intrinsic to culture, especially in the South. You wouldn’t even think of visiting a friend without bringing something delicious and homemade to share. My Nanny had entire shelves fully laden with homemade goods: canned tomatoes sun-ripened in her garden, preserved peaches, fig jam, and buttery pound cakes. She made the most divine “divinity candy,” each melt-in-your-mouth morsel topped with a perfect pecan half, each piece neatly arranged in a pie tin and draped with a dish towel over the top. We’d carry these gifts when “calling” on neighbors.

Whenever I taste these homey seasonal desserts from Birchwood’s bakery case, I’m transported right back in time to picking fresh blueberries for cobbler, two in my mouth for every one in the pail, or standing on a stool in front of her large wooden bake table, her strong, capable arms on either side of mine as we rolled the biscuits for our cobbler topping by hand.

Of course, back then we didn’t use words like “organic,” “sustainable,” or even “local food system” to describe the food we’d harvest from the back yard and cook up in that sunny kitchen. It was good, real food and really, all that mattered was the warm, food-is-love feeling I basked in.

Those vivid childhood memories were reawakened in my mid-20s when I landed a job at Lucia’s Restaurant in Minneapolis. Here, food was sourced from farmers and not factories. Real butter, churned at local dairies, came from real cows—the kind that Nanny would let me eat straight from the cut-glass dish. Lucia respected the farmers and their food as well as those who worked and dined in her restaurant. At Lucia’s, I came to know these farmers, producers, cooks, and diners, and I reconnected with the warmth and love of Nanny’s kitchen as I started eating real food again.

Making dishes from scratch and knowing the source of each ingredient, just as my Nanny did, is what we do each day at the Birchwood. Most importantly, Good Real Food connects us to ourselves, to each other, and in turn to our community.



Lovely, fresh cornmeal from Riverbend Farm in Delano, Minnesota, adds a distinctly sweet, corny crunch to the topping. Truth be told, this cobbler is as delicious for breakfast as it is for dessert.

From The Birchwood Cafe Cookbook, page 48.

Serves 6

1/4 cup sugar, or more to taste
1 teaspoon unbleached all-purpose flour
Pinch of cloves
1 - 1/2 pounds whole strawberries, hulled and halved (about 6 cups)
2 pounds (about 15 stalks) fresh rhubarb, cut into 1/2-inch slices (about 6 cups)

1 cup unbleached all-purpose flour
1/4 cup sugar
1/4 cup cornmeal
1 tablespoon baking powder
Pinch of salt
3 tablespoons unsalted butter
1/2 cup buttermilk
Sugar for garnish


Preheat the oven to 400 degrees.

To make the filling, whisk together the sugar, flour, and cloves in a large bowl, and then stir in the strawberries and the rhubarb. Turn the filling into a deep pie dish or six 2-cup ramekins.

To make the topping, stir together the flour, sugar, cornmeal, baking powder, and salt in a large bowl. Using your fingers or a pastry cutter, work in the butter. Slowly work in the buttermilk to make a soft dough. Spoon the topping over the filling and sprinkle it with sugar.

Bake the cobbler until the topping is golden brown and the filling is tender, about 25 minutes. Serve warm with ice cream or at room temperature with fresh whipped cream.



The Birchwood take on this favorite is crunchy and nutritious. Maple syrup adds flavor while keeping the dessert from being overly sweet.

From The Birchwood Cafe Cookbook, page 80.

Serves 6 to 8

2 pounds stone fruit (apricots, plums, nectarines, peaches), pitted and cut into large dice (about 4 cups)
1/2 cup maple syrup
2 cups rolled oats
1/4 cup quinoa
1 teaspoon cinnamon
1 teaspoon vanilla extract
1/4 cup rice bran oil

Preheat the oven to 350 degrees. In a medium bowl, mix the fruit with 1/4 cup of the maple syrup. Turn the fruit into a deep 9-inch-square baking dish.

In a separate bowl, stir together the oats, quinoa, cinnamon, vanilla, remaining maple syrup, and oil. Distribute the topping over the fruit. Bake until the top is toasty and golden and the fruit is bubbly, about 25 to 30 minutes.


Tracy Singleton is co-author, with Marshall Paulsen, of The Birchwood Cafe Cookbook: Good Real Food.

"Birchwood is more than a cafe—it is a community. The stories, recipes, and the people who make it all happen are embodied in this beautiful book, bringing the Birchwood experience into our homes and kitchens and onto our tables."
—Michael Ableman, farmer and author of From the Good Earth, On Good Land, and Fields of Plenty

"This gracious and simple cafe has a big presence in our lives—Marshall’s tasty food and Tracy’s social activism have led the way for many healthy and sustainable initiatives and have us all thinking about where our food comes from."
—Dan Buettner, National Geographic Fellow and New York Times bestselling author of Blue Zones Solution

Wednesday, October 28, 2015

Fight for 15 shines spotlight on harsh daily realities for low-wage workers

Fast-food workers, university workers, students, janitors, retail workers, and airport
workers rally on April 15, 2015, near the University of Minnesota to demand a $15/hour
minimum wage.
Image via Wikimedia Commons.

Recipient of the 2015 Paul Davidoff Award from the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning for his book Degraded Work

The list of cities and state opting for double-digit minimum wages seems to grow by the week. The New York State Assembly is considering a statewide wage floor of $15. If it doesn’t happen in New York, it will happen somewhere else: After decades of bewildering silence on the issue, income inequality has become both a dominant political topic and—even more surprising—good politics for elected officials counting votes.

The Fight for $15 campaign stands out for converting a seemingly outlandish political goal into common sense, and doing so in the short space of three years. Yet to take the next step to improve lives and match the reality of work with our collective expectations of it, Fight for $15 will need to succeed at the much harder task of naming and responding to the many workplace inequalities that low-wage earners suffer in addition to poor hourly pay. The campaign and the workers driving it have recognized this from the beginning, but the task they face is tremendous: Convincing policymakers and members of the public who haven’t worked a low-wage job in the past decade who are unlikely to believe the problems entry-level workers face.

This problem can be seen most readily in the growing practice of just-in-time scheduling. When I was conducting fieldwork for Degraded Work in the mid-2000s, a small number of the workers I interviewed told me of their frustration with arbitrarily cancelled or shortened shifts. A butcher in a Chicago supermercado explained that on slow days, or during a storm, he’d be sent home a few hours early, then told to report ahead of time the next day. This unpredictability constantly upended his attempts to arrange childcare and keep a second job, but there was nothing he could do about it. Aggregating his experience with related details about “three strikes” dismissal systems, punishment for taking bathroom breaks, and other micro-level degradations on the job, I reached the conclusion that employer experiments with labor control were proliferating.

Today, nothing about this arrangement could be classified as experimental. In the years following the recession of 2007-2009, employers insisted on erratic scheduling as a matter of policy. Job seekers began reporting that “open availability” (the ability and willingness to work any shift, on any given day) was a prerequisite for landing a retail job. Human-resources software packages now alert managers to dismiss workers early when weather or sales amounts compare unfavorably to benchmarks. The havoc this unleashes in workers’ lives is extraordinary. But more to the point, it’s complicated: Some workers spend hours taking public transit to the job, only to be sent home before the shift starts. Others forego sleep and reliable child care in an attempt to hold multiple jobs. And just about everyone finds that the uneven weekly cash flow means there’s no way to stave off debt, much less dig out from under it. While low wages have a single measure, scheduling and the dozens of other problems workers face on the job are context-specific and heterogeneous, and they have a lot to do with hamstringing life after the shift ends. Attempts to describe them cannot come close to the simplicity of fighting for $15. This is a real problem. We have good data on wages and on hours, at least for a person’s primary job. We can say some things about people looking for more hours. But the measures of erratic scheduling’s toll on human beings come from interviews. And even by the standards of interview data, they’re narratively complex – seemingly designed to resist the compact measurement that makes policy problems legible.

As Fight for 15 pivots to the problem of scheduling, it also faces the challenge of stepping outside of professionalized discourses about work. Pay remains the simplest, most elemental measure for a job. It’s an especially good measure of the compensation of professional work, which generally has regular (albeit, often long) hours, health insurance, dental plans, and retirement packages. But for low-wage workers, everything is negotiable all the time, including actually collecting the pay promised for work. The lived experience of work differs so much for professionals and low-wage workers. Beyond the challenges of numerical expression and narrative simplicity, raising support for reforms to job quality faces the challenge of conveying a workplace that few of the professions who make or legitimize policy have experienced.

There is hopeful precedent for giving voice to problems like these. During the fieldwork for Degraded Work, I worked a lot for a Chicago Worker Center whose members organized impromptu delegations to press construction contractors to pay wages they had wrongfully withheld. We called the problem “robo de salarios.” Today, wage theft is a recognizable social problem, a plague understood to be much more systematic and amenable to legislation than our efforts to chase down a few unreliable construction contractors would have indicated. It’s a source of legal claims, and a way to organize workers.

None of this is to suggest that Fight for $15’s wage victories were easy, or that it has paid scant attention to these problems. They weren’t, and it hasn’t. But one of the many benefits to the campaign is that it allows us to look beyond wages, to the many other important things that unions do and need to do today.


Marc Doussard is assistant professor in the Department of Urban and Regional Planning at the University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign. He is author of Degraded Work: The Struggle at the Bottom of the Labor Market, which has received the 2015 Paul Davidoff Award from the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning. He has worked with community and labor organizations in Chicago and elsewhere since 2000.

"Well-researched and illuminating." —Labor Studies Journal

"A remarkably detailed book, Degraded Work challenges one of the dominant theories for urban inequality in North America and challenges readers to do something about inequality in their own city. Perhaps Doussard’s greatest accomplishment is to challenge what his readers believe and what they are doing with their lives or careers, without being confrontational. His analysis shows considerable depth and detail, but he presents it with humor, and without pretense, so it is accessible to experts and laypeople alike." —Economic Geography

Wednesday, October 14, 2015

On the perils of absolute ownership, tractors, and T.S. Eliot

T.S. Eliot astride a John Deere tractor.
Photo remix by David S. Roh.

Assistant professor of English at the University of Utah

What does T.S. Eliot have in common with a John Deere tractor?

Quite a bit, as it turns out. The John Deere company (owned by General Motors) recently set the blogosphere ablaze when it filed a claim with the U.S. Copyright Office arguing that, in effect, the farmers of America don’t own their tractors, they’re just licensing them. Thanks to a controversial clause in the 1998 Digital Millennium Copyright Act—written and passed at the height of industrial panic over file-sharing technologies and peer-to-peer protocols—any product that has software embedded within its systems can in fact be claimed as off-limits from modification.

The crux of John Deere’s argument is that since the company owns the patents to the software system integrated into new models of tractors, they in fact own the tractor in perpetuity. Similar to the logic of computer software on your operating system (you purchase a license, not the software itself), the DMCA grants a bundle of rights to the licensee and licensing body. Therefore, as software becomes more integral to the latest model of automobiles, owners will find themselves stripped of rights that they previously enjoyed. For example, weekend hobbyists will no longer have a right to tinker or modify their cars with impunity, since that might be considered “circumvention” or alteration beyond the parameters laid out by GM’s legal team. What makes this example particularly egregious is that it runs counter to the individuated do-it-yourself culture of farming and our very American ideals of property rights and self-reliance.

So how does this relate to T. S. Eliot? Eliot’s estate was once known to claim absolute ownership of his work, going as far as denying scholars and critics access to his poetry in scholarly studies. Critics who were interested, for example, in exploring some of Eliot’s more controversial papers or positing a thesis running counter to the Eliot estates’ wishes might find themselves locked out from his papers. As Jonathan Bate has pointed out, the consequences are quite real: Peter Ackroyd’s biography of Eliot is notable for its distinct lack of quotations and overabundance of paraphrase; Ackroyd explains in his preface that the Eliot estate has denied him from quoting extensively. It was only when the Eliot estate decided to adopt a less draconian policy that scholars began to write more liberally about his work; subsequently, Eliot’s reputation and institutionalization in the Modernist canon is now considered beyond dispute.

Common to both scenarios is the stifling of technological and cultural development. Farmers who purchase John Deere tractors expect that they’re free to tinker with the machinery and repair or modify it as they see fit, depending on the particulars of their situation. The idea of the John Deere company wielding a stranglehold on how they can manipulate the material object thanks to an obscure copyright clause seems counterintuitive at best; a gross violation of property rights at worst. Likewise, scholars toiling away on a lonely monograph generate new ideas based on a body of work that has seeped into the cultural consciousness. Implied in the statutory and social contract between artists and the public is the understanding that there is a commons from which everyone should eventually have the freedom to draw. Creative works are granted a monopoly for limited times and then are supposed to turn over to the public domain; but even during periods of monopoly, the fair use clause gives wide latitude for critical commentary. Cultural critics want to tinker with the material that has already returned to the cultural commons.

The problem is, those goods aren’t going anywhere. Intellectual property law, in its byzantine and oftentimes hamfisted manner, has become so broad that it supersedes the principles of creative incentives, thereby creating counterintuitive scenarios—such as tractors that you cannot own, let alone modify, thanks to software code embedded within the machinery. Or, in the realm of literary studies, only being allowed to quote 1.7 syllables of a 17-syllable haiku, thanks to an absurd ten percent rule (which doesn’t exist in statutory form). Our expensive litigation system skews in favor of the copyright holders; upstarts often wilt under pressure.

You can credit this kind of madness to two things: our cultural reverence for solitary genius, and our state and corporate paranoia over unregulated information exchange—best manifested in digital networks. Both have led to overreaches in intellectual property law, granting copyright holders (not necessarily the original creators) de facto veto power over subsequent artists and denying ownership of material objects through licensing schemes.

Thankfully, a countermovement is brewing that has caused some backtracking by the more brazen copyright abusers. John Deere, stung by the negative publicity, have put out a statement clarifying their claims of pure ownership. The Eliot estate long ago abandoned its scorched earth campaign against literary critics, much to its—as well as literary culture’s—benefit.

I’d argue that another reason for the pushback after so many years of unmitigated copyright expansion is cultural. Thanks to a mode of cultural creativity that operates according to the free exchange of information and knowledge, facilitated by the modern network, artists, and indeed, even some content owners themselves, are beginning to see the value in the freedom to tinker with both technology and culture.

It is a narrow and small world indeed if the John Deeres and literary estates of the world can dictate the future of creativity. Instead, we should encourage a multiplicity of voices to create a symphonic chorus.

And hot rod tractors.


David S. Roh is author of Illegal Literature: Toward a Disruptive Creativity and coeditor of Techno-Orientalism: Imagining Asia in Speculative Fiction, History, and Media. He is assistant professor of digital humanities and Asian American literature at the University of Utah. More information: and @drdr78.

"Illegal Literature is a clear headed look at the copyright protections surrounding authorship and the combined legal, material, and aesthetic construction of authorship over the modern period."
—Joseph Tabbi, University of Illinois at Chicago

Friday, October 9, 2015

Homelessness and housing justice in gentrifying Brooklyn

A homeless man in New York. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio has been interested
in East New York as a mass transit hub—but at what cost to the rest of the neighborhood?
Image: Wikimedia Commons.

Assistant professor of cultural studies, George Mason University

A recent article in the Wall Street Journal publicized new efforts by New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio to curb rising rates of homelessness. Citing a city study that found 32% of families arrived in shelters from evictions, the mayor will increase funding for public attorneys to represent tenants facing eviction in Housing Court. As the Wall Street Journal reported, while the city currently funds that program at $34 million, it would be up to $60 million annually by 2017.

City support for eviction defense is hard to argue against. But at best, the program is a stopgap that will slow the flow of people from homes to shelters. Eviction defense does nothing to address the root causes of housing insecurity that produce vulnerability to eviction among New York’s poor and working classes, predominantly populations of color.

But the de Blasio Housing Court plan is not only shortsighted; it is doomed by the Mayor’s other plans. Back in February of this year, the Mayor’s office unveiled its $41 billion Zoning for Quality and Affordability program. While touted as a means to preserve and expand affordable housing, the plan would lift height restrictions for developers, allowing for more luxury apartment buildings. Furthermore, rezoning efforts—which would convert commercial districts to residential corridors for these new high-rise developments—target neighborhoods that are currently low-income and predominantly Black, such as the East New York neighborhood of Brooklyn. City subsidies would require new construction projects to allocate twenty percent of units as affordable. Housing activists have raised concerns regarding the lack of clarity about how rents and income requirements would be determined. In especially economically disenfranchised neighborhoods like East New York, the incomes of current residents can fall below the Area Median Incomes often used to determine rent ranges. So while new units might be below market, they might be above what families already in neighborhoods like East New York can afford.

The introduction of thousands of new units of exorbitant “market price” apartments will deeply and irrevocably change these neighborhoods. De Blasio has been clear that he is interested in East New York as a mass transit hub that could draw higher-income residents into what has been thought of, by gentrifiers and developers alike, as the far reaches of Brooklyn. It would be absurd to imagine that this new housing stock and new residents will leave the rest of the neighborhood untouched. Traditional models of gentrification imagine a slow, piecemeal process in which a new class of renters with limited means is slowly recruited into neighborhoods; Neil Smith referred to them as the “foot soldiers of gentrification.” De Blasio’s development-driven model brings much more rapid displacement as, almost overnight, hundreds if not thousands of new, mostly white, higher-income renters arrive in a neighborhood. This development-driven model has been aggressively pursued in Washington, D.C., which saw many predominantly Black neighborhoods go from white populations of less than ten percent to fifty percent between the 2000 and 2010 censuses.

The Zoning for Quality and Affordability plan will in fact increase housing insecurity and vulnerability in the neighborhoods it targets. And it will do so under the guise and rhetoric of “doing good.” In my book, I describe this as being “rescued into abandonment.” And thus, with one hand the mayor pours money into the housing court system, claiming to protect tenants facing eviction, and with the other pours money into the development and construction industries, ramping up and fortifying the forces producing eviction in the first place. The Wall Street Journal article notes that 84% of families in the New York City shelter system already receive obviously inadequate cash benefits from the city. What good is a lawyer who may help postpone an eviction if New Yorkers lack the means to pay rent in a city that is actively investing in furthering gentrification?

There is of course a long tradition of diverting poor people to court-based solutions; as Anders Corr showed in his book, No Trespassing, the United States imposed a housing court system in Puerto Rico not to protect renters, but to diffuse a growing tenant movement by absorbing its energies into bureaucratized legal battles. In Brooklyn, housing activists see the need for grassroots mobilizing outside the court systems. Residents of Prospect Lefferts Gardens formed the Movement to Protect the People to fight rezoning and redevelopment plans there. At a September 2014 Community Board meeting, that group successfully shut down representatives of City Planning, preventing them from presenting their plans and powerfully demonstrating that any conversation about rezoning was a no-go. Neighboring Equality for Flatbush is doing related work, while building a broad base of support across Brooklyn. Rallying under the call, “Before It’s Gone/Take it Back,” Equality for Flatbush recognizes “redevelopment” as a cover story for real estate speculation and increasing displacement, and that the promise to “do good” through legal programs and rezoning plans is no good at all.


Craig Willse is author of The Value of Homelessness: Managing Surplus Life in the United States. He is assistant professor of cultural studies at George Mason University and coeditor of Beyond Biopolitics: Essays on the Governance of Life and Death.

Wednesday, September 30, 2015

Thinking In Equality: On Laruelle's Democracy of Thought

Professor of film studies at Kingston University, London

Equality and inequality are fast becoming commonplace themes, given our straitened times and recent efforts to uncover not only the vast social inequities around us but also the origins of such inequality. One could wax on about the unequal distribution of monetary wealth, or even discuss the less-tangible philosophical consciousness of who has what, how much do they have, and so on. But here, I want to address the equality of thinking itself, irrespective of what, or even if, it is a thinking about x, y, or z – money, rights, or consciousness. It is the question of an equality (or democracy) in thinking, in theory, rather than any theory of a specific equality. 

One implication of François Laruelle’s notion of a ‘democracy of thought’ is that all entities are indeed equal, which is to say (in his language), that they are equally ‘One’. Laruelle describes himself as a ‘non-philosopher’ or ‘non-standard philosopher,’ and for him, to respond to this notion of being ‘equally One’ with the query ‘equally one what?’ is to miss the point of the gesture with too much philosophy. Even to respond ‘equally different’ (with Gilles Deleuze, say), or ‘equally Being’ (with Martin Heidegger), or ‘equally multiple’ (Alain Badiou) remains all too philosophical for Laruelle. Individually, they are all One – and this is firstly a performative gesture before it becomes an ontological thesis (that tells us ‘what they are’): Individuals invent equality, they do not possess it (as a philosophical property of difference, multiplicity, and so on).

In my new book, All Thoughts Are Equal, I explore the idea that film is philosophical while also introducing Laruelle’s ideas about non-philosophy. Film and philosophy both think in their own way. Conversely, however, should one say that film is philosophical because it is a type of philosophical act (linguistic therapy, say, or fundamental questioning) then one adds a third, defined element, a definition of philosophy in which film is allowed to participate. Yet even this definition can always be defined in such a way as to still make the type of therapy or questioning that philosophy alone instantiates qualitatively different and superior to the therapy or questioning of film. When saying film equals philosophy, and then how they are equal (the third element), one thereby creates a new and potentially arbitrary definition that, again, can be made to make one half of the equation the privileged, exceptional instance. Alternatively, if there were no third quality or type, then their equality is not defined but invented: in other words, it is performative (a concept I discuss in the final chapter of my book).

And yet – haven’t I earlier said that film and philosophy both think, that they are equally thoughtful? Isn’t that a third quality? Well, yes and no. The reason I say ‘no’ is because I haven’t defined what thought or thinking is. I have simply said that film and philosophy equally think, but in their own way. This is a pluralistic gesture to be sure, but, according to Laruelle at least, it is also a non-philosophical gesture, because the job of philosophy (by contrast) is to attempt to enforce one or other image alone of what counts as thought. Despite what appears to many as philosophy’s benign, abstract, and consequently (perhaps) even irrelevant status, Laruelle takes philosophy to be the supreme form of thought control, or, to be clear, a device for controlling what counts as proper or fundamental thought.

So: when saying that film is philosophical, one must not take this equation – this equality – as one conflating two defined entities. Rather, the statement ‘cinema is a philosophy’ is an invention, an exploration of how this pair can be equalized, but without defining either of the two – nor their union – at the outset. For, inversely, if everything were equally philosophy as defined as X, we still have to account for the appearance of those films or philosophies that also actually do look like a film or a philosophy, and those others that do not. For instance, it would be uncontroversial among many film-philosophers to claim that Richard Curtis’s Love Actually (2003) is not a good example of cinematic philosophy. Conversely, Michael Haneke’s Caché (2005) is frequently taken as a typical instance of true cinematic thinking, if only because it seems to accord with the philosophy of Emmanuel Levinas; both tackle the infinite moral responsibility we have toward others. The latter film appears philosophical because it seems to say something typical of the kind of thing philosophers say. But what about those films that do not appear philosophical in any pre-defined fashion, or even those moving images that are barely counted as proper films at all (YouTube videos, TV adverts, etc.)? They have a self-identity after all, even if only an apparent one (as film), and the appearance of any identity counts for something, a something that can then be used as the basis of an exceptionality (were one so inclined): this is not a film but that is; this is not philosophy but that is. Anything less, such as to say that the self-identity itself is merely an illusion, still leaves the basis for the illusion as such unexplained.

Alternatively, to say that film is philosophical in a non-philosophical manner is not another logical equation, but an invention, a hypothesis to be explored, a new comparative that must be only one among many. Saying that ‘X equals Y’ in this ‘real identification’ is also to say that ‘X could equal Z or Q or R’, and so on. Of course, this multiplication of identities could explode into triviality, but only in a theory separated from practice. In practice, that is, performatively, the identifications have each to be invented in actual spaces and times (and not in one philosophical position of everywhere and always). A film can be philosophical, in its own way. This ‘can be’ is what some might call a ‘paraconsistent’ leap in logic (see second chapter of All Thoughts Are Equal), but it can also be the benefit of our doubt, of our resistance to definition.

All thoughts can be equal, but what that equality consists in has to be invented each and every time in an ongoing process of equalizing.


John Ó Maoilearca is author of All Thoughts Are Equal: Laruelle and Nonhuman Philosophy. He is professor of film studies at Kingston University, London. He is also author of Post-Continental Philosophy: An Outline and Philosophy and the Moving Image: Refractions of Reality and coeditor of Laruelle and Non-Philosophy.

"All Thoughts Are Equal is an original act and development of non-philosophical thinking. John Ó Maoilearca gives us a virtuoso tour of Laruellian thought and offers a highly original and significant mutation of non-philosophy in his own right."
—Ian James, University of Cambridge