I discovered that I lost my wallet this evening, and I am taking it swimmingly well. Not only am I not fussing about the inconvenience or the lost money, the incident has also taken my mind off my PhD report,which I was stressing about. Maybe it is two stress-points nullifying each other or maybe just one distracting me from the other, but whatever it is, I welcome it. Yes, I will have to spend some time and mental energy arranging for a new student ID, bank card and wallet, which will make my busy days busier. But, I am grateful that I removed my residence permit from the wallet last week, because losing the permit would have meant cancelling my trip to Italy next month. I am also taking inspiration from my nephew, who broke his arm last year and took it like a champ. I took him to an aquarium some time last year and we idled on a nearby beach for a bit afterwards. I have a photo of him in a floppy cap, one arm in a cast, beaming from ear to ear. Maybe we are socialized to react to certain situations in a certain way, and kids are often clueless about the appropriate reaction. It is sometimes liberating to not feel the way you are supposed to feel in a certain situation. I know this tranquility may be temporary, just like anxiety which comes and goes without rhyme or reason. But, right now, I am at peace.
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Monday, May 7, 2018
Rah-rah-rah's
I was watching an episode of Dear White People in which the black dean was telling a black student how he coped with being one of the few black faces on an ivy league campus in his time. His coping mechanism--rah-rah-rah's, as he called it--was hanging out a lot at a nearby restaurant run by Cape Verdeans. That got me thinking about my own rah-rah-rah's (I wish I got the reference). Mine are definitely yoga and blogging, and talking to a friend I met just last year but who I feel I have known for ages. But mostly, yoga and blogging. Yoga helps me relax and "come back into my body" as I spend most of the day in my head. I have a home yoga routine as well as a weekly class. The people in the weekly class are not very friendly and I don't even know anyone else's name, even though I have been going for almost three months. But the class is so good that it is worth feeling like a fish out of water before and after. And, blogging, of course, is the close friend I don't have in Bristol. Every evening after dinner, I blather on my blog. If I may so, I am doing a pretty good job of keeping it reflective but not explicitly therapeutic. And blogging has become as habitual as brushing my teeth. As the great philosopher Simmel said, writing/vocalizing your feelings takes the edge off them. And, this may sound pretentious but I feel like I have a lot to offer to the world and that my blog is a vehicle for my offerings. Even if the world doesn't give two hoots about my offerings. Even if there is not conversation, there is the potential for a conversation. I am speaking to someone when I blog, although I don't know who that is.
A friend of mine is struggling at the moment. I hope she finds her rah-rah-rah's. Our rah-rah-rah's make us feel whole again after the world has taken chips out of us. You can do all you can to get out of your hole and you may succeed, but staying out of the whole is difficult without rah-rah-rah's. Most of us have them (some without realizing), and we all need them. But, they are more than a coping mechanism, they are also an expression of what is best and brightest in us. I blog and do yoga when I am happy, when I am sad, when I am anxious, when I am excited.
A friend of mine is struggling at the moment. I hope she finds her rah-rah-rah's. Our rah-rah-rah's make us feel whole again after the world has taken chips out of us. You can do all you can to get out of your hole and you may succeed, but staying out of the whole is difficult without rah-rah-rah's. Most of us have them (some without realizing), and we all need them. But, they are more than a coping mechanism, they are also an expression of what is best and brightest in us. I blog and do yoga when I am happy, when I am sad, when I am anxious, when I am excited.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Book Club
Today was the third meeting of the female-focussed book club I am a part of and I loved every minute of it. The book was excellent, and discussing it with a smart and engaged group took it to another level. A book club discussion makes you feel like you are re-reading the book on steroids. You feel like you are plumbing the depths of the book, seeing the characters from so many different perspectives that it feels like you have insect eyesight.
We have managed to create an intellectually charged but comfortable atmosphere in our book club. Most of us are regulars who have been coming since the first sitting, but we are also welcoming towards newcomers. Another man joined us for the first time today, and from his engagement, it is safe to conclude that he really enjoyed himself. He read out two poems at the end, which inspired me to read out a poem I had brought to the first meeting (a poem about which I have blogged earlier). I had felt too awkward reading it at the first meeting because I was the only male there. But, now I feel comfortable enough in their company that I even told them that I had felt awkward the first time. I also feel confident enough to express my opinions without feeling stupid in front of the members, who are all really smart articulate women.
We get along so well that I sometimes wish we could hang out casually. I still just have one proper friend in Bristol and that is my work colleague. I have grown used to being by myself and I accept that friendships take time to build in this culture. But, I also know how much joy and comfort, friendships can bring, and I miss that. Anyway, what will be, will be. For now, I am just glad that I went to the first book club meeting.
We have managed to create an intellectually charged but comfortable atmosphere in our book club. Most of us are regulars who have been coming since the first sitting, but we are also welcoming towards newcomers. Another man joined us for the first time today, and from his engagement, it is safe to conclude that he really enjoyed himself. He read out two poems at the end, which inspired me to read out a poem I had brought to the first meeting (a poem about which I have blogged earlier). I had felt too awkward reading it at the first meeting because I was the only male there. But, now I feel comfortable enough in their company that I even told them that I had felt awkward the first time. I also feel confident enough to express my opinions without feeling stupid in front of the members, who are all really smart articulate women.
We get along so well that I sometimes wish we could hang out casually. I still just have one proper friend in Bristol and that is my work colleague. I have grown used to being by myself and I accept that friendships take time to build in this culture. But, I also know how much joy and comfort, friendships can bring, and I miss that. Anyway, what will be, will be. For now, I am just glad that I went to the first book club meeting.
Saturday, May 5, 2018
Regressive Regressions
I am taking a course in Econometrics, although I am not sure I will be using that method in my PhD thesis. For the uninitiated, econometrics is the "application of statistical and mathematical theories in economics for the purpose of testing hypotheses and forecasting future trends", according to Investopedia. It is basically trying to infer cause and effect from a given set of data. I have never been intellectually convinced about its efficacy or legitimacy, but so strong is the consensus in economics that any theory must be testable and falsifiable that you need to use it to be taken seriously. So, I did use it in my master's thesis and was complimented for my work by the examiners but I know what I did was bull-shit.
For a long time after that, I thought econometrics, especially of the time series variety, was bull-shit. I don't think so any more because I have now interacted with genuinely bright econometricians who seem to know what they are doing. They are able to answer my questions intelligently and if not all the answers are comprehensible to me, it may be due to my powers of comprehension, or lack thereof. Now, I do feel econometrics is a worthwhile endeavour but it may not be worthwhile for me. I will have to spend too much time understanding it properly to convince myself of its efficacy and, frankly, I think that time will be better spent elsewhere.
Of course, try explaining that to the statheads, two of whom inhabit my PhD room. They believe any theory in the world must be statistically testable and that empirical (or more narrowly statistical) rigour is the only worthwhile form of intellectual rigour. To them you can say anything you want as long as you can prove it with statistics.
I have long believed that one can play with data until you find the result you are looking for. I don't think that's an easy exercise--you will be caught out by smart people. These people are well aware of the limitations of econometrics and the strong assumptions that undergrid it. You can dismiss econometrics by saying that you don't believe in the assumptions, just like many non-economists dismiss neoclassical economics by saying that the assumptions are unrealistic. But such a position often becomes an excuse for not engaging with a difficult topic more closely. And, with the hegemony that econometrics enjoys, the detractors who don't really understand it can be easily dismissed. The intelligent, open-minded econometricians I have come across are far less dismissive of social theories, but they are few and far between. Economics does attract a disproportionate share of statheads and mathheads who are downright dismissive of any research that doesn't include statistics.
Perhaps it is healthy to be around people who think your research is bull-shit because it forces you to reflect more closely on your methods. Sometimes, it can weigh on your confidence, but if you are prone to over-confidence like me, maybe that is a good thing. But, at least I can say that I am more open to their research than they are to mine, even I can't be bothered to spend time understanding it. I suppose my philosophy is: "I know you are smart as a result of our interactions or because of your successes or because people who I think are smart think you are smart. Which is why I think what you are doing is worthwhile even if I don't have the time or intellectual capacity to understand it."
For a long time after that, I thought econometrics, especially of the time series variety, was bull-shit. I don't think so any more because I have now interacted with genuinely bright econometricians who seem to know what they are doing. They are able to answer my questions intelligently and if not all the answers are comprehensible to me, it may be due to my powers of comprehension, or lack thereof. Now, I do feel econometrics is a worthwhile endeavour but it may not be worthwhile for me. I will have to spend too much time understanding it properly to convince myself of its efficacy and, frankly, I think that time will be better spent elsewhere.
Of course, try explaining that to the statheads, two of whom inhabit my PhD room. They believe any theory in the world must be statistically testable and that empirical (or more narrowly statistical) rigour is the only worthwhile form of intellectual rigour. To them you can say anything you want as long as you can prove it with statistics.
I have long believed that one can play with data until you find the result you are looking for. I don't think that's an easy exercise--you will be caught out by smart people. These people are well aware of the limitations of econometrics and the strong assumptions that undergrid it. You can dismiss econometrics by saying that you don't believe in the assumptions, just like many non-economists dismiss neoclassical economics by saying that the assumptions are unrealistic. But such a position often becomes an excuse for not engaging with a difficult topic more closely. And, with the hegemony that econometrics enjoys, the detractors who don't really understand it can be easily dismissed. The intelligent, open-minded econometricians I have come across are far less dismissive of social theories, but they are few and far between. Economics does attract a disproportionate share of statheads and mathheads who are downright dismissive of any research that doesn't include statistics.
Perhaps it is healthy to be around people who think your research is bull-shit because it forces you to reflect more closely on your methods. Sometimes, it can weigh on your confidence, but if you are prone to over-confidence like me, maybe that is a good thing. But, at least I can say that I am more open to their research than they are to mine, even I can't be bothered to spend time understanding it. I suppose my philosophy is: "I know you are smart as a result of our interactions or because of your successes or because people who I think are smart think you are smart. Which is why I think what you are doing is worthwhile even if I don't have the time or intellectual capacity to understand it."
Friday, May 4, 2018
Redistribution Of Sex (Or rape by sanction)
So, a New York Times columnist wrote a column predicting government-mandated redistribution of sex in the future, citing one of the best articles I have read in a long time. I had written about the article a few weeks ago and was quite horrified by how he had mangled its message. When Twitter blew up on him, he posted that article--which was on the Politics of Desire--whining that no one had read it. Maybe because he failed to understand why people were getting mad at him and not mad at the author of the other article.
The column also cited an economist who had wondered aloud why redistribution of sex was not considered as just an aim as redistribution of property or money. Well, for starters, because surrendering autonomy over your body is the definition of being enslaved. And, you cannot reduce the most intimate human act to the status of a commodity that can be traded or bartered. Paying higher taxes is not the same as being legally bound to sleep with someone, which is state-mandated rape.
The column referenced 'incels', or involuntary celibates--socially awkward men who lust after cheerleader types and hate such girls for spurning them or because they imagine that those girls will spurn them. These men lurk in the dregs of the internet and the craziest ones carry out mass murders. The New York Times was essentially saying that while he don't support their violent actions, their grievance was legitimate. That it is entirely legitimate to expect thin, blond women with big breasts to sleep with you. And with that, he turned the politics of desire article on its head. The author of that article had taken great pains to emphasize that examining the politics of desire and having a conversation about sexual marginalisation was not the same as asserting the right to sex. I come from a country which is teeming with 'incels' and which has staggering levels of sexual violence because many men assert this "right". Sexual marginalisation is a real thing. But there is a world of difference between empowerment, and entitlement enacted through violent means.
The column also cited an economist who had wondered aloud why redistribution of sex was not considered as just an aim as redistribution of property or money. Well, for starters, because surrendering autonomy over your body is the definition of being enslaved. And, you cannot reduce the most intimate human act to the status of a commodity that can be traded or bartered. Paying higher taxes is not the same as being legally bound to sleep with someone, which is state-mandated rape.
The column referenced 'incels', or involuntary celibates--socially awkward men who lust after cheerleader types and hate such girls for spurning them or because they imagine that those girls will spurn them. These men lurk in the dregs of the internet and the craziest ones carry out mass murders. The New York Times was essentially saying that while he don't support their violent actions, their grievance was legitimate. That it is entirely legitimate to expect thin, blond women with big breasts to sleep with you. And with that, he turned the politics of desire article on its head. The author of that article had taken great pains to emphasize that examining the politics of desire and having a conversation about sexual marginalisation was not the same as asserting the right to sex. I come from a country which is teeming with 'incels' and which has staggering levels of sexual violence because many men assert this "right". Sexual marginalisation is a real thing. But there is a world of difference between empowerment, and entitlement enacted through violent means.
Thursday, May 3, 2018
University of Life
I went for another discussion of the philosophy club today just to take mind off my thesis. It worked, I suppose. It was mostly boring, but a different variety of boring. We were divided into two groups and, based on the snippets of conversation from the other group that floated into my ears, I wish I had joined the other group. My group had people from diverse backgrounds, or, rather, as much diversity as you can get with a white middle-aged and old crowd from a lower-middle class background. I think I am beginning to tire of it. The level of discourse is good, and the people are unpretentious. But, it just feels like too much of an effort to be the only foreigner in the group. I don't feel uncomfortable any more, it is just tiring. The no-expectations, no-effort strategy is working like a charm, but my focus has shifted from not wanting to feeling out of place to wanting to feel like I belong in a particular place. I am no longer satisfied with just not feeling uncomfortable, I want to be comfortable, to banter, to tease, to be teased. And, if that is hard to find, I would rather be alone and be all the better for it.
Wednesday, May 2, 2018
Illegals
The WindRush scandal was the tip of the iceberg, as many people had suspected. Yesterday, it emerged that the Home Office had falsely accused 7,000 foreign students of cheating on their English proficiency tests and told them to leave the country, without giving them a chance to appeal. But what really incensed me was a discussion between two colleagues in my PhD room. One of them, who is as Asian on a student visa just like me, was saying that Labour was using the issue to attack the government and that "illegal immigrants" should not be allowed to stay. The government was right to have targets for deportation. I was too worked up to argue that having a target for deportations was like having a target for prison populations. Surely, it should depend on the crime? What is the point at which an "immigrant" becomes illegal? Even if she or he overstays their visa, shouldn't they have a right to explain why they did so? Definitions of "illegal" change with government policy, and someone who is illegal today might not be tomorrow (I don't even want to get into the semantics and morals of the word "illegal", mainly because the people who believe in deportation targets are unlikely to give a toss about the power of words. To be fair, my colleague is a mainstream-as-they-come who believes in quantifying everything, which is possibly why he supports deportation targets).
I don't have a clear view on "open borders", and I wish I could bring myself to support them unequivocally. But, surely there is a middle ground between "open borders" and a "hostile environment"? And, what really gets my goat is black and brown people who identify with the white middle-class rather than with other immigrants of colour. Especially, when some of the people being targeted are exactly like them--foreign students, not cleaners or fruit-pickers.
The Tory party reacted in characteristic fashion by appointing a brown man as Home Secretary. I feel you have to a particularly nasty to be a PoC Tory. However, I realize immigration is not such a big issue for everyone as it is for me. My cousins who work in finance support the Tories because of their pro-financial sector policies (although, they are not Tory ministers/MPs/members and do not have the power to influence immigration policy).
This brings me back to my point that political views are more emotional and grounded in personal circumstance and experience than rational. This might read like an apology for apathy, but I do believe empathy has limits, as much as I wish it didn't.
I don't have a clear view on "open borders", and I wish I could bring myself to support them unequivocally. But, surely there is a middle ground between "open borders" and a "hostile environment"? And, what really gets my goat is black and brown people who identify with the white middle-class rather than with other immigrants of colour. Especially, when some of the people being targeted are exactly like them--foreign students, not cleaners or fruit-pickers.
The Tory party reacted in characteristic fashion by appointing a brown man as Home Secretary. I feel you have to a particularly nasty to be a PoC Tory. However, I realize immigration is not such a big issue for everyone as it is for me. My cousins who work in finance support the Tories because of their pro-financial sector policies (although, they are not Tory ministers/MPs/members and do not have the power to influence immigration policy).
This brings me back to my point that political views are more emotional and grounded in personal circumstance and experience than rational. This might read like an apology for apathy, but I do believe empathy has limits, as much as I wish it didn't.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)