Notes on a prospectus defense, part two

E: Okay, they do understand that it isn’t all about Levels of Analysis, right? That there are bits of IR other than that? What the hell difference does what it leaves out make? AARRGGHH!!! Should have drawn terrorism menacing the faculty.


P: Yes, The Briefer had it easy!

Historical / everyday *use*. How tough is *that* to get?

E: Okay, seriously, there’s a difference between categories for analytic purposes and Class, Race, Gender as things to be analyzed. Why is this confusing?!?

P: I don’t get it either! Also, C, R, G, E are not things out there! They can be analytic categories. Have decided RS is good at this! But, He Who Must Be Named is *so* going to hate my paper. :)

E: Shit. Must stop smirking. A committee member is trying to figure out what I find so amusing.

P: Oh, he’s been smirking, too.


E: RS *so* wants to say, “I reject your reality, and substitute my own!”

P: J I’ve read his proposal—he does answer this. Liked how he just talked over He Who…what’s the difference between a Real and Fake person??

[He Who…asks about RS’s intellectual heroes. He is not being at all sardonic.]

E: My intellectual hero is Eric Idle. Just for the record.

P: Damn you! I’m going to get in trouble for that snigger!

Yay! He said guys!! (Which they are!)—Good answer J

E: Only The MacGeek is okay with the pragmatic use of theorists. Shouldn’t the others have mentioned these issues before? (Also, I get the feeling RS’s proposal is the Philosopher’s Song in 20 pages).

P: It is! He does not mention all these people there. This is a tough-ish defense.


E: The Bowler: “One could say that war is the American trope.” One could, but why would one want to when it’s been said so often and isn’t all that interesting / useful?

P: I just think that most of them want a REAL, TRUE picture.

E: Ya think? Other than The MacGeek, who’s probably chatting online.

P: No, he’s typing all the ? and all the answers (that’s what he did for me). Now, The Bowler and He Who… are fighting? Yahoo!!

E: He’s clearly not going to the same parties I do, if he thinks people don’t talk about class.

P: I think maybe neighborhood watch people don’t?

E: Ha! Yes they do.

P: Damn, I could have answered the Foucault-Tilly question!!

E: Throw all the dead white guys in a room, give them clubs, and see who wins. *That’s* how to pick a methodology. Last DWG standing is the one to follow.

P: It’d probably be a pragmatist. Or Hobbes. Hobbes wins everything always. Unless Foucault sneakily hides in the loo and pops out to say “boo” at the end.

E: Rorty probably fights dirty. Plus, he has the advantage of not being dead.

Fucking bowling leagues. Again.

[As Priya reads this note, Putnam is invoked. Much like a Greek god. Or great-aunt Marge.]

P: Bowling alone. Let’s send The Bowler to Bowl Alone.

[Elizabeth doesn’t quite laugh at loud at this comment]

E: Yeah, that cough was *so* not convincing. SOLIDARITY! Woo hoo! Solidarity and bowling! And beer!!

P: Bloody Leftist propaganda.

[An audience member asks when the ethnographer knows he has enough information from his research.]

E: The Voice of God cries “Stop! You have enough data!” And then he blows up something. And then you stop. Seems simple enough.


At 5/25/2006 11:37 PM, Blogger Priya said...

I can't believe we managed to do all this. Umm...well, I can :)
Btw, the "boys" were passing notes too--I wonder what they were saying?

At 5/26/2006 2:02 AM, Blogger Priya said...

Btw, re-read my warnings of doom and have decided I should just call myself Moaning Myrtle and be done with it :)

At 5/26/2006 11:56 AM, Anonymous serena said...

lol you two have too much fun with these defences don't you

At 5/26/2006 4:59 PM, Blogger Elizabeth said...

Bet their notes weren't as entertaining as ours were.


Post a Comment

<< Home