Sat 16 Jun 2007
How many “queer theory” courses are there at Williams? Good question! (Related thread here.) Now, obviously, there will be very few if any that are only about queer theory. But there are several classes with “queer” in the description. They are:
ENGL 341(S) American Genders, American Sexualities
LATS 235(S) (formerly 335) Latina/o Theatre and Performance, 1950-2000
LATS 230(F) Approaching Performance Studies
ENGL 373(F) Modern Critical Theory
THEA 104(F) World Theatre History I: Performance in Oral, Written and Print Cultures
All these courses are offered in 2007-2008. Now, just because one puts “queer” in the description does not make an intro course like, say, THEA 104 into a class on “queer theory.” But every minute spent in queer theory is a minute less spent elsewhere.
If five courses enough? Perhaps not. Perhaps Williams needs 10 or 20. Perhaps every class needs to mention sexuality — or race or gender or class or (we can dream!) all four.
As for me, I wish the history department would offer classes in the history of US foreign policy and military history. I think that lectures class like PSCI 120 should be turned into discussions. Call me crazy.
June 16th, 2007 at 11:50 am
No, not really.
June 16th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
Obsession?
June 16th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Is this an argumentative thread? Are you trying to incite your readership in responding?
June 16th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
Could be some subtle trolling going on, who knows…
June 16th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Can someone be a troll on their own blog? DK seems to come close at times.
June 16th, 2007 at 1:33 pm
Can’t we go back to the days when men were men and the sheep were scared?
June 16th, 2007 at 4:51 pm
or men were men, and there was at least one house of prostitution on Water Street? Now that would make a great honors thesis!
June 16th, 2007 at 5:17 pm
DOWN WITH THE HETEROCRACY!
June 16th, 2007 at 5:39 pm
David:
Four of those five courses are not queer theory courses. (The exception being American Genders, American Sexualities.) The course descriptions mention queer theory, but only as one theoretical tool among many. None of them claim to use queer theory as their central or only approach.
The Performance Studies course mentions queer theory among a laundry list of other theories: “anthropology, dramatic theory, poststructuralism, psychoanalytic theory, folklore, cultural studies, philosophy, feminist theory, and queer theory.” The critical theory course, naturally, focuses on “rhetorical theory from the New Critics to Semiotics and Deconstruction, as well as feminist and queer theoretical responses to poststructuralism.” The WWI theater course, which claims to focus on performances rather than theory/interpretation, uses “gender and queer theory, ethnography, and linguistics.” Even the Latino/a theater class does not focus exclusively on queer theory but on “Latina feminist and queer thought.”
My point? These classes that you imply are “queer theory” courses are, in fact, nothing of the kind. They put queer theory in its proper place - as one interpretive scheme among many. This is not objectionable in the least, unless you object to “every minute spent in queer theory.” I don’t doubt that that’s probably the case.
But how petty can you be on these matters? None of these courses are even in the history department, and so it hardly makes sense to argue that they’re what prevents you having military history classes.
Or, to put it another way, I read a few chapters of Capital in Intro to Political Theory. (And obviously a few more since then.) Does that make that a course on Marxist theory? No - it makes it a course that includes that perspective as one among many.
June 16th, 2007 at 6:06 pm
Not even one gym class playing “smear the queer”? What has happened to Williams? Bring back the frats and kick out the women!
June 16th, 2007 at 6:36 pm
I’m calling David Kane crazy.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:22 pm
The stresses of blogging and trying to be provocative! Maybe we should take up a collection to spend him for a few days at Owl Feather.
June 16th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
David, your complaint that “queer theory” is drawing down resources that could otherwise go to American diplomatic and military history is ridiculous on its face and implausible in fact. Noons is right.
However, criticism that we lack courses in American military and diplomatic history may be legit, as are other criticisms about lacks and/or gaping holes in the social studies. So don’t hamstring your perfectly good criticism by tying it to dumb partisan talking points that Noons or I could easily truthsquad.
June 16th, 2007 at 10:32 pm
for the last time, psci 120 WAS NOT A LECTURE. the designation by the registrar really doesn’t make a difference because half the time with a class smaller than 50 students that is simply not the case. prof mcallister talked for a bit to give some background, which is reasonable - same as in a seminar - and then there was a discussion for the better part of the hour and fifteen minutes. DK, you should really consider taking a class before passing judgments on it. there is NO point in carrying on this debate when the party who is making these accusations simply hasn’t even ever taken the course or to my knowledge ever sat in on one of the classes. of course, next year prof rovner will be taking of the course and it may be a different ball game, but with prof mcallister, it was definitely a discussion.
June 17th, 2007 at 10:43 am
Just a quick note. David’s assumption is a reasonable one concerning 120, but it is just not true empirically. I don’t mean to toot my own horn, but my discussion score for psci 120 last semester was 88%–meaning only 12% of courses at Williams were ranked higher in terms of discussions. Given the very high number of tutorials and small seminars we have here, I can’t imagine better evidence to show that quality of discussion is not determined solely or even primarily by class size. In fact, my Cold War class, with only 25 students, was graded significantly lower in terms of quality of discussion.
The other point is that the history department now does offer diplomatic and military courses through the Stanley Kaplan program. Last year, David Kaiser offered courses on Woodrow Wilson, FDR and the Two World Wars and The Vietnam War and American Life. Next year, Mark Stoler will offer courses on American Foreign Policy from the Revolution to Woodrow Wilson and a course on Allied Grand Strategy during the Second World War. Google Kaiser and Stoler and you will see that these are two of the most prominent diplomatic historians in the country today. To anticipate David’s fair point that they are not regular faculty members, true but the situation is now less dire than it was two years ago. The other point to note is that I teach regular courses on the Cold War, the Vietnam War, and George Kennan that are all diplomatic history courses, albeit in the psci department. And no, none of those courses would be taught any better if they were taught by someone with a Ph.D in history rather than a psci degree.
June 17th, 2007 at 2:34 pm
David, you have clearly committed one of contemporary Williams College’s mortal sins — heteronormativity. Seek penance immediately. I am sure there is a nice building fund to which you can donate to assuage your guilt.
June 18th, 2007 at 1:16 pm
Or buy wind credits to assuage your windiness?