"Stereotypes play an important part in the configuration of social space because of the importance of distanciation in the behaviour of social groups, that is, distancing from others who are represented negatively, and because of the way in which group images and place images combine to create landscapes of exclusion."
- David Sibley, Geographies of Exclusion (via sociophilia)
theprimolevifanblog:

プリーモ・レーヴィ
His books were never explosive bestsellers; outside of his native Italy he remains a cult writer. Yet he received enough attention to get translated into French, German, English, Japanese. There is a daisy chain of Holocaust scholars, chemistry geeks, Italian culture buffs, and general oddballs stretched all around the world, his fans, feeling privileged in their discovery. 

theprimolevifanblog:

プリーモレーヴィ

His books were never explosive bestsellers; outside of his native Italy he remains a cult writer. Yet he received enough attention to get translated into French, German, English, Japanese. There is a daisy chain of Holocaust scholars, chemistry geeks, Italian culture buffs, and general oddballs stretched all around the world, his fans, feeling privileged in their discovery. 

"what I defend above all is the possibility and the necessity of the critical intellectual, who is firstly critical of the intellectual doxa secreted by the doxosophers. there is no genuine democracy without genuine opposing critical powers. the intellectual is one of those, of the first magnitude. that is why I think that the work of demolishing the critical intellectual, living or dead - marx, nietzsche, sartre, foucault, and some others who are grouped together under the label pansee 68- is as dangerous as the demolition of the public interest and that it is part of the same process of restoration.
of course I would prefer it if intellectuals had all, and always, lived up to the immense historical responsibility they bear and if they had always invested in their actions not only their moral authority but also their intellectual competence- like, to cite just one example, pierre vidal-naquet, who has engaged all his mastery of historical method in a critique of the abuses of history. having said that, in the words of karl kraus, ‘between two evils, I refuse to choose the lesser.’ whole I have little indulgence for ‘irresponsible’ intellectuals, I have even less respect for the ‘intellectuals’ of the political-administrative establishment, polymorphous polygraphs who polish their annual essays between two meetings of boards of directors, three publishers’ parties and miscellaneous television appearances"
-

bourdieu, acts of resistance (via doxasavar)

Echoes of Said’s Representations of the Intellectual here; demolishing the myth of the co-opted intellectual as the objective and responsible representative of critical opinion

(via socio-logic)

"Ryan was turned off by the Netflix series; upset that the Frank Underwood character painted members of Congress in a bad light by [SPOILER ALERT] cheating on his wife in the first season. (Congress’s reputation can get worse?) “I watched the first couple of episodes until [Frank Underwood] cheated on his wife with that reporter. It turned my stomach so much that I just couldn’t watch it anymore,” Ryan said. “His behavior was so reprehensible, and it hit too close to home because he was a House member, that it just bothered me too much. And what I thought is, it makes us all look like we’re like that.”"
- If it’s Clinton vs. Ryan in 2016, Frank Underwood already has his pick - The Washington Post
"

Over the centuries, we’ve internalized these military metaphors, so much so that we often may not recognize how they influence us. Even today, we “monitor for insidious disease,” “destroy rogue cells,” “search for silver bullets,” and “use all weapons at our disposal.” But when the purpose of treatment is not recovering from a cold, but living with cancer, should the military metaphor be retired?

Many patients may prefer not to view illness as a battle or conflict. Indeed, it seems strange that the language of healing remains so interwoven with the language of warfare, especially in the era of chronic disease, when many conditions are controlled and managed, not eradicated or annihilated.

By describing a treatment as a battle and a patient as a combatant, we set an inherently adversarial tone, and dichotomize outcomes into victory and defeat. Changes in medication regimens become setbacks or retreats, and transitions to palliative care mark the end of struggle, the battle lost. We subtly place an unfair burden on patient and doctor, when in reality, even the most courageous soldier guided by the most effective strategy is too often unsuccessful against an aggressive invader with nothing to lose.

"
- Dhruv Khullar, The Trouble With Medicine’s Metaphors (via thedauntlesschamberednautilus)

(via linguisten)