<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css" style="display:none"><!--P{margin-top:0;margin-bottom:0;} --></style>
</head>
<body dir="ltr" style="font-size:12pt;color:#000000;background-color:#FFFFFF;font-family:Calibri,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">
<div id="Signature"></div>
<p><strong>ASSEMBLING MASCULINITY | GENDER & CULTURAL STUDIES SEMINAR SERIES</strong>
<strong>2017</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Speakers: Timothy Laurie and Anna Hickey-Moody | Chair: Nick Fogarty</p>
<p>Friday April 28<sup>th </sup>(2pm-4pm), The Refectory, Quadrangle, A14, The University of Sydney</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><strong>DOES PHILOSOPHY NEED PHILOSOPHERS? MASCULINITY AND THE MAKING OF CONTINENTAL PHILOSOPHY</strong></p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Timothy Laurie | University of Technology Sydney</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Continental philosophy has long been criticised as a highly gendered discipline both in its framing of intellectual problems and in its institutionally embedded social dynamics. Although sociological tools have been used successfully to pinpoint many variables
contributing to the gendering of disciplines, such approaches encounter hostility from blocs within continental philosophy itself, partly because philosophers have so frequently marked their distance from the perceived positivism of the social sciences. This
paper argues that a more pragmatic understanding of the difference between philosophers and other kinds of scholars is needed to imagine alternative ways of using and disseminating continental philosophy and its sibling, critical theory. To do so, the paper
draws on Moira Gatens’ feminist approach to Spinoza to interrogate idealist accounts of philosophical labour, and links this to Ian Hunter’s deflationary account of continental philosophy as an institutional formation committed to warding off social and cultural
'particulars'.</p>
<p> </p>
<p><br>
</p>
<p><strong>MASCULINE ECONOMIES: PERFORMATIVITY, AFFECTIVITY AND CARBON FUTURES</strong>
</p>
<p><strong> </strong></p>
<p><strong>Anna Hickey-Moody | The University of Sydney</strong></p>
<p> </p>
<p>Contemporary economies of carbon production, consumption and trading mobilize masculinist tropes of competition, performance and frontier politics. Elizabeth Povinelli (2015) characterizes contemporary liberal governance as bound to carbon imaginaries: she
argues that a system of distinction between sentient and non sentient life is sutured to late capitalist economies. A cursory glance at carbon futures trading markets brings Raewyn Connell's work on frontier masculinity into a contemporary context. I begin
this paper by examining the masculinist cultural values of carbon production and consumption and then move to examine the cultural politics of such an argument, which has proven difficult. I examine the gendered politics of previous critiques of my work on
carbon fiber, in terms of the feminization of interdisciplinary scholarship and of the masculinization of hard science. In examining the dangers of interdisciplinarity for feminists, in a scholarly context defined by what Eve Sedgwick (2003) has explained
as paranoia, or paranoid scholarly readings, I question the fact that disciplinarity has become a core means for mobilizing recognition. I contend that the dangers of interdisciplinary research leave feminist scholars open to multiple registers of ‘paranoid
reading’ (Sedgwick 2003), as well as to the gendered critiques of interdisciplinary work that fails to acknowledge the boundaries of (masculine) disciplinary authority. The second half of the paper, then, is an auto-ethnographic account of the public vilification
and slander I received in response to the 2015 essay <em>Carbon Fiber Masculinity: Disability and Surfaces of Homosociality.
</em>Lead by an icon of masculinist thought and academic practice, Sir Richard Dawkins, this piece of cultural theory became internationally proclaimed as evidence of problems with feminism and interdisciplinarity. I will examine the gendering of both disciplinarity
and interdisciplinarity in the public critiques and personal slander. </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<p> </p>
<DIV><P><HR>
<font face="arial"><font size="1">UTS CRICOS Provider Code: 00099F
DISCLAIMER: This email message and any accompanying attachments may contain confidential information.
If you are not the intended recipient, do not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy this message or
attachments. If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender immediately and delete
this message. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the
sender expressly, and with authority, states them to be the views of the University of Technology Sydney.
Before opening any attachments, please check them for viruses and defects.
Think. Green. Do.
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
</font></font>
</P></DIV>
</body>
</html>