Chris Iverson on the "Acceptance in German Literary and Visual Culture" Conference at the University of Washington

 A guest post by Draperite Chris Iverson, 

recipient of one of Draper's recent travel grants

Over May 11th and 12th, 2012, I attended The University of Washington’s Graduate Student Conference 2012, Acceptance in German Literary and Visual Culture, in Seattle, Washington and presented my paper, “Rubble Films on the German and International Screens.” The experience was amazing, as it was my first time presenting at a conference, and the panels covered a broad range of time periods and genres of German and international cultural products. The range of the conference proved impressive, with the notion of “acceptance” arising in many different forms, from the acceptance of a single writer or thinker into the German canon to the notion of the perception of Germany itself from without.

Volker Mergenthaler, a visiting professor from the University of Marburg, delivered the Keynote Address, “Die Regeln des Spiels und das Spiel mit den Regeln: ‘Nine Eleven’ und die deutschsprachige Literatur,” (The Rules of the Game and Playing with the Rules: ‘Nine Eleven’ and German-language Literature). Professor Mergenthaler discussed the effect of 9/11 on German-speaking writers’ work and how the literary landscape changed in the years following the attacks on the Twin Towers.

I presented on a panel with a student from Boston University whose paper, “Seeing the Other Germany: Western Perceptions of Identity in East German Art,” followed through lines of the abstract and the political from the post-World War I paintings of Otto Dix to, more recently, the poster for the film, Goodbye Lennin!, from the “western” perspective.

My paper, “Rubble Films of the German and International Screens,” discussed how German, American, Italian, and Jewish directors dealt with guilt, complicity, and victimhood in post World War II Germany and what roles those notions played in how to re-accept Germany back to civilization after the reign of the National Socialists. The films I covered are called Trümmerfilme or Rubble Films because they take place largely amid the rubble of post war Europe, namely Berlin, and surfaced mostly between 1946 and 1949, between the end of the war and the division of Germany into the eastern and western states. My answer to the question of re-acceptance? Well, though the differences in the films gave hints as to each filmmaker’s views, it seems each one would respond with a different variation on “I don’t know,” given the complexity of the problem and the expressive possibilities of film.

Draper sent out the call for papers and this was, after all, a graduate conference, so I expected a challenging, rigorous, and ultimately rewarding experience. No surprises there, but what I did not expect was the feeling of community among The University of Washington’s graduate students in their Department of Germanics that extended to the guest presenters at the conference. After the final panel had presented and the papers had been explored through a thrilling Q&A session, the organizers and presenters gathered in Seattle’s Gas Works Park, overlooking Downtown Seattle and the Space Needle, for a picnic where we discussed the weekend’s work and got to know each other.

I hope Draper continues to promote The University of Washington’s Department of Germanics Graduate Student Conferences and strongly encourage other Draperites to answer these calls for papers.

Alumna Hilarie Ashton on the CAAS Conference in Ottawa

Draper alumna Hilarie Ashton (January 2011) attended the annual conference of the Canadian Association of American Studies in Ottawa last weekend where she presented a paper. She wrote about her experience at the conference, which you can read belo. Congrats, Hilarie!

This weekend, I attended the annual conference of the Canadian Association of American Studies (CAAS) in Ottawa, Ontario. The conference, sponsored by Carleton University’s Centre for Research in American Studies, took as its theme the aesthetics of renewal, an idea that caught and kept my attention from the abstract submission stage through the conference itself. I came away from the plenaries and sessions more interested than ever in the place of American Studies on the world stage and the intersections and interactions that it can have with other disciplines (in particular national, ethnic, and cultural studies).

The paper I presented is entitled "The Doppelganger Artist: Reuse and/or Originality in Postmodernity and Popular Music." Based on the interesting ways in which it fit with the other papers on the panel, I'm planning to expand it for publication. My basic argument is that the phenomenon I'm calling the "entertainment doppelganger," or artist who creates a persona or a work by adopting elements of another artist's persona or work, is especially affected by the postmodern era (or whatever might be developing in its place). I argued that these doppelgangers' almost plagiarism, while nothing new, historically, is abetted by our era's free flowing Internet, new media, Twitterpated atmosphere (one of which, it must be said, I am a rather ardent fan). The panel that featured my paper was on remixed music, and there was so much synergy between my paper and the one that preceded it, on Girl Talk and other mashup artists, that I couldn't help but refer to it during my presentation.

Other highlights: a panel entitled "What Do Things Want" that combined papers on kitsch and flea market culture; the politics of photography (subjects including vinyl records and a typed reproduction of On The Road); and the intersections between fashion and (Judeo-Christian) religion. I also highly enjoyed two of the several keynotes: one by Drs. Linda and Michael Hutcheon (she, University Professor in the Department of English and the Centre for Comparative Literature at the University of Toronto, and he, Professor of Medicine at the University of Toronto) on opera, and one by Anthony Stewart, a professor of English at Dalhousie University, on the New Black American in Colson Whitehead and in the lyrics of the band Fishbone.

Breaking Down “Breaking Boundaries”

by Michelle Matthews (Silver School of Social Work) and Katie Koumatos (Draper Program)

A week ago, we (Michelle and Katie) attended the 13^th Annual Women’s History Conference at Sarah Lawrence College together. Entitled, “Breaking Boundaries: Body Politics and the Dynamics of Difference,” the conference incorporated scholastic voices from a variety of very different but interconnected disciplines, including a strong presence from the disabled community, the fat activist community and scholars studying the specific experiences and needs of African American women. We both had a really wonderful time and wanted to share our experiences with you.

The conference was scheduled to begin Friday evening with a keynote address by Marilyn Wann, author of Fat?So! and fat-activist extraordinaire. When we arrived, Marilyn was already there, inviting people to step on her Yay! Scale. An excellent example of the way that Fat Activists are creatively subversive, the Yay! Scale is a scale in which the numbers have been removed and replaced by compliments. Repurposed for the task to creating body self-esteem, this scale weights you and then gives you compliment. While the Yay! Scale told Katie that she was “the definition of Cute”, Michelle was reportedly “Fine, bordering on Perfect.”*

Marilyn’s keynote address was a basic introduction to the arguments behind the Fat Acceptance and the Health at Every Size (HAES) movements. She led the group in an analysis of the cultural associations of the fat/thin binary and challenged the common misconceptions about fat bodies. This ended up being a very useful exercise as people who were well versed in the culturally constructed ideas around race and gender were able to see how many of the same associations – dirty, ugly, messy, lazy, dangerous – as are used to oppress other marginalized groups are used to oppress fat people .

I (Katie) felt that one of the most salient points that Marilyn made revolved around the money that we spend on dieting in this country. Despite the fact that scientific studies have consistently shown that diets fail 95% of the time, last year Americans still spent over $59,700,000,000 trying to lose weight. Putting this into perspective, that is enough money to build a house for every single homeless person in this country and still have more than twenty billion dollars left over.

Wann offered valuable knowledge, but it was her engaging demeanor and happy dances that turned what could have been a cold lecture of facts and frustration into an enjoyable shared learning environment. Ending on a fat mad lib and a song, Marilyn’s keynote was engaging, informative and fun.

The evening continued with some dinner and a night of spoken word poetry. Maria James-Thiaw, Lara Frater, Tatiana McKinney and other poets all contributed to the event. By holding it in the Slonim Living Room, an intimate and safe space was created for personal and political expression.

Saturday began with a plenary panel that included presentations by Kathleen LeBesco, Susan Schwiek and Zoe Spencer. While the presentations by LeBesco and Schwiek were compelling and informative, we both felt that it was Spencer’s work, entitled “The Sexualized Body Politics of African American Women: From Enslavement to Hip Hop,” that really engaged and challenged the audience.

In my (Michelle) opinion, Spencer’s presentation was the highlight of the day. Not only did I love the fact that she is a fellow social worker, but her work was truly gripping. Several times she pointed out the race bias of the audience in a challenging but non-judgmental way. Her lecture was organized around the historic stereotypes of African American women and included categories like the Jezebel, the Mammy, the Sapphire and the Welfare Mom.

In the beginning of her lecture, she carefully presented the true horror of African American women’s slavery. Working to help the audience fully grasp the extent of their oppression, Spencer reiterated that these women had been treated like animals. They were raped, used to breed more slaves, and denied the chance to be mothers to their children. It was clear that she felt the need to impress upon us the intensity of this trauma and how her community is still feeling the effects of it. She moved through history, discussing the changing stereotypes of African American women and how their sexuality has continued to be controlled, manipulated and adjusted to fit the needs of the dominant culture. It was towards the end of the lecture that she interrupted herself to tell the mostly white audience that their lack of personal interaction with the African-American community probably left them with skewed views of African-American women. “You don’t go over to our houses for dinner. You don’t invite us to your house for dinner. For many of you, your ideas of African American women come from these constructed stereotypes.”

I (Katie) was particularly impressed with Spencer’s courage in challenging the notion of liberal safe spaces and her decision to present her work in a style that differed from the traditional academic model. Her lecture was equally filled with intense scholastic research and casual stories, random thoughts and personal interjections as she visibly negotiated how to best share this information with our particular audience. After the presentation, I (Michelle) sought her out to thank her for her lecture and talk with her more about teaching difference within the field of social work. We came to the conclusion that teaching difference and politeness are really incompatible, as it takes the uncomfortable experiences of being confronted with your privilege to allow students the chance to learn their biases and better understand “ethnocultural issues.” Spencer didn’t shy away from creating this same uncomfortable space with the audience and we both greatly respected her fierce candor.

The conference broke up into a series of smaller sessions, intermingled with a lunch break and some more hands-on activities. While the smaller presentations were engaging, it was truly these two larger lectures that captured our attention. We both networked a great deal, meeting scholars from other institutions and establishing the beginning of what could be very beneficial collaborative projects.

That first night, Marilyn Wann said, “If we can’t be at home in our own bodies, where are we supposed to go?” This beautifully sums up the entirety of the conference. As women, we must fight to regain psychological and physical ownership of our bodies above all else. If we are undermined in the control we have over how we conceive of our own flesh, everything else that we do in the world is weakened.

Katie Koumatos is a first year student in the Draper Program. She is trained in psychological anthropology and uses a multi-media approach to study the burgeoning fat activist movement. Michelle Matthews is a first-year master's student in the Silver School of Social Work, where she focuses her practice on health and women's issues. She founded the Size Diversity Coalition of Social Workers and blogs as the Fat Social Worker. Katie and Michelle are both fat activist who first met on a list-serve created to support the writing of the Fat Studies Reader. They met in person two months ago when Katie arrived in New York and have been planning mischief ever since. Currently they are working on creating an NYU student group affiliated with fat activism out of which they plan to run the Fat Studies Writing Workshop, a writer’s group for academics in this developing discipline. They are also planning on attending the Endangered Species: Women international summit at The New School this coming weekend. They welcome their fellow students to join them at this upcoming conference. You can reach them through their nyu emails at ksh287 or mmm608.

*We are planning a “Make Your Own Yay! Scale” Workshop for the Spring. If you are interested in joining us, please shoot us an email.

Guest Post: Katie Koumatos on Two Upcoming Women's Issues Conferences

On the west coast, we hear that New York City has everything. As a newly minted resident of Queens, I am beginning to see evidence that this might actually be true. This month there are two inexpensive and impressive conferences on women’s issues happening in the area and I can’t wait to attend.

Interested in the dynamic nature of discourse surrounding the female body? Want to learn and talk about how these ideas intersect with topics like health, race, law and education? Then you should attend Breaking Boundaries: Body Politics & the Dynamics of Difference. This conference is being held this coming weekend at Sarah Lawrence College. It is free and open to the public but you must register on the website. The conference runs Friday, March 4th from 6pm-8pm and Saturday, March 5th from 10am-6pm (there is an optional $10 luncheon on Saturday). The conference features keynote speaker Marilyn Wann, author of Fat?So!, prominent Fat Activist, and all around phenomenal speaker.

Concerned about the cultural constructs that stop women from accepting their bodies? I am too. That’s why I am attending the international summit, Endangered Species: Preserving the Female Body on March 18^th and 19^th. Hosted by the Women’s Therapy Centre Institute, this incredible educational opportunity will be held at The New School. Featuring international speakers from a wide range of backgrounds, this summit consists of several complex and carefully crafted panels where speakers are discussing the “toxic culture that teaches women and girls to hate their bodies” and the way they are facing this challenge in their respective fields. The summit runs 6pm-9pm on Friday, March 18^th and 8am-8pm on Saturday, March 19^th. Registration requires some level of body activist donation (the least expensive option is $20).

I will be attending both conferences with a fellow fat studies scholar from the NYU School of Social Work and we would love to have you join us. Feel free to email larissa.kyzer@nyu.edu for my contact information.

Katie*

Katie Koumatos, a transplant from Northern California, has just started her education at NYU this semester. She is trained in anthropology and studies the burgeoning fat activist movement and the discourse that occurs at the intersection of fat, food, and shame. She is greatly interested in collaborative work and would welcome contact from scholars interested in Fat Studies.

Megan Schmidt on Interning at the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect

Draper student Megan Schmidt recently took an internship with the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP) and has written about the experience for us.

As many students and recent graduates are finding out, internships are increasingly becoming the new entry level job. This can be frustrating for those of us who end up with an internship position that doesn’t warrant too much energy. Luckily for me, I have found an internship position that is both rewarding and is preparing me for my future employment endeavors. This position is with the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (ICRtoP) as the Coalition’s Research Intern. I would highly recommend this position to anyone interested in human rights specifically relating to the field of mass atrocity crimes.

The Responsibility to Protect is an international norm established at the United Nations 2005 World Summit which calls on governments to protect their citizens from genocide, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. In the event that a state cannot or does not aid its people, the international community is responsible to intervene through humanitarian means and, if necessary, coercive measures if collectively authorized by the UN Security Council.

At NYU I have focused my classes on human rights and international relations, so in searching for an internship I wanted to find a placement that allowed me to continue in this area of study. I was drawn to this internship because my specific area of interest and research is in human rights and genocide studies, making ICRtoP an ideal place to learn about issues and developments in these fields. I began interning with ICRtoP in September 2010. Working with the project requires focus and dedication as the position and the subject matter are substantial and intense. My work for the organization has included theoretical research on RtoP as well as focus on ongoing conflicts and crises.

What is also great about working with ICRtoP is that I have the opportunity to attend events and meetings (Security Council, General Assembly, etc.) at the UN. This requirement of the position is most exciting as I get to witness firsthand the actions and developments happening in this international forum.

ICRtoP is a project of the World Federalist Movement – Institute for Global Policy, which has several other projects relating to the field of human rights and the UN such as Together for a Better Peace, Reform the UN, and the Coalition for the International Criminal Court. I recommend that anyone interested in these areas visit the Institute’s website as internship positions are often available.

For more information on ICRtoP please visit the Coalition’s website at: http://www.responsibilitytoprotect.org

-Megan Schmidt

Draper Alumnus Scott Bankert on the Association of Graduate Liberal Studies Programs Conference, October 2010

Scott Bankert graduated from Draper in May 2010. He presented a paper entitled "Impossible Cities: Personal Accounts of Wonder in the Global Everyday" at the annual conference of the Association for Graduate Liberal Studies Programs (AGLSP) in Dallas in early October. The theme of the conference was "The Transformation of the 21st Century City." Scott has shared some thoughts about his experience at the conference below.

Scott was also recently interviewed for in.ter.reg.num: check out his interview here.

***

The AGLSP conference in Dallas this month was absolutely incredible. What a wonderful group of smart and kind people. There were chemists, novelists, anthropologists, economists, and migration scholars, as well as medieval scholars and classicists. The inclusion of novelists and poets seemed to me a big draw for Draper students, as so many of them are writers as well as scholars. Much advice about the writer's life- agents, balancing commitments, etc. -was discussed.

This year, they announced that there is a big push to create doctoral liberal studies programs - Georgetown now has one and UC Davis as well, with a few more schools planning to follow suit such as Stanford, OU and SMU. This is always something that has boggled me about the NYU program - that we have not expanded Draper it into a Ph.D. program.

The attendees graciously received my presentation - each presenter was given 30 minutes to present and up to 15 minutess of Q&A - now that's the way to treat a scholar! There was no rivalry or trying to shoot anyone down - it was all very open and down to earth. Several other students/recent grads presented alongside top experts in their field. I was invited back next year and intend to return. The topic will be about water.

In the future, I'd make sure to always send the AGLSP conference info to all Draper students and also call for entries for their journal, Confluence - it's a top notch journal that takes fiction as well as papers - reminded me a lot of Anamesa. This was my first conference and I cannot imagine being treated with more respect and admiration than by AGLSP.

-Scott

MA Thesis Workshop Recap, Shanna Farrell

In addition to Scott Campbell's response to Draper's recent MA Thesis Workshop, we now have a post from Shanna Farrell, who also attended the event that evening. Shanna's recap is below; let us know if you attended and would like to contribute your thoughts!

***

On Friday evening, March 12th, Draperites gathered for a thesis writing workshop given by Professors Daniel Thurs and Rebecca Colesworthy. Attendees discussed each of their thesis topics, which are in various stages of completion. After a brief overview of the workshop and a summary of each attendee's topic of research, the floor opened for an informative Q&A session. Questions spanning the spectrum from general to specific were asked, which prompted the half running joke/half earnest response "ask your advisor".

This led to the subject of choosing and working with an advisor, which seemed to be a pertinent issue for everyone present. Several important pieces of information were discussed. When a student approaches a potential advisor, the better the two know each other the more inclined a faculty member might be to accept the challenge. (It should be emphasized that faculty reserve the right to say no.) One way to make time with an advisor more efficient is for a student to present the advisor with as many writing samples as possible. Preliminary bibliographies, similar pieces or studies, and specific questions can also help an advisor help their advisee. Some Draperites raised concerns about the feasibility of having multiple advisors or advising committees. One response to this question was that some faculty members who have similar research interests as a student don't necessarily require an official advisor/advisee relationship to offer help and insight. In fact, a faculty member might be more willing to assist if a student doesn't need much more than some general guidance.

MA Thesis Workshop Recap, Scott Campbell

Since many students were unable to attend Draper's most recent MA Thesis Workshop, we've asked a few attendees to share some of the tips and advice that they found most useful during the session. Scott Campbell's write-up is below, and a few more students may contribute their thoughts on the workshop shortly. If you attended the workshop and would be willing to add to this discussion, please let us know!

***

Reflecting on the Master's thesis workshop, I found several pieces of advice to be particularly useful. The first was when thinking about your topic to come up with three keywords that would describe the major focuses of your paper. These can serve as both frames for your thesis and as suggestions to guide your research, leading to sources that may not deal specifically with your topic, but do engage the keywords in a manner that would benefit your thesis. A second bit of advice was to try to find a source that makes a similar argument to the one you plan to make. This is not to copy the source or to be discouraged, but instead to serve as a guide to what is already out there and can help deepen your ideas. Also, if you can't find a source, reflect on what this might say about your topic. Is it too broad or difficult to be dealt with effectively in 50 pages? Finally, the part that adds an extra layer for my thesis project is the human component. Remember that even if all you are doing is talking to another human being and using that person as a source for your thesis, then you likely need approval from the University Committee on Activities Involving Human Subjects and NYU's Institutional Review Board. Not only will the certification and approval process take some time, but think about the impact it may have on your sources when you present them with a waiver to sign, and also the impact it may have on your thesis if at any time they decide to revoke their participation.

-Scott Campbell

As promised...Daniel Thurs' guest post Part II

What is Good Scholarship?
Part II

Here I’d like to contribute something of my own, perhaps idiosyncratic, thinking about the nature of good scholarship (and I want to take special pains to emphasize that from here on out, everything you may take issue with is purely me). Chief among my scholarly touchstones is the notion of humility. I don’t mean a kind of obsequiousness that consistently favors engagement and fears criticism. Many scholars-in-training already tend to defer, understandably, to the intellectual giants of their fields. In those cases, I’d suggest a slightly more skeptical course. On the other hand, to move the metaphor back to land, those people whose words and behaviors provide the grist for scholarly mills are sometimes treated with a sort of disregard. In my own work, I’ve encountered too many historical actors—not the great intellects, but otherwise ordinary folks—who were as smart or smarter than I was, and knew more about what was going on around them to boot, to be comfortable with such a view. In approaching sources, I did bring an important set of tools, concepts, and questions they did not have, but our relationship worked best when I treated them as partners rather than resources to be exploited and when I kept open the ever-present possibility of being surprised by what they had to say.

One reason why I tend to value humility so highly, and possibly one reason why the question of what makes for good scholarship is so hard to answer in the abstract, is that scholarly endeavor takes place in a certain institutional context. Modern academia, whatever its substantial contribution to the world, is not a system that typically values or rewards being humble. Aside from the intellectual adventure and fulfillment it provides, the work of getting a Ph.D., of getting a job, of getting noticed often requires a kind of studied arrogance toward other scholars (who often have to be wrong in some measure for you to be right), toward sources (who sometimes become one-dimensional and conveniently easy to deconstruct), and toward the general public (which is occasionally either little more than the waiting and empty receptacle for scholarly knowledge or the passive “other” subject to scholarly analysis). Present-day expertise, rooted in and cultivated through the institutions of academia, is an important part of the world and can effect considerable change for the better. It also has a less fortunate side that can elevate experts over everyone else, in turn justifying their expertise. For me, at least, truly good scholarship is about keeping away from such currents.

I suspect, beyond the demands of particular disciplines and the institutions of academia, there’s one additional challenge to determining the nature of good scholarship, and that’s the magic word “scholarship.” As much as I’d like to believe it, to justify all those student loans I took out, I don’t think anyone requires a Ph.D. to either produce or appreciate good scholarship. That’s true whether you earned a BA five years ago or never went to college at all. The twin values of engagement and critical attitude are present in ordinary interactions at their best wherever they occur. What is required is a community of people dedicated to grappling with the world honestly and effectively. And that is what that Draper Program provides.

Perhaps that’s the ultimate meaning of humility for me—no one can do it alone. In that spirit, I should say that, while I’ve made passing reference to the collective Draperian wisdom, I have specific people to thank for the ideas above. So, humble thanks to Amber, Georgia, Larissa, Louis, Maia, Nina, Rebecca, Robert, and Robin.

And finally, I want to impart to you all, the most humble, most important, and most profound secret of good scholarship. In one word: scallops!

What is Good Scholarship? A guest blog entry by Daniel Thurs, Professor of Science Studies

We'll be posting Professor Thurs' excellent essay on scholarship in two parts. Stay tuned for Part 2 tomorrow...

Part I

What is good scholarship? That was a question a student recently posed to me. After a lot of thought and a few halting stabs at an answer, I decided my best option was to pass the scholarly buck. So, I re-posed the question to the staff and faculty here at Draper to get their views on the matter. What follows is my attempt to channel the program’s collective wisdom.

One of the first responses I found was that the nature of good scholarship depended on the particular fields involved. Some disciplines value testing established models, others look for the identification of causal relationships, and still others aim at tracing out complex and often messy webs of meaning. Certain areas avoid jargon and others encourage testing the limits of conventional language. In some cases, you can refer to yourself in the first person. In others, that’s a high crime. This makes the faculty, staff, and students at Draper and NYU more broadly, with all their varied backgrounds, valuable sources of insight into different scholarly traditions. In other words, you should feel free to pass your own scholarly bucks.

Still, there was consensus on some general elements of good scholarship that transcended particular disciplines. Perhaps the most important was engagement. There’s no immediately simple way to characterize the nature of engagement, though the common image is one of reaching out. It’s the close and careful reading of sources on their own terms, according to the rules and logics they set up, while doggedly and persistently seeking out the many possible meanings and facets that any given piece of material may contain or enable. It’s also stepping into the larger academic world, grounding conclusions in the work of other scholars, being aware of their views, and addressing the problems they raise with (in part, at least) the tools they provide. And it’s making your efforts matter, ideally to those both inside and outside of academia, which relies on the ability to successfully communicate your ideas, perhaps with a dash of enthusiasm.

The second element of good scholarship that came through clearly was the need for a critical approach, on three different levels. First, while you want to read your sources carefully, you can’t always accept every claim they make. It’s important to subject them to analysis of some kind. Neither should you always nod in your conversations with other scholars. Their work, even by the most well-known, should similarly be open to question. This isn’t to suggest you claim that X or Y is irredeemably wrong at every opportunity—that probably comes from a lack of engagement—but their ideas may not fit the particular case you’re working with or you may need to adapt or extend them. Lastly, you want to subject yourself and your claims to a critical eye. Are there reasons, beyond evidence and argument, that I think something is true? What are the limits, as well as the strengths, of my perspective? What are the implications of the conclusions I draw? What are the stakes of the questions I raise?

Given what’s been said, I think it’s fair to see engagement and criticism as the two poles of the scholarly globe, which raises another question. How do you navigate between them? Luckily, Draperian wisdom can still provide some guidance. To find your way, you’ll need a sense of balance between an openness to the world and a suspicion of its honesty, between faith in the reality of knowledge and skepticism that anything can be truly known, between construction and deconstruction. At the same time, you’ll want to rely on your ability to be creative. That doesn’t always mean coming up with a dramatically new argument or composing a revolutionary piece of literature. Most enduring knowledge builds by increments on what’s come before and the majority of scholarship—even some of the best—is more methodical than grandiose. There is creativity in finding (and recognizing) a new and valuable source of information, in saying things in subtly new ways that open up novel routes of thought and research, and in combining existing ideas in unexpected constellations.

Guest post part two, by Rick Halmo

If you missed it, part one of Rick's account of his recent travel was posted on this blog on Nov. 25th. Enjoy!

Jerusalem: The Holy City

I had the opportunity to spend a full day in Jerusalem, although given how much Jerusalem has to offer for a history buff like me one day was not enough in this intriguing city. The security presence was apparent everywhere once we entered the city limits. Coming off the hour-long bus ride from Tel Aviv we were immediately subjected to a security screening into the bus depot/full-scale mall. In lieu of describing the history of the city, I think it is more interesting to discuss the manifestations of “modernity” that have been attempted in the “Holy City,” particularly in the realm of architecture and infrastructure.

One of the more astounding things I had learned during my trip was that the city of Jerusalem has a law stating that anyone wishing to put up a building within the city limits could do so but if they hit an archeological “dig” site that company would have to stop its construction and finance the remainder of the dig. Also, the new buildings would have to be built with the same old-looking stone with which the rest of the area is built. What an interesting roadblock to future development and construction. Only currently is Jerusalem putting in an aboveground rail line (think of the T train in Boston’s suburbs) through the city, and the project has apparently taken a long time to develop.

As I was leaving Jerusalem, I had the sense that this city had trapped itself in the past. Proud of its immense history, I felt that it attempted to retain that history by keeping the city’s entire character contained in the past as well, as if its incredible history could not stand on its own. More likely, perhaps it was just that the city’s inhabitants yearned for the past, a point that gains even more credibility when you consider their reaction to a place like Tel Aviv.

Tel Aviv: Sin City

Tel Aviv is your standard beach city. Its characteristics mirror that of other beach cities that one can think of; the city is relatively more progressive than the rest of the territory, people regularly walk around in bathing suits, and there are abundant clubs and bars that you certainly would not see in other parts of the country like Jerusalem. Tel Aviv has corporate parks and a highly developed, futuristic downtown. Balancing this modern flare, there are a plethora of quaint marketplaces where bargaining is also part of the culture. Around the city there are a number of large parks and exercising areas, and while one may not feel alien in this area coming from America, the feeling of separation between Tel Aviv and the rest of Israel seemed quite palpable.

One of the more incredible things I picked up during my trip to Israel was a free magazine in the Jerusalem tourist headquarters. It was from the “TimeOut” publishing group (from “TimeOut New York”) and they had a magazine cover with the headline “JRS vs. TLV: Holy City vs. Sin City.” Two of their comparisons will do just fine to show how the area views these two distinct cities.

Under the comparison of “Architectural Trademark,” Jerusalem’s section describes, “Jerusalem stone and ancient ruins,” while Tel Aviv’s states that they have, “Bauhaus alongside indistinct contemporary architecture.” In the “religion” comparison, Jerusalem is said to be a place where “Judaism, Christianity and Islam are practiced in synagogues, churches and mosques, built in the name of God, Jesus and Allah, respectively,” while Tel Aviv’s religion is “Hedonism. Practiced in bars and nightclubs. God is a DJ.” The comparisons seem to reflect a kind of distaste for the modern and a preference for the past. Given the history of this region, it is hard for me to blame the inhabitants of the region for that mentality. Even so, I felt my experience of these two cities to be enhanced by experiencing the other one.

As you can see, a weeklong trip provided a lot of memories and lessons that one can only get by living what they learn in class. The trip gave me a better perspective not only on what I am learning in my classes, but also on the way in which people interact in other societies. I look forward to applying what I learned here to future scholarship and future travels.

Special “Thank you” to my professors, Mrinalini Rajagopalan and Maia Ramnath, for being so supportive of my travels to this incredible area.

Heather Paulson on the American Comparative Literature Association Conference

Draper student Heather Paulson recently attended the American Comparative Literature Association Conference at Harvard University. She shares on the experience below:

This past March I attended and presented a paper at the annual conference of the American Comparative Literature Association (ACLA), held at Harvard University. I went to Harvard with feelings of great trepidation, as this was the first academic conference I had attended, not to mention the first academic paper that has seen the light of day outside a professor’s office or classroom.

The ACLA conference is unique in that it is organized around seminars, not panels, which allow for each presenter to share his or her work and then discuss it with the other participants and public attendees. My seminar, entitled “After Everything is Said,” revolved around ideas of translation, production, and the role of the author/producer in shaping experience with a text. Most surprising was the diversity of the other participants: a professor from Boston University, two others from University of South Carolina, doctoral students from the University of Minnesota and University of Iowa, and an independent scholar from the UK. I was the sole MA student, but felt completely welcomed and inspired by my colleagues, whose work was as diverse as their backgrounds. Along with the seminar I participated in, ACLA had over 200 other seminars that ran from 8:30 in the morning to 4:30 in the afternoon. Needless to say, choosing which seminars to attend was a daunting task, but I managed to see several NYU professors present their work, including Mark Sanders (Comparative Literature) and Emily Apter (French), ran into Professor Shireen Patell (Trauma and Violence) in another seminar, and attended over six different seminars with topics such as, “Worlding of Worlds,” and “South Africa in Translation.”

Although I was uncertain what to expect from the conference, I came away with a greater confidence in my own writing and scholarship. I am also inspired and overwhelmed by the infinite possibilities for study—with every paper that was read, I realized how little I would ever truly be able to know about anything. If any Draper student is considering submitting an abstract or attending a conference, I would highly recommend ACLA; the diversity of seminars makes space for almost any field of study, and the attendees are welcoming and open-minded.

Heather Paulson is a currently pursuing a dual-degree MA/MLS with NYU's Draper Program and Long Island University's Palmer School of Library and Information Science. Her interests include the literatures of Sub-Saharan Africa, political writing, memory and memoir, and academic librarianship. She also works at the New York Society Library and assists Professor Shireen Patell with the Trauma and Violence Transdisciplinary Program.