On Theresa May’s “Deal with the Devil”

This will be a short entry, as everything that has been said will be said about the “disastrous” 2017 UK election.

First of all, it is wonderful that Labour gained so many seats. But they came up just shy of true victory it seems. The Conservatives are allying with, it seems, the only other Parliamentary party on the right wing of the political spectrum, and even that is enough for them to gain a majority still. And what is that party? The DUP, the Northern Irish unionist party, known for their extreme anti-abortion views and anti-gay views. The DUP opposes abortion for rape victims and incest, and perhaps even more astonishing than that is that their dominance of Northern Irish politics means that abortion remains illegal for all except in extreme medical circumstances in Northern Ireland. But perhaps most vile of all is the fact that the DUP was once allied with right-wing paramilitaries. Of course, the same accusation could be leveled against Labour with respect to Sinn Fein.

But my real point is that while the Conservatives broadly failed, in that they turned their clear majority into a minority, Labour also failed to win. If all it takes is 42% of the English people to vote Conservative to form a government, it seems the situation is hopeless, because of the reactionary tendencies of the large swath of the upper classes.

The only ray of light seems to be that Labour increase its main body of constituents, the working poor, by letting Conservative policies take their toll.

Here’s hoping for more storms on the horizon, so we can see that silver lining in the clouds.

Zizek and Harman talk- response to Landzek

I have been watching the March 2017 talk with Slavoj Zizek and Graham Harman titled “Duel and Duet” and I was not disappointed at the intellectual stimulation value. Zizek, as most of you know, is the Marxist genius, and Harman is the obvious philosophical windbag stereotype. For those of you who don’t know, Harman belongs to a school of philosophy known as “Object-Oriented Ontology” (OOO) a kind of post-modern school. Object-oriented ontology, following Bruno Latour (who is notably an anthropologist) is a recent conceptual approach involving rethinking the role of objects in metaphysical schemes, how most approaches before the advent of postmodernism were concerned with the role of the human in the universe. Thus a lot of OOO tends to vibe well with environmental philosophies, Derrida, rethinking the relationship of the animal with the world, often Deleuze is thrown in there, etc. I have seen people do good things with OOO, but it often has an element of something that I hate. I couldn’t put my finger on it until tonight when my guy Zizek got up there and sparred with Harman.

In the talk, Harman begins by restating what OOO is, distinguishing it from “naive realism”, talks about how he thinks Zizek is more sophisticated than other philosophers, but then proceeds to critique him in several arcane respects. First he brings up the philosophical problem of essences. Harman sees no problem with essence as such, but thinks that essence is only knowable indirectly. So the essence of humans is different from other things, but…in fact, I don’t know exactly what he says about humans being different than other things. On the one hand, he says that humans are objects like any other object in the material world, and that we shouldn’t inscribe the difference in humanity into philosophy itself, that Western philosophy has inherited this gap between Creator and Created in medieval thought.

First let me reply to Harman. Harman thinks in such a dualistic way, even though he is trying to get beyond dualisms. Humans are subjects and objects, knowable and the knower. That is what makes us different- we are the knowers. We perceive things, we are existential beings who feel pain. Isn’t that a DUH???

For Harman, nothing seems to be a duh. The problem of essences he speaks of turns into the question of what is culture, with reference to Edward Said’s Orientalism. Harman says Said goes to far in his critique of Orientalism, saying there is no essence to the Orient. He says that when one claims to know something about it, then it becomes a problem. He then (in my view correctly) says but what about Culture and the difference between East and West as cultural systems?

To me, Harman is wading too deep into the waters of anthropological theory here. ***On the one hand, I believe that philosophy should have an open and engaging dialogue with anthropological theory, where many insights have occurred relatively unknown to professional philosophers***. That was one of the main ideas I had while watching this talk, because obviously Harman is a disciple of Latour, the philosopher cum anthropologist par excellence.

I realized my problem with OOO goes back to Latour and the whole “we have never been modern” thesis, which Zizek goes on to critique at the onset of his talk immediately. It is clear throughout the talk that Zizek is on a different level than Harman. Zizek’s whole style is to engage the audience immediately, claiming that differences between two philosophers does not matter so much as clarifying what is the problem. Zizek’s sense of responsibility in his thought is far superior to Harman’s. Harman in my mind (and this is kind of a straw man, because I haven’t read his books) fills an intellectual gap, sees OOO as superior, and proceeds to critique Zizek not understanding fully his whole approach, which takes into account the zeitgeist of the time, etc. Harman’s points become as DRY and emotionless as the subjectless ontology he philosophizes. Zizek’s motivation is an IDEAL, that is what makes him truly an idealist. It seems Harman doesn’t understand Hegel at all.

Back to my critique of Latour. Latour’s whole approach is based on a need to understand the non-human. While this is a great approach, it was essentially a copycat version of other developments in anthropology, such as Viveiros de Castro’s perspectivism (as far as I can tell). Perspectivism is a theory which looks at the Amerindian view of the human being as not separate from nature, etc. and is a brilliant theory of the way Amerindians see the cosmos and how we can use that. Latour is a post-modernizing of that approach, which has consumed anthropological high level theory as the “ontological turn”. Yay more philosophy in anthropology! It seems we have also inherited the bullshit

Finally, a response to Harman on culture and Said. Yes culture exists, and your about society not existing being conservative ideology is a great point. But one can’t merely just drop this point in for the sake of argument itself. Its a complex topic, one which Said has contributed more to than you. I found the same problem in Said’s work, his lack of acknowledgement of Difference in culture. Which is why I find my biggest problem sometimes with postmodern philosophy is that none of them seemed to have read the Upanishads.

In short, this video has given me insight that anthropology and philosophy need to engage FULLY with non-Western philosophies and ontologies. The problem of essences has already been dealt with by Madyamika-Prasangika school of Buddhism- essence is always changing, therefore there is no essence, only relative identity. Landzek’s post about this subject raises the question of philosophical EGO- a running theme in some of his posts (see the post on his blog about Obscurantism which I will link to ). He ends by saying philosophers should not worry about bruising the egos of others in dialogues. Often it is the most personal that is the hardest to put into words. That is what non-Western philosophies often handle best- the *emotional core* that has been strayed away from, even in postmodern ontologies.

I return to a conclusion from my previous post- we don’t need more theories, we need more open debate, more compassion, more EMOTION, less objects and ontologies.

Link to Landzek’s Constructive Undoing blog-


Lacanian or Deleuzian Anthropology? Paradoxes of thought

Following Deleuze, it may be enough to ask “what does this concept do” rather than say “what does it mean?” For the ethnologist, or ethnographer, a concept can only be useful, to reduce the interpretation of a given field to “One Grand Theory” must be missing the point. We have reached the point as anthropologists where we can hold two contradictory thoughts at once in our heads, I believe that must be the case, if and only if we have already taken the “Crisis of Representation” seriously. For there are still far too many anthropologists, or at least anthropology students, who cling to simple explanations, simple Cartesian dualisms, and “vulgar materialisms” to quote Levi-Strauss.

But as far ethnology is concerned, particularly the interpretation of symbols, is it enough to always follow the “emic” interpretation? The question of the emic vs. etic distinction in anthropology has always seemed to revolve around the question of which should be privileged, the native’s point of view or the view of the anthropologist. Continually vacillating between the extremes of relativism and objectivism, anthropology’s ontology has never been stable, and of course is not singular, for there are multiple anthropologies. There are probably multiple anthropologies inside a single anthropologist! And not just when considering the change in the perspective of an author over their lifetime- no, as Whitman saw quite clearly, we all contain multitudes. It is this problem that I am grappling with currently, which must be taken from the abstract to the concrete and particular- which “mapper of the unconscious” has more to offer anthropology? Which French elite intellectual, Lacan or Deleuze, is a better fit for anthropology?

Point for Deleuze: Deleuze engages with a wider variety of anthropological material, from structuralists like Leach and Levi-Strauss but also has incorporated insights from more than the “French elite”, like Victor Turner. In fact Deleuze’s take on Victor Turner’s work with the Ndembu is fascinating.

Point for Lacan: Lacan’s model of the unconscious is also a model for enculturation, the Big Other who gives the signifiers, the Symbolic Order as such

In this sense, Deleuze and Lacan both offer ways to interpret the symbols of other cultures from a dimension that is beyond “structural-functional” or Durkheimian. For Lacan, it moves to the psychological dimension of structure, how individuals inhabit the social roles, their “fit” behind the mask, their identification with their social roles. This proper kind of psychoanalysis is a good fit for anthropology, because it can offer psychological portraits of certain individuals in complex societies that serve certain functions. How does an Ndembu man think about fatherhood? These are properly psychological/Lacanian-inspired anthropological questions.

Both authors seem to situate Desire as being a necessary element in the psychological constitution of an individual. Lacan’s concept of the “objet petit a”, a continual striving toward an unobtainable goal, is a fascinating concept. But it seems to always boils down, to Lacan, as with psychoanalysis in general, to the pathological individual, to the hysteric, to the individual as having some form of mental pathology. Or rather, that pathology is inherent in the psychological make-up of humanity, and that society “patches over” or represses these pathologies, or subverts them, or channels them.

Deleuze brings back the properly existential into this debate. For if Lacan says that we do not simply desire objects, in a economic reductionist sense, Deleuze takes it a step further- what about those who desire the end of Desire? The yogic assemblage. Or those for whom endless Limitless Desire is not the defining characteristic of the unconscious. Of course, for Freud, it was Libido that was universal. But what would Buddha say about this?

Of course, Desire is a defining characteristic of Man, in the sense of Want. But something that is different about Man, is that Man can withhold himself, stop his urges. In Buddhist cosmology, the human realm is the Desire realm, after all. But it is also the realm of Anger, to which the Freudian would reply “at not getting what one wants, frustrated Desire”. True- but it is also true that man can overcome! Perhaps we should go beyond the simple pathologization or valorization of Desire. For anthropology, maybe it is not Deleuze vs. Lacan that matters in terms of a model of subjectivity, but Nietzsche vs. Schopenhauer.

In any case, anthropology needs a broader engagement with the philosophical, because only through philosophical reflection can the world be properly conveyed in all its depth, its drama, its gravitas. The social is more than a simple scaffold or structure, it is a narrative, a grand drama of history in which there are “players”. Perhaps it all signifies nothing, in the end, but the model anthropologists should perhaps take from the best biographers is that in describing culture, one should attempt to draw a psychological portrait, to the extent that this is able to be done. What was the intensity of emotion at a certain moment in time? How did the lines on a face furrow? How did it impact the ethnographer? And how can we get at this thing called Emotion? In short, Deleuze offers me a better picture of how to be a better anthropologist, because Deleuze and Guatarri’s “ethico-aesthetic paradigm” (emphasis on aesthetic) is the only proper way to convey things like compassion. Any good author knows that to evince compassion out of a reader, poetry is necessary, and poetry is not just a string of pretty words. Anthropologists have the advantage of being in contact with the real, but no one is going to be swayed by caloric intake charts. Only a master craftsmen can get what he needs to across while touching the SOUL of the reader. Anthropology, despite its duty to faithfully collect “data”, must be already by necessity an art, insofar as it uses words and tries to convey a MEANING. If information tells us how we are supposed to think, meaning tries to convey a FEELING. In short, anthropology has yet to fully incorporate the existential in writing. It does not need a new “interpretative schema” or mechanism. It just needs more heart


“Untimely” Meditations, Part 2

Historians will look back on this time period, like many eras, as another example of the limitless bounds of human folly. Socrates would be the first to comment, “why should we leave the governing of people to themselves? They do not have the background knowledge to sufficiently make rational choices. Too much is left to chance”. It is certainly the case that the idea of democracy as a fetish is becoming SO apparent that even liberals can see where Socrates is coming from.

But it is certainly not the case that only a demagogue, elected by the people, have been the only actors in history that have done massive harm. Hitler was a demagogue, but Stalin was a military man and bureaucrat, and a revolutionary.

Why did I title this rambling untimely meditation? Because it is not written for the people of today. Nietzsche, in choosing to write for an audience beyond provincial Germany (somewhat), became a figure of history.

Will the historians again universalize this period of history as yet another demonstration of “x”? I tell you, denizens of tomorrow, that I did not choose to be in this time period, and that the majority of my fellow men live in what they feel is a reversal of the norm, a “Bizarro” world. The most searched word on the online dictionary of 2016 was “surreal”.

Remember, you judges of history and the human race, don’t judge the powerless by the actions of the powerful. Humanity is not wholly evil. Please spare your grandfathers a harsh judgment, as we spare ours

The Fallacies of Neoliberal Protest, Part 2

Recently, a professor at Cornell University named Russell Rickford wrote a fascinating article about the Black Lives Matter movement called “The Fallacies of Neoliberal Protest”. In this article, Rickford outlines what he calls the “false assumptions” that are “propagated by the corporate power structure [sic]”. He calls these fallacies “dialogue and awareness” “appeal to authority” and “the myth of the disembodied voice”. In short, the first fallacy is the idea that protest should be channeled into legitimate “safe channels”, the second and third fallacy is the idea that the people in power know how to manage effective protest, and the disembodied voice is the idea that people in power will adequately respond to the concerns of the protestors. We see all these fallacies currently at play with the protest movements at Trump’s inauguration. How so?

The Women’s March on Washington, the protest movement that has gained so much traction that plans to protest the inauguration, is essentially a mainstream protest. While it is expected that the March will have 3x the amount of actual attendees of the inauguration in what is expected to be a historic movement, we can safely say certain things about this march. The Women’s March, planned and funded by Planned Parenthood and NARAL, is largely geared toward a single issue, namely the woman’s right to choose and pro-choice movement. Given Trump’s stance on abortion, this is not a bad thing to protest about, and the protest is more broadly a show of opposition toward the incoming Trump administration. It is ALSO true that this opposition has already been co-opted by these previously established “legitimate” power structures and organizations in exactly the way Rickford describes. This is exactly the way wide-scale opposition toward a government is “pacified” and “de-fanged”.

Now, of course, the Women’s March plans to be non-violent, and I am NOT advocating violence. But I believe the “pressure politics” of this protest have been rendered largely impotent, even before it began. Why? Because there is no “day after” for this protest, no concerted movement. People will come to Washington, they will leave on the same Planned Parenthood buses they came in on. Families will come in, experience the “high” of organized activism, the ecstatic moment of being apart of something historical, and then go home.

Precisely by being under the banner of something “legitimate”, opposition to Trump  has been stripped of any power to scare or influence the incoming regime. Yes, I said regime. The incoming regime of the Trump administration is completely illegitimate. In my mind, as Trump was outvoted by 3 million votes, he has absolutely no mandate, and even worse. If it was not for our antedilluvian election laws, we would not have this reactionary holding the highest office of the United States. He deserves to be protested, 100%. But we ourselves our to blame for it, for protesting at the gates of death. We could have broken the electoral college long ago. But now, it seems as if the whole world is panicking the prospect of a Trump presidency, when this is the natural outcome of successive neoliberal policies. Brexit was partially a reaction to corporate neoliberalism which removed all barriers to trade, and Trump is also using anti-globalization sentiments to his advantage by playing the right-wing populist (even though his administration picks demonstrate he is staunchly corporatist).

I like Planned Parenthood, but in this context it also has to be admitted that they are part of an existing power structure, even if that structure is social justice/activism groups. Planned Parenthood’s sponsoring of the march also sidelines economic issues in favor of more identity specific issues (hence Women’s March, even though other groups will also be hypothetically targeted by the Trump administration even more fiercely, like immigrants, Muslims, and people of color).

I think that political will in this country is very dependent on circumstance. And that is ok, to a certain extent. One shouldn’t just protest without just cause. But I believe that these “fallacies” about neoliberal protest and its supposed effectiveness are still in play, especially the “appeal to authority”. If we allow all protest to be guided, managed, and staged, yes we risk the protest devolving into unorganized chaos, but we also also risk the protest becoming part of the existing system. For some, this is a good thing. The protest “should be perceived as legitimate”. The problem with this argument is that civil disobedience, in even wide-scale protest like this one, in the eyes of a reactionary administration, will NEVER be perceived as legitimate. Expect fierce opposition, by reactionary counter-protestors, agitators, and police.

My larger issue with this Women’s March protest, however, is that it does not encompass enough issues. The march is purely an “anti-Trump” movement, and that is how the media will cover it. Sure there will be signs that will say “Save Healthcare”, “protect immigrants”, and “Black Lives Matter”, but if these struggles aren’t given their specific articulations, the existing power structures will not hear the voices of concerned citizens. It does not matter the size of this protest. It could be 1 million, it could be 3 million people. If it continues to be an anti-Trump and nothing but anti-Trump march, and that is the messaging people get, then that is all that will register. Neoliberalism will continue, in its completely unfettered form, and the protestors will all transform back into paranoid and frightened private citizens.

Here is my advice- THINK. Don’t just act. Yes, this is the time for action. But the more we question the ways in which we too, are participating in our own subordination, the more I think we can change the course of history.

Link to “The Fallacies of Neoliberal Protest”: 

Electoral College Reform NOW

“We don’t want California and New York to decide our elections” they say. Nope, instead you want a couple of swing states to decide the elections. One vote should be one vote!!!

Thus a lone youtube commenter acts as the voice of reason against the army of troglodytes who refuse to think outside the bounds of established reason. I believe there are a basic set of principles that would make someone against electoral college reform, and is partly responsible for why it hasn’t happened yet. Hypothetically, if 100% of the American people were for it, there would be almost no likelihood that they would vote for a Congress who is opposed to it in majority. Sadly, we have some reactionaries who are actually for this outdated vestige of the era of slavery. Why? Let’s enumerate the reasons.

  1. Pure ignorance- I’m not talking about ignorance in terms of someone having the opposite opinion as me which automatically makes them more stupid than me. No, according to a Washington Post poll, 52% of Republicans believe that Trump won the popular vote. Just outright won it. Not when you don’t count California or illegal immigrants (an outright lie by the way). No, just 52% of them BELIEVE he won the popular. Either they are completely ignorant of the electoral college, or living in a fantasy bubble whereby somehow Hillary manipulated the vote but Trump somehow won anyway? I chock it up to sheer ignorance, because 60% of non-college educated Republicans believe it as opposed to 31% of college educated Republicans.
  2. Self-interest- This is a reason I can’t really argue with on intellectual grounds. If you are a Republican, and you want the electoral college to stay because you know it gives more chance to Republicans, you are right. Just like how gerrymandering and purging voter lists also helps certain candidates. Problem is, you can’t claim to be for it intellectually and self-interestedly. Can’t have your cake and eat it too. So if you have one single shred of integrity, if you fall into this category, don’t claim that the electoral college is a good thing. Its just good for you
  3. Buying into crappy arguments/”the Founding Fathers”/”Federalism”- So I’ll chock this one up into a combination of crappy reasons and a sense of patriotism that involves never questioning authority. As one defender of the electoral college says, “its Civics 101 man, California and New York shouldn’t decide the election”. Ok: hypothetically, lets say New York and California each gained a million more people next year. Well the electoral college provides for them to get proportionally more electoral votes. Lets say California and New York each became so large that they would decide the election anyway. Well, do you still maintain that they shouldn’t decide the election if they have more people than majority of the country? Will you stand by your defense of rural states should matter, even if there is only 10 people in that state? Take Wyoming for example. Wyoming has a population of 584,153 people as of 2014. The city of El Paso has a larger population than Wyoming! I don’t see the state of El Paso getting 3 electoral votes anytime soon. **As it stands, the electoral college is nowhere near proportional to state population** If the number of electoral college votes was determined purely by proportion of population, Texas would have approximately 16% more electoral votes, and California would have 20% more. DO THE MATH. In short, the only reason people don’t accept that one vote should equal one vote in electing the highest office of our government is because they believe somehow “states rights” have to be protected. Sound familiar? Cough Cough the Confederacy. But in reality, they aren’t being infringed upon under a popular vote system. Their vote would count just as much as the next guy. In reality, the people whose votes don’t matter right now are- 1/6 of Texans, 1/5 of Californians, and arguably people that don’t vote for the majority party in non-swing states. That’s right! All you Republicans in California and Oregon, all the Northeastern Ivy League Republicans, all you Tennessee Democrats- your vote would actually matter! No wonder people feel as if their vote doesn’t matter- it doesn’t under the current system!
  4. Internet memes- this is a separate issue, but its pertinent. All of the sudden right after the election, I couldn’t believe. Hillary’s numbers kept rising and rising, provoking almost no outrage. Eventually she led in the popular vote by 2.5 million. Now it will just be a footnote in history. In fact this is a democratic outrage. Built into our system of democracy is a fundamentally undemocratic system. This would be the scandal of the century in Europe, where even Brexit had to be passed to respect the will of the majority. So how did people justify it 3-4 days later? Internet memes spread by right-wing news sites. Yes, you heard me correctly, internet memes. All of the sudden the old arguments start coming out in cut down internet meme format. “2 states shouldn’t decide an election” “If you come from these counties (shows map of rural states who vote Republican) you’ll understand why cities shouldn’t decide everything”. These memes basically are gut appeals to emotion- I’m from rural Kansas, that makes sense to me! In short, its parochialism writ large in 2016.
  5. No belief in democracy- There is also an argument I’ve heard defending the electoral college. “We were never meant to be a complete democracy, we are a representative democracy”. That’s right- you don’t make every foreign policy decision, the President, as our representative, does. That doesn’t mean the majority shouldn’t pick him! If you don’t believe in democracy, don’t defend the electoral college. It was made to satisfy Southern states, part of the same deal that got them the right to own slaves and the 3/5 compromise which gave them more representation equally 3/5 of the slave population. If you think the 3/5 compromise was unfair, then you should be against the electoral college, because everything the Founding Fathers put their hands on isn’t sacred. They were men, not gods.

In short, if the electoral college is abolished, your vote is exactly equivalent to anyone else’s vote. Not more, not less. Chances are, if you support it, it will give you even more voting power.

Don’t believe the establishment. Electoral College Reform NOW! I for one want my democracy back. If it continues, we live in a pseudo democracy. From a critical theory perspective, the electoral college is a system that maintains the current hegemony and gives people the illusion of power while simultaneously undermining it, an essential component of bourgeois democracy. That is how strongly I feel about this.

There will be those leftists among you who will say getting money out of politics or the class struggle is more important. Well, I say that you are probably correct, but this is an element of that struggle. By reforming these institutions, one can pave the way for larger social programs and efforts at reform. First, the people we elect truly have to be elected freely. We cannot sacrifice our will to the will of a party cadre. We must learn to live with American democratic institutions. Maybe someday we can get the Senate abolished as well and have only a House. Until that day, we must pick our battles wisely.

What this blog is about

This blog is about thinking, and the value of thinking, and of philosophy, or love of truth (philo meaning “love of” and sophia meaning “wisdom” in Greek) in the broadest sense. G.W.F Hegel, one of the greatest philosophers ever, considered the philosophy the process of edifying the soul. In his words:

“In this respect culture or development of mind (Bildung), regarded from the side of the individual, consists in his acquiring what lies at his hand ready for him, in making its inorganic nature organic to himself, and taking possession of it for himself. Looked at, however, from the side of universal mind qua general spiritual substance, culture means nothing else than that this substance gives itself its own self-consciousness, brings about its own inherent process and its own reflection into self.”

Later he makes some provocative statements like this one:

“Truth is not like stamped coin that is issued ready from the mint and so can be taken up and used. Nor, again, is there something false, any more than there is something evil.”

He means to say that Truth is not given, divinely given or revealed, for then there would be no reason to think at all! Also that “truth is born out of error”.  Of course this was heresy at the time, so he had to shroud a lot of his philosophy in more Christian sounding language. Even though you would expect a nominal Christian philosopher who talks about the Absolute and Spirit all the time to believe philosophy is all about religion and edifying stuff like that, Hegel thought it was all about the lone soul coming to Reason through his own personal struggle. But I digress. The point is we SHOULD think, because it is our God given right as free beings, and freedom is also the freedom to think! And not be afraid to make mistakes. This all seems like common sense, but then again, everything that is common sense was probably originally written complexly by some 16th century philosopher.

This blog is about my thoughts, on every subject. It’s my attempt to get thoughts out on paper, and share them, for public debate or consumption. The main topic I’ll explore will be politics, but I will try to stay away from mainstream American politics (try), and try to have a tone that is more analytical rather than partisan. Anthropological so to speak. That’s really my passion, anthropology, analyzing culture.

Apart from the brainy stuff, I might talk about spirituality or personal research that I do over the course of my studies in anthropology, or past research. Maybe more artsy things. Don’t expect it all to be nerdy, although most of it probably will be.

A word on politics. It can be divisive sure, but I feel like there are many things that aren’t very divisive about politics that should be a no brainer. The goal should be to maximize human happiness for one- I don’t know anyone who doesn’t think that way besides extremely selfish people and social Darwinists. Of course, people can disagree about the extent to which politics SHOULD determine peoples lives. But as it stands, we live in a state society, where politics does have a huge influence on our lives. So even if you want to return to small scale society (which won’t happen on a large-scale), politics will have some effect on you globally. Of course there are topics that are cultural that aren’t political per se, but as someone once said, “the personal is political”, or as Gilles Deleuze calls it, “micropolitics” is all around us, from the way our workplaces are run, to how much things cost at the supermarket, etc.

Economic and environmental anthropology are two of my big interests, specifically “political ecology” and the anthropology of development when it comes to the Global South or “third world”. I’m specifically interested in the complex interplay between local people, governments, and environmental policy. So there may be some articles about that here.

On my personal politics- I’m a Socialist.

*E-gad!* *cue John McCain fainting*

And I’ll explain why later in some post particularly about that. When I say socialist, I don’t mean some crazy Stalinist or whatever, I don’t usually have to clarify that, but then again, there are some crazy people out there on the internet and far corners of Reddit (they are usually called tankies). And I don’t have starry eyes for people like Castro or Tito either.

My particular “tendency” on the Left would probably be called “libertarian socialist”, but more along the lines of IWW as opposed to “insurrectionist” for those of you who are adept in the radical jargon. Then again, I’m also somewhat of a pessimist, and don’t believe the revolution is coming anytime soon, so I’m not opposed to party politics on principle. As in, I admire the ideals of the SYRIZA party in Greece, if SYRIZA had not caved to the demands of Germany, but that’s a whole other debacle.

Anyway, I’m Stephen, this is my blog, and thank you for reading, I hope to post much more in the future on life, learning, and other fun things. 🙂

Oh, and its called Traveler’s Thoughts because I travel due to being an anthropology major. Some places I’ve gone and done research in are Bhutan, Guyana, and I may do my masters thesis here in the US on environmental problems on Indian reservations. So there may be travel posts or updates from those places if I return or find somewhere else exciting to go.

In essence, this blog will be a trip of the mind, a philosophical journey…an exploration of my own thoughts and ideas.