“An important and moving investigation of the costs of the ‘war on terror’ for those who have been its targets.” – David Cole
“Brave and invaluable.” – Sunday Times
March 06, 2014
Bristol, BS1 3BU, United Kingdom
March 08, 2014
London, United Kingdom
March 12, 2014
Although women reportedly read more than men, women writers are much less reviewed – and when they actually are, they are too often marginalized into chick-lit sections. Throughout the intellectual world, authors, publishers and journalists are taking small steps against the blatant imbalance in how male and female writers and reviewers are treated. One inspiring example that might go viral on the social networks is the #readwomen2014
As a Guardian article suggests, the project started as “listing 250-odd names from Angela Carter to Zadie Smith and encouraging recipients to ‘if not vow to read women exclusively, look up some of the writers I've drawn on the front or listed on the back’.”
Committing to reading more women authors is, in itself, a strong political stance. However, if one wants to address the deeper sociohistorical roots of the problem – namely, patriarchy –ingenuous bemusement at sexist reading habits is clearly insufficient.
In 2013, The View from the Train made both the Financial Times and the Observer’s list of Books of the Year for 2013. Since the beginning of 2014, more praises for the book’s insights about urban and rural space in Britain have appeared in Icon and The Independent.
In Icon, Sukhdev Sandhu praised Patrick Keiller’s The View from the Train for being “a valuable introduction to Keiller’s intellectual and political preoccupations.” Sandhu also called Keiller “one of this country’s most important geographers of the past quarter of a century.”
Following the Historical Materialism annual conference in April 2013, a number of scholars and writers have weighed in on the discussion that Vivek Chibber’s Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital ignited.
Some articles shed different light on Subaltern studies, putting Chibber’s argument into wider perspective. That Faint Light published an analysis of the historical contextualization of Subaltern Studies, while Marxist Marginalia examined the contending interpretations of Ranajit Guha’s work that Chibber and Chatterjee developed at the Historical Materialism New York conference.
In April 2013, at the annual Historical Materialism conference held in New York, Vivek Chibber appeared alongside Partha Chatterjee in a much-anticipated critical debate on the legacy of postcolonial studies and Marxism. At the time this appeared as the critical peak of the fierce critical discussions that Postcolonial Theory and the Spectre of Capital ignited. Yet, with Vivek Chibber’s response to Partha Chatterjee, which we publish below, the debate will certainly be rekindled. (a pdf version of the response is available on Vivek Chibber's webpage)
My intention in Postcolonial Theory and the Specter of Capital (hereafter PTSC) was to assess the theoretical framework generated by the Subaltern Studies collective. To do so involved three distinct tasks – first, to distill from the key writings what the projects’ essential arguments were; since these arguments were in large measure a critique of Enlightenment and especially Marxist theories, it required, as a second task, to assess the validity of their critique on empirical and conceptual grounds; and lastly, I suggested that their own theoretical innovations were a failure, both as theory and as normative critique. To be sure, my verdict was not kind to the project. But I tried, in the book, to reconstruct the Subalternists’ arguments as clearly and generously as possible, and to base my own alternative formulations on logic and evidence, not by appeals to authority.