the Age of Earthquakes: a Guide to the Extreme Present

This book, an innovative collaboration between Shumon Basar, Hans Ulrich Obrist and Douglas Coupland, is somewhat disorientingly like reading through a 250-page printout of a complex and idiosyncratic video essay - and is all the more arresting for its style. It taps into the subjectivity of the self-aware citizen of the contemporary era; the alarming rate at which new forms of media and technology are changing the way we think and act and relate, the consumerist-celebrity-enthused cultural shambles of political spectacle and public apathy and bemusement, the dizzying horrors of the Anthropocene's onset and development. Through a combination of well-chosen and well-modified images and bluntly thought-provoking short strings of text, it's like a kind of multimedia collage, as poetic and profound as it is relatable to everyday experience.
   I don't really want to add any of my own reflections about it as I feel this book (one which before flipping through it I had no idea really what to expect and ended up reading in one sitting) has enough depth of critical insight packed into its extraordinarily well-assembled pages to render pointless anything that I would add. It is an artistic experiment in exaggerative truth-telling, one that I think succeeds in mapping out some of the less-explored but highly-relevant and important contours of our extreme (and in large part unobserved in much critical detachment by those living inside it) present age. This book is a cohesive, wide-ranging, incisive and ultimately pretty bleak - the global zeitgeist in 2017 is one in which we all find ourselves weirdly sort of trying to catch up with who we are and what's going on, only to find that as soon as we get near practical understandings, things have already started changing in surprising ways. Technology, politics, social order, individual behaviours, and more, are becoming inextricably interconnected in strange and unpredictable ways - while this book is by no means a robust informational guide to these happenings, in looser terms it cuts to the heart of what is going on by presenting and subverting the absurdities that play out daily all around us.
   Would I recommend this book? Eh, maybe - people growing up in the world it describes may well share my reaction of both feeling like their own world was being aptly described and their [re-?]developing a deep sense of uneasy angst. Or, give a copy to a non-millennial if you want to make them feel thoroughly uncomfortable.

Teaching Critical Thinking: Practical Wisdom

This book, a collection of essays by bell hooks, is truly brilliant. I read it to explore ideas about the importance of education in shared interpretations of society for normative trends towards social justice (especially on things like race and gender), having been awakened in the last couple of years to critical theory and feminism, and having long been interested in education's potential for radicalisation (or perpetuation of hegemonic injustice) - and also because I'm deliberately expanding my bookshelf beyond the 'default'* of white men, and where better to start than enormously influential black woman bell hooks? Specifically, in a book about how learning can help alter individual attitudes through empowerment and so overturn prevailing inequalities?
   hooks's book is part of a trilogy of essay collections about how education can be a positive force for change and justice. Her other two books in this series look more in-depth at how classrooms can be used to cultivate diverse, tolerant, pluralistic communities, and how individual students can be encouraged to question norms so as to be willing to 'transgress' these and so be better-suited as spokespersons of freethinking liberty. This book is less specific, offering 'practical wisdom' distilled from hooks's years spent as a teacher and thinker on a huge range of complex issues - from the two mentioned above to difficulties of sex and race that infiltrate educational structures to how best to communicate or cooperate in certain contexts to the uses of certain emotions or aspects of human experience in forging effective education. The core focus is on 'engaged pedagogy', a model of education in which the teacher-student relationship is not one of didactic "I have knowledge, you do not, allow me to impart it while you sit there passively"-ness nor of utterly ineffective "all perspectives are equal and worthwhile so let's discover everything together, go on, small child, you first"-ness. Engaged pedagogy recognises that education hinges upon an inequality of knowledge, but doesn't allow this to obstruct formation of communities or entrench any other existing social/political inequalities (e.g. race/gender); teachers in this model are seen as empowering students to realise their full complex identities and engage with systems of knowledge and understanding through critically thinking about issues as they encounter them, from not only their perspective but from sharing critically-thought-about-perspectival-realisations between other members of their diverse classroom/society. There are thirty-two chapters exploring an enormous range of issues but all centred on this view of education. Each chunk is shortish and highly readable, and the overall viewpoint is utterly compelling, rich with hope for human capacities and a genuine warmth and almost Christian-esque love that surprised me given the righteous but unforgiving anger that characterises so much of contemporary identity politics, an intellectual sphere to which bell hooks probably is what Alfred Marshall is to neoclassical economics. Or something.
   I don't really have any of my own thoughts or reflections on this book - it's just astoundingly good. It's challenging, enlightening, and encouraging, and if you're even half-interested in working toward an egalitarian society and/or working in an even half-educational role, you should 100% read this book.



* 'Default' because you can pretty much guarantee that on most topics, the first well-reviewed or highly-recommended book you'll find will be by some white guy, probably Western and heterosexual, if it's a 'classic' probably dead. Seeking out alternative perspectives isn't that much effort and is deeply important.

Critical Theory: A Graphic Introduction

This book, a breakneck tour of the rambling complex labyrinth of ideas that is critical theory, part of the 'Introducing' series, written by Stuart Sim and illustrated by Borin van Loon, was actually a very good introduction. I borrow-stole it from my housemate (thanks and sorry Chris) as I've just started a MA in politics, and having never properly studied political theory before, thought it might be helpful to get a general introduction done. All theory I've studied prior has been either philosophical (which asks questions brilliantly but in a very distanced manner, so even profound conclusions often come across as merely academic) or from economics (which has so many problems, the academic discipline being more or less completely overrun with restrictive neoclassical theory without pluralism or critical engagement, which is terrible for debate and does not make for interesting or useful theory: see this or this or this for further discussion of this point). Political theory, on the other hand, is power-oriented, which lends itself quite naturally to radical implications.

   Critical theory is not the same thing as this. Critical, sometimes also called radical, theory, is the attempt to systematise a theory of everything: all aspects of reality, psychological, philosophical, politico-economic, sexual, moral, linguistic, sociocultural, and so on, woven up in an explanatory framework. The general aim is to critique this reality's features that stand out as significantly negative, and figure out a way of overcoming them, leading society and culture in the general direction of moral progress and liberty. Emerging in the 19th century from the political and philosophical works of early feminists, socialists (chiefly Marx), and existentialists, the intellectuals engaged in this poorly-defined but rampantly-expansive field soon came to realise the impacts of culture and independent thinking on the systems they were criticising. Rather than being simply 'about political society' or 'about justice' in any tangible way, the practice bulged to encompass new ways of thinking about and within this weird tangled web of normativity. Psychoanalysis (chiefly Freudian), linguistic analysis, structuralism, literary theory, various aesthetic schemas, concepts such as ideology, hegemony, patriarchy, privilege, and so on, as well as philosophical shortcuts past these ways of thinking in themselves - leading to strands of thought like postmodernism and post-structuralism, deconstruction as a form of analysis, the increasing tendency to prioritise considerations of the subjective in forming true judgments. The development of critical theory is one of explosive depth and breadth since the second half of the 20th century, and to be honest, it's making it harder and harder to get any clear answers to sociocultural issues. But this is good. Frameworks of thinking are emerging that do help us dig closer to finding clear answers and solutions, to share understandings across barriers and work to remove those barriers, breaking down privilege in all its forms. Truth is not necessarily simple: in fact, more often than not, to properly uncover useful truth is extraordinarily complex and difficult. But through critical theory, we lead our thought in the right direction, asking more and better questions, working for universal justice and liberty for the individual. There is a distinct humanist-libertarian agenda driving critical theory, so it may surprise some readers that I seem so keen on it - needless to say my economic views are far from libertarian, and my theological views far from the agnostic individualism carried along by the torrents of theory (funny, the last Christian book I read was a primer against relativism. Sorry Clive), but in a political and sociocultural sense, I fully endorse getting behind critical theory. Its capacity for picking apart systems, institutions, and structures, and showing where they could be improved, is almost unmatched by anything else I can think of as a normative force (except maybe Christianity, science and philosophy, all of which can tie into critical theory quite well anyway but are very different as intellectual and social movements or whatever). I also love how intrinsically pluralistic it is - there is so much critical theory knocking about and lots of it contradicts a lot of the rest, so anyone wishing to use it as a tool must carefully select and synthesis their own approach (which makes for some pretty funny-long descriptors to dogmatic thinkers: one could be a post-feminist post-Marxist post-structuralist post-psychoanalytic postmodernist, if one were so inclined, but you wouldn't be much fun to talk to). One thing it's helpful to remember is that the possibility of existing plurality of truth does not imply the impossibility of existing objective truth: i.e. I can very much appreciate inter-subjective facets of reality as true in my conception of the world, while also holding Christianity and certain other things as definitively true above and against all subjective thought otherwise. My thinking so doesn't make it true, I'm just saying that it's perfectly consistent to be a critical theorist and believe in something other than your own perspective, even in cases where that something you believe would have to override other peoples' perspectives.

   That was a long, dense paragraph - sorry.

   Let's start a new one (again) to feel a bit more spaced out.

   Anyway. Critical theory is incredibly exciting - it's lent a new-found depth and scope to my thinking about identity, politics, fairness, society, art, gender, minds, literature, community, and so much else. The fact that a bog-standard-looking little introduction could have brought me into such enthusiasm for the field is testament to how good of a graphic guide this is: Stuart Sim has done a fantastic job of summarising, not dumbing down but overviewing immense ground in remarkably little text, core theories and thinkers and strands of thought, placing each into their historical and intellectual contexts so we see not only where critical theory is currently leading but where it has come from and why it developed thus. Borin van Loon's illustrations I wasn't mad about but they space out the pages nicely. Would be a great read for someone with a bit of an intellectual edge regarding culture, society, politics, gender or sexuality or race or division generally, language, art, mental behaviour, or pretty much anything really - it's a very slow read for such a short book but that's because the ideas are so huge and complex, but you can engage with them, and the book presents them in a very accessible but non-patronising and relatively neutral way. Overall, it's a great little book that I would 100% recommend to basically anyone who thinks - hopefully it'll get you into critical theory and soon we can have a conversation about bell hooks or Roland Barthes or something.