Really enjoyed this, especially how much was dedicated to Johnson presenting something like an alternative vision to Coates. I look forward to the presumable Ibrahim Kendi episode-unlike Coates I've never read him at all, so I have only a slight sense of what your grievance might be!
I want to do a Kendi episode but haven’t figured out who to do it with. Most people haven’t actually read his big book (which I have) and of those who have most have a pretty rigid view of him.
Many of your podcasts focus on identity issues. But your podcast is broadly about eminent (lower case) Americans in the intellectual movement. Is this where the most interesting or contentious public debates are occurring right now? or is this your particular interest?
This is a good question, and I'm not sure I have a coherent answer right now. I think I've been affected by the gravitational force of the culture wars/identity stuff like everyone else, but I'm not convinced that it's where I should ideally be focusing most of my attention. Right now I'm working on a post on Noam Chomsky that is much less identity focused than some of my other stuff.
What are your thoughts? Where should I be looking?
One of the benefits of writing about something with such gravitational force is that it has crossover appeal, or at least access for self avowed non-intellectuals like myself. I'm not steeped in the intellectual arguments, but I have personal experience with the issues and can access your podcasts from that angle.
I suspect that what you love is the ideas rather than the policies. Policies become too tactical, practical, and limited by the feasibility of implementation. Identity issues seem unique in that it's very possible to stay at the intellectual level without having to dive into policy (the specifics of trans rights, reparations, etc). By comparison, any conversations related to UBI, housing affordability and the YIMBY movement, the future of the Democratic/Republican party tend to lead with policy and implementation rather than intellectual underpinnings of those areas.
This podcast is very much about what YOU are interested in. And I appreciate that so I'm reluctant to weigh in. Except...one thing I'd appreciate in whatever you choose to do is to go deeper on language and definition. In The Fall of the Gay episode, James and Blake are pretty critical of the trans political movement. For an outsider like me, it'd be helpful to understand what and who specifically they are referring to. I say this because in any contentious debate, the default social media strategy is to cherry pick the extremes of the other side, present them as the mainstream of that movement, and convincingly argue that they are off the rails. I don't think James and Blake lay out the players and sides of that movement before critiquing it, and so I leave skeptical of them. In the Leftqueer aesthete dilemma, Naomi talks about the excesses of trans culture, but also mentions that James is transphobic (I think I have the person right). I wish she'd say more. What does it mean to be anti-trans? And what's her relationship to that term itself? Is it mostly a descriptive term, or should the accused burn in hell?
I think you could explore these contours while also remaining an intellectual sparring partner with your guests and not weighing in on the debate itself, which I really respect. These third rail topics are very tricky to have outside of our own family, or identity, or political echochamber, and I admire that you go there.
Last thing: wherever you focus, I think it'd help to contextualize your intellectual conversation within a broader intellectual debate. If you host a conversation about trans rights, what you're actually doing is having a conversation about trans rights with two gay intellectuals. What perspectives aren't you covering? Not that you should and it's not really your responsibility to educate me, and you never claim to have a balanced, all-sides-represented conversation, but only that some broader superficial context helps deepen my own understanding on the show itself.
That all makes sense. I think I'm still figuring out how best to intervene as host to do the kinds of things you're talking about, like providing broader context and pushing the guests to better define the terms they're using and how they understand the larger debate. On the one hand I definitely need to be the proxy for the listener in that sense, but on the other hand I don't want to recapitulate what all the other culture wars podcasts are doing, which is debating about precisely these issues. Still trying to find a happy medium.
I very much admire the unrefined nature of your podcast, as well as you opening up here about how you are growing. Not many people will admit to being a work in progress, let alone in such a public setting. I just re-reviewed your About section and have pasted some of it below. What you say there resonates and addresses the broader context questions I mentioned. If anything, I think your interviews could be more meta, and sometimes step back from some particular internecine debate that is headlined.
"Although the newsletter will touch on the political and intellectual issues that concern these folks, the focus is less the topics than the people — their backstories, what drives them, how they’ve evolved, who cares the most about them, what role they play in the larger ecosystem, and what trends do they embody or influence.
In one sense, then, it’s a rather meta concept. It’s an intellectual (me) talking about other intellectuals in their roles as intellectuals, and occasionally doing in conversation with yet more intellectuals. From another angle, it’s simply an attempt to investigate and describe the contemporary American scene through and with the people who constitute it."
Makes sense. Will try to keep in mind. One thing I may do in upcoming episodes, which may speak to at least some of this, is having a separate opening segment that's somewhat more topical in which I talk to a friend or friend of the podcast about what they've read or written recently or what they think about the discourse of the moment.
Really enjoyed this, especially how much was dedicated to Johnson presenting something like an alternative vision to Coates. I look forward to the presumable Ibrahim Kendi episode-unlike Coates I've never read him at all, so I have only a slight sense of what your grievance might be!
I want to do a Kendi episode but haven’t figured out who to do it with. Most people haven’t actually read his big book (which I have) and of those who have most have a pretty rigid view of him.
Christmas snowflake of black race JPG (afro snowflake for your good mood on Christmas!) :-)
https://open.substack.com/pub/verygoodart/p/coming-soon?r=35ds0s&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcome=true
Hey Dan,
Many of your podcasts focus on identity issues. But your podcast is broadly about eminent (lower case) Americans in the intellectual movement. Is this where the most interesting or contentious public debates are occurring right now? or is this your particular interest?
This is a good question, and I'm not sure I have a coherent answer right now. I think I've been affected by the gravitational force of the culture wars/identity stuff like everyone else, but I'm not convinced that it's where I should ideally be focusing most of my attention. Right now I'm working on a post on Noam Chomsky that is much less identity focused than some of my other stuff.
What are your thoughts? Where should I be looking?
One of the benefits of writing about something with such gravitational force is that it has crossover appeal, or at least access for self avowed non-intellectuals like myself. I'm not steeped in the intellectual arguments, but I have personal experience with the issues and can access your podcasts from that angle.
I suspect that what you love is the ideas rather than the policies. Policies become too tactical, practical, and limited by the feasibility of implementation. Identity issues seem unique in that it's very possible to stay at the intellectual level without having to dive into policy (the specifics of trans rights, reparations, etc). By comparison, any conversations related to UBI, housing affordability and the YIMBY movement, the future of the Democratic/Republican party tend to lead with policy and implementation rather than intellectual underpinnings of those areas.
This podcast is very much about what YOU are interested in. And I appreciate that so I'm reluctant to weigh in. Except...one thing I'd appreciate in whatever you choose to do is to go deeper on language and definition. In The Fall of the Gay episode, James and Blake are pretty critical of the trans political movement. For an outsider like me, it'd be helpful to understand what and who specifically they are referring to. I say this because in any contentious debate, the default social media strategy is to cherry pick the extremes of the other side, present them as the mainstream of that movement, and convincingly argue that they are off the rails. I don't think James and Blake lay out the players and sides of that movement before critiquing it, and so I leave skeptical of them. In the Leftqueer aesthete dilemma, Naomi talks about the excesses of trans culture, but also mentions that James is transphobic (I think I have the person right). I wish she'd say more. What does it mean to be anti-trans? And what's her relationship to that term itself? Is it mostly a descriptive term, or should the accused burn in hell?
I think you could explore these contours while also remaining an intellectual sparring partner with your guests and not weighing in on the debate itself, which I really respect. These third rail topics are very tricky to have outside of our own family, or identity, or political echochamber, and I admire that you go there.
Last thing: wherever you focus, I think it'd help to contextualize your intellectual conversation within a broader intellectual debate. If you host a conversation about trans rights, what you're actually doing is having a conversation about trans rights with two gay intellectuals. What perspectives aren't you covering? Not that you should and it's not really your responsibility to educate me, and you never claim to have a balanced, all-sides-represented conversation, but only that some broader superficial context helps deepen my own understanding on the show itself.
That all makes sense. I think I'm still figuring out how best to intervene as host to do the kinds of things you're talking about, like providing broader context and pushing the guests to better define the terms they're using and how they understand the larger debate. On the one hand I definitely need to be the proxy for the listener in that sense, but on the other hand I don't want to recapitulate what all the other culture wars podcasts are doing, which is debating about precisely these issues. Still trying to find a happy medium.
I very much admire the unrefined nature of your podcast, as well as you opening up here about how you are growing. Not many people will admit to being a work in progress, let alone in such a public setting. I just re-reviewed your About section and have pasted some of it below. What you say there resonates and addresses the broader context questions I mentioned. If anything, I think your interviews could be more meta, and sometimes step back from some particular internecine debate that is headlined.
"Although the newsletter will touch on the political and intellectual issues that concern these folks, the focus is less the topics than the people — their backstories, what drives them, how they’ve evolved, who cares the most about them, what role they play in the larger ecosystem, and what trends do they embody or influence.
In one sense, then, it’s a rather meta concept. It’s an intellectual (me) talking about other intellectuals in their roles as intellectuals, and occasionally doing in conversation with yet more intellectuals. From another angle, it’s simply an attempt to investigate and describe the contemporary American scene through and with the people who constitute it."
Makes sense. Will try to keep in mind. One thing I may do in upcoming episodes, which may speak to at least some of this, is having a separate opening segment that's somewhat more topical in which I talk to a friend or friend of the podcast about what they've read or written recently or what they think about the discourse of the moment.