Announcement: Stephen Vider gives talk on "queering domesticity" this Monday

Our series of talks continue in the Department of American Studies here at UT with a talk by Stephen Vider titled, "Interior Relations: Queering Domesticity and Belonging After World War II." Vider is the Cassius Marcellus Clay Fellow in the History of Sexuality at Yale University, and he recently won the Crompton-Noll Award from the GL/Q Caucus of the Modern Language Association for best essay in lesbian, gay, and queer studies for his article, "'Oh Hell, May, Why Don't You People Have a Cookbook?': Camp Humor and Gay Domesticity," which appeared in the December 2013 issue of American Quarterly. Vider's talk will take place on Monday, February 9 at 4:30pm in Burdine 436A.Vider had the following to saw about his upcoming talk:

In the decades after World War II, gay men were typically represented as quintessential outsiders to the American home - a view reinforced by historians both of the home and family, and of LGBT culture. This talk examines the various ways gay men challenged and adapted conventional domestic practices to reshape norms of intimate, communal, and national belonging, from 1945 to the present. From “homosexual marriages” in the 1950s, to gay communes in the 1970s, gay domesticity emerged as a central site of a broader tension between cultural integration and resistance, revealing the normative constraints and creative possibilities of home-making and affiliation.

5 Questions with Dr. Mark Smith

Today we are pleased to present the next in our series of interviews with American Studies faculty and affiliate faculty members: 5 Questions. We recently sat down with Dr. Mark Smith, whose research interests include the history of social science and the cultural history of alcohol and drugs.1. What was your favorite project to work on and why?I’m sure my answer’s going to be a little bit different from the other people who I think would talk about their research projects, but I think I’d really like to talk about the teaching that I’ve done around the issue of alcohol and drugs, which is something I just chanced into. In fact, I started working at a drug and alcohol treatment center, and I realized that there was a lack of historical and sociological background to see where that stood, particularly where it stood in the issue of cultural history. And what I’ve done is I’ve been able to give a series of classes to different people that deal with the issue of drugs in various permutations. Someone once told me that in scholarship, the question is whether you do more and more about less and less, that is, your focus becomes wider and wider; or whether you do more about less and less. The second is clearly what you do when you write books. Teaching gives the opportunity to do the former. I’ve taught three classes. I taught the original class, a seminar in the American cultural history of alcohol and drugs, and I’ve taught that primarily as an upper division undergraduate class. And I’ve also taught an upper division class for Plan 2 which treats the issue from a public policy standpoint, and now I’m teaching an undergraduate class on alcohol and drugs from an international standpoint, pointing out the fact that alcohol has been handled differently in places like Sweden and Finland and Africa.2. How do you see your work fitting in with broader conversations in academia and beyond?You know, if you asked me ten years ago, I’d have a very clear answer for that. I deal in cultural history; I believe that I was the second person who taught both parts of the cultural history survey. My perspective is always to provide a general overview on the issues involved. I’ve always done that, that’s always been my interest. I was one of the first people to teach Introduction to American Studies. But my feeling is not to plunge myself into a topic- and maybe not even come out- my interest is providing a background so that people in important contemporary fields like Gender Studies or Queer Studies can have background and context. To that extent, I think I’m very much rooted not only in these issues that are coming up today, but those issues that have come up in the past and hopefully the future as well.3. What projects or people have inspired your work?Within alcohol studies, probably the best books that I know are W. J. Rorabaugh's The Alcoholic Republic, and then recently, on Prohibition, Daniel Okrent came up with a book called The Last Call. I think those have really been useful. Clearly, Neil Sheehan's A Bright Shining Lie, about Vietnam, and Frances FitzGerald’s book Fire in the Lake have been books that really had a lot to do with my understanding of the kind of world that I had grown up in. More recently, George Chauncey's Gay New York, a work that you might think would be narrowly focused but instead tells you a lot more than you think it ever could. There are many amazing works on slavery, but the one that first opened my eyes at a very unprogressive time was Kenneth Stampp's Peculiar Institution.  And then sometimes there are books where you think you’re not going to be interested in the topic at all and you're surprised. There’s a man who died much too young by the name of Roland Marchand who wrote a book called Advertising the American Dream. This is one of the big books, ambitious books, books that you just look at and go, “Wow, this is amazing!” and you’re reading them and you’re taking notes and you do that for two whole days. I think that’s why a lot of graduate students have a “fear and loathing," to use Hunter Thompson, in reference to the whole concept of the comprehensive exam fields. And to me, maybe that was my greatest scholarly experience in a way. Not only because you have a sense of accomplishment, but because you wind up reading books that you would never read. If you were just interested in alcohol and drugs, you would never read Marchand’s book. And that’s just a sampling of the books that have influenced me.4. What is your scholarly background and how does it motivate your teaching and research?As an undergraduate, I couldn’t make up my mind whether I’d major in English or History and the initial line for History was a lot shorter and that was the only reason I signed up for that. I think I took more classes in English than I did in History – I also took a lot of Political Science classes and Sociology classes and when I was a Sophomore, one of my friends said, “You know, you’re really doing American Studies.” I had never even heard of American Studies, and my school did not have an American Studies program. So I finished my degree in History but I continued to take all those things, and while it was exciting to put all of these things together, I didn’t feel that I was finished yet, which led me to the University of Texas as an American Studies graduate student. And at least for the first year or two, I still didn’t know what American Studies was, but I continued to follow this path. I came down here thinking I was going to work on the novels of the Gilded Age, which strikes me as the most boring thing that I’ve ever heard of today. So as I was trying to find something that was new and hadn’t been done, I wrote my Master’s thesis and dissertation on the history of social science because that was interesting to me and it was a gap in the scholarship. In my post-graduate years, I taught at the University of Texas at San Antonio for four years - and even when I was teaching Introductory History, which is required in Texas, I taught from a cultural history standpoint, and I was trying to talk about how one has to look at history from the position of what people think and how they then act, or how people think and how they consequently behave. I think that’s really important to me - that is the most important question for me - which is the concept of behavior and probably even more of people’s intellectual constructs. That’s been the most important thing for my own work and also for the kind of work that I try to teach on both an undergraduate and graduate level.5. What projects are you excited about working on in the future?I’ve got this book that I have been fussing with - and really that’s the word, fussing with it - I haven’t made the progress that I’ve wanted to but I feel that I’ve cleared my path so that I can work on it. It’s a comparative public policy study of the United States and Finland, because they are the only two countries that have ever had national prohibition in the Western world - in the Middle East, of course, it’s different. But they occurred at the same time- Finland started a year earlier and quit a year earlier than the United States. There’s a lot of similarities between the propaganda that was sent to Finland from the United States, and I think it’s very interesting -  there’s a lot of similarities, but there’s a lot of differences, too. The gangsters are all the same and that type of stuff. So I’ve been working on this and my problem has been that I don’t read Finnish and I haven’t been able to find someone who’s willing to do that type of work for me, although I think I’ve come up with someone recently. So that is the project that I’m really looking forward to. What I may do is to point out another society which, at the same time, went a completely different way, a way that Finland would later copy completely and the United States would copy to a certain degree, and that’s Sweden, which took a regulatory model rather than one of coercion - “you just can’t do it” in legalese. That’s the project I would like to do and hopefully will be able to start in the Spring.Bonus question - in one sentence, what is American Studies to you?What people think and how they act; how they act, and consequently what they think.

Announcement: Patrick Jagoda to deliver talk, "On Difficulty in Video Games: Mechanics, Interpretation, Affect"

We're excited to announce the first in a series of four talks here in the Department of American Studies at UT Austin. Patrick Jagoda, Assistant Professor in the Department of English at the University of Chicago, Co-editor of Critical Inquiry and Co-founder of Game Changer Chicago Design Lab, will be giving a talk called, "On Difficulty in Video Games: Mechanics, Interpretation, Affect" at 4:30pm on Monday, February 2, in Burdine 436A. Jagoda has been with us this year at UT as a Harrington Fellow, and we sat down with him a while back for an interview, which you can check out here.Here's a description of the talk from Jagoda:

In a 1978 essay, literary critic George Steiner observes that a sense of difficulty in poetry became a major aspect of aesthetic experience in the late nineteenth century and extended, by the twentieth century, to new forms of visual and aural expression. This talk takes up videogames as a crucial medium for making sense of aesthetic difficulty in our time. As a way of mapping the cultural stakes of videogames to the early twenty-first century, I examine three types of challenge that games generate: mechanical, interpretive, and affective difficulty. All three forms of difficulty demand continued analysis, but I argue especially for the importance of attending to the third category of demanding affects and emotions. New media scholarship is already becoming more adept at accounting for elements such as aesthetics, interactivity, software, platforms, and media history. It has not yet done justice, however, to the complicated ways that digital media, and games in particular, generate and alter affects. This talk posits that the types of experiences that register as difficult within cultural consciousness, as they do in a variety of unique ways in the context of gameplay, can help animate the values of contemporary American media and their effects on the sensorium. A fuller sense of affect in videogames is necessary to better understand the ways that games serve as unique ideological forms — and might also structure, limit, and even enable more complex practices of play in the United States.

Announcement: Dr. Julia Mickenberg gives talk on American artists in Soviet Russia

This Friday, January 30, our very own Dr. Julia Mickenberg will share her work with the Modern Studies group at UT Austin in a talk titled, "Missions to Moscow: Vision and Veracity in Margaret Bourke-White and Lillian Hellman's Wartime Portraits of Soviet Russia."Dr. Mickenberg had the following to say about her talk:

 My talk will discuss photojournalism, memoirs, radio documentaries, unpublished writings, and screenplays by Margaret Bourke White and Lillian Hellman concerning the Russian front during World War II, particularly Hellman’s screenplay for North Star (the highest-grossing wartime film about Russia) and Bourke White’s photo-memoir, Shooting the Russian War. Both women were core actors in the Popular Front, and both have attracted intense interest as historical figures. Both were criticized by prominent members of the anti-Stalinist Left for their politics and for their apparent dishonesty, lack of integrity, and/or opportunism. Through archival and textual analysis I'll use World War II as a framework and Bourke-White and Hellman as  lenses for considering the way in which World War II temporarily revived and also predicted the un-sustainability of a Soviet-influenced left-feminism in the United States.

The event will take place in Battle Hall 1.101 at 1:30pm. Hope to see y'all there!