The Hauenstein Center Collection

This week, we hear from Sophie Pinkham, a writer and academic who specializes in Russian and Ukrainian culture and politics. Sophie has recently published some review essays, primarily in The Nation, about the Russian Revolution and the legacy of communism in the West. One of her main concerns is the manner in which a given historian’s politics will affect their reading of the history and legacy of communism. Of course, it’s true that a historian’s reading of the past will inevitably be determined, at least to some extent, by their politics: a conservative will understand an event and its significance differently than a progressive. But Sophie Pinkham makes quite clear why the political assumptions behind this or that reading of the rise of Lenin, say, are uniquely important for us to understand and make clear.

Sophie and I talk about Anne Applebaum’s recent book Red Famine, for instance; we talk in particular about Applebaum’s effort to insist that communism and Nazism are equally bad, and I ask Sophie what she thinks about this proposed equivalence, and what she thinks, generally, about the often unstated assumption held by many critics often in the center and on the right that socialism inevitably leads to tyranny. Since it’s the centenary of the Russian Revolution, I ask Sophie what new or revised meanings we might take from the events of 1917.

This week, we hear from Sophie Pinkham, a writer and academic who specializes in Russian and Ukrainian culture and politics. Sophie has recently published some review essays, primarily in The Nation, about the Russian Revolution and the legacy of communism in the West. One of her main concerns is the manner in which a given historian’s politics will affect their reading of the history and legacy of communism. Of course, it’s true that a historian’s reading of the past will inevitably be determined, at least to some extent, by their politics: a conservative will understand an event and its significance differently than a progressive. But Sophie Pinkham makes quite clear why the political assumptions behind this or that reading of the rise of Lenin, say, are uniquely important for us to understand and make clear.

Sophie and I talk about Anne Applebaum’s recent book Red Famine, for instance; we talk in particular about Applebaum’s effort to insist that communism and Nazism are equally bad, and I ask Sophie what she thinks about this proposed equivalence, and what she thinks, generally, about the often unstated assumption held by many critics often in the center and on the right that socialism inevitably leads to tyranny. Since it’s the centenary of the Russian Revolution, I ask Sophie what new or revised meanings we might take from the events of 1917.

This episode focuses on the role of the public intellectual, or even the academic, in cultural debate. We hear from Dan Drezner about the difference between public intellectuals and thought leaders, and what happens when we have too many of one over the other. In our conversation, Dan addresses the importance of expertise in cultural debate and discourse; he considers why respect for expertise seems on the decline.

But perhaps it’s not on the decline everywhere. In the latter half of this episode, we hear from Jo Livingstone about the ways she brings her academic expertise to bear on her criticism at The New Republic. In 2015, Jo received a PhD at NYU. She is an expert in medieval studies and literature, and she makes use of some of that expertise to the benefit of her readers.

This episode focuses on the role of the public intellectual, or even the academic, in cultural debate. We hear from Dan Drezner about the difference between public intellectuals and thought leaders, and what happens when we have too many of one over the other. In our conversation, Dan addresses the importance of expertise in cultural debate and discourse; he considers why respect for expertise seems on the decline.

But perhaps it’s not on the decline everywhere. In the latter half of this episode, we hear from Jo Livingstone about the ways she brings her academic expertise to bear on her criticism at The New Republic. In 2015, Jo received a PhD at NYU. She is an expert in medieval studies and literature, and she makes use of some of that expertise to the benefit of her readers.

This week, as an installment in our end-of-year retrospective series of episodes, we’re going to hear from Jonny Thakkar as well as from Cate Zaloom, co-founding editor of Public Books. I talked with Jonny and Cate at the beginning of the year.

Each of them co-founded publications that exist somewhere between the academy and the world of cultural criticism. Both of their publications are young: Jonny co-founded his in 2008, Cate hers in 2012. Both The Point and Public Books, then, have risen to prominence in what seems like, what feels like, a new renaissance in little magazines. We’re going to hear from Jonny and Cate about what they’ve hoped their publications could contribute to this moment. We’ll also hear about how their publications stand out, what they do that other magazines and publications don’t do. From Jonny, we’ll hear about the importance he and his fellow editors place on bringing a kind of humanistic thinking, a kind of broadly philosophical approach, to cultural criticism. From Cate, we’ll hear about the way in which her publication has sought to bring more academics, more scholars, into cultural criticism, in order to bring to bear many recent advances in scholarships on public debate.

This week, as an installment in our end-of-year retrospective series of episodes, we’re going to hear from Jonny Thakkar as well as from Cate Zaloom, co-founding editor of Public Books. I talked with Jonny and Cate at the beginning of the year.

Each of them co-founded publications that exist somewhere between the academy and the world of cultural criticism. Both of their publications are young: Jonny co-founded his in 2008, Cate hers in 2012. Both The Point and Public Books, then, have risen to prominence in what seems like, what feels like, a new renaissance in little magazines. We’re going to hear from Jonny and Cate about what they’ve hoped their publications could contribute to this moment. We’ll also hear about how their publications stand out, what they do that other magazines and publications don’t do. From Jonny, we’ll hear about the importance he and his fellow editors place on bringing a kind of humanistic thinking, a kind of broadly philosophical approach, to cultural criticism. From Cate, we’ll hear about the way in which her publication has sought to bring more academics, more scholars, into cultural criticism, in order to bring to bear many recent advances in scholarships on public debate.

This week we hear Ian Millhiser, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, debate "Citizens United" with Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The Hauenstein Center hosted the debate in 2015; the issues the debate addresses are still relevant today.

Here’s a quick brush up: In "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures made by corporations and labor unions in elections. Those in favor of the decision say it’s a victory for political speech in this country; opponents say it gives corporations and the rich unlimited power over the democratic process.

On December 7th, just a day ago, Andy Kroll suggested in Mother Jones that Citizens United has a lot to do with this tax bill the GOP has gotten through Congress. Kroll claims that the very political culture which supports and provides foundation for the Citizens United decision also justifies what he takes to be the worst aspects of this tax bill. Kroll writes “When I say that Citizens United explains the GOP’s tax-bill frenzy, I really mean the big-money political climate that Citizens United helped create and, broadly speaking, embodies.”

This week we hear Ian Millhiser, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, debate "Citizens United" with Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at the Heritage Foundation. The Hauenstein Center hosted the debate in 2015; the issues the debate addresses are still relevant today.

Here’s a quick brush up: In "Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission," the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting independent expenditures made by corporations and labor unions in elections. Those in favor of the decision say it’s a victory for political speech in this country; opponents say it gives corporations and the rich unlimited power over the democratic process.

On December 7th, just a day ago, Andy Kroll suggested in Mother Jones that Citizens United has a lot to do with this tax bill the GOP has gotten through Congress. Kroll claims that the very political culture which supports and provides foundation for the Citizens United decision also justifies what he takes to be the worst aspects of this tax bill. Kroll writes “When I say that Citizens United explains the GOP’s tax-bill frenzy, I really mean the big-money political climate that Citizens United helped create and, broadly speaking, embodies.”

This week we hear from Jo Livingstone, the culture staff writer at The New Republic and a recent PhD in English at New York University.

I mention Jo Livingstone’s PhD because that’s a major topic of our conversation. Livingstone’s writing at The New Republic has the kind of agile, supple thinking and prose you’d want from a critic who has her thumb on the pulse of culture, but she blends that style of criticism with the erudition, the specialized knowledge, of a scholar. You can spot this blend in Livingstone’s recent writing on white nationalists, whose attempt to reach back into a kind of imagined and popularized medieval past Livingstone is eager and more than able to critique.

Throughout our conversation, Jo and I discuss what it took for her to make the jump from the academy to the world of cultural criticism and magazine writing. We talk a lot about what makes a good academic writer and a good cultural critic. We talk, as well, about the plight of adjunct faculty and the ways in which the distinction between scholarship and cultural criticism seems to be blurring.

This week we hear from Jo Livingstone, the culture staff writer at The New Republic and a recent PhD in English at New York University.

I mention Jo Livingstone’s PhD because that’s a major topic of our conversation. Livingstone’s writing at The New Republic has the kind of agile, supple thinking and prose you’d want from a critic who has her thumb on the pulse of culture, but she blends that style of criticism with the erudition, the specialized knowledge, of a scholar. You can spot this blend in Livingstone’s recent writing on white nationalists, whose attempt to reach back into a kind of imagined and popularized medieval past Livingstone is eager and more than able to critique.

Throughout our conversation, Jo and I discuss what it took for her to make the jump from the academy to the world of cultural criticism and magazine writing. We talk a lot about what makes a good academic writer and a good cultural critic. We talk, as well, about the plight of adjunct faculty and the ways in which the distinction between scholarship and cultural criticism seems to be blurring.