Syracuse Conference Schedule

Thursday, February 3, 2011 — Adam Kotsko

This is probably old news to many of you, but the program for the Syracuse conference is now up. Many AUFS participants and favorites will be presenting, though not me. (I decided not to submit a paper, as the conference is perfectly timed for when I will become unemployed.) Highlights include a session on Future Christ featuring both Anthony and Dan Barber, as well as a unique feat of bilocation on the part of Daniel Whistler.

Posted in Conference announcement. 24 Comments »

24 Responses to “Syracuse Conference Schedule”

  1. david cl driedger Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    I didn’t see the price tag for registration on the site . . . what does it usually run? And, more importantly, do they let you unroll a sleeping bag in some corner of their facilities?

  2. David U. B. Liu Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 3:24 pm

    Hearty congratulations to those whose proposed talks were accepted! It is definitely a very full program, with a strong number of promising papers. My paper was not among those chosen, possibly because of the “very large number of submissions of high quality,” though I can’t be sure, since I was not told whether mine was one of THOSE or just one of the other (perhaps even larger number of) submissions of very low quality. In any case here is the situation: I have proposed to Jack Caputo (the conference organizer) that it may be a service to all attendees of the conference (and indeed even boost the number of attendees) if there was some outlet for those papers which could not be accommodated under the (already expanded) regular programming. My particular recommendation was to have people whose papers were rejected volunteer to have their papers posted on the conference website in advance of the event, and then to have a couple of (perhaps lunchtime) sessions in which those papers would not be read by the authors, but instead discussed in person by the authors and their willing and prepared interlocutors. Jack has kindly passed on this suggestion to his program committee (of which he is not a member), and I assume that it is now studying this humble proposal. If you are in support of such a measure – especially if your paper was not among those favored (but also otherwise and you just want to show some collegial solidarity and interest), you may consider voicing that to the committee. As I do not know who serve on it, the only way I know to reach them is through Jack Caputo. Try using his Syracuse email if the program email doesn’t work – as it did not for me. If you elect to do this, feel free to mention my name (and presumably this blog) instead of saying “rumor has it that…,” but please try to be courteous about it. It is not yet a done deal. Thanks.

  3. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 3:32 pm

    It sucks to write a full paper “on spec” only to have it rejected. I understand the motivations behind asking for full papers rather than abstracts, but I think those same problems (i.e., writing it the night before while drunk, etc.) could be solved just as easily by requiring people to submit full drafts by a certain deadline or else be removed from the program. (And I find it hard to believe that the committee members are all reading the papers word for word anyway.)

  4. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 3:49 pm

    David, what was your paper on?

  5. David U. B. Liu Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 4:10 pm

    The decolonialization of Continental philosophy of religion as an enterprise.

  6. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 4:15 pm

    That is too bad. I would have gladly gotten rid of a panel on Peter Rollins to have one on that problem.

    I think that really deserves its own conference though. It’s possible one is coming in the future… depends if I get a job.

  7. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    Anthony, Didn’t you get the e-mail update? It turns out that every job search from now on is going to be a senior hire — they’re just going to shuffle around the existing tenured people until they all die off.

  8. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 5:01 pm

    It was in my spam folder. Damn.

  9. Jeremy Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 8:44 pm

    I’m a bit confused by the panel on Peter Rollins. I don’t mind some of the work he’s done, but he’s yet to produce new scholarly work. It’s some sort of strange mixture of Zizek and Caputo for disillusioned evangelicals.

    Also, I’m glad to see there’s a panel for Laruelle’s Future Christ. Congrats!

  10. Chris Rodkey Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 9:51 pm

    I’m excited for the conference. Looking forward to meeting many of you there. And I’ll note that my paper was “tried out” on AUFS as I was revising it…

    Also: Someone asked. My registration (as “faculty”) was $125. I’m still looking for a roommate, I have a room already reserved.

  11. Thomas Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 10:38 pm

    @ Anthony, David(s), etc. I mentioned to Caputo that it would be nice to set up a kind of hospitality network to put people up who are visiting for the conference. I’m not sure if that happened or not but I have a nice guest bed and a comfortable futon that is available within walking distance of the conference. People are also welcome to unroll sleeping bags at the Art School in the Art School (http://www.theasintheas.org/) which also has the benefit of being the site of our home brewing operation.

  12. Grant Says:
    Thursday, February 3, 2011 at 11:46 pm

    Anthony is going to law school. He told me so.

  13. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Friday, February 4, 2011 at 4:06 am

    You told me there were no jobs there either. So I’m opting for suicide.

  14. Daniel Lindquist Says:
    Friday, February 4, 2011 at 8:41 am

    There aren’t jobs there, either.

  15. Mark William Westmoreland Says:
    Friday, February 4, 2011 at 8:43 am

    Looking forward to it. Perhaps we can arrange an AUFS happy hour at a nearby bar?

  16. Anthony Paul Smith Says:
    Friday, February 4, 2011 at 10:01 am

    Umm… I can’t speak or everyone else at AUFS, but… it’s often permanent happy hour when I’m at a conference… so the answer is yes!

  17. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Friday, February 4, 2011 at 10:05 am

    I imagine I’ll be drinking plenty the weekend of the conference as well — we’ll just say that I’m “with you in spirit.”

  18. Mark William Westmoreland Says:
    Friday, February 4, 2011 at 10:19 am

    Well said, Anthony. Adam, I’ll dedicate a round of drinks to your honor.

  19. David U. B. Liu Says:
    Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 1:33 am

    So, I just heard back from Jack Caputo: The committee nixed it (see above) una voce. The rationale given is that my plan would distract from an already extended program and thus ill serve the official presenters. Nevertheless, Jack himself is open to facilitating a compromise, namely, if I were to volunteer to collect and publish on my own blog the rejected papers (presumably only the ones volunteered for this purpose), he would be happy to forward them to me and to see people gather informally at the conference to discuss them (beers anyone?). I am tempted by this offer, but cannot easily take it, because a) I am already behind in meeting an article deadline, and b) I don’t have my own blog. Given a), I cannot put in the time right now to change b). If anyone else wishes to take on the work of a webmaster for this purpose, you can tell me, and I will hand the task over to you (and support you how I can). Otherwise I simply wish everyone who goes a fruitful conference, and would gladly meet for drinks if I do go (haven’t thought through it yet).

  20. David U. B. Liu Says:
    Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 1:49 am

    By the way, I forgot to thank Thomas for his hospitable posture and offer. I am sure someone will be happy to take that guest bed!

  21. BB Says:
    Saturday, February 5, 2011 at 5:50 pm

    David U B Liu, I love this idea of a Salon des Refusees you have got brewing here. I have, for years, wanted to hold an $BL conference that occurs at the exact same time and place as the SBL conference, only we meet surreptitiously within the conference hall itself and read our own papers. But a Salon des Refusees is pretty good, too.

  22. Adam Kotsko Says:
    Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 8:03 am

    Idea for a conference: in order for your paper to be considered, you have to provide evidence it was rejected by a major disciplinary conference.

  23. Mark William Westmoreland Says:
    Sunday, February 6, 2011 at 8:48 am

    FYI: There may be some who wrote papers for the Syracuse conference that may also want to consider submitting to Villanova’s conference (assuming the paper is apropos). The conference is titled “The Return of Metaphysics” and will feature Harman as the keynote. The deadline for submissions has been extended to Feb. 15th.

    http://www.spep.org/?papers=the-return-of-metaphysics-16th-annual-villanova-philosophy-conference

  24. Peter Rollins Says:
    Tuesday, February 15, 2011 at 10:28 am

    I must confess that I was surprised by my inclusion in the conference and am the first to admit that my work is not anywhere near the academic standards of this conference or the past ones. I think that my inclusion is more to do with my work in the area of practice. I don’t work for any religious or academic institution but rather have attempted to form spaces in which people can undergo what might be called the Christian Experience (through Transformance Art Collectives and Dis-Course events).

    I am however a bit of an outsider to this event and expect a few people to have very legitimate quarrels with my being there.


Comments are closed.

«

»
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,373 other followers