Talk:The Undercommons

Substance of the criticism
- The current Synopsis section is woefully short, to the degree that if I'd been the DYK reviewer I wouldn't have passed it. There's an obvious, obvious question here - what was the criticism? There's LOTS of things that people can dislike about academia - which angles does the author take? Too many PhDs, not enough professorships? Grad students / lecturers are underpaid? Administration / faculty is too liberal / too conservative / too spinelessly moderate? Racist or classist? What even are the "undercommons" anyway (I'd guess the grad students & postdocs myself, but I'm wildly guessing)? Is it possible to expand this section at all? SnowFire (talk) 02:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * , I haven't had time to expand the Synopsis section, but even if I had I'm not sure I would have known where to start. Actually, that's not quite true – I know I'd be able to add a subheading for each of the six component essays and a very high-level overview of the subjects that essay addressed – but anything beyond that would be difficult, for reasons that might become clear if you take a look at the PDF of the book. Moten is a poet-scholar, I think Harney is too, and the book is definitely equal parts poetry and scholarship – for example, What even are the "undercommons" anyway is a question I'd love to answer in concrete terms but I'm not sure I could even after reading the book from cover to cover, which I think the authors might say is part of the point. All that is to say that I wouldn't want my own (potentially mis)interpretations of the essays to serve as Wikipedia's synopsis for them. I'd be more comfortable letting third-party sources do the talking, but the ones I found don't go into much detail.
 * I'm headed into finals week immediately followed by a vacation, so I won't have time to take a swing at this for a while. Anyone reading this is of course welcome to beef up the synopsis themselves. If not, I'll get to it when I can. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 03:11, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, although I'd argue that's a little suspicious if nobody is talking about what The Undercommons even is - weird, complex academic essays in the past have caused interpretation splits (your Sartres / Foucaults / etc.) but nobody even trying and failing probably means it wasn't really that widely read, and the Reception bit saying people had lots of opinions on it might be a bit overstated.
 * Anyway, Wikipedia is for a general audience - if an outsider reads "criticism of academia from Harvard grads", they could well think the kind of criticism from Harvard graduates Ted Cruz & Tom Cotton about critical race theory brainwashing America's youth or some such. I'll give a shot at including some back-of-the-book basics to make clear that's not the tack taken here.  SnowFire (talk) 03:55, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I see what you're saying about the sources, though. Why is nobody willing to state the freaking obvious that this is a far leftist perspective? You'd think that quoting Fanon and the like would have tipped people off, but I guess it's too obvious. Or even just basic things the essay seems to be trying to say that I'm pretty sure I understand the attempted statement, but have similar reservations as to you, it's not stated quite 100% plainly, yet the sources don't acknowledge this? I read the first two essays, and I have to say I really don't like this work, but I guess I'm not the target audience... SnowFire (talk) 04:54, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sorry to distract you from your finals prep! Unfortunately, per the above, I think that this lack of content of the criticism is really quite a major problem for the reasons described above.   I looked for sources in your existing cites (sadly some were paywalled) but aside from the New Yorker article making clear that the critique of "policy" was a general rant about government bureaucracy staffed by well-meaning college graduates and the like, there wasn't much.  Yeah, it's frustrating to me that there isn't a source stating the obvious that this was a left-wing criticism, but as noted in the edit summary, if you look at the academics being cited, they're all on the left.  I guess you could go about it backwards by just mentioning a bunch of philosophers mentioned and adding "leftist" in front of a bunch of them, but meh.  I think this will have to fall under WP:SKYBLUE for now.  I had originally hoped to use the back of the book!  Unfortunately...  well, read it yourself.  It doesn't really help very much, and it would be really smarmy to quote it at length ("the authors claim that their work comes from the black radical tradition").  SnowFire (talk) 06:21, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Stefano Harney
I saw that there is a draft for Stefano Harney. Any help would be appreciated! Thriley (talk) 05:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)