Re-reading with hindsight

In a recent conversation with Al, I recalled my thesis defense in April 2006. It was not very good. My thesis, titled Bodily Stones: The Human Body, Architecture, and Urbanism in Fascist Italy, examined the Fascist conception of their ideal human body through built environments. The examiners (one of whom didn't like me at all the whole year and held quite a strong jurisdiction over my final grade; and my thesis advisor was not present due to family matters, which definitely sucked) stated that it would have been better and definitely better-suited for publication if 1) I came up with my own 'definition' of Italian Fascism and not used Roger Griffin's; and 2) I had gone in depth about the body politic.

Having experienced an hour and a half of trauma, I put away my thesis and even thought about deleting the files off my computer, forever gone and extinguished from my hard drive. I touched the word files only when I really had to, like when one of my referees for my graduate school application wanted to read it. I cringed at the request, suggesting that it was much too long and implying that it wasn't very good. He insisted, and I gave in. I later received a copy of his recommendation letter, which stated that my thesis was "an impressive piece of work for an undergraduate. It is the equivalent of a master's thesis in terms of the amount of work that went into it. The arguments are complex and nuanced. It is not often to have an undergraduate who can master theoretical literature on a topic like fascism and the body and have the courage and persistance to write at such length." It was very nice of him, but I hesitate to accept his compliments whole-heartedly. I remember that by the end of the writing process I was desperate to get it done and have that thing out of my hands. My brain was fried and I could no longer piece together any more arguments. I wasn't even sure if my conclusion, which even in hindsight seems quite half-assed and weak and not to mention cheap, made any sense at all.

Well, it's been almost a year since my traumatic experience in the defense room, and I decided that despite my irrational fears of reading a horrible work written by myself, I would take up the challenges posed by the defense board. To be accurate, just one of the two, because I didn't think their first one was fair, considering that numerous academicians and theorists over decades and decades have attempted (and often failed) to define accurately the nature of Italian Fascism, and there are probably a whole slew of Ph.D. students out there in the world now trying to come up with a workable definition. I might be a keener and a nerd but I know my academic limits and so I refuse to take up that particular challenge.

I went online today and looked up what they meant by body politic. Turns out, it is an old analogy used before the advent of the Scientific Revolution and Darwinian evolutionary theory that views the human body as a microcosm to the state. A good example is the Leviathan by Hobbes, in which the functions of the state are explained through the metaphor of a human body. At the end of this particular encyclopedic entry, the author states that the analogy was pretty much destroyed by the development of the new sciences, and the materialization of the social contract. How would I have made use of a destroyed analogy?

This question led me to grab my printed thesis and re-read the massive thing. Having read the introductory chapter and the first chapter so far, my conclusion is that it's not half bad. There are a few formatting mistakes, and I don't really like the font. I can also see how it could have been a little bit more clearer, but I do insistently drive my argument home, to the point where it is almost redundant. But, at least the argument is clear. And as for the application of the body politic theory, I can also see why the examiners would have mentioned that idea, because I claim that the Fascists saw importance in defining the individual body--the 'building blocks' of the Italo-Fascist civilization--because its definition underscored the nature of the entire civilization. Indeed, the Fascist human body was seen as a microcosm of the whole. But really, that's all the idea of the body politic would have taken me and it serves no further analytical purpose. I thus justify my non-use of the body politic analogy. Phew.

My abrupt desire to re-read my undergraduate thesis was also motivated by my anxiety over what I would write for my graduate thesis. The Department of Government at LSE is hosting an online discussion forum to faciliate friendly discussion with would-be classmates. Our first postings were introductory, and everyone else seemed to have an idea of what they wanted to focus on. I, on the other hand, am still trying to catch up on international relations theory, the primary functions of international law, understand why the UN doesn't work the way it ideally should, and fill in the numerous gaps to my 20th century world history. I'm interested in how multiethnicity and multiculturalism can be negotiated and made a part of international society without always causing violent conflict. I'm interested in the issues revolving around global environmentalism, and how, in the course of building an international society, it can also be built to be environmentally sustainable. I'm interested in how the roles of diplomats can be innovated to meet the requirements of this globalizing world. So basically, there are so many things I'm interested in, and I can already tell that my vast and still-expanding academic interests are going to be a gianormous problem when I have to finally decide what to write for my graduate thesis, because it was a gianormous problem when I had to decide my topic for my undergraduate thesis.

I have to focus. And yet, I do not know how or on what.