I could benefit from an exploration of Yamamoto's interaction with difference on pages 76-81. I think I'm following (and if so, it is actually an important theme in my paper on Keeling) but I'm not totally sure:
"if the constant shiftings of identity, difference and subjectivity are necessary as a strategic deployment of resistance to hegemonic codes of representation that themselves continually change in order to adopt new modes of appropriative power, marginalized subjectivity must somehow be grounded if it is to include both the possibilities of multiplicity and a sense of coherent functionality" p81
My train of thought in reading this section:
A reflective being can develop a relationship with identity/self that acknowledges categorizations as produced and sustained by discourse. Some steps along the way might include recognizing:
-how difference operates and thus the impossibility of stable identity
-the neurotic tar pit absurdities of binaries, dialectics, and subject-object positioning
Put in sensitive practice, this reflective space affords explosions in common sense. The coordinates of time-space and "selfness" can travel and breathe.
This also opens the door to justice via motion. Explosions of common sense can engage representational practices (language, image, cinema.. any medium) and move discourse.
However, explosion is personal, and discursive bodies hunker, drag, loom. Thus, the proposed resistance to hegemonic force can also operate as disconnectedly-abstract. The incitement to explosion (aka: "possibilities of multiplicity") can itself totalize and do violent injustice to marginalized beings that experience practical suffering and repressive invisibility. Our theoretical notion of difference must be capable of multiple acknowledgement: the motion of explosion, and a practical reality of discourse
Something like that?
No comments:
Post a Comment