To those who work full-time and go to school full-time (not to mention those who do that AND are parents) while maintaining some semblance of a decent life: ginormous kudos to you, my friend. I don't know how you do it. My hat is so far off to you that I'm like Mary Tyler Moore, walking down Nicollet Avenue.
ANYYYYYWAY...
Other than just being a post about how I'm not sure what's going to happen with posting, I also wanted to share something that struck me just now in one of my readings, English and the discourses of Colonialism by Alastair Pennycook:
"...the issue is not so much the truth and falsity of facts but the truth effects of discourse...As I discussed in Chapter 1, the issue for Indigenous Australians cannot merely be through 'positive' representations of themselves. Such representations have already been reappropriated by an exoticizing, Orientalist discourse that turns Indigenous people into primitive beings in touch with the earth, a sort of New Age nomad doing dreamtime and painting the desert...such an exotified view of Aboriginal people already denies the history of colonialism that has inflicted such suffering..."
The phrase "'positive' representations" reminded me of USian gay rights organizations like the Mattachine Society, the Human Rights Campaign, and the current marriage equality movements, which sought and seek to normalize gay people as "just like everyone else."The passage could easily be rewritten:
"...the issue is not so much the truth and falsity of facts but the truth effects of discourse...As I discussed in Chapter 1, the issue for LGBT people cannot merely be through 'positive' representations of themselves. Such representations have already been reapprpriated by an exoticizing, heterosexist and gender essentialist discourse that turns LGBT people into hypersexualized beings in touch with their artistic sides, a sort of court jester providing comic relief for heterosexual and gender insecurity...such an exotified view of LGBT people already denies the history of heterosexism and gender essentialism that has inflicted such suffering..."This kind of attempt to de-Other is understandable, but as Pennycook points out, it attempts to state facts rather than addressing the root of the problem: the existing discourse (oh, Foucault, you tricky bastard you) is the problem and that's what needs to change.
As Pennycook also points out, this is an uphill battle and much harder to do, especially since so much of contemporary discourse is covert rather than overt. (Much like Pennycook's own repeated assertions thoughout the book, I offer all this not as a criticism of politics/people, but rather as a different way to frame the debate.)
Thoughts?
In that discourse is a sum or product (do statements add or multiply in turning into discourse?) of individual people latching onto phrases that explain their understanding...
ReplyDeleteEach individual can only study the discourse they use, recognize and contemplate the assumptions and understandings they express, and choose to continue using them or change them. Anything done on a larger scale, attempting to change other people directly, is either education or censorship (depending on whether the other person volunteers or is forced).
Exposing covert meaning in common discourses is valuable as an educational tool. (And I'm not thinking specifically scholastic education here, though yeah, that too.) It is a negative action, however.
The positive action is creating profound, poetic, compelling expressions of facts that catch on and become elements of a replacement discourse. Another positive action is seeking out inspiring thinkers and writers and using their most compelling expressions to rewrite one's personal contribution to the discourse.
This is why covert forms can help change discourse. Writers of fiction or poetry, makers of movies, songwriters and visual artists, and anyone else concerned with beauty of form and expression can contribute concise, powerful images, and these images can be more easily integrated than simple statements of fact.
I believe that the strongest power to change discourse is contained by artistic forms. I also believe that education and analysis are the best chances one has of being in control of one's own reiterating or negating position within discourse.
Does your program focus on the second purpose to the exclusion of the first? Are you just learning to "see through" discourse or is there an aspect of creating discourse as well?
I like being reminded of the need to assess my use of language as elements of discourse. I'm writing a lot lately (working on a book), and it is my goal (mistyped gaol...yikes!) to undermine some dominant discourses and - oh please let me be skilled - contribute some new forms of expression that expose truth more clearly that stating it.
"Exposing covert meaning in common discourses is valuable as an educational tool. (And I'm not thinking specifically scholastic education here, though yeah, that too.) It is a negative action, however."
ReplyDeleteI'm curious why it is an inherently negative action?
I would say that our program's intent is to provide a foundation in the understandings of discourse and specifically, critical discourse analysis. A course description can be found here - http://evergreen.edu/catalog/2010-11/programs/languageandpower-1586
So no creation of discourse - strictly analyzation. Well, and contributing analyzations to the discourse, I suppose...
Sorry, I don't mean value-negative. Exploring existing discourse is strongly value-positive, but it's only one half of change.
ReplyDeleteWhen I said negative, I meant that analysis will help a person realize why "lame", "psycho", and such ableist words are loaded and convey more than their original or re-defined meanings. So analysis can remove words or phrases from the language of a person who has analyzed how they fit into a discourse that affects people.
But we can't be silent, especially on the issues about which we care deeply. And the second half, the second value-positive act, is creating a new set of language tools that effect a positive change in the discourse. This is the adding-to that has to happen along with the subtracting-from.
Of course, analysis has a place with the new language as well, vetting it for hints and echoes of older discourse.
Of course, some change in discourse happens when words are subverted...As a queer-identified person, I know this very well. I was told in a management training exercise that I could not identify to employees as queer because "many" homosexual people feel that queer is an insult. Sigh.
So new or more thoroughly reimagined words and images are more powerful in externalizing a new discourse. I think that queer is the only word I can use with full comfort, but it has too much baggage to communicate clearly to every person I meet. Were I a poet, I might be able to create a beautifully, non-signifying term that I could imbue with the sense I mean when I say queer. Who know, maybe I will.
So yeah - I think, now that I look at the whole thing again, that this is one big derail. I'm writing a book that is going to show, in a sci-fi way, how discourse is used in self-segregating and choosing to be with "my people". And I want to create one society with a discourse that is ideal - but this is looking very difficult because I've spent so much more time analyzing old memes than aborbing possible new ones.
Sorry if it's invasive...