ephemera...chucking paper airplanes into the digital void...
best tracker
CircusMask
read my profile
sign my guestbook

Visit CircusMask's Xanga Site!

Country: United States
State: New York
Metro: Albany


Interests: Literature, music, geography, photography, book repair, and masks.
Expertise: Social sciences.
Occupation: Graduate Student


Message: message me


Member Since: 1/27/2004

SubscriptionsSites I Read

Blogrings
World's End
previous - random - next

CRM Archaeology
previous - random - next

Graduate Students Across the Nation
previous - random - next

Geography Enthusiasts
previous - random - next

I have no home...I'm a military child!
previous - random - next

queer people for racial and economic justice
previous - random - next

_This American Life_
previous - random - next

Secular Humanism
previous - random - next

TV On The Radio
previous - random - next

: Fight : Mental : Illness : Stigma :
previous - random - next


Posting Calendar

|<< oldest | newest >>|
view all weblog archives

Get Involved!

Suggest a link

Recommend to friend

Create a site

Friday, November 27, 2009

Reflections

Says my friend: "But I'm so complicated!"
Say I in response: "Well, then, uncomplicate yourself and get on with it!"

***

As a (human [cultural {critical?}]) geographer, I sometimes find myself relying on the works of obtuse theorists whose ideas generally make me scoff on first read.  Two in particular come to mind: Baudrillard and Foucault.  Not because they're wrong in any real sense -- who am I to argue with the greatness that is thousands of academics hailing them as theoretical gods?  They do the same thing with Marx.  Again, not wrong, just not my style.  But it's inevitable: I scoff, and not long after something happens to remind me that I shouldn't be so arrogant.

I first encountered Baudrillard in my geography MA program, at the insistence of a professor I adored (and still do).  I was writing about the ways that people mentally superimpose imagined ideas of the landscape over the existing landscape.  It occurred to one of us (I forget who) that I might have to differentiate my ideas theoretically from Baudrillard, or at least set them in relation to his work.  I had been aware of the existence and basic premise of Simulacra and Simulation, but I had been afraid to read it for fear I wouldn't understand it.  But I set that fear aside and dutifully read the first few chapters.

It took me weeks.  I won't lie.  I'm a slow reader, sue me.  But by the end of it, I think I got (more or less) what he was saying.  I remember thinking, Well, this is interesting, and it's also kind of ridiculous.  How can he be talking about media-related hyperreality in Vietnam when real people really died?  And with a great big sigh of relief, I decided that what he had to say wasn't really anything like what I was writing about and after a few carefully crafted paragraphs distancing my work from his, I got on with life.

I became acquainted with Foucault over the course of an independent study during my first year of my PhD program.  I'd been interested in queer theory.  Never having studied it, and knowing we have someone versed in it on our faculty, I decided to take a stab at it.  I was told to read Discipline and Punish and the first volume of History of Sexuality, which were followed up with a close reading of Judith Butler's Gender Trouble.  I found it difficult being the only student on a project like this one, and I probably didn't do as well with the material as I would like.  But you take what you can get.

Foucault perplexed me a bit.  It took me a while to get into the rhythm of reading him -- a task made easier once I realized that he typically spends thirty pages hammering the same point home and then sums it up with a paragraph beginning with the phrase "In short..."  It all made sense.  I won't deny that at all.  But there was something about the idea of discourse and discursive constructions that disturbed me.  I remember finishing Discipline and Punish and feeling the weight of a great invisible machine around me.  Just cogs on wheels, I thought.  This is all we are -- and sooner or later we'd all be crushed by it.

It took me a while to decide that what bothered me about Foucault was a twofold problem.  First, it was his attention to the social/cultural/national scale at the exclusion of the individual scale.  Second, and related, it was the complete lack of agency he afforded people to alter discourse.  Butler, of course, was supposed to answer this by marrying Foucault to psychoanalytic theory and presenting performativity as their healthy, bouncing theoretical baby.

But it wasn't enough agency for me.  I still felt trapped by the discursive machine.  I wanted something that could explain how discourses could change radically.  I wanted something that could explain how an individual could bust through the culturally-bound meanings of language and belief and step beyond it.  Performativity reinforces the status quo by subversion, inversion, parody.  I wanted more.  I wanted something else entirely.

This idea of a discursive machine has become my default descriptor for academia.  We talk about all the creativity and freedom we're allowed here, and to some extent that's true.  But each and every one of us is beholden to the standards and rules of our academic disciplines -- and the fact that we even label fields of study "disciplines" should tell us something in a Foucauldian sense.  There are expectations.  There are priorities.  And these expectations and priorities are set by forces that seem almost self-propelled, self-perpetuating, beyond our reach as professionals.  Step away from them, try to redirect the energies of our departments toward other models, other measures of success, and you risk being alienated, ostracized, regarded as a hack who just can't make it in academia.  (Why, for example, shouldn't activism or public scholarship count as much as professional publications on your CV?  Isn't that our job?  Not to generate useless and esoteric knowledge, but to disseminate knowledge, to offer different perspectives to people, to make a difference in the world?)

This brings me back to Baudrillard.

Baudrillard has been criticized by some for the position he takes in the final chapter of Simulacra and Simulation, "On Nihilism."  For those of you unfamiliar with the work, I'll just paste a bit here to give you a taste.  I think this should give you an idea of why people have had visceral reactions to this particular viewpoint:

Melancholia is the brutal disaffection that characterizes our saturated systems. Once the hope of balancing good and evil, true and false, indeed of confronting some values of the same order, once the more general hope of a relation of forces and a stake has vanished. Everywhere, always, the system is too strong: hegemonic.

Against this hegemony of the system, one can exalt the ruses of desire, practice revolutionary micrology of the quotidian, exalt the molecular drift or even defend cooking. This does not resolve the imperious necessity of checking the system in broad daylight.

This, only terrorism can do.  (link to source)

The long and short of it is that people object to this because it blatantly endorses terrorism.  When I first read it, I was disturbed too.  Although it was written well before 9/11, I read it several years after.  I read Baudrillard with a slow-motion memory of live footage of the second Tower falling burned into my head.  I read it and I was horrified. 

What do you do with something so confusing, so disturbing?  Coward that I am, I set it aside.  It has haunted me ever since.

Fast forward a couple of years.  Here I am, in a doctoral program.  I love the work that I'm doing.  I love my community and I love my committee.  I've been lucky to find an advisor who is willing (once again) to take a chance on an unconventional student with an unconventional research project (though one far less unconventional than my MA thesis).  Yet I'm feeling trapped by the system.  It's no one's fault.  It is what it is.  It's out of my hands.  It's in the hands of university administrators, journal editors, tenured researchers with solid reputations.  For real change to take place, it has to come from all of them in concert.  The stars have to align.

Or, alternately, something catastrophic has to happen.  I return to Baudrillard.  That passage I quoted above?  I've been thinking about it a lot lately.  Suddenly, it's resonating.  It is the cry of someone despondent, desperate, trapped.  It is the cry of someone looking for agency in the machine of Foucauldian discourse.

I can't condone terrorism.  I can't condone the destruction of innocent lives for any reason, personal or political.

But I can condone other drastic measures -- the kind that equally demonstrate agency in what has become a world drenched in absurdity.  Art, activism, flash mobs, graffiti -- even suicide -- can be so effective at raising bringing change, or at least raising awareness.  It doesn't have to be one person's struggle.  It can be one shared by a handful.  But it has to be a choice, and it has to be something that shatters the box rather than reinforcing it.  It has to be real.

I'm looking for real agency.  Are you?


Thursday, October 29, 2009

Dreaming through the veil.

Slept very poorly last night, thanks to a very hungry 18 lb. cat who decided that 4:45 AM is the perfect time to sit on my bladder and knead my belly and purr.  And also to get some food (because she knows, apparently, that I'm a light sleeper, unlike B, and if she keeps bothering me long enough -- either by being sweet or by being naughty -- I'll eventually get up and give her something to eat so she'll leave me alone).

This was day three, by the way, of waking up from strange/bad dreams.  I don't really remember what happened in the dreams the last couple of nights, though I vaguely recall architecture.  (I've never understood that; usually the most memorable elements of a dream for me are where it takes place -- not just architectural style, but the experiential feel of the place and the space.)  The one from this morning, though, I remember quite well, so I will retell it here:

I am part of a news crew that has gone overseas, maybe to a remote location in Asia, to track down a band of secretive, semi-criminal technologists.  They've been hiding out in an abandoned warehouse, the track of the sliding metal door overgrown with weeds.  They're young, none of them older than their early twenties, all pale, black-clad, strange eyes (a bit of FreakAngels here?).  One of them is particularly notorious: someone called Connor, who, it turns out, is a short butch woman with short black hair, white pancake makeup, and henna-like designs in black on one cheek.  She's furious that we've found her out.  It is midday but they were sound asleep (they'd stayed up to watch Jeopardy, which is on absurdly late in the night).  When we turn our cameras on them, Connor hides her face in a big black bag and the young man with her stands up to protect her.  Somehow a fight breaks out between Connor and a different young man.  She's holding her own though he's bigger.  She reaches up to bring her open hand down hard against the back of his head, to knock him down --

-- and I wake myself up as my hand comes down hard on B's shoulder, scaring the shit out of both of us.

In other news, I don't feel like being in school this week.  I was on top of everything starting last Friday, and kept up a good pace, and then took Tuesday and yesterday off in terms of reading and writing, and now my motivation is half asleep.

It occurs to me that I haven't done any serious fun reading (i.e., reading a novel in less than a month) in over a year.  I don't like this.  I miss reading.  I miss literature.

The comic is going well.  It's official: I have an artist.  Issue six is roughly together, but I'm unhappy with a number of scenes, so I'm working those out as I type and edit.

And that is all.


Friday, October 16, 2009

Midnight at Allen and Atherton.

The light changed from red to green as I approached.  I watched its reflection in the blackness, noticed the ambulance ahead of me.  It was going straight through, onto our street.  I wondered idly if maybe it was going to our place.  Maybe we had died somewhere.  Maybe this was how we were going to find out: we would follow the ambulance as it turned into our driveway, and the EMTs would get out and walk slowly up the stairs, and we would be inside, cold, gone. 

Or worse yet, maybe I've been dead alone for years, and this has all been a dream, something I constructed to pass the time, to feel less lonely.  I will follow the ambulance and they'll be going into someone else's home, but in a moment that only Haruki Murakami could pull off, I'd suddenly realize that it's all been a great fiction.  All the walls will dissolve and I will awaken somewhere else: a grassy field, a dingy motel room, the bottom of a well.  A cat will greet me, or a security guard, and I will have to explain myself, but whoever it is will already know.  There will be no exit, no path, no purpose -- just a confusion sinking like a smooth stone tossed into a still, deep pond.  I will realize that we are all alone together in some way, that there are no rules, that we simply exist in time and space, that we interact without any grand connection.  That we are random.

I slowed as I neared the driveway, put my turn signal on.  The ambulance drove onward.


Sunday, October 04, 2009

Issue 5?  Complete draft is done.

Going to go do laundry and grade papers now.


Tuesday, September 29, 2009

A short note.

Thanks for the comments on last entry.  They really got me thinking about this whole situation -- I've had to stop and ask myself if I want to just learn how to live with PTSD (which is more or less what I've been doing all these years in some way or another) and how it affects other areas of my life, or if I want to try to really process what happened.  I think she thinks that processing what happened will help reduce the symptoms and help me correct some of the psychosocial developmental stuff that was thrown off by what happened.  I haven't totally made a decision yet, but I'm seeing her tomorrow, so we'll see how things go.

But what I really wanted to write about today is something completely unrelated: This morning I met with an artist.  He's read the first issue of the comic, and he likes it.  And I like his artwork.  So, long and short of it: I have an artist (and he knows a potential letterer), and so far, we're on the same page about things.  So wish us luck and a steady production rhythm, and maybe over the next couple of months we'll have a complete first issue to send off.



Next 5 >>