The Zapatistas movement is a very strong display of mobilization and creating spaces for marginalized groups in a society and creating effective change on a governmental level. This is a movement that played a huge part in expanding indigenous rights and their recognition in the Mexican society. Though the discrimination and violation of human’s rights for the indigenous population in Chiapas still remain, the movement has made some gateway for the population. The figure if subcamandante Marcos is represents a form of political resistance that transcended different time and spaces. Thus, “Juxtaposed with the descriptions of an oppressive structure of class, values, and of the political machinery that holds it all in place, Marcos offers a window into the indigenous world that sits at the bottom of the heap, and at the heart of the nation. Using simple, direct, parabolic language that alludes to Mayan deities and the Popol Vuh, Marcos insists that political issues are human rights issues, while creating a consciousness of indigenous Mexico and a place for it in the political and social parlance of present-day Mexico” (p. 25). This movement and his figure are a political performance that keeps the ideas in place to continue a revolution, while creating a new outlook of what is currently transpiring in these areas. The testimonials and building the movement has transcended into modern movements, both with physical manifestations and the digital. Creating a counter response to political protests is a historical change that will further the movement and never losing sight of the task at hand. Therefore, “And I think the Zapatistas were at the lead of really thinking the poetics of real bodies and electronic bodies in contestation, in invention, and walking towards a utopia that we can’t really define, but perhaps we’ll know it when we get there so anti-anti-utopian in a certain sense” (Dominguez). The influence will always be there, and the perspective may change and create new ways to invoke change.
Author Archives: dantae
New ways of mobilizing bodies
In Diana Taylor’s article titled “The Politics of Passion”, she states that, “by politics of passion, then, I refer to the mobilization of affect for political ends on collective, structural, and trans-ideological levels that skirt the traditional organization of political parties and practices (such as lobbying and voting)”. This highlights the current political situation in the States and in other countries, where there is an establishment of “passion politics” which aim to de-politized political movements and create a space where these movements thrive on emotions. People gathering together to protest a common goal has been a form of bringing change to a political and moral change, however currently there are many representations of gathering bodies to present an ideological change, that may not be the norm that gathering bodies reflected in the past. In this technological age, different movements are spread widely on the internet, which creates a different space for this kind of mobilization. Thus, “while flesh bodies expand into their electronic and digital bodies, the balance between online and off does not always work in the same way”. Many of these online movements do not function in the same ways as the mobilization of bodies in a public space, it also is a form a spreading information quickly, where the traditional media outlets exclude from their platforms. In Benjamin Arditi’s article, he addresses the way in which insurgents have bridged the gap between the traditional media and the use of technology in their political movement. They provide a passionate movement that reminiscent of this sense of hope and bringing something new, there is something that is coming and will be present soon. Therefore, “tactics and practices devised by activists become part of a collective political know-how, a political jurisprudence of sorts that functions as a toolbox available for anyone else to use”. This furthers the movements of these groups because there is an archive left for many with the same ideological background can use to continue the movement and keep mobilizing bodies in the technological space. On the hand, Trumps presidency is marked by online performative politics, where twitter is now his place for putting out his ideas and catering to his base. This strategy is very effective for him and it blurs the line between him as a president and his accessibility to the public in various forms. Thus, “Trump occupies what Donald Pease has called a “short circuit” in a network within which the potential for liberation and domination cross” (p. 40 Brian T. Edwards).
Passion and Politics
The reading this week that addressed the issues of facts versus different fallacies in political discourses is something that is common in many political spectacles. It is not the notion that someone is necessarily lying, however it’s the presence that the political figure has, and how they command a room and a certain discourse. Many of these political figures that has a cult like following that invokes a certain level passion in their followers, are seen as a mythical figure that represents the things that may think but not necessarily do, or presents a certain discourse, factual or not, that aligns with their beliefs. It is not important for that person to have the most morally sound background because that is not the basis of their following. From many experiences in the classroom during my undergraduate career, I came across many people who followed certain political figures not because they had the same moral compass but because they ran on a certain ideology that they subscribed to. The very curious thing about that is even if the person is known to be racist or has racist tendencies, they still supported them because they upheld their political beliefs or that of their parents. For example, the idea of make belief reminds me of the reconfiguration of the history of medieval Spain, specifically Al-Andalus. This history was reconfigured and presented under the nationalistic discourse of the Franco campaign. The past discrepancies in the representation of this time period in the Iberian Peninsula is solely based on an ideological understanding of the time period. In Spain, the negation of Al-Andalus from the national Spanish Identity is reminiscent of this notion. This idea that something could return, taps into a societal fear fueled by a constructed ideology. These beliefs about medieval Spain fueled by nationalist narrative is intertwined with the religious make up of certain geographical borders, that made the understanding of them against us. This nationalistic discourse was further linked to modern terrorism in Spain, to further exclude Al-Andalus from the national identity of Spain and making sure to establish the country as a catholic nation. The modern right-wing conservative parties, especially VOX, have often latched on to certain religious discourse that points to a certain historical background and reassuring the population that they have to continue fighting against these forces that may be a threat to this catholic nation. This is the idea that one has to preserve their understanding of themselves as a nation even if the rhetoric is problematic. The contracting part about this discourse in Spanish society is that there are prized monuments that reflects a different history, the Alhambra in Granada and the mosque in Cordoba, are merely used for economic growth, while there is an active dismissal of certain part of the Spanish national identity. These are only beneficial when economic gain is involved. Overall, there is no need for having facts or accurate discourses for a political figure because their followers are still going to support what is being done since it is a reflection of their own beliefs and sometimes their fear of drastic societal changes.
Images
In this week’s readings we looked at an excerpt from The Emancipated Spector by Jacques Rancière, a chapter From voice to influence titled, “undocumented, unafraid, and unapologetic” by Cristina Beltrán and Chapter three of The Civil contract of Photography, “the spectator is called to take part” by Ariella Azoulay. Each of this week’s readings addressed the role or the participation of the spectator in a certain setting. Rancière presents how an image can move from one perspective to another, the image can portray reality or the reality that a specific person is looking at. He states that, “this shift from the intolerable in the image to the intolerability of the image has found itself at the heart of tensions affecting political art” (p. 84). Many of these images can evoke a sense of guilt and puts the image displayed into questioning. Through many examples of different images that would be deemed harsh to view, the author addresses the political aspect of displaying such images and the potentiality of portraying these images. On the other hand, Beltrán discusses the different way politics is being discussed in new and innovative ways. The development of different outlets for creating political spaces for discussing issues dealing with immigration and undocumented immigrants. For many of these young activists, going out and protesting posed a risk to them, therefore creating an online space to create a political was a better way of getting their concerns and messages across, while speaking directly to the political systems. Thus, they are able to become visible in a political climate where they were made to be and feel invisible. Lastly, Ariella Azoulay points of the fact that through photography one can obtain some type of political agency. She states in this chapter that, “photographs are present in our world as objects, products of work, even though photography ontologically resembles action more than work” (p. 129). The images tell more than what meets the eye, though the object is shown through the lens of the photographer, there is still something to made visible in the same photograph, leaving room for a spectator’s participation.
The dimensions of Power
In the chapter, “the body of the condemned” and “the spectacle of the scaffold” in Michel Foucault’s Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison, he starts out with the idea of a corporal punishment, then shifting to the punishment of the soul, where inflicting harm and wounding the body is excluded from the picture. Foucault uses the example of a public execution to construct his theoretical argument about the current prison system and public executions of the past. The fabrication of a new embodiment that is not the physical body, allows for news forms of punishment that goes beyond the limits of the physical body. This inherent shift from the body to the spiritual realm of the body, creates a space that is more private, closing off the public aspect of the execution. Therefore, “the disappearance of public executions marks therefore the decline of the spectacle; but it also marks the slackening of the hold on the body” (p. 10). Also that, “in our societies the systems of punishment are to be situated in a certain ‘political economy’ of the body: even if they do not make use of violent or bloody punishment, even when they use ‘lenient’ methods involving confinement or correction, it is always the body that is at issue- body and its forces, their utility and their docility, their distribution and their submission” (p. 25). Thus, there are many aspects to the imprisonment of the body that involves the judgement of the body, where other bodies are playing the role of the judge, even when that role is not certain, this in turn creates for discourses that traps the body. The distribution and the role of power then takes on a strategic perspective, where there are multiple players in a societal setting where there is not a specific individual controlling it. As Foucault mentions in chapter 2, “of all the reasons why punishment that was in the least ashamed of being ‘atrocious’ was replaced by punishment that was to claim honour of being ‘humane’ there is one that must be analyzed at once, for internal to the public execution itself: at once an element of its functioning and the principle of its perpetual disorder” (p. 57). As atrocity represents the most terrorizing part of a crime, it is seen as a necessity to reveal the truth of the crime. Even though, it is a representation of the violence present in the crime as a whole, it also demonstrates the violence that is inherently present within the crime.
On the other hand, in the article, “percepticide” by Diana Taylor and Chapter 2 of the book The Scapegoat, “Stereotypes of persecutions” by René Girard, tackles the different acts of violence in persecutions and different spectacles of power. Taylor talks about the acts of terror in the Argentinian society that create a spectacle, that involved the society as a whole, and presented the atrocities that lies within violent acts, while portraying a theatrical presentation of such events, though it was not meant to be such. Thus, “the house theatrical space, like the junta’s appropriation of the domestic, subverts the lines of demarcation between public and private” (p. 127). The presentation of the private spaces is shown through the lens of the juridical systems, that has created such a private space that eliminated the spectacle of public prosecutions. Therefore, showing how public perception is controlled by the different systematic power holders. The manipulation of power and its various forms draws upon the spectator’s role in the system, while the authority uses fear and terror to shape its control. In Girard’s book, he mentions, “ultimately the persecutors always convince themselves that a small number of people, or even a single individual, despite his relative weakness, is extremely harmful to the whole of society” (p. 15). This alludes to the creation of certain bias and development of stereotypes for a specific group of people, which becomes part of the prosecution. To add to this, Girard talks about how, “the rich and powerful exert an influence over society which justifies the acts of violence to which they are subjected in times of crisis. This is the holy revolt of the oppressed” (p. 19). This speaks to the boundaries that demonstrate the different faces of persecution. The intention is to provide a specific idea of collective violence that intersects with different cultures, but not necessarily providing an idea of what is seen as good or bad in a social context. Therefore, the idea of scapegoating connects directly to the cultural aspect of culture and create some sort of calmness in the society. The unconscious side of this makes room for the continued presence of this scapegoating and shows the different forms in which society address and represents power.
Perpetuating Colonial Epistemology
Perpetuating Colonial Epistemology
Walter Mignolo wrote that, “imagery of the modern/colonial world system located the production of knowledge in Europe”, signaling the monopolizing tendencies of a colonial power during and after the colonization of a specific space. Many former colonial lands suffer from colonial traumas, from a tangible and intangible standpoint. Thus, there are many physical representations of these scars in the places that were colonized while the less obvious scars are narrated through a hegemonic lens. These disenfranchised lands constantly place the power of their progression through the perspective of their colonizer, thus giving them the superiority that they established as the oppressor. The issue that lies in many former colonies does not have to with its progress, but the perpetuation of colonial power structures, that were set in place to create a separation between the subjects that formed part of that given society. The aftermath of the colonial domination presented knowledge production as something that could only be help by the superior, a European subject. By this notion, the colonized subjects will not be able to obtain this form of knowledge, since they are kept outside of this epistemological circle. Therefore, the former colonized societies have transformed into a state of colonized knowledge, that unconsciously reiterates colonial power structures through an institutionalized realm.
In class we have looked many political theories that address the performative factors of a political spectacle. Political figures and government representatives often portray a version of things that carries out their narrative. The political spectacle in a former colony such a Jamaica, carries out the task through the reiteration of the colonial mentality, which created political structures that is based on inferiority and superiority. Therefore, linking this colonization of knowledge in Jamaica to Judith Butlers, Notes Towards a Performative Theory of Assembly, gives a more obvious view of the physical aspects of this political spectacle and the underlying unconscious perpetuations of these colonial societal hierarchies. For Butler, the body is a physical perspective of the act of a political stance. However, if the body is not conscious of its role in continuing a discriminatory form of thinking, then it further complicates a change in mentality on a national level. Thus, there is a creation of dominance over the ethic, social, and ecology of political spectacles and the politics of performativity. The isolated induvial from the assembly is representative of the continuous colonial power, and the force that they carry is the act of propagating this epistemological force that looks to a hegemonic ideology of knowledge. According to Butler, “we miss something of the point of these public demonstrations if we fail to see that the very public character of the space is being disputed, and even fought over, when these crowds gather” (p. 71). Therefore, many bodies in the same demonstration are not fully aware of their roll in this reencounter with the new temporal space, that is disputing the ancient regimens.
In Jamaica, the political scene is dominated by corruption and continuing the colonial political regimen that existed for centuries. Even though the country was emancipated in the early 60s, it is as if the nothing has shifted to represent the country for what is isolated from a mother country. It is with this backwards mentality that the colonization of knowledge is able to dominate the society. Looking from a racial perspective, the Jamaican society still subscribe to the idea of a color spectrum. Hence, promoting the racial division that existed during the years of colonization on the island. There is a societal understanding that the lighter you are the more intelligent and well-spoken you are. The darker skinned members of the population, which is the majority, occupy the last position of the hierarchy in the Jamaican population. This system dates back to the one created with the governance of the colony. Though, many subjects in Jamaica are conscious of this centralized discrimination, the society does not react in a way to eradicate this mentality and create a philological base that reflects the diversity of the society. Consequently, the society has retaliated against this racial issue by ironically turning to bleaching. Bleaching is the act of lightening one’s skin using different creams made with various chemicals that will make the skin lighter. This epidemic in the Jamaican society is a now a cultural movement, and a way of style. This is a direct link to the colonial mentality that was established in the island, that lead to an epistemological dominance that made the population of European descendants and racial mixed families superior to the African descendant population. As result, this has now become the new face of the colonial mentality that is present in the Jamaican society, and one that continues to perpetuate a system that produced and created a new culture that is then placed outside of the hegemonic European epistemology.
This structure of racial hierarchy is not only upheld in the society but also in the political spectacle of the country. By the same token, the members of parliament that are the face of the society are that of European descent. They are elected because they are seen as the people who hold the superior knowledge in Jamaica, therefore they can represent the country on an international level. Comparatively, Butler states that, “we see some ways bodies in their plurality lay claim to the public, find and produce the public through seizing and reconfiguring the matter of material environments; at the same time, those material environments are part of the action, and they themselves act when they become the support for action” (p. 71). In this political climate based on colonial undertones, the bodies that are participating in the political spectacle are aware of the hierarchical system, however they are helping to uphold it, while placing themselves outside of the assembly. On one side, there are subjects acknowledging the political problems in the society but there is not a united front, since the popular mentality is the colonial mentality. The same bodies that are affected by the problem are the same bodies that refuses to work together to solve the problem. Again, sustaining the political structure that actively exclude them from the political representation. Likewise, in Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly, the author states, “this time of the interval is one in which assembled bodies articulate a new time and space for the popular will, not a single identical will, not a unitary will, but one that is characterized as alliance of distinct and adjacent bodies whose action and whose inaction demand a different future” (p. 75). This in turn is a portrayal of performative power, that goes beyond the natural law of things, since it is not yet forged into that system. Therefore, there is a demand for action using the body as its main focus and creating this performativity. In the case of the Jamaican society, even if the bodies come together and congregate, there is a rift between the understanding of the political and societal problem linked to its colonial history since the majority of the population believes that that system is the correct formation for a society and its inhabitants.
In conclusion, due to the strong colonial past of Jamaica the societal understanding of the world is defined through a hegemonic lens that was created by the colonial powers, Europe. Though the subjects in the Jamaican society represent a new form of culture and understanding of their world, they unconsciously and consciously perpetuate the epistemology of the former colonial bodies. Not just on an epistemological standpoint but from a political perspective. Judith Butler suggests that gathering bodies can bring about political change, where demands are made to create a change that is needed. But what happens when these bodies gather but are no insisting upon a change but rather sustaining the problem that needs to be changed? This is the case in my home country, the mentality of the society is so deep-rooted in colonial principles that is merely impossible to congregate and bring change towards a dominating epistemological presence that is the coloniality of knowledge.
Key words:
Reiterated Power, conferring of rights in politics, and Identification
Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly and Action
While reading the chapter labeled “Action” of The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt, there was a quote that stood out to me, which follows, “action, as distinguished from fabrication, is never possible in isolation; to be isolated is to be deprived of the capacity to act” (p. 188). This closely identifies Arendt’s presentation of the importance of action in the human condition. The idea of an action goes hand in hand with speech, to fully portray the action that is being presented. Therefore, there are two important forms of action which is plurality and unpredictability. The plurality of action is fundamentally linked to equality and distinction, where she links these two ideas to language. From her perspective if men could not understand each other they would therefore not be equal, and if there was not a distinction, there would be no need for a language for common understanding. Therefore, she mentions, “no other human performance requires speech to the extent as action. In all other performance’s speech plays a subordinate role, as means of communication or a mere accompaniment to something that could be achieved in silence” (p. 179). Overall, it is impossible to create action in isolation, there is an initial point that may begin with an individual, which will result in some kind of achievement, this achievement is the representation of a collective force. On the other hand, Judith Butler in Notes toward a performative Theory of Assembly, takes a more physical perspective of the understanding thee body as an act of political stance. Thus, the materiality of these bodies in a public sphere. This links to the dominance of ethic, social, and ecology of politics of performativity, that is intricately interdependent. Butler mentions that, “so then, if performativity was considered linguistic, how do bodily acts become performative? This is a question we have to ask to understand the formation of gender, but also the performativity of mass demonstrations” (p. 29). Which suggest an intersection of feminist political theories that is resistant and refuses a the “we” as a whole rhetoric. In that notion, the “we” seen as interdependent establishes a force and encompasses the individual that is isolated from the assembly.
Ten Points
- “The power of art”, art can invoke a change and create the affect with a performance or a political spectacle.
- “Be a critical Spectator”, it is important to be a spectator that critiques their surroundings and the current political moment that they are living in. Do not just be a bystander in the turmoil.
- “Identification”, being too connected to a performance can be dangerous, because it goes further than just engaging. In grooming a political candidate a narrative/scenario is created and it is combined with an “origin story”.
- “Empathy”, empathy is a very problematic emotion because it is very easily manipulated, we could often give up our emotional strength to someone else, this is why Boal deems “empathy” as a dangerous tool.
- “invading the spectacle”, it is important to penetrate the spectacle in order to become more active and responsible spectators.
- “Creating a Us and a Them”, creates certain political structures that manipulates a spectator’s emotion to sway them in the direction that they would like.
- “liberal thought”, a liberal thought process in the political spectacle is blind to the politics because it is very individualistic.
- “conferring of rights in the politics”, politics is an ongoing struggle between who has rights and the people that think that they have these rights.
- “Reiterated power”, we have all seen everything that has already happened in politics, all things in political performance has been done before, how it is always reiterated with more power (“twice behaved behavior”).
Performance and the spectator
In The Theatre of the Oppressed by Augusto Boal, the argument that is presented is that theater within itself is innately political, while showing that Aristotelian theatre adhere to an oppressive state. Therefore, the author reviews the history of theatre through the works of Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hegel and Brecht. With the old historical connections to theater the author then presents and forms a new idea of theater that breaks down the boundaries set by the old system between the performers and the spectators. In chapter one the author presents Aristotle’s philosophy while defining tragedy in the Aristotelian epistemology as a coercive system that has the viewer in conformity and not allowing room for a rebellion. He also states that the character in this philosophy has certain traits that the audience sympathizes with, which allows the audience to suppress this as the spectator. Boal moves on in the 4th chapter to reviewing his work in Peru. Through a literacy program by presenting ways in which people can become an active participant in theater rather than just being a mere spectator, who is inactive. In the program participants uses different theater related exercises to talk about their lives and confronting different issues. Therefore, the audience can actively determine the outcome of each action. On the other hand, in Performance by Diana Taylor, she explores the different dynamics of performance, while exploring the social, economic, political and sexual aspect of each performance to highlight and confronting social issues. Taylor focuses on performance but specifically performance art and reassuring readers that performance is not solely based on an imitative aspect, rather it includes change, critical context and creativity. Overall highlighting performance as a tool to do something even when it seems as if there is not much that is being done. Finally, Bertolt Bercht in Brecht on Theatre: The Development of and Aesthetic, the author discusses the development of his own theatrical aesthetic, by showing how theater can serve as a too that can trigger a social change in society, to be quite honest, I was not sure how to interpret the notes in his writings, they were at times contradictory.