Corporate Cannibal

This week's post is on the Steven Shaviro's "Post-Cinematic Affect". In it, Shaviro writes on Grace Jones, and her music video for "Corporate Cannibal". Having seen the video, immediately it has a sort of 90's pop music feel to it, which is surprising since it was made in 2008.

In a twitter conversation, a number of questions arose regarding the video visual elements and its content. For example, what is it about the pause after the word "man" in the lyric "I am a man _____ eating machine"? Is it that man is eating machine (perhaps corporate machine)? or a machine who was created to consume man. I wondered about this considering the notion of "creating" persons through the phenomenon of celebrity.

Could it also be that the manipulation of Grace Jones throughout the video was a sort of experimentation with identity? Was Grace Jones creating herself? As Shaviro explains, she is consistently recognizable especially due to her confrontational presence. The thought here is that the aggressive visual fluctuation in the video demanded a sort of acknowledgement. Despite its shifting, the fact that she occasionally returns to a recognizable version of herself implies a sort of command over form.

Killjoy Feminism OR The Anti-Hero Of Feminism

I'll keep this week's posting short. What interested me most about Ahmed's text is the passively confrontational relationship between the Killjoy and everyone else. It seems like the reason why a Killjoy ruins the mood in feminist discourse is that they embody a dissonance between reality and expectation. The Killjoy makes it apparent that there is "a gap between the ideal feeling and the ideal feeling and the actual feeling".

The reason why this is important is because the Killjoy makes it apparent that despite prior models, you are not guaranteed happiness even if you achieve successes. The Killjoy does so by not being satisfied in success. This is an unsettling reality. We are winning, right? We should rejoice! But the Killjoy is a constant reminder that happiness is a simple pleasure, and that feminism has matured beyond that point (think Simone De Beauvoir's levels of maturity).

Just a side thought here, but could it be that the Killjoy feminist is a catalyst for progressive thought? The sort of anti-hero that reminds us that experiences are both unique and identifying, that solidarity is the opiate of progressive, so wipe that goofy smile off of your face.

On Ratchetness, Respectability, and The Diaspora Of Sound and Sonic Embodiment

For this thought, let us create a distinct "Ratchetness" that is both separate and independent of "ratchetness". Based on writer Regina Bradley's analyses, Ratchetness appears to be an embodied experience that permeates one's social interactions. What makes "Ratchet" different from "ratchet" is that the latter is an essence which is imposed upon the body. As Bradley illustrates in "To Sir, With Ratchety Love: Listening to the (Dis)Respectability Politics of Rachel Jeantel", the backlash to Rachel Jeantel's testimony as "ratchet" was a matter of her demonstrating a refusal to succumb to the expected ettiquette that those in "the epitome of a hyper-respectable space" are used to. She demonstrated textbook ettiquette with her Yes-Sirs and No-Sirs, but some have argued that the the way in which she conducted herself showed less respectability than what the Court requires. Is she not taking this seriously?

Bradley repeatedly drew back to Jeantel's cultural context, pointing out that she is of "Haitian and Dominican working-class background, her U.S. Southern upbringing, and the three languages – Haitian Kreyol (or Creole), Spanish and English". That the way she conducted herself in fact is a representation of that element to her embodiment. What Rachel Jeantel brought to the table then was "Ratchet".
It is important to note from this that the interesting thing about "Ratchet" is that one can actually become Ratchet, and merely be ratchet. Through Jeantel, Regina Bradley dispels a lot of the negative connotation surrounding Ratchetness. What is left is an embodiment that allows one to be a more self-affirming participant in conversation.

During the trial, Jeantel's role was to answer what was asked of her. Lawyers utilize this as an opportunity not neccessarily to reveal selective facts, but to selectively reveal truth ie. manipulate response ie. be dominant in discourse. It is through this that emotions are evoked, often to the advantage of the lawyer. Jeantel's Ratchetness was a solid affirmation of her embodied identity in spite of what was being drawn from her.

Perhaps the reason why this isn't perceived as respectable is because her Ratchetness is portrayed through the sound of what she said. Sound, being dynamic, has the capability to project a continued becoming. As suggested from the backlash to Rachel's testimony, for some reason, it appears that when considering Persons of Color (Women of Color in particular) there isn't an expectation of sound or sonic embodiment. Perhaps this is why it disturbed so many people. It may be possible that the idea that that Rachel Jeantel has a Sonic Embodiment is enough to suggest that there is considerable dimension to her existence that transcends the visual expectation, and we simply can not have that in a court of law, nor in the mass media. Unlike ratchetness, Ratchetness has the unique ability to be both proactive, and reactive.

Taking the above concept forward to Julian Henriques' "Sonic Bodies: Reggae Sound Systems", I want to frame Dancehall culture in this context. As Henriques describes, Dancehall blends traditionally African rhythms, Reggae-style baselines, and sound technologies in a manner that is uniquely Jamaican (forgive my oversimplification as I paraphrase). Dancehall is also characterised by its sexualized dance. Relating to this, in the documentary "Made In Jamaica", there is a section that details the death of Dancehall icon, Bogle. At his funeral, some of his music was played, to which mourners danced in true dancehall fashion. Such a tribute doesn't fit a traditionally held understanding of mourning, and to some would be considered tasteless or possibly ratchet. I would like to argue that to use this terminology, it would be more appropriate to instead consider this Ratchet (again, using the same framework as highlighted above). That perhaps it was the best sign of respect to have a dancehall sendoff for Bogle.

All of this draws me to the idea of diaspora. Diaspora is the phenomenon of movement. Packaged experience is the burden of people who migrate from home to a new place; a major component of diaspora. Eg. as Africans spread throughout the world, regardless of willingness, they brought with them their values, traditions, foods, perspectives, etc... and once established, "unpacked" these elements into their new home. That is what is often referred to as "influence". Previously, I had applied this notion of diaspora to the arts, but for the most part I left sound out of the scenario. I think it most certainly applies to our understanding of a Sonic Body. Henriques states that given the success of reggae in the internation community, Jamaica is the source of black power. This I feel is a result of a sort of maintenance of African values carried forth in diaspora; perhaps a vocalization of African diasporic thinking. "Made In Jamaica" is available in full on Youtube

Synestethic Strife Or Why I Hear You But I'm Not Quite Listening

As a visual artist, and a newcomer to Sound studies, I am having a bit more difficulty than I expected to. Perhaps, as Adriana Cavarero suggested, it is the sudden transition from a videocentric philosophy to one more cognisant of Voice that requires more adjustment on my part. However, the more I inspect Cavarero's understanding of the difference between sight and hearing, the less convinced I am that such difference positions sound as more significant than vision, at least when it comes to the establishing an individual's humanity. I will attempt to make sense of this as best as I can here.

Sound, Logos, & Dasein
Before I can get into my argument, allow me to lay down the foundation of my perspective. From what I understood, Caverero spoke of "Logos" as the joining together of words in a such a way that it conveys a thought; however, more significant to the argument is that in discourse, logos is given to us in tandem with voice. Cavarero supports the Aristotelian approach to logos, phone semantike; the signifying voice. The act of speaking is a use of one's voice to "signify", rather than merely to "sign". As Dasein is a being towards death, human is the signifying animal; this is what separates us from other animals (and generally places us higher than they are (that and thumbs)).
Animals are beings:We are beings towards death::Animals sign::We signify

Adriana Cavarero goes on to explain that, because of our signifying nature, Voice and subsequently sound are "characterized not by being, but by becoming". She supports this with the example of the sound of barking. When we hear barking, we signify dog; we do not hear dog. Cavarero went on to say that contrariwise, vision percieves the object, and from there inferences are made. That sound utilizes the dynamic, while vision relies on the permanent. From this, I understand the importance of studying sound.
But consider the following (and perhaps you will understand my struggle):
If I were to draw on a frog on a chalkboard, and ask you what you see, it would be natural to claim to see a frog, though in actuality you see chalk on a board, and inferred frog. I find it hard to let abandon that understanding of the visual. Is this not essence? Is this not becoming, rather than being? Or am I mistaken?

Or, how about this example to relate to the idea of sound as dynamic, as a sequence opposed to the visual as permanent: In the photography world, opening the shutter of the camera for an extended period during a photo allows one to catch trails of light. Manipulation of this long-term exposure is what allows things like light graffiti. However, as I have come to understand it, the individual photo is a manifestation of a sequence of light.

Perhaps I am one of the Metaphysicians Cavarero is referring to, and I am open to outside perspectives on the matter, but I have not yet been convinced that the visual is as permanent, or inescapably object oriented as it's made out to be.

New Realism, Artisans, And The Gendering Of Cyber-Identities Or When The Self-Portrait Became The Selfie

In "Where Looks Don’t Matter and Only the Best Writers Get Laid", author Elvia Wilk investigates the implications of cyber identity as the global community awakened to find itself online, transition to a 90's text based experience, then shifted once more to a realistic paradigm. Similarly, Julian Gill-Peterson discusses the interconnection (and subsequently our degree of control) of technology in gender identity, in "We are not Cyborg Subjects, We Are Artisans". In this entry, I wish to connect some of these themes into an introspective that looks into the phenomenon of social media identity. To do this, I will be including an Artistic perspective in this Feminist Philosophical analysis.

To begin, I would like to address Wilk's framing of cyberspace. It was argued that cyberspace, particularly in the earlier days of the internet, was a plane in which one's experience was limited to what one could imagine and effectively communicate. Logically speaking, those who were less limited (those more inclined toward creativity) were more effective and thus less limited. Arguably then, this left a lot of space as subjectivity was power, and creativity was the currency. Wilk then goes on to site examples of what happened when this power was exercised over others. Her citing of the Mr_Bungle example expressed the need for an understanding of the nature of power even in what was hoped to have been a new, free, and slightly more egalitarian realm. What emerged was a need to address much of the same issues that arose in the hegemonic, patriarchal, capitalist tedium of reality. However, I would argue that an additional, less explicit issue needs to be brought at least to the realm of awareness; that is the gentrification of cyber space.
To get an idea of what I'm referring to, consider reddit.com. In order to belong to such a large and prominent web community, you must abide by "reddiquette"; a set of guide laws, or ettiquette, by which all members must abide. Failure to adhere to reddiquette is punished in a miriad of ways, from the removal of one's postings, banishment from subreddits (sub-communities), or overall termination of one's profile from reddit itself (haven't quite figured out if this counts as "exile", or "execution"), executed according to the will of Reddit Admins. Hopefully, I have highlighted enough here to illustrate "Reddit the social construct" as distinct from "Reddit the website".

How does this relate to the issue of gentrification? Those most *successful* in Reddit, and earn the most "karma" are those who also create the most effectively manipulate and navigate the rules of reddiquette as well as the rules of the individual subreddits. In other words, those most creative. Often, their success is at the mercy of the community, but there is a point at which it becomes apparent that the individual user is largely responsible for their standing in the community. Reddit's reward-punishment-banishment system encourages its users to improve themselves within the reddiquette context, thereby improving the quality of the community itself. #Gentrification

Granted, this is but one example, it is interesting, at least to me, that one's cyber identity in this space is contingent upon one's active involvement in the creation of one's identity. Your identity here is not reflexive as it is in non-cyber reality. In other words, (before I get too loose with my use of the term "reality") the cyber-community can not identify you unless you give them something to identify. Once this happens, they can return to you an assessment of their perception of your identity from which you can build or retract. It is my understanding that it is this phenomenon that Gill-Peterson refers to as #Technogenesis.

Technogenesis then implies active participation in one's existence on the cyber plane. This is important to note as I go on to the next section in my inquiry. It is from this point that I will implore my background in art, particularly in photography. Wilk mentions that there is a shift toward what she identifies as "New Realism". New realism is a divergence... or, more accurately, "a paradigmatic shift away from subjectivity to address a desire for somewhat objective realism" (I paraphrase here). #PicsOrItDidntHappen.
It isn't enough anymore to be the best writer, as the cyber community seeks more "tangible" evidence of your technogenesis. What this does, should you wish to be effective in your cyber-identity, is it gives you a degree of responsibility on top of your cybergenesis. You now document, manipulate, and control whatever occurrences you wish to associate yourself with. Photos, despite the subjectivity of Photo Manipulation Software, are the closest you can get to this objectivity.

...now here comes the fun part. To supplement the Creative's need for subjectivity with the Community's need for objectivity, we have altered the nature of the way in which we document out lives through photography. The self-portrait, an objective display of the self, has over the past few years been replaced with the "Selfie". I argue that that the Selfie is subjective identity creation in the presence of realism, because the subject has full control of:
1. the context under which they take the photo This refers to the Self in identity, and the manner in which one comports that self in order to create one's identity through the Selfie. It is in this circumstance that the individual displays their understanding of their own cyber-gender dynamics (eg. "Duckface","Shirtless in the Mirror", etc.. carry with them gendered implications). There are a number of poses that are identified as uniquely feminine, and others that are uniquely masculine, and one's identity is judged accordingly but primarily in the context of this reality, as these actions are seldomly repeated outside of the cyber reality
2. The context in which they display the photo By which I mean the vehicle for expression. One could take a self portrait for sake of documenting a moment for reflection or posterity, but I presume that it is often the case that this is instead for the purpose of cybergenesis
and
3. The context with which they associate the photo. Where you submit your Selfie says a lot about why you took it. However, what is most significant about this portion is that you can frame the Selfie in various contexts during the post-production phase. (To clarify this point, did you notice the hashtags in this text? This was a reason for them)

The Selfie is one of the means by which we create ourselves in the cyber reality. This is our active participation, as artisans. Not only are we interdependent on technology, but we embrace its capabilities and limitations as a means by which to forge ourselves; new selves at that.


Given the distinction that I have outlined, I find Selfies annoying

The Reconceptualization And Commodification Of Blackness In A Post-Eugenic Neoliberal Economical ModelOr Black, The Other Other White Meat

Despite the title, this week's post remains fairly simple. Having two main questions, I want to address Sexton's use of blackness as a means by which persons of color are existentially reconceptualized; and how this reconceptualization is used to further their value as commodified assets in capitalism.


Regarding "Hypodecent"

In what way does hypodescent contribute to commodification of persons of color, women of color in particular, within a neoliberal economy?

To preface my inquiry, I am framing this subject in the context of the Human Eugenics movement (mtDNA, phenotype as marketability, etc... further thoughts on which I reserve for discussion). Hypodescent is prevalent in mixed raced studies, and is the idea that your social classification is no higher than that of your least socially prominent parent. I chose the human Eugenics movement to briefly highlight the ethical perspective of hypodescent, and relate it to WOC feminism in capitalist society.


The Black body as the other Other

In what way is Sexton, through Fanon and Vasconcelos, reconceptualizing, and expanding Jean Paul Sartre's concept of "The Other" to not only address blackness, and the black gaze (I suppose in contrast to... or rather in its contact with whiteness, and the white gaze), but also the Black Body? ie. Is it possible that if the black is blind to self-realization through assisted reflection, that the black body is a conceptualized as a separate entity capable of returning not so much a "gaze" but perhaps realization through touch/feel/intimacy? (afterall, what is more intimate than dissection? and what is more self affirming than comparing of bodies?)

I take 3 sections to highlight this point:
First - "The sterilization of the black population, barring the reproduction of its ugliness and inferiority, is engineered for Vasconcelos through an aesthetic pedagogy promoting the dazzle of loving human beautification. The black simply has to be educated as to her unsightliness, an unambiguous point with which she will eventually agree, for her to refrain and "give way to the more handsome."

Second - "The very thing that grants whiteness its social existence, blackness, is the very thing that at the extreme, the edge, the verge of race-prevents it from enjoying a stable l ife, that "gives . . . its classification as seeming.""

Third - "Fanon goes on to speak of a desire to refuse this disassembling force of the white look, to avoid the mournful shroud of blackness, a conservative desire for repair or resolution. "I did not want this revision," he says. "All I wanted was to be a man among other men." That is, to participate in the honorable world of whiteness, to not be deemed animal, bad, mean, or ugly. A desire to not be slashed, dissected, cut to slices."

Foucaultian Conceptualization of Neoliberalism, Pleasures, and Free-Trade Capitalism Or Here Comes Michel "The Buzz Kill" Foucault

This week, I haven't much to say neccesarily, but I did have a brief thought to offer for discussion. As I understood "The Queer Thing about Neoliberal Pleasure: A Foucauldian Warning", Shannon Winnubst conceptualizes pleasure in as a end in neoliberalism. Declassified, pleasure is "subsequently the aspect of living that neoliberalism trumpets as its grand prize: maximizing our interests and minimizing our labor is quintessentially enjoyable". What a concept, eh? Arguably, there's a tremendous amount of appeal in broadcasting to the desires of the hard working; particularly, given the superfluous complexity of the capitalist system. Contrariwise, I implore you to consider the following: Perhaps the Foucaultian warning isn't towards the simplification of the individual/general public in their acceptance of the end goal of pleasure, but rather the real danger is the reconfiguration of one's life towards seeking pleasure. To explain further, the "reconfiguration" I am consideration is an immersion of one's life in the Neoliberal framework; consequentally this requires an embrace of Free-Trade Capitalism and all it entails in the process.

I am not convinced that pleasure is inherently bad. Pleasure is one of, if not the simplest element to being. Even complex beings strive to satisfy a need for pleasure regardless of how they broadcast their values. Relative to less complex beings, all this fannying about seems rather silly. However, I am convinced that reduction of one's life to pleasure is devastating. Pleasure-living is not authentic living, and we all want to be good little Dasein, don't we? What I see from Winnubst's use of Foucault is that we ought to address our desire for pleasure in such a way that we don't succumb to the pitfalls (inauthentic living) that await us in a capitalist system. Relating to my previous text on freedoms and maturity in freedom, Pleasure living is comprable to slave level freedom. I guess where I'm going with this is that it's ok to seek pleasure, just don't lose your autonomy in the process.

Consider who gains through your pursuit of this "Grand Prize of neoliberalism"? Immediately, the cause of neoliberalism is furthered as its existence is now as a paradigm. Next, the shareholders of the capitalist system themselves advance from your toils. As Winnubst mentions, "Pleasure is tied with desire, which was driven by a lack". This lack is the danger. Lack is easily exploited, and even more easily when the exploited party is satisfied in simplicity. Thoughts on this?