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?

Love In A Time Of SlaveryOrThe Conceptualization Of The Young-Girl, And Why I Probably Won't Be Getting Any Sleep Tonight

After several hours of reading an excerpt from Tiqqun's "Raw Materials for a Theory of the Young-Girl"... and re-reading... and re-re-reading, I was able to reflect. During my reflection, I couldn't help but wonder

There was SO MUCH going on. It was reminiscent of James Joyce, only I didn't despise this experience as much. There were several key points and Ontological one-liners dispersed throughout that each deserve far more attention than I am able to (and desire to) give in this response here. I would, however, like to address a few notions that rang clear to me amid the apparent cacophony.

The first thing I would like to address is the nature of the Young-Girl as something that exists conceptually. The Young-Girl appears to exist along the same plane as abstract concepts like "love", or "yellow". By that I mean, the Young-Girl is the sort of thing that you know it when you see it, but you can't just explain it to someone who has no reference/experience of it. In addition, like love & yellow, it appears that the only way that you can portray the concept is through example. "Young-Girl" is used 622 TIMES in this section of text.

Moving forward, there are specific instances of the Young-Girl's existence I would like to bring to light. Consider the conceptualization of the Young-Girl as slave. So Tiqqun speaks of the Young-Girl being "the final slavery; by which the silence of the slaves has been achieved". I'll admit, of all the slave references, I understood this the least. I suppose it was in reference to how refined the Young-Girl is as a mirror; the ultimate manifestation of the ideology of those holding the reigns of her enslavement? Let me move forward. Describing her reality in the slave dialectic, Young-Girl seems not only to affirm the control of the masters in this case, but through submission affirms her own control. I have been through this text numerous times, and can not find the exact statement to which I am referring here; I apologize. To paraphrase, it went something like "she reverses the situation, and as a slave oppresses the oppressors". I can't figure out if the Young-Girl is a sexual being, or perhaps a sexualized being? Maybe, dependent on her context, she exhibits characteristics of [behaves like] either one? Or both? (like how light behaves like a wave, and/or like a particle).

Next, I was concerned with the Young-Girl's experience of love, and happiness. The Young-Girl appears to be unable to love for herself. There is a desire for love, but there is a fully understandable hesitation. "The Young-Girl wants to be either desired lovelessly or loved desirelessly. In either case, her unhappiness is safe". From my understanding of the text, to be desired suggests a possessive sexual relationship. Love then would be something she wishes to compartmentalize from desire. If the Young-Girl is to be used to satisfy desire, do not taint the experience with the sentiment of love. If she is to be loved, do not contaminate it with desire. Doing so isn't necessarily a bad thing for anyone else, but it would really screw up the essence of the Young-Girl. Also, consider whether or not the Young-Girl is capable of love. "There can be nowhere a person feels so painfully alone as in the arms of the Young-Girl".
Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn, son!
Maybe it is that the Young-Girl has an affinity for joyless existence, and empty smiles? I would like to discuss love further.

Finally (for now), the Young-Girl is a gendered experience. There are female and male Young-Girls. Would this not suggest that aside from the multitude of performances that the Young-Girl puts on to create and maintain relationships with others, perhaps the grand performance is being the Young-Girl.

Why I Broke My Silence OrThe Role Of A Male Voice In Feminism: Deconstructing The Ambiguity Of Silence

To preface what I am about to say, allow me to explain that this is the result of a thought experiment. The nature of this experiment is delicate and paradoxical. Explaining it renders it ineffective in the exact same way that explaining the rules of "The Quiet Game" is a direct violation of said game. Regardless, my intention here is to highlight an issue that may lead to an understanding of what I believe brings about one's constant need/desire to contribute to feminist discourse [unfortunately] often to the detriment of Women Of Color, and other such marginalized and oppressed groups. Ie. Why, no matter what it is I have to say, I have such difficulty shutting up and just letting other people talk.

In consideration of a concern for Feminist voices amid Misrepresentation, Mansplanation, Space Sharing, etc... I decided to conduct a personal experiment. During Feminist Theory this week, I tried to speak as little as possible. As the discussion continued, I listened and absorbed, and watched the discourse proceed beautifully. During the time I spent listening, and as a result of the input I witnessed, I found myself unable to escape a thought:
What is the role of a male (my) voice in Feminism?
I've been pondering this for a few years, and haven't gotten very far. In addition, as we discussed the #SolidarityIsForWhiteWomen discourse over the past few weeks, it was brought to my attention that within feminism, Women of Color Feminists face a similar conflict with White Women Feminists. This broadened my question to "What is the role of a dominant group's voice in Feminism (as it pertains to not infringing upon non-dominant and/or marginalized voices)?"

What I found was a dilemma. A big one. If I spoke on issues presented by Women Of Color Feminists, I risk infringing upon what would be a genuine expression of their voice(s). And yet, solidarity, for whatever reason, is a desired yet unattained virtue. So on the matter of joining the discussion, if I remained silent, I risk failing the discourse? maybe? Still working on that one.

So I struggled. I needed to see whether me saying nothing was the most positive contribution I could make to seldom heard feminists. So I kept silent. If you know me, you'll understand that that is by no means in my nature. I like to contribute, if for no other reason but for love of philosophical conversation. So being the well intentioned windbag, I decided to present a view that hadn't been mentioned yet in response to one of the questions. I believe it was "If you could describe problem that results in the apparent need of White Women Feminists to contribute to feminist space in the name of solidarity, what would it be?". To which, I replied "Trust". My idea was that you wouldn't feel the need to contribute your voice in every conversation of a movement if you trusted, or granted faith that other members of the conversation would successfully progress the movement, and achieve its goals, even without you. Consequently, by explaining this I contributed to the conversation thus violating the very thing I was talking about. I. F*cked . Up. Experiment over.

I was guilt ridden (not because I had failed the other feminists in the class, but because I failed the integrity of my own ideas).I KNEW what would happen to my experiment if I spoke. The ENTIRE time I was talking, part of me kept saying "Shut it. Just shut up. Shut. Shut. Shut up. Just shut it. Shut Up. You're going to mess up everything". Of course, I kept going. But that got me to wondering... why did I speak? I assumed, by the reaction of my classmates, that they weren't as disappointed in my act as I was. In fact, they seemed to welcome my input. So what was the problem? It wasn't as if I had said something detrimental? There was value in what I said. So what is my role? What did I give them through my silence? What did I give them through my voice?

Having replayed both the internal and external elements of the class period repeatedly in my head for the past 27+ hours, I realized a few things, and begged a few more questions.
Realization: I am not a White Woman Feminist, but I served a similar purpose in the discussion.
Realization: There was value in my voice, but what was needed was silence. By not speaking, I granted faith and trust.
Question: How would any of you know this if I didn't say anything?

I haven't come up with a solution (which is why I posted this for discussion), but to address the latter question, I came up with the following:
There is an issue with silence in that it carries, and broadcasts *ambiguity*. Consider what happens when you are babysitting and everything goes quite; ANYTHING could be happening. To you, as I sit there in silence, I could be thinking of anything (or everything, if you are a Schrödinger fan... ba dum tss). To me, I am not sure if anyone is aware of whether or not I am paying attention, agreeing, disagreeing, ignoring your voice (Patriarchal dismissal), or granting faith (my desire). This may have been Why I Broke My Silence. Perhaps I wanted to remove the ambiguity. I risked it in order to show that my silence was intentional. Why I felt the need to do so? I don't know... Perhaps I desire solidarity? But, I digress.

So my question now is how do we remove the ambiguity of silence? How do I make silence an affirmative, and not just inactivity? Ie. could me not saying anything be percieved as participation? I am a male voice in Feminism, and I desire to contribute without infringement lest there be a #SolidarityIsForNii. I Recognize that sometimes I just need to shut up, grant faith, trust, concede the floor, share the space, etc... And perhaps my inability to understand how to go about this dialogue is an indication of my position of privilege as an African Male Feminist.

Anyway, I hope I have explained my observation in a way that was clear, concise, logical, and organized enough for you to understand what I'm saying. If any clarification is needed, please ask. I'm not the best writer, and occasionally what I wish to convey through my writing is askewed from what I actually meant to say. This is an "Easier said through phone call than through text message" scenario.

Ps. I recognize that it is also possible that no one really noticed my silence at all. The world doesn't revolve around me.

Immature Freedoms, Solidarity, And The Privileged Feminists: A Response To A Response of A Critique of Capitalized Feminism OrWhy I Am Too Broke To Be An Effective Feminist

I apologize, I may be all over the place with this. I beg your patience, and perhaps we can work through this.

In Bell Hooks' response, a number of keypoints were made critically viewing Sheryl Sandberg's recent success through Fraser's lens. To give a little background into the “atmosphere” of Sandberg, recently she crossed over the barrier and leaned into the billionaire's club. Well done to her. What she accomplished is the following:

-Formidable financial Success
-Post-Oprah Influence
-Capitalist success through apparently feminist means

Regarding the latter, I think what Bell Hooks is saying is that appearances can be deciving. By Sandberg arguing her success as a victory for feminism through feminism, she creates a beacon out of her own experience. Rather than this showing other feminists a possible path out of their own oppression, it shows them how to navigate through it. Rather than serving Feminism, her story is used to serve patriarchal capitalism.

I'm not sure of whether this is dangerous, or embarrassing. To explain what I mean by this, I would like to frame the Sandberg experience through Simone De Beauvoir's notions of “Freedom”. In “The Ethics Of Ambiguity”, Beauvoir defines Freedom by hierarchizing it into degrees of maturity. Those with a freedom exhibiting a relatively low level of maturity tend to be happier with what appears to be success. This is what is called the Slave's Freedom. The Slave is “free” in that they can make decisions and assert their own experience within the context defined for them by the Master. This is dangerous for the slave, because satisfaction in the appearance of freedom prevents the slave from wanting to dismantle the binds that ensnare them. I say “embarrassing”, because to the Master, the slave thinking they are free eliminates the threat that could have challenged the Master. A slave thinking they are in a position of self-determination is easily manipulated for the gains of the master. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you, the reader, for sticking with me long enough for me to finally get back to the initial topic.

Sandberg working through Patriarchal Capitalism, even to become one of the Big Dogs, is nice and all, but how does it help feminism? How does it help Feminism to lean in? The critique as I see it, is one shared by Bhandar and Silva as well. Sandberg is a privilieged feminist, otherwise she wouldn't have been able to ascend to where she is now. Not to say that she didn't have to work hard, to give her all due merit. But the idea that hard work alone will make you a billionaire is too simplistic. The rich don't own a monopoly on hard work. The lower class, the young (and in debt), and persons of color (women of color in particular) all have their share of hard workers. And yet we still have poor people, and jobless college graduates of all majors all trying to fight whatever stigmas prevent them from finding success. Implied in leaning in is the notion that there is enough solidarity for everyone to yield the same result when they lean in. I don't know about you, but when considering the act of leaning in, anytime in my life when I've had to lean in to try and join a group, I was reminded constantly that this conglomeration did not have my membership in mind in the first place. It does not matter how friendly and welcoming they are to me, my presence, or my experience, the fact remains that if I join in, I join in whatever is already established.

For Sandberg to acknowledge the difficulty in universalizing her advice, it would require a paradigm shift. I'm not sure exactly, but I'm leaning towards a shift in understanding that the only solidarity is recognition that there is no true solidarity; “no way as way”. And that is hard to accept, isn't it? After all, it worked for me, and I am a feminist, and I affirmed my femininity in a male dominated world, and I showed them that I could handle myself with the boys, and I value people who care for me, and I didn't stop caring for them, and I made a billion, and isn't that what feminism is about? If it walks like a cat, acts like a cat, looks like a cat, sounds like a cat, it could instead be a kitten.

On "Reframing Justice"

Hello All. Welcome to my blog. Forgive the lack of flair in that intro, I haven't enough sleep for eloquence. Most recently, I read a selection from Nancy Fraser's "Fortunes Of Feminism". In it, Fraser highlights important concepts that suggest a need/lack/inevitable tipping point in the balance between Feminism, Legislation, and [Formerly] Excluded Persons. I'll admit, much of this text went over my head. I did, however, have an image of Fraser's concepts.

She speaks of how prior notions of justice were constructed in a "Keynesian-Westphalian" frame. This frame was built within territorial states, subjecting all those belonging to said territories to said notions of justice. Understandably, there are people who do not in fact fall into this territorial scope, who are not able to enjoy the same notion of justice. That brings up Fraser's point of The "What" and the "Who". The moment we apply a Keynesian-Westphalian frame to justice, we add a Who to the What. This means that rather than just concerning ourselves with the applications of justice, we now have to concern ourselves with Who deserves it.

This leads to my question. Territories didn't seem to be what Fraser wished to combat, but rather the idea that a person outside a territory has to be concerned with their right to have a voice. That these people are twice removed from justice, the first being that they are outside of the territory, and the second being that they have to "earn the right to have rights". Is it a neccesity, that a territory imposes these limitations on one's experience in a society? that a territory framework limits one's ability to fully participate in promoting their own good or Telos? Is it possible to maintain your territory, have the what of justice, but not have the who?