Sing it Sister!

I saw a movie a few days ago called "La Dignidad", a documentary about the largely unknown level of distitute poverty in Argentina, and the peoples' resistance to all kinds of repression, peaking around the December 19-20, 2001 economic crisis. The group profiled that grabbed a hold of my attention and emotions the most, was the Agrarian Women's Movement, who use the concept of discursive hegemonic interruption effectively and as primary tool to achieve their political goals. What puts these women on the top of my "Awesome List", is that the only weapon they have is their voices! These women are fighting to keep their land (actually it belongs to the men in their families) from being expropriated by the state, because of unfair debt that they are not able to pay off for various, valid reasons. The government is taking these plots of land and auctioning them off to the highest bidder, usually large corporations. These women will gather at the auction just as bidding opens, and sing the national anthem at the top of their lungs so that the auction cannot continue, leading to their arrests and being charged. Usually, in court, these women are able to prove the unlawfulness of the government's actions and are able to keep their land, at least for a while.

These women and their families have nothing except for their land. When it is threatened to be taken away, as one women states "all they have is their national anthem" to protect them, and they use that resource effectively for the purpose of provisional resistance to the economic base of elitist Argentina. The Agrarian Women's Movement of Argentina is another shining example in history of collective interruptive action performed by women that has the potential to whack us automotons over our heads and gain a little consiousness. Just as the march to Versailles in 1789, and the strike for "bread and peace" in Russia in 1917 were great initiations by women to great change, so is the Agrarian Women's Movement. However, unlike previous events, the one in Argentina keeps having to be acted out over and over and over again. Is this because we live in a "post-modern" world, where as Kipnis would say, everything is continually being coopted into the dominant system, making resistance inherently provisional? Well, it seems so. Maybe because of the commodification of communications, these moment cannot break through the neutralizing acceleration of information being thrown around. There sure is a lot to compete with nowadays when it comes to repression, corruption, and poverty issues; and at the same time, there is a feeling of distance from this struggle by the rest of the world. Why? is it because they look different, or speak a different language? Or is it that their story just doesn't have enough shock effect? I have read about this movement before, but not until I watched a well made documentary did I become emotional and feel connected to their struggle. (Agh! I can't decide if that makes me a mindless subject of the culture industry, or one able to utilize an art medium that can articulate moments of resistance within the dominant discourse.)

Nevertheless, I think this movement is an important one in the history of Argentina, women's history, and that of the common worker who is feeling the effects of capitalist globalization. I think it can take its provisional moments and accomplish important things, but who knows if this uneven development will ever come to fruition, to a radically changed system. What I have taken away from this reflection, is that political culture here definitely has a thing or two to learn from our sisters down south.

Word Vomit

I will try to relate some of the theory we learned this term to a recently-noticed phenomenon around me, of girls giving so much of themselves away to their male partner in relationships. I'm a pretty open person, and I'm not advocating the building of even more barriers between people; however, a few of my girlfriends lately have found themselves buying into the often-played-out-but-never-reflected-on behavior of compromising their dignity and values just so that their partner will, I don't know, "keep loving them"? I also don't want to give the impression that men in relationships are just their to suck the souls of the women they are with, but I don't think that either realizes the power dynamic at play. Has the Cosmopolitan culture really rendered us as unconsious as Adorno and Horkheimer claim? I would like to think that both men and women who are in hetero relationships are able to somehow see the damage they do to each other by playing into the norm reinforced by headlines like "21 Sneaky Tricks to get guys to do what You Want", or "How to Ego-Stroke Your Man."

The manipulation that is so often flowing through the social interplay of men and women in liberal-capitalist society is baffling. The need for us to believe that we are all equal, liberated, and powerful, while at the same time swallowing the notions that we, as women, need to bend over backwards so much that we break is sick. This might not make sense so much, but I am still trying to fit my thoughts together, and also understand the emotions that go along with loving someone.

Critica Mass Announcement

Since we're all on the dicourse-interruption groove, I thought I'd give a notice that this month's critical mass bike ride is this friday.

Critical mass takes place all over the world (this picture is from one in Vancouver this summer), and it's meant to take back space in traffic for bicycles. I'm sure some of you bike semi-regularly and have almost died more than once, due to drivers who just don't pay attention to you, or just think that you shouldn't be there in the first place and think it's ok to try to run you off the road. Bikes are traffic too, damnit!

It is also a way to promote a more sustainable way of transportation, not to mention it's a lot of fun. We start at city hall the last friday of every month at 5:30pm- the middle of rush hour- and take up a lane all the way down Jasper and then cross the high level taking up both lanes. Then we head down Whyte on and end at Gazebo Park.

If anyone is interested, come out! Or you can check out the website at www.edmontoncriticalmass.com

Happy studying,
Denise

I <3 Kipnis

On thursday I went to class, had tea with a friend, and disrupted the hegemonic discourse.

Well, that sounds cool.

Although it was a rather clumsy execution on my part, I was a bit surprised at how much I felt empowered, and proud that I could take part in something collective, loud and feminist. I realize that within an all-encompassing hegemonic discourse, there is no escaping this heteronnormative, patriarchal, capitalist, and eurocentric system. However, I also understand more intimately now that the "cracks and fissures" Kipnis speaks about are vital and necessary to a popular culture that rocks the hegemony to the core, enough so that the core shifts closer to where we want it. I do grasp that we may not have "rocked the hegemony to the core" with feministeppin, but through the act of disruption, I got excited to think how with more and more of this agitaton, consciousness spreads, people's indifference can fade, and -dare I say it- revolutionary conditions can possibly form (someday maybe...).

This is very much the reason why Baudrillard frustrates me. He talks about how history does not exist, making our motivations, our goals, our shared experiences meaningless. I agree that the history we have been spoon fed in school, and what we have observed within popular culture is a part of the hegemony that dominates us. I also understand that meaning is disseminated everytime an event is reproduced to create something now so much like the original. However, what about the amazing (and completely destructive) things that have happened as a result of peoples' passionate motivations, goals, and shared experiences? And what about the reproducton of these events which have inspired more events that really do "rock the hegemony to the core"? There is uneven development within resistance to dominant powers, but it is the smaller, momentary "cracks and fissures" that ultimately create something more thoroughly connective between people, and bauldrillard just seems to want to rain on everyone's parade.

I just want to say again that I enjoyed feministeppin, as well as the beer afterwards.

Cheers.

On the existence of history:

**


My friend Patrick posed the question to me, if we were to live our lives not knowing anything about the world beyond what is directly visible to us, or its history, would we live it any diffrently?

(We usually chat about less heavy things, like fun cities, or how his mum's name is BJ, but I thought this topic was very relevant to our readings.)

History, or the signification of it, is a way for people to connect with each other. Reading a novel is the same as reading a history book: it creates a common knowledge base so that we can better understand ourselves in relation to other members of teh speies, within the context of our material surroundings. So, does it matter that history doesn't exist if all it is for is to provide purely subjective definition and context to us? It does when hegemonic interpellation can create false problems of value that are n contradiction to our own interests. The divide between high and low culture is what prevents an honest (and more interesting) connection/context. It's rather scary to think of being completely ignorant to everything tha's not immediately effecting our lives. But then again, if history doesn't exist, then that's exactly our condition. I'm stuck in this cyclical thinking and can't quite break it.
Does anyone have some wisdom they'd wish to spread here?

... so come give me a hUg...

Identity politics has always intrigued me by the way it (defining one's identity through association with a- usually marginalised- group), allows people to feel like they fit in, while at the same time, allowing them to feel "unique". Our culture demands that we buy into one/many of these various identities so that we may feel empowered, at some level, and I have generally leaned towards the understanding that identity politics distracts people from recognizing shared commonalities that would help to reverse feelings of alienation.

The debate about 50 Cent turned my brain insideout somewhat, in that I thought more about how the hyperbolization of black male stereotypes might really be a disruption of hegemonic discourse, and not simply an identity manufactured by capitalist entities for consumption by anyone with ears- white suberbanites, african americans in urban ghettos, or whoever. I'm not fully convinced, however, because 50 Cent is still not challenging that identity stereotype in any way. I'm not sure if the hyperbolization, among a culture that hyperbolizes so many marginalized identities (for example, italian americans, arabs, gay men, etc.) really is as empowering one might think.

I think 50 Cent "fits into" his identity group quite well, but that group has been put into quite a nice box by elites, and his success and power is quite dependant on that box keeping a certain shape.

P.S.- I, for one, LOVE the song he does with The Game...

This class makes me miss cableTV

As someone who leans strongly towards socialism, I can see the merits in Adorno and Horkheimer's argument that asserts that the economic base is the primary determining factor for how our material surroundings present themselves. Capitalism has definitely succeeded in injecting its beneficiaries' values into all aspects of culure; even a little into those aspects that consciously aim to defy the "culture industry". There is simply no escaping it completely. Even though I've chosen not to get cable television, I still feel shot at every day with values that are not mine, in newspapers, public space in general, and in conversations with people who also live within the same superstructure.

Maybe I sound paranoid and hyper-critical, but I suppose I do have that side of me. Is this side of me might be the agency that White speaks about? I very much appreciate White's referrencing of Gramsci, who wrote about how the masses give consent to be passified. There is definitely a certain enjoyment in being entertained and told what to aspire to, and I definitely enjoy watching TV (Oz and Coronation Street being my favourite shows, FYI).

I know I have agency to watch television, or read magazines, billboards, and newspapers with a critical perspective, however sometimes I wonder if I am able to do so because I have been fortunate enough to be able to be taught to do so. Taking university classes on media politics and literacy is not something most people can do. Not that one is only able to be critical if one attends university, but I know that I myself, personally, would not be as observant to the ideology of media texts and discourses had I not taken these classes.

Through this rambling I am trying to bring up how Adorno and Horkheimer have great- although expressed in a rather pretentious manner- insight into the deep permeation of bourgois ethics within our culture(s). However, I also agree with White that agency exists within the hegemony... although I'm unsure as to whether that agency is also somewhat privileged.

The word "blog" sounds funny...

Having my thoughts in such a public forum is new- I used to think it was a narcisistic practice to blog; putting your private thoughts out there for everyone to judge. But after having some random converstaons with bloggers, I realize that it provides a lot of opportunity for dialogue that isn't possible in "non-internet world" because of physical location of people, their willingness to approach others so directly, etc. Jacqueline rhodes' article also made the excercise more apealing by putting into a collectivist standpoint, and explaining how it can be used to interrupt the current discourse. I also like the oppositional approach to the theory on banking education, that blogging for a class assignment takes. The thought of not having to write another term paper with a thesis, middle, and conclusion makes me HAPPY. I am warming up to this excercise, even though it feels a little awkward- perhaps a lot like public speaking.

I'm hoping this will help me to gain some insight as to how to express myself in such an informal text, as well as to build on a collective and poiltical feminism that I don't see enough around me in the physical world. And although I consider myself a feminist, I am still learning what feminism means for me. I know others have a great sense of what it is for themselves, but I hope this will provide open discussion that won't make me, and others feel imbecilic for being, well, a little ignorant...