In considering the links between student and faculty keywords, we were stuck by the plethora of terms that relate to ‘Othering’ and the transitional nature of performative acts.
The image of Magritte’s In praise of dialectics served as a starting point to consider how these larger concepts (multicultural, cosmopolitan, and ethnicity) are ‘performed’ on both global and personal scales. These terms are intended to serve as part of the “architecture” in both the course and in cross-disciplinary international discourses generally.
The student words (litsedeistvo, pakarnnatam, and khrob kru), drawn from a diverse range of contexts, all relate to the pretence of performance, and as such function as a “façade”, deliberately ‘othering’ the subject/actor. Where we link these sets of words is how the performative strategies inherent in the student words inform the process of how the faculty counterparts are mis/used on the global stage.
In the first pairing, multicultural is an adjective often applied in politics, sociology, and performance to denote a positive mix of diverse cultures. However, over time it has become a ‘buzzword’ for integration in certain contexts and as such, the term is imposed upon objects, people, and performance activities without due cause. We found this connected to khrob kru, in that the application of a sign of identity (in this case a head piece) completely transforms the bearer much in the way that government agencies and unscrupulous theatre groups will label their pursuits “multicultural” in order to secure funds or generate the perception of diversity.
Similarly, as discussed in the blog, cosmopolitan can be a loaded term, one which changes its meaning dependant on who is using the term and for what purpose (http://maipr08.blogspot.com/search?q=cosmopolitan). It is a word with many “faces”, some more positive than others, and we think in this regard the connection with the “making faces” involved in litsedeistvo is clear.
Finally, as with the two other faculty terms, ethnicity can be used in both positive and negative contexts; it can be a useful tool for anthropology and can promote self-belonging, yet also can foster stereotypes and labels that can be divisive. Pakarnnatam, as the transformation or transition from one character to many characters mentally and physically, also implies the idea of interchangeable labels and facades. As a concept, ethnicity can feature many different “characters” which can be changed vastly by even very small changes in context and intention: consider the use of the word “Black”, or “Arab”.
The image, we think, highlights the importance of looking past, through, or into the supposedly solid linguistic frameworks which people necessarily use to define vast intangible concepts. From any angle, it is only possible to see one perspective, or façade, on these “constructions”, the architecture on which we seek to build understanding. They undoubtedly contain smaller structures within and these may be invisible unless we look from a multiplicity of angles. Benjamin says of history that “it takes place in an arena in which the ruling classes are in control”. We must also be aware that these “ruling classes” do not only control the arena, but through the media, often the first-given perspective.
2 comments:
In considering the links between student and faculty keywords, we were stuck by the plethora of terms that relate to ‘Othering’ and the transitional nature of performative acts.
The image of Magritte’s In praise of dialectics served as a starting point to consider how these larger concepts (multicultural, cosmopolitan, and ethnicity) are ‘performed’ on both global and personal scales. These terms are intended to serve as part of the “architecture” in both the course and in cross-disciplinary international discourses generally.
The student words (litsedeistvo, pakarnnatam, and khrob kru), drawn from a diverse range of contexts, all relate to the pretence of performance, and as such function as a “façade”, deliberately ‘othering’ the subject/actor. Where we link these sets of words is how the performative strategies inherent in the student words inform the process of how the faculty counterparts are mis/used on the global stage.
In the first pairing, multicultural is an adjective often applied in politics, sociology, and performance to denote a positive mix of diverse cultures. However, over time it has become a ‘buzzword’ for integration in certain contexts and as such, the term is imposed upon objects, people, and performance activities without due cause. We found this connected to khrob kru, in that the application of a sign of identity (in this case a head piece) completely transforms the bearer much in the way that government agencies and unscrupulous theatre groups will label their pursuits “multicultural” in order to secure funds or generate the perception of diversity.
Similarly, as discussed in the blog, cosmopolitan can be a loaded term, one which changes its meaning dependant on who is using the term and for what purpose (http://maipr08.blogspot.com/search?q=cosmopolitan). It is a word with many “faces”, some more positive than others, and we think in this regard the connection with the “making faces” involved in litsedeistvo is clear.
Finally, as with the two other faculty terms, ethnicity can be used in both positive and negative contexts; it can be a useful tool for anthropology and can promote self-belonging, yet also can foster stereotypes and labels that can be divisive. Pakarnnatam, as the transformation or transition from one character to many characters mentally and physically, also implies the idea of interchangeable labels and facades. As a concept, ethnicity can feature many different “characters” which can be changed vastly by even very small changes in context and intention: consider the use of the word “Black”, or “Arab”.
The image, we think, highlights the importance of looking past, through, or into the supposedly solid linguistic frameworks which people necessarily use to define vast intangible concepts. From any angle, it is only possible to see one perspective, or façade, on these “constructions”, the architecture on which we seek to build understanding. They undoubtedly contain smaller structures within and these may be invisible unless we look from a multiplicity of angles. Benjamin says of history that “it takes place in an arena in which the ruling classes are in control”. We must also be aware that these “ruling classes” do not only control the arena, but through the media, often the first-given perspective.
*
á miga,
vê lá se o
Twente elimina o Sporting,
,
era bem feita´há óóóó,
,
pilipares,
,
*
Post a Comment