Objectification. Domination. I've been struggling with these two concepts for over a decade. How do they operate in and through social relationships? What are the underlying epistemological and ontological conditions and assumptions they rely on?
At first I approached my investigation of these two concepts through feminist theory, it seemed the obvious place to start. I was 'enlightened' but still not completely satisfied. Disgruntled I decided to pursue other areas of research for a while. For the most part everything I started studying fell into (was sometimes stuffed into) the category of environmental politics. After some reading and reflection it became clear that nature was the quintessentially dominated subject. However, let me be clear, I am not talking the classical eco-feminist position which parallels the treatment of women and 'nature.' I am, to say the least, not a fan of this position. The historical objectification of both the category 'women' and of 'nature' has led to their domination by others. What are the bases for objectification, generally? How does objectification enable domination? Stay tuned until tomorrow...my minute's up.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Danielle,
Before I respond to one of your intriguing questions, I feel compelled to sluff off some anxieties/self-consciousness about reading your blog: right now I feel as though this action is a little voyeuristic (not as much as looking at other people’s facebook pages though). I’m sure that is just a provisional feeling, more so prompted with my general novicehood in the blogging world. Besides, your blog—the a visual materialization of your mental ongoings—is apparently public, so I’m more of a welcomed (re)viewer than a voyeur…
Maybe my anxieties/self-conscious feelings about visibility are symptomatic of my response to your question, “how does objectification enable domination?” For me, visibility is a concept that is entangled within these related issues of objectification and domination. I have a presentation on Monday that deals with these topics, so I offer a quote from an article that I will be analyzing for it:
“The postcolonial nation must be seen as a specter of global capital (double genitive—both objective and subjective). It always runs the risk of being an epiphenomenon or reflection of global capital to the extent that it is originarily infected by the prosthesis of the bourgeois state qua terminal of capital. But it also a specter than haunts global capital, for it is the undecideable neuralgic point within the global capitalist system that refuses to be exorcised.” (Pheng Cheah (1999) “Spectral Nationalities” 21)
I paraphrase Cheah’s thoughts this way: The postcolonial nation haunts and is haunted by global capital. It “always runs the risk of being a reflection of global capital” because it originates as an extension of the bourgeois state’s capital. But it is also the specter than haunts global capital because it is the undeterminable/unlocatable/invisible pain the global capitalist system.
The postcolonial nation is objectified and dominated—i.e. framed within the confines Western economic rules and visualized as a specific tool. But the postcolonial nation can disturb the continuity of the ideological field by resisting (visual) appropriation and haunting from imperceptible registers. (This idea is a modified form of “provisional subjecthood” in David Bunn’s “Morbid Curiosities, Mutilation, Exhumation and the Fate of South African Colonial Painting.” 1999). See Cheah for examples.
In an effort to pull my thoughts together here I offer this: domination occurs within frames of power. These frames supply the rules for visual appropriation and objectification. However, it is possibly to slide up and down registers of visibility, in and out of/beyond and through frames, like Barthe’s punctum, to evade domination and objectification. In a similar fashion, I will occur as blip on the radar of your (virtual) mental ongoings. However the spirit of your public blog will not mark me as an objectified and/or dominanted (re)viewer, nor a marginalized voyeur who gazes surreptitiously from the periphery.
Hi Jess,
First, no need to feel like a voyeur. This is a public blog and I really want to encourage people to comment and to pass the address on to people that might be interested in the discussions that take place here. I had a number of reasons for starting the blog. I wanted to do a daily writing exercise, I wanted to keep track of some interesting ideas I came up with (article ideas, etc), and I wanted to develop some writing samples for possible future use.
Second, thanks very much for bringing Cheah into the discussion. I am going to elaborate on the domination issue more as the days go on. For me, one of the underlying assumptions that is problematic with regard to subjectivity status is rationality - and this goes straight to a discussion of domination. There are many ways to deconstruct rationality, I'll try to get at this over the next few days.
I think Heidegger (as controversial as he is) bears on the apprehension of the colonized as resource, as capital, in terms of his discussion of enframing and the standing-reserve. At the time of writing he basically wrote off the possibility of humans being part of the standing-reserve, but I think he'd have a different opinion today.
I certainly agree wholeheartedly with you that there are always cracks and fissures (indeed what else gives us hope?). Marcuse helps in this regard when he heralds the abject as the only group who can negate and revolt. More recently Spivak has theorized the subaltern, but her prognosis for their ability to give voice is not great!
Post a Comment