create your own visited states map
An amusing distraction via Et. al.
L:)
Contexts for Derridian days
"for of course there is not one reflection but an almost infinite number" (Woolf, 1993, p. 29)
Pushing the shadows
Weeping air
L.
]]>and the slowing day for fabulous ideas via Nancy White...
and one new intriguing blog via Blogher...
and new subjectivities of bi-blogging - ou devrais-je dire l'étiquétage d'objets, et de sujets, bien sûr?
One of my lurkers made the following off-line observation following my privilege perplexions:
"I've noticed that your most recent post was en français. Also to
consider is that the use of another language may preclude others from
reading or responding. Conversely, it includes as well."
So many text(e)s, so little time... I'm anxious to see the possibilities the ROYO on bi-blogging might produce.
Quelle grosse journée!
L:)
Today's sky is a "usual grey."
L.
create your own visited states map
An amusing distraction via Et. al.
L:)
d'abord Galloway, ensuite Pas Au-delà, finalement Derrida...
Apprehending living
Always already
Au-delà des frontières de la mort et de la vie
« Il n'y a pas de hors texte » (Derrida, toujours).
L.
P.S. A UCI Humanities, merci.
Shards of time falling
falling
without perchance dreams
Noticing time marching
arbitrary paces
at the door of (un)reason
Canines ready, carnassials clenched
cold's season will not release me
L.
]]>"My thanks also Dorcasina, this conversation has me pedalling. This is your gem in my books:
"I can participate in that reading, but I don't get to define its meaning. If I am to give up my privilege, that is what I must give up. Not my intentions, but my insistence that my intentions are definitive, prescriptive, and legible..."
We are always reading and being read, yet the texts are not necessarily (usually?) in our "control" -- which leads to the next quirky conundrum: does it necessarily follow that just because one has privilege one also posesses the necessary agency to give it up?
I don't want to sound pessimistic or evasive, nor do I want to suggest that inaction is an acceptable strategy. Just wanting (hoping?) to add a systemic layer to your insights. How do/might/could the individual's intentions operate within the larger systems of oppression?
Thanks for the thoughts, you're keeping me thinking."
Dorcasina et ses perspicacités me font penser à une phrase que j'entends souvent (et avec laquelle je suis généralement en accord) de la part de certains membres de la communauté francophone (en Saskatchewan): la majorité a une obligation de laisser de la place pour la minorité. Dac, jusqu'à un certain point. Cependant, il y une chose qui me tracasse: veut, veut pas, Separate Is Not Equal. Alors, je pense (pour maintenant) que laisser de la place peut possiblement servir comme point de départ, mais départ seulement. Car, tôt un tard, il n'y a qu'une communauté, un pays, une planète, et il faut trouver des façons d'établir un respect mutuel.
Guess I'm right back at the wombat!
L:)
"I'm not sure I understand your point. How does blogging reinforce white privilege?"
My initial reaction to Dean Dad's question is: exactly!
"How" is in fact the question, as well as the asking itself (I think?!?)
I'll also take up a few of Et. al.'s comments on my comments:
"Lace, I'm not sure I see *exactly* how you are relating white privilege and blogging (and I want to)" (Dorcasina)
- so do I (want to see!). I'm not sure exactly how I am relating it either, but am interested in the conversation. If I understand the original post correctly (and MacIntosh (1998) and Morrison (1992) et j'en passe...), ignorant "good intentions" don't cut it (and I agree). Should we not, therefore, question our own intentions?
"So, I'm think--I certainly see the differential in (practical, if not hypothetical) access to technology, assumptions about who is listening." (Dorcasina)
- indeed, I hadn't even thought of this one, sort of reinforces the point, what are we not seeing when we don't stop to ask the questions? Economic privilege (where race/class/gender/etc. are already interconnected) of course! And I've more to think about here re: who is actually listening -- who are our lurkers? When does it matter? Does it always matter?
For me (for now) the questions keep returning to who is writing, who is reading? I've learned much about privilege from Butler (in print-text) and Schick (in person-text). The suggestion of each is "follow the bodies" -- when the bodies are floating in the blogosphere, how do we see privilege operate?
"It makes sense to me that many, probably most, of my readers are going to be other white folks, which precludes this being a truly cross-racial discussion...I know there are some excellent bloggers who identify themselves as African American--although I don't know enough of them, and doubt they read my site."
- here I wonder about our common sense assumptions... why does it "make sense"? (Kumashiro echoing here) Again/still, how do we "define" our unknown readership? By race? By sleep habits (who else but the insomniacs have enough time to read and write all these blogs?) By academic interest? By relation (my mom reads, "Dad of Dean Dad" reads, and so on)?
"I think anonymity could be useful, in this case, because I can think through these issues, get scolded justifiably for my own blind spots and assumptions, and keep moving my thinking forward." (Dorcasina)
- and I agree! I think I was unintentionally harsh on the "anonymous set" in my questions. This is my dilemma, and I'm slowly working away at living with the ambiguity of it. I do think the anonymity creates a bit of a safe haven in this case, and that may be a good thing.
On this last thought, I will respectfully disagree:
"But you are absolutely right that it's a very solipsistic process; I'm not doing much for actual issues of racism, or to address systemic inequality, by spouting off about it anonymously! You've given me much food for thought." (Dorcasina)
Not sure it is all that solipsistic a process, we are. We do. We write. We think. (I'm not getting all Cartesian here, quite the contrary). I think we do all of these things as we are (not because we are).
And, most importantly, I congratulate Dorcasina for putting the question on the (blog) page, and given the medium, to the page and its anonymous and declared readers alike. This is calling up inequality, this is actual issues in action. Thanks Dorcasina and Dean Dad, I am. Still.
L:)
"Ended up here via (anonymous) Dean Dad and (anonymous) Bitch, PhD to read your thoughtful, insightful (anonymous) entry.
Two questions: 1) How/where/does blogging manifest as an incident of white privilege? and;
2) How/where/do we reinforce privilege (white/class/etc.) when we blog anonymously?
As my questions tell, I'm leaning towards blogging as another form of privilege. Then again, this is a terrific post for which little "traditional" social capital is being earned, so maybe blogging is a way to disrupt privilege after all...
L?"
Turning, turning in my own little universe.
L:)
Why philosophy? Indeed! All this talk of benches and sidelines. Life is baseball after all -- you could just adhere to the basics of a game, but why, when the churches and cathedrals contribute so many multiple, interdependent layers of nuance? For me this is the basis of architexture. It's not so much a question of bench or stadium seats, but of how the field can dream.
So here's to philosophers like Stemwedel who put theory in play!
L:)
Regardless of the results, today I went to vote. It took less than five minutes. It was organized, efficient, easy to understand and safe. J'en étais fière.
Aubin voudrait me faire croire que « nous sommes devenus une société beaucoup plus fragmentée, métissée et complexe, mais plus humaniste... » et il a peut-être raison. Il propose alors de penser à une « « marque Canada » avec une nouvelle iconogrpahie, plus humaniste... ».
A humanist discourse is flawed, as any ideology tends to be. But on this day, I'm happy to be "Canadian" -- maybe Elections.ca could lead the way for the new « marque Canada ». X!
L:)