First of all, I think The Miseducation of Lauryn Hill should be canonized as one of the classic feminist texts. Secondly, this song is what I thought of when I read this dry paragraph in "Exhibiting Masculinity" by Sean Nixon:
"Individuals are positioned within particular discourses, then, as an effect of power upon them. This might work, for example, through the intensification of pleasures of the body, its posture and movements and the solidifying of certain practices. This is a productive relation, with power constituting the fabric of the individual and the individual's conduct."
Maybe it's just because Sean Nixon doesn't address the reader as "baby girl," but this just seems like another example of theory not packing the punch that art can.
Anyway, do you think that by examining our subjectivization, we can free at least some of ourselves from power and live better lives? Is that even what Lauryn Hill is talking about?
I think that while identifying our subjectivization is a step towards understanding ourselves to a greater extent, freeing ourselves from that subjectivization as we have seen with everyone from Focoult to Freud to even Mulvy we need to find our identity somewhere and whether for bette or worse we get it from identifying with others or the representations put forward by others. So while it might be good to know that we like to wear polo shirts because of the way they were presented in an advertisement, chances are that we aren't going to stop wearing polo shirts. We'll be more aware for sure but at the same time there really is no alternative.
ReplyDeleteIs Lauryn Hill an artist or a theorist? Or both? I mean, the title of that record foregrounds education. Are we being too simple here? Am I overreading things?
ReplyDeleteBut Nick, isn't there a wealth of representations to choose from? The reason I referenced "That Thing" is because it addresses people whose behavior needs to change, because their lives (and to Lauryn Hill, their eternal souls) are at risk. The representations around which we build our character matter a great deal.
ReplyDeleteWe can free ourselves from that power, but only a little. An individual has little power to do anything with, it's instead the institution of society that holds the power that you speak of and from which we would like to be free. However, because society holds the power and thus dictates how objects and people are represented and what objects and people are actually created...is there anywhere that we can be free?
ReplyDeleteCall me a cynic, but I agree with Janetta about how an individual has little power to do anything! The question of freedom seems pointless in the face of overwhelming institutional power and their norm creating ability.
ReplyDeleteArguably, I guess freedom can be seen as the ability to pick a certain mold or way of representing yourself...if that makes any sense!.... But they are still expected categories for us to fall into....Carolyn K argues that "there is a wealth of representations to choose from", yet is choosing one of those forms of representation really an act of freedom? I'm just a bit skeptical of the benefit of examining our subjectivization as way of becoming more free or more enlightened or more.....
I think there are definitely a wealth of representations, but as a society we all subscribe overwhelmingly to just a few. If you look at the incredible popularity of many items, iPhones, Coca Cola, the hoodie, etc... its hard to believe that we really are able to really find representations different from those of other people
ReplyDeleteMy take on this is actually somewhat in agreement with Focault, that there will always be someone or some force in power, and that all we can do is resist. In my view, there is a hope in this, however, in that we can resist. Even with immense power over us, those in power still can't take away what lies at the cores of our hearts, minds, and souls. This is only true, however, if the subjugated do make that effort to resist. I believe it's possible to do this is small ways; if everyone wears their hat backwards and you think it's stupid, go ahead and do so. In this spirit, resistance isn't for resistance's sake, but for integrity to one's own convictions and hopefully offering of the ability for all to act upon their own such convictions.
ReplyDeleteI think that this argument fails to consider the aesthetic quality of things which can often be the basis of our tendency toward certain items. Although this blog does not contain actual advertisements http://thesartorialist.blogspot.com/ it contains very similar images. I wholeheartedly admit that these urban images (like many of the images used in fashion magazines) are alluring. The aesthetic value of a city backdrop with beautiful clothes and colors is pleasing to me in and of itself. If you take such an image and attach a brand or notion to it, I believe this is where the notion of "subconscious molding" comes in. Therefore, I believe it is more hopeful to think of marketing in a more artistic sense. I think it is important to consider aesthetic value even in the sense of consumerism.
ReplyDeleteI brought up Lauryn Hill for a reason. Sometimes the potential identities we're exposed to are unethical. Once we understand how and why they are unethical, we are responsible for changing.
ReplyDeleteWhen dealing with individual identities i feel that it does not exists and that it is not possible for a person to be an individual in the purest sense. One of my favorite quotes is, "you are unique, just like everyone else." It goes toward the idea that instead of uniquely representing ourselves, we pick a pre-made mold that best fits our values. We try to convey our system of beliefs or how we feel in the way that we dress ad act.
ReplyDeleteEven though I don't think there is such a thing as a unique identity I feel that occasionally a new unique mold or category can be created in response to an existing one. Going back to Foucault and the idea of resisting we can't get rid of these molds but we can resist them by creating new ones in a constant struggle.
In response to Carolyn K.'s comment on the reason she chose Lauryn Hill, I think the point that you're trying to make is valid. Once we understand how and why potential identities are unethical, WE ARE RESPONSIBLE for changing them...but then you have to consider the power in change. How easy is it to change? and what does that mean for you in a society where everyone is trying to "conform"? I guess I see what you are trying to say but I also agree with everything else that is being thrown around. Lauryn Hill's song is valid in the sense that if you are strong enough to change bad habits you should, i mean- good for you! But it is not always that easy which is why most Americans (most of the world!) tend to conform to one of the few popular "normal molds" our culture has created.
ReplyDelete