non-violence is used in these causes because the people who chose to use it simply realized the futility of violence. the main denominator in the the methods that they use to resist is to refrain from picking arms to hurt the other. however they also differ somewhat. Gandhi practices self-sacrifice to move his enemies, directing suffering onto his body to prove his sincerity and will. He writes, ‘Real suffering bravely born melts even a heart of stone. Such is the potency of suffering. (79) Aside from fasting as a form of self-sacrifice, Gandhi and his followers also act in civil disobedience by refusing to follow unjust laws, boycotting British products and refusing to provide manpower. Similarly, Thich Nhat Hanh described the Buddhist non-violent peace movement in vietnam with self-sacrificing acts of hunger strikes and self-emmolation so that people 'were jarred into awareness, and compassion were born in them' (Nhat hanh, 41)
"During the announcement, Nobel Committee Chairman Egil Aarvik admitted to reporters that nonviolence had not been successful in achieving independencefor Tibet over the past three decades. But he believed there were no other honorable solutions. "Of course you may say it's a bit too unrealistic, " he said of nonviolence. "but if you look at the world today, what is the solution to conflict? Will violence or military power be the solution? No... the pat of peace is realistic..." (Dalai Lama and Chan, 46)
i don't really agree with self sacrifice or hurting the self and think that unless the situation is dire, self sacrifice as a tactic may not work. in today's transnational, globalized, capitalized world..
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Saturday, January 3, 2009
chapter 5
because i have such a hard time trying to get myself together to write something. i'm going to try writing it here.
this is the last chapter. it is suppose to be easy, a write up of what i want my readers to take away with them from this paper.
here goes---- how should i start?
System trapped! - carrying the lady in your mind
In the previous two chapters i have reviewed different case studies of non-confrontational resistance in Singapore. As we know, The purpose of this paper is to understand how non-confrontational resistance works. By now the reader would have known that the heroes in my hypothesis do not resist for political reasons. Thus one of my main points of concern is that non-confrontational resistance in dictative environments are not necessarily developed for political progression or revoluntionary purposes.
These case studies remind us that resistances are not always planned for social movements. and are not always conceived to release people from their reppression and change ways of living in societies. The non confrontational resistance here demonstrates an example that abandonds the ideal of reforming or overthrowing the oppressor. it is not glorifying instead it uses tricks to express itself.
In chapter three, artists turn their attention towards problems faced by the everyday person instead of duelling with the state. They subject themselves to censorship and allowed their works to be adjusted and changed, their intentions were not directed at political dissent. However this forced them to use creative ways in manipulating censorship and shape their messages to a more palatable state. In chapter four, bloggers use humour as a tactic to transmit messages, but here again they were not targetting the athorities. I suggested that they were trying to regain their autonomy from the government with the canivalesque laughter of their humour.
Thus the authoritative rule of the government causes people to take caution in performing resistance from fear of being prosecuted. This result in people taking two courses of action, the first is to address problems in an 'outwardly' manner and focus on the societal problems in the lives of everyday people as we have seen that artists have done. The second is to address problems in an 'inwardly' manner and focus on the problems concerning the needs and feelings of the self (in this case people subconsciously felt a need for independence. they attempt to prove their independence to the government) as we have seen that the bloggers have done. Things in regard to the state and politics are deemed too sensitive and dangerous for discussion and are unfortunately avoided even though they have a huge part to play in people's reasons for resisting. this attitude towards resistance and social change is a result of people's ways of knowing from having lived in an environment that is effected not only by the government's authoritative rule, but also other factors in globalization, culture, history etc..
Therefore i suggest that we should attempt to understand causes for resistance by investigating the background and interelated forces of ... - discourse?? foucault
However even if creating such resistance may avoid being penalized by the state, to ignore the role of the state when addressing social issues avoids looking at part of what causes the root of the problem. In a way, people can never get out of the system that they are subverting.
(must use a case study in somewhere to examplify what i m trying to prove.
what can i prove with the case study 4 mil frowns?
- the non confrontational resistance
- the non political expect
- trapped within system
must also somehow put all these in perspective of singapore.
and talk about its capitalist, materialist, fast and a lack of quality lifestyle. how some people are worried about this and that's why they resist.
this is the last chapter. it is suppose to be easy, a write up of what i want my readers to take away with them from this paper.
here goes---- how should i start?
System trapped! - carrying the lady in your mind
In the previous two chapters i have reviewed different case studies of non-confrontational resistance in Singapore. As we know, The purpose of this paper is to understand how non-confrontational resistance works. By now the reader would have known that the heroes in my hypothesis do not resist for political reasons. Thus one of my main points of concern is that non-confrontational resistance in dictative environments are not necessarily developed for political progression or revoluntionary purposes.
These case studies remind us that resistances are not always planned for social movements. and are not always conceived to release people from their reppression and change ways of living in societies. The non confrontational resistance here demonstrates an example that abandonds the ideal of reforming or overthrowing the oppressor. it is not glorifying instead it uses tricks to express itself.
In chapter three, artists turn their attention towards problems faced by the everyday person instead of duelling with the state. They subject themselves to censorship and allowed their works to be adjusted and changed, their intentions were not directed at political dissent. However this forced them to use creative ways in manipulating censorship and shape their messages to a more palatable state. In chapter four, bloggers use humour as a tactic to transmit messages, but here again they were not targetting the athorities. I suggested that they were trying to regain their autonomy from the government with the canivalesque laughter of their humour.
Thus the authoritative rule of the government causes people to take caution in performing resistance from fear of being prosecuted. This result in people taking two courses of action, the first is to address problems in an 'outwardly' manner and focus on the societal problems in the lives of everyday people as we have seen that artists have done. The second is to address problems in an 'inwardly' manner and focus on the problems concerning the needs and feelings of the self (in this case people subconsciously felt a need for independence. they attempt to prove their independence to the government) as we have seen that the bloggers have done. Things in regard to the state and politics are deemed too sensitive and dangerous for discussion and are unfortunately avoided even though they have a huge part to play in people's reasons for resisting. this attitude towards resistance and social change is a result of people's ways of knowing from having lived in an environment that is effected not only by the government's authoritative rule, but also other factors in globalization, culture, history etc..
Therefore i suggest that we should attempt to understand causes for resistance by investigating the background and interelated forces of ... - discourse?? foucault
However even if creating such resistance may avoid being penalized by the state, to ignore the role of the state when addressing social issues avoids looking at part of what causes the root of the problem. In a way, people can never get out of the system that they are subverting.
(must use a case study in somewhere to examplify what i m trying to prove.
what can i prove with the case study 4 mil frowns?
- the non confrontational resistance
- the non political expect
- trapped within system
must also somehow put all these in perspective of singapore.
and talk about its capitalist, materialist, fast and a lack of quality lifestyle. how some people are worried about this and that's why they resist.
Monday, December 22, 2008
analysis of chapter 4
the first thing that i would ask is what tactic these people use. why do they choose to do things this way? what do the tactics tells us about people's ways of knowing? how is this connected to globalization? xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
i propose that individuals' ways of knowing in the case studies are effected by the global and the local, therefore they make decisive tactics base on these complicated influences and situations. My analysis will therefore be in two parts. the first is an investigation of how people adjust living in the global and local through analyzing the tactics that have been used. (this part we talk about globalization, disjuncture and difference, scales of globalization etc- what they do is they use humour to be adapt) In the second part i will discuss how tactics in the case studies are derivations or similar to the new social movements and the situationists. my case in point is that although javascript:void(0)the creators of these blog projects may not realise or admit it, they are in fact engaging in subversive actions against the official in order to regain their autonomy or part of it.
part 1
the survival mechanism: globalization and the ways of knowing
i will first start by looking at the tactics that are being used in these case studies. The most obvious difference that it has from those of the previous chapter used by artists are that they were displayed or performed in a public space without first being inspected or censored, and yet they were not stopped by the authorities. The authorities did not react not because they did know about the activities, in fact both of the case studies were reported and featured in mainstream media outside of the internet. Instead it is because these works were blanketed by seemingly innocent intentions that the authority could not act against them. The action figures' protest was a photoshoot meant to be show displeasure against odex, while the four million frowns project was a parody of the original government initiated campaign. What is similar is that both use humour to convey their messages. Yet at the same time both individuals who were responsible for the projects and whom i interviewed told me that they were fearful that they were doing things against the law for they did not know how the state will react to their works of resistance. They felt far because their projects were not officially approved. Humour is thus used as a mechanism for survival.
The usage of the blog in both case studies suggests the common use and influence of the internet and its tools in communication for resistance.
-globalization -networking
part 2: subverting the official
the first thing that i would ask is what tactic these people use. why do they choose to do things this way? what do the tactics tells us about people's ways of knowing? how is this connected to globalization? xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
i propose that individuals' ways of knowing in the case studies are effected by the global and the local, therefore they make decisive tactics base on these complicated influences and situations. My analysis will therefore be in two parts. the first is an investigation of how people adjust living in the global and local through analyzing the tactics that have been used. (this part we talk about globalization, disjuncture and difference, scales of globalization etc- what they do is they use humour to be adapt) In the second part i will discuss how tactics in the case studies are derivations or similar to the new social movements and the situationists. my case in point is that although javascript:void(0)the creators of these blog projects may not realise or admit it, they are in fact engaging in subversive actions against the official in order to regain their autonomy or part of it.
part 1
the survival mechanism: globalization and the ways of knowing
i will first start by looking at the tactics that are being used in these case studies. The most obvious difference that it has from those of the previous chapter used by artists are that they were displayed or performed in a public space without first being inspected or censored, and yet they were not stopped by the authorities. The authorities did not react not because they did know about the activities, in fact both of the case studies were reported and featured in mainstream media outside of the internet. Instead it is because these works were blanketed by seemingly innocent intentions that the authority could not act against them. The action figures' protest was a photoshoot meant to be show displeasure against odex, while the four million frowns project was a parody of the original government initiated campaign. What is similar is that both use humour to convey their messages. Yet at the same time both individuals who were responsible for the projects and whom i interviewed told me that they were fearful that they were doing things against the law for they did not know how the state will react to their works of resistance. They felt far because their projects were not officially approved. Humour is thus used as a mechanism for survival.
The usage of the blog in both case studies suggests the common use and influence of the internet and its tools in communication for resistance.
-globalization -networking
part 2: subverting the official
Thursday, November 27, 2008
ok. i am just going to spit all out now. n tomorrow morning i will review what i wrote.
this part will be about singapore. the singapore that i have come to be afraid of, that i have come to see as there is something really wron g with.
during my trips back to singapore i always felt that something is wrong. my descriptions here are probably the symptoms that are afflicting many other cities. the streets are overcrowded and the city suffocated with new immigrants here to work. everywhere advertisements scream for the attentions of consumers, everywhere weekend the shopping malls are sardine packed as if there was no where else to go on your day off. Buildings are pulled down and built up everyday changing the landscape everywhere in the city- the drilling of construction never cease. Yet even with the overzealous market economy and the growing consumerist culture, i find that the people around me are not happy.
to me people always seemed to be troubled by something. and in the beginning all i heard were complains. people are worried about their jobs, their families, they are stressed out in this very competitive and fast lifestyle. the topic of resistance then comes at the very heart of this problem. what are people doing to resist? at first it seems to me that all people do is to complain and take no action. when they are unhappy they complain again. i was frustrated with all the complaining. why wasn't there any action?
that was perhaps the basis of my frustration. i saw that people were unhappy but it seems to me that they have no idea what to do about it. and this frustrates the hell out of me. i thought to myself how am i going to live in a place where people don't speak and voice out for themselves prefering to suffer in silence from fear?? would that not make one crazy? as what i thought i would be right then, crazy. is that it?
later on i begin to search for some proof that i was wrong, that there was more than meets the eye. resistance became my point of interest when i realise that there are people who were doing some sort of 'resistance' on their own. but they were subtle and non confrontational.
of course i realise that there are activists, political activists of the oppositional party in particular who opposes the government in very confrontational ways. but these are not the kind of resistance that i am focusing in.
i'm looking into the kind of resistance that ordinary people do, that are non confrontationaal but that are nevertheless resisting of some sort.
the internet kind, the cultural kind in theatre and visual arts.
this part will be about singapore. the singapore that i have come to be afraid of, that i have come to see as there is something really wron g with.
during my trips back to singapore i always felt that something is wrong. my descriptions here are probably the symptoms that are afflicting many other cities. the streets are overcrowded and the city suffocated with new immigrants here to work. everywhere advertisements scream for the attentions of consumers, everywhere weekend the shopping malls are sardine packed as if there was no where else to go on your day off. Buildings are pulled down and built up everyday changing the landscape everywhere in the city- the drilling of construction never cease. Yet even with the overzealous market economy and the growing consumerist culture, i find that the people around me are not happy.
to me people always seemed to be troubled by something. and in the beginning all i heard were complains. people are worried about their jobs, their families, they are stressed out in this very competitive and fast lifestyle. the topic of resistance then comes at the very heart of this problem. what are people doing to resist? at first it seems to me that all people do is to complain and take no action. when they are unhappy they complain again. i was frustrated with all the complaining. why wasn't there any action?
that was perhaps the basis of my frustration. i saw that people were unhappy but it seems to me that they have no idea what to do about it. and this frustrates the hell out of me. i thought to myself how am i going to live in a place where people don't speak and voice out for themselves prefering to suffer in silence from fear?? would that not make one crazy? as what i thought i would be right then, crazy. is that it?
later on i begin to search for some proof that i was wrong, that there was more than meets the eye. resistance became my point of interest when i realise that there are people who were doing some sort of 'resistance' on their own. but they were subtle and non confrontational.
of course i realise that there are activists, political activists of the oppositional party in particular who opposes the government in very confrontational ways. but these are not the kind of resistance that i am focusing in.
i'm looking into the kind of resistance that ordinary people do, that are non confrontationaal but that are nevertheless resisting of some sort.
the internet kind, the cultural kind in theatre and visual arts.
Saturday, November 15, 2008
the sketch diagram
the last section of my mrp.
i decided it to use foucault's theory of the subject-position
and i have a diagram to go with that. accept that i'm not too sure about the diagram.
i think i have to get my main points down clear first. or i will just keep going in circles.
main points.
1. people are in subject-positions in the discourse. n because they r subjecting themselves can they make sense of their situations.
2. i think that in the particular case of my study, people resisted the ways that they do because they are reacting to what makes most sense to them when subjected under such a discourse. by identifying with their subject-positions they began to understand resistance differently, they began to understand their positions.
3. from these subject-positions that artists/individuals have they realized that the state is absolute. i think this is the most important point.
- the state is invisible but also visible at the same time. it is invisible because resistance never seem to imply the state even in the artist's intentions. yet the state is omnipresence ie visible and artists have to keep that in mind in everything they do.
- one example is that artists adopt a 'do first and see' attitude towards censorship. they go with the flow and are not impatient.
4. because they see the state in this point of view, they adopt different ideas and philosphy about resistance, about the state. they...
- reject ideas of political activism because they believe politics is a war of power and many again reject ideas of power. hence focus on societal issues
- reject ideas that will endanger themselves believing in self preservation without which nothing can be accomplished.
5. their sketches (on their selves when doing resistant work) show ideas of interconnectedness or a connection with others. perhaps they in their subject positions feel this. others that they feel - sadness (emotional), growth, gathering like minded people, touching others.
i decided it to use foucault's theory of the subject-position
and i have a diagram to go with that. accept that i'm not too sure about the diagram.
i think i have to get my main points down clear first. or i will just keep going in circles.
main points.
1. people are in subject-positions in the discourse. n because they r subjecting themselves can they make sense of their situations.
2. i think that in the particular case of my study, people resisted the ways that they do because they are reacting to what makes most sense to them when subjected under such a discourse. by identifying with their subject-positions they began to understand resistance differently, they began to understand their positions.
3. from these subject-positions that artists/individuals have they realized that the state is absolute. i think this is the most important point.
- the state is invisible but also visible at the same time. it is invisible because resistance never seem to imply the state even in the artist's intentions. yet the state is omnipresence ie visible and artists have to keep that in mind in everything they do.
- one example is that artists adopt a 'do first and see' attitude towards censorship. they go with the flow and are not impatient.
4. because they see the state in this point of view, they adopt different ideas and philosphy about resistance, about the state. they...
- reject ideas of political activism because they believe politics is a war of power and many again reject ideas of power. hence focus on societal issues
- reject ideas that will endanger themselves believing in self preservation without which nothing can be accomplished.
5. their sketches (on their selves when doing resistant work) show ideas of interconnectedness or a connection with others. perhaps they in their subject positions feel this. others that they feel - sadness (emotional), growth, gathering like minded people, touching others.
Tuesday, November 4, 2008
a resistance that dare not speak its name
a resistance that dare not speak its name
- who the creators are resisting
- government's omnipresence
- people's conservatism, problems in racism , nacrophobia?? n stuff, social problems
- these are the forces that exercise power over the creators. or that the creators are subjected to these power. (can use knowledge/power article to talk about this0
what are their strategies
- what creators do in response
- description of strategies. different types
- prevent prosecution, to get messsge across,- usually its to find ways around restrictions
- here can compare to that of scott's hidden transcript. messages are not that hidden.
what are their intentions
- not against government
- to express self..
actually this part needs more thinking
- who the creators are resisting
- government's omnipresence
- people's conservatism, problems in racism , nacrophobia?? n stuff, social problems
- these are the forces that exercise power over the creators. or that the creators are subjected to these power. (can use knowledge/power article to talk about this0
what are their strategies
- what creators do in response
- description of strategies. different types
- prevent prosecution, to get messsge across,- usually its to find ways around restrictions
- here can compare to that of scott's hidden transcript. messages are not that hidden.
what are their intentions
- not against government
- to express self..
actually this part needs more thinking
Friday, October 31, 2008
possible conclusion?
brain stormed a little
so i was thinking, after explaining the strategies that artists n individuals use to resist, and then compare that to the strategies of the theories by scott n de certeau. n then conclude in this section that there are different ideas of resistance in sg as we can already see in the case studies. again this is different from scott n de certeau's more deterministic approach.
i will then propose that ideas of resistance are different because of the excercising of power in this particular discourse. how about that?
so that means people understood resistance and submission differently BECAUSE of the ways power was exercised on them. although there was restrictions and fear, it did not demolish ideas of resistance. instead it changes the way people understood it and go about it. so probably different ways of exercising power will result in different ideas of resistance. in a way this addresses some of the problematics in foucault's theory because he doesn't talk about agency. whereas i will be suggesting that in this case people looked for agencies when they are restricted
when one look at it this way. then... this is actually empowering.
so the conclusion for my mrp will be about empowerment.
n this section will include some cultural theory on how people interpret things. ie the referent, signifier and signified. the signifier and signified always changing with the culture.
in short, i will look at how people interpret things as they are restricted by various powers, the strongest of course are the state and the people. how they interpret censorship- the tools of restriction, ideas of social change and expression, and how they interpret the government and the people. ie all these referents, what are their signifier, and how are they signified by these artists?
here i will input quotes from interviews on what pp think about those terms/referents. the idea is that again agencies that people search for in time of repression are not necessarily revolutionary. in this case empowerment comes in the form of the ability and the possibility to express oneself in a restrictive environment by using one's creativeness. n this is possible because these pp have a different concept on what it means to resist. (one idea is that resistance can be taught, inherited and carried on through a long period of time. the survival of ideas of resistance is crucial)
most importantly, the empowerment is in the artist, because she/he can express herself...
ok.. i somehow think that there is something lacking at the end. i think i need to look up theories on empowerment. bell hooks perhaps?
so i was thinking, after explaining the strategies that artists n individuals use to resist, and then compare that to the strategies of the theories by scott n de certeau. n then conclude in this section that there are different ideas of resistance in sg as we can already see in the case studies. again this is different from scott n de certeau's more deterministic approach.
i will then propose that ideas of resistance are different because of the excercising of power in this particular discourse. how about that?
so that means people understood resistance and submission differently BECAUSE of the ways power was exercised on them. although there was restrictions and fear, it did not demolish ideas of resistance. instead it changes the way people understood it and go about it. so probably different ways of exercising power will result in different ideas of resistance. in a way this addresses some of the problematics in foucault's theory because he doesn't talk about agency. whereas i will be suggesting that in this case people looked for agencies when they are restricted
when one look at it this way. then... this is actually empowering.
so the conclusion for my mrp will be about empowerment.
n this section will include some cultural theory on how people interpret things. ie the referent, signifier and signified. the signifier and signified always changing with the culture.
in short, i will look at how people interpret things as they are restricted by various powers, the strongest of course are the state and the people. how they interpret censorship- the tools of restriction, ideas of social change and expression, and how they interpret the government and the people. ie all these referents, what are their signifier, and how are they signified by these artists?
here i will input quotes from interviews on what pp think about those terms/referents. the idea is that again agencies that people search for in time of repression are not necessarily revolutionary. in this case empowerment comes in the form of the ability and the possibility to express oneself in a restrictive environment by using one's creativeness. n this is possible because these pp have a different concept on what it means to resist. (one idea is that resistance can be taught, inherited and carried on through a long period of time. the survival of ideas of resistance is crucial)
most importantly, the empowerment is in the artist, because she/he can express herself...
ok.. i somehow think that there is something lacking at the end. i think i need to look up theories on empowerment. bell hooks perhaps?
finding my way again
i'm kinda at a lost on how to analyze my research paper.
at first it was to prove that the resistance theories of scott and de certeau were wrong in some ways when compared to the singapore case study. 1. that people do not always oppose the government, 2. that people do plan long term globalizing visions.
now for my methodology i decided to tell all, and forego the 2 resistance theories totally by saying that they don't fit because they were analyzed in a different historical discourse. (according to foucault's theory of discourse)
so then how do i analyze my work? what is my purpose and what will be my conclusion?
----------
possibility
- the different ideas of resistance that people have.
- according to the historical discourse of singapore and the situation that these cultural expression are created.. so am i now using foucault's way of analysis? looking for the rules in which these creations are bound to??
but i don't want to because i'm not fully convinced by foucault somehow.
- what about a mix of foucault and the buddhist ideas of cause and effect? think thich nhat hanh's book. and then top it with evidence of what people have been telling me in the interviews and their sketches. -- non violent resistance, using humour
- what about the resistance theories? how do those fit in?
Maybe my analysis can be that we have to look at the power relations in the situation to understand how people resist. why do they resist in certain ways? for example in sg why are people having different ideas of resistance? n why are they all approaching it in a 'docile' manner? yet at the same time they are creative. they do rely on time, n they may not be political progressive but they do follow visions. (at least some of them) they are also assertive at times, not always hiding their intent. instead they cleverly put it forward without provoking the powerful. (these are some of the ideas that i took from the resistance theories but adapt them to my case)
sometimes people may not get it. in fact maybe because they are too covert that many do not get it. but it seems that it is ok if people don't get it. there didn't seem to be a huge rush. there may be power at work here, but those that are repressed are not helpless. they have agents. but they are also not too angst. they accept that change will take a long time.
i have to review all the strategies that people use and decide what conclusion that they have really come to. tactics: humour n metaphors- sometimes sacarsm, peaceful ways, using the body, manipulating censorship-lying, finding lookholes. -- actually if i look at all these tactics, they are tactics to keep themselves from trouble.
i have to review the reasons that made people do what they do. their causes, what they think is important. what irritates them. when u feel irritated and restricted, what do you do?
philosophy- these people do not feel resigned to their fate. their sketches somehow always emphasize connection, inter-linking.
now i can describe all these, but what does it all tell us? that the environment in singapore is such that people have to rely on these tactics? do these tactics even do anything constructive? so what is it?
maybe i have to put my point of view into it. i come to see how this may be constructive to the person itself. it starts with the person. in fact 2 people quoted gandhi. something along the lines that 'u have to be the change'.
i think that the bottom line is that there are agencies for people to use. n how ....
----------
note.
about how power change the body. i think maybe i shouldn't put that title (the production of the body) into the case study descriptions. perhaps i should talk about power later on as a whole. n in the descriptions instead of that title, i should put some title that describe the responses of the creators/event. how they response to the restrictions. n then how they subvert to these restriections.
i will talk about power later and how it is related to changing the way people think about resistance.
at first it was to prove that the resistance theories of scott and de certeau were wrong in some ways when compared to the singapore case study. 1. that people do not always oppose the government, 2. that people do plan long term globalizing visions.
now for my methodology i decided to tell all, and forego the 2 resistance theories totally by saying that they don't fit because they were analyzed in a different historical discourse. (according to foucault's theory of discourse)
so then how do i analyze my work? what is my purpose and what will be my conclusion?
----------
possibility
- the different ideas of resistance that people have.
- according to the historical discourse of singapore and the situation that these cultural expression are created.. so am i now using foucault's way of analysis? looking for the rules in which these creations are bound to??
but i don't want to because i'm not fully convinced by foucault somehow.
- what about a mix of foucault and the buddhist ideas of cause and effect? think thich nhat hanh's book. and then top it with evidence of what people have been telling me in the interviews and their sketches. -- non violent resistance, using humour
- what about the resistance theories? how do those fit in?
Maybe my analysis can be that we have to look at the power relations in the situation to understand how people resist. why do they resist in certain ways? for example in sg why are people having different ideas of resistance? n why are they all approaching it in a 'docile' manner? yet at the same time they are creative. they do rely on time, n they may not be political progressive but they do follow visions. (at least some of them) they are also assertive at times, not always hiding their intent. instead they cleverly put it forward without provoking the powerful. (these are some of the ideas that i took from the resistance theories but adapt them to my case)
sometimes people may not get it. in fact maybe because they are too covert that many do not get it. but it seems that it is ok if people don't get it. there didn't seem to be a huge rush. there may be power at work here, but those that are repressed are not helpless. they have agents. but they are also not too angst. they accept that change will take a long time.
i have to review all the strategies that people use and decide what conclusion that they have really come to. tactics: humour n metaphors- sometimes sacarsm, peaceful ways, using the body, manipulating censorship-lying, finding lookholes. -- actually if i look at all these tactics, they are tactics to keep themselves from trouble.
i have to review the reasons that made people do what they do. their causes, what they think is important. what irritates them. when u feel irritated and restricted, what do you do?
philosophy- these people do not feel resigned to their fate. their sketches somehow always emphasize connection, inter-linking.
now i can describe all these, but what does it all tell us? that the environment in singapore is such that people have to rely on these tactics? do these tactics even do anything constructive? so what is it?
maybe i have to put my point of view into it. i come to see how this may be constructive to the person itself. it starts with the person. in fact 2 people quoted gandhi. something along the lines that 'u have to be the change'.
i think that the bottom line is that there are agencies for people to use. n how ....
----------
note.
about how power change the body. i think maybe i shouldn't put that title (the production of the body) into the case study descriptions. perhaps i should talk about power later on as a whole. n in the descriptions instead of that title, i should put some title that describe the responses of the creators/event. how they response to the restrictions. n then how they subvert to these restriections.
i will talk about power later and how it is related to changing the way people think about resistance.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
framing my MRP
writing my major research paper is ... a love hate thing
i have been reading foucault these 2 days, and i have to say that i agree with him more than anybody else. but one thing that i find him lacking in is the humanist aspect of his idea in discourse. if discourse is a 'network that has its own history and conditions of existance' then how do people resist and still survive? i mean even if discourse shows us the conditions, the rules of existance and what meaning is, what makes meaning in this particular network, i do not think that all who exist submit quietly to these rules. otherwise how would society change? my belief is that people submit and attempt to change things at the same time but they do it within the rules of discourse so that they are comprehensible and appear to hold truth.
Scott and De Certeau in their resistance theories explains how the subordinate, the oppressed, the ordinary people resist in ways that are nonconfrontational and maybe sometimes undetectable for the sake of their safety. Although this i agree in view of the power realities that these people live in, their theory do not correspond neatly to my case studies in Singapore.
First, Scott's idea of the hidden transcript and the public transcript is too dichotimized i think. it can't work in my research because in my case studies there are messages that seem to be both hidden and public. plus all of the resistance in my cases are not striving for political revolution or any of that order. which is what Scott is arguing, he thinks hidden transcript will result in political progress.
While De Certeau's theory is more complicated and fits to my research more, i think that he generalizes resistance to the acts of everyday life too much. he may make the ordinary man the hero, but his 'heroes' have no thoughts of globalizing projects. that they resist in everyday life as a form of survival and reflex to pit against the oppressors, with fragmented actions that has no long term planning is undermining the ordinary man. because i think that the creators of cultural production do have globalizing ideas despite their reliance on time and the rules of the discourse.
in the end, i think that the problem and the reason why Scott's and De Certeau's theories narrowly miss my research is because they are based on particular historical and societal situations. they are only good for they obey the rules in the discourses in which they based their researches. that is why i cannot apply it to my research. however their theories are invaluable in a way that they expose how the surpressed resist non confrontationally. that there is agency.
maybe i can look into this through foucault's methodology.
2 things i am concerned about in regards to this is truth and power, and subject/body/self. my questions in regards to the singapore case studies is how power influences people's decisions, how they may control their bodies. but at the same time, how and why people combat this power. and again using their bodies to combat them. in this discourse what meanings are being formed? how is the meaning of resistance and submission changed or developed to make sense? how do people contest truths in this discourse?
(use the resistance theories to explain- how pp hide messages, depend on time, lower their 'pushing'.)
i will look at how the exercise of power affects and produces the body. but at the same time it changes the way people understood resistance and submission. i think this is a very important point. that ideas of resistance changed. techniques and tactics in resistance changed too. i will go so far as to say that the self, the subject is constructed by the exercise of power but it also generates creativity, alternative ideas etc. (sketches by interviewees that have that common theme of interconnection) whether this is also the result of the construction or something else i'll have to give it more thought.
qn to self, how then is looking at how pp interpret the representations of art works furthering the research?
perhaps this interpretations will help in determining how subversive the resistances are. do people get it? do people not get it? how 'obvious' or 'aggressive' are ideas of resistance? this is where i can explore humanism, agency. if the body is restricted by power, how can it be an agent too? as foucault say power is not all negative, it also creates criticsm, interaction, hence that's where creativity comes in. (how did these artists come up with their visions?) i wonder if foucault is missing this creativity. he didn't touch on it much. the subject may be constructed by restrictions, but it also help generate ideas precisely because there are people who dislike being restricted. i don't know how to explain this dislike (seem to be very unscientific), but some people will do something about it, some will not. or some will try to combat it and some will accept that restriction. this is a factor that is uncontrollable, unforseeable, unpredictable.
now through the interpretation and presentation of creative works, how do we know how aggressive the creators are? and why are they in such a state? how do they decide if its safe to do this?
is the clue again in the excercise of power? or are people aggressive in different ways? ways that adhere still to the rules? (for example avoiding talk of the government, reframing words and ideas) so that they know they will not be disregarded and that their messages will have more sense of truth in them. that means it brings us back again to the analysis that ideas of resistance have changed.
finally i really want to talk about how artists view their world. the globalizing visions that they hold. why do they think this way? perhaps people with this changed idea of resistance come to similar conclusion? or they had similar influences? i think they see hope, or they wouldn't keep doing what they are doing.
i have been reading foucault these 2 days, and i have to say that i agree with him more than anybody else. but one thing that i find him lacking in is the humanist aspect of his idea in discourse. if discourse is a 'network that has its own history and conditions of existance' then how do people resist and still survive? i mean even if discourse shows us the conditions, the rules of existance and what meaning is, what makes meaning in this particular network, i do not think that all who exist submit quietly to these rules. otherwise how would society change? my belief is that people submit and attempt to change things at the same time but they do it within the rules of discourse so that they are comprehensible and appear to hold truth.
Scott and De Certeau in their resistance theories explains how the subordinate, the oppressed, the ordinary people resist in ways that are nonconfrontational and maybe sometimes undetectable for the sake of their safety. Although this i agree in view of the power realities that these people live in, their theory do not correspond neatly to my case studies in Singapore.
First, Scott's idea of the hidden transcript and the public transcript is too dichotimized i think. it can't work in my research because in my case studies there are messages that seem to be both hidden and public. plus all of the resistance in my cases are not striving for political revolution or any of that order. which is what Scott is arguing, he thinks hidden transcript will result in political progress.
While De Certeau's theory is more complicated and fits to my research more, i think that he generalizes resistance to the acts of everyday life too much. he may make the ordinary man the hero, but his 'heroes' have no thoughts of globalizing projects. that they resist in everyday life as a form of survival and reflex to pit against the oppressors, with fragmented actions that has no long term planning is undermining the ordinary man. because i think that the creators of cultural production do have globalizing ideas despite their reliance on time and the rules of the discourse.
in the end, i think that the problem and the reason why Scott's and De Certeau's theories narrowly miss my research is because they are based on particular historical and societal situations. they are only good for they obey the rules in the discourses in which they based their researches. that is why i cannot apply it to my research. however their theories are invaluable in a way that they expose how the surpressed resist non confrontationally. that there is agency.
maybe i can look into this through foucault's methodology.
2 things i am concerned about in regards to this is truth and power, and subject/body/self. my questions in regards to the singapore case studies is how power influences people's decisions, how they may control their bodies. but at the same time, how and why people combat this power. and again using their bodies to combat them. in this discourse what meanings are being formed? how is the meaning of resistance and submission changed or developed to make sense? how do people contest truths in this discourse?
(use the resistance theories to explain- how pp hide messages, depend on time, lower their 'pushing'.)
i will look at how the exercise of power affects and produces the body. but at the same time it changes the way people understood resistance and submission. i think this is a very important point. that ideas of resistance changed. techniques and tactics in resistance changed too. i will go so far as to say that the self, the subject is constructed by the exercise of power but it also generates creativity, alternative ideas etc. (sketches by interviewees that have that common theme of interconnection) whether this is also the result of the construction or something else i'll have to give it more thought.
qn to self, how then is looking at how pp interpret the representations of art works furthering the research?
perhaps this interpretations will help in determining how subversive the resistances are. do people get it? do people not get it? how 'obvious' or 'aggressive' are ideas of resistance? this is where i can explore humanism, agency. if the body is restricted by power, how can it be an agent too? as foucault say power is not all negative, it also creates criticsm, interaction, hence that's where creativity comes in. (how did these artists come up with their visions?) i wonder if foucault is missing this creativity. he didn't touch on it much. the subject may be constructed by restrictions, but it also help generate ideas precisely because there are people who dislike being restricted. i don't know how to explain this dislike (seem to be very unscientific), but some people will do something about it, some will not. or some will try to combat it and some will accept that restriction. this is a factor that is uncontrollable, unforseeable, unpredictable.
now through the interpretation and presentation of creative works, how do we know how aggressive the creators are? and why are they in such a state? how do they decide if its safe to do this?
is the clue again in the excercise of power? or are people aggressive in different ways? ways that adhere still to the rules? (for example avoiding talk of the government, reframing words and ideas) so that they know they will not be disregarded and that their messages will have more sense of truth in them. that means it brings us back again to the analysis that ideas of resistance have changed.
finally i really want to talk about how artists view their world. the globalizing visions that they hold. why do they think this way? perhaps people with this changed idea of resistance come to similar conclusion? or they had similar influences? i think they see hope, or they wouldn't keep doing what they are doing.
Sunday, April 13, 2008
reflection paper on the autobiography room
finished my POS and MRP.. and waiting to make changes..
all that's left now is a reflection paper for the autobiography room (honor's IDS course)
what am i going to write in this paper?
i thought i should leave out the conceptualizing part of the art installation because that would have been in the proposal, no?
or maybe just something very brief.
then my personal experience of what happened. the pp's reaction, our own activities.
what can we do to improve.
what did we learn
how have our reading helped?
n its this last part that i am thinking hard over.. cause in reality i think i didn't read much for this course...
i think i should just read up on examples of other art projects - books that are still lying around my room and some other books on arts-based research.. cause i really think this project got me started into thinking about art-based research. i think for me it is more of how i can engage myself with people and hence th community, do research and then do art at the same time.. there is so much that i want to accomplish in one project, what is it that i must be aware of??
write later.
all that's left now is a reflection paper for the autobiography room (honor's IDS course)
what am i going to write in this paper?
i thought i should leave out the conceptualizing part of the art installation because that would have been in the proposal, no?
or maybe just something very brief.
then my personal experience of what happened. the pp's reaction, our own activities.
what can we do to improve.
what did we learn
how have our reading helped?
n its this last part that i am thinking hard over.. cause in reality i think i didn't read much for this course...
i think i should just read up on examples of other art projects - books that are still lying around my room and some other books on arts-based research.. cause i really think this project got me started into thinking about art-based research. i think for me it is more of how i can engage myself with people and hence th community, do research and then do art at the same time.. there is so much that i want to accomplish in one project, what is it that i must be aware of??
write later.
Monday, February 25, 2008
trying to write a topic statement for proposal
today i decided that i should look at writing the proposal and in fact my whole project with a lighter spirit, brighter soul.
so.
topic statement
lalalalalalalalala
when i begin this study i wasn't aiming to prove singaporeans out of their geeky, obedient, oppressed and hard working image as would the world and even ourselves would view us.
the topic of my study began simply by questioning what people did in such a politically controled evironment such as singapore. how did people keep themselves safe and express their views and proliferate awareness at the same time?
thus the topic of my study is to explore how people in Singapore resist dominant powers, express political statements, and raise difficult issues in a highly politically controlled environement. Having borrowed James Scott's theory of the hidden transcripts, i would like to further determind the use of these hidden transcripts within the official and unofficial worlds of singapore as forms of expression and opposition and analyze the evolution of the use of these hidden transscripts in a third world - that is in between the official and unofficial worlds, a space, time, place where people conform and confront at the same time. through the study of the hidden transcripts in this third world i would like To pursue an understanding of my roles in possibily joining the interjection and challenging of singapore's social consciousness through art and other experimental forms.
so.
topic statement
lalalalalalalalala
when i begin this study i wasn't aiming to prove singaporeans out of their geeky, obedient, oppressed and hard working image as would the world and even ourselves would view us.
the topic of my study began simply by questioning what people did in such a politically controled evironment such as singapore. how did people keep themselves safe and express their views and proliferate awareness at the same time?
thus the topic of my study is to explore how people in Singapore resist dominant powers, express political statements, and raise difficult issues in a highly politically controlled environement. Having borrowed James Scott's theory of the hidden transcripts, i would like to further determind the use of these hidden transcripts within the official and unofficial worlds of singapore as forms of expression and opposition and analyze the evolution of the use of these hidden transscripts in a third world - that is in between the official and unofficial worlds, a space, time, place where people conform and confront at the same time. through the study of the hidden transcripts in this third world i would like To pursue an understanding of my roles in possibily joining the interjection and challenging of singapore's social consciousness through art and other experimental forms.
thinking of arts-based research
i've been reading up on arts-based research to give me some ideas for my major project proposal.
it seems to me that there are 3 ways of using arts-based research:
1. art as data
2. art as inquiry
3. art as interpretation or representation
i am interested in the notion of using art to present research findings; the notion that not all experiences, feelings and information can be translated to words.
how can i use this for my research? for my major project?
on the topic of art and resistance/ social change in singapore, in what forms can i present it?
in what medium can i present the middle world? the middle world that i am still inquiring?
there is another thing that i am interested in. that is the use of art to discover the self, to brainstorm, to analyze theories. how can i use art to analyze what i already know to formulate something new? how can i use art to probe deeper into the matter?
as i am thinking of this, i suddenly realise that the little exercises that i have been working with prof honor and jiha were doing just that. like the one we did last week. thinking about before and after we came to canada and drawing a portrait to express that. honor meant for the information in these exercises to be useful for me in looking deeper into the issues that i am questioning. as i read the book, i came to understand that.
if i already have the topic in mind, how am i going to inquire it through art and how am i going to present it through art?
polyvocal?
photography?
installation?
relational art?
blog?
painting? drawing?
should i be doing a project that interact with people as a form of research?
hmmmm...
it all seems complicated. i want to simplify it.
simplify the theory, simplify the research, simplify the expression.
'simple is beautiful'
(now where have i heard of that before?)
thoughts:
sometimes i think that i have to make art my life in order to grasp for myself the channels of peace.
yet the research that i do, how is that connected to the peace that i am trying to find, and trying so hard to understand?
is the middle world of my theory a way for the people to balance power or to understand power or to empower themselves so that they will have a peace of mind? if we can comprehend the power structure and struggles that are working itself in the society, and if we interject that with our abilities, will we be happier? even if that provokes aggression, ignites anger.
maybe anger and agression will be present in the other party. however i think that the doer, the protagonist, the provoker, the interjector herself should remain calm, as calm as the particles in water and air. unabashed by waves of wind because they are in and within the elements themselves.
if we remain calm as we ride the waves, will the others see?
simple may be beautiful but perhaps things will always seem complicated.
we are walking the complicated road, i am walking down that complicated path.
-------
so have i convinced myself that my research indeed relates to my thoughts and ideas?
then how can that help in my project?
shall we go on?
the middle world - the middle world is only plausible if the protagonist is able to balance the official and unofficial world with patience, understanding, repose, confidence and acceptance.
is that possible?
it seems to me that there are 3 ways of using arts-based research:
1. art as data
2. art as inquiry
3. art as interpretation or representation
i am interested in the notion of using art to present research findings; the notion that not all experiences, feelings and information can be translated to words.
how can i use this for my research? for my major project?
on the topic of art and resistance/ social change in singapore, in what forms can i present it?
in what medium can i present the middle world? the middle world that i am still inquiring?
there is another thing that i am interested in. that is the use of art to discover the self, to brainstorm, to analyze theories. how can i use art to analyze what i already know to formulate something new? how can i use art to probe deeper into the matter?
as i am thinking of this, i suddenly realise that the little exercises that i have been working with prof honor and jiha were doing just that. like the one we did last week. thinking about before and after we came to canada and drawing a portrait to express that. honor meant for the information in these exercises to be useful for me in looking deeper into the issues that i am questioning. as i read the book, i came to understand that.
if i already have the topic in mind, how am i going to inquire it through art and how am i going to present it through art?
polyvocal?
photography?
installation?
relational art?
blog?
painting? drawing?
should i be doing a project that interact with people as a form of research?
hmmmm...
it all seems complicated. i want to simplify it.
simplify the theory, simplify the research, simplify the expression.
'simple is beautiful'
(now where have i heard of that before?)
thoughts:
sometimes i think that i have to make art my life in order to grasp for myself the channels of peace.
yet the research that i do, how is that connected to the peace that i am trying to find, and trying so hard to understand?
is the middle world of my theory a way for the people to balance power or to understand power or to empower themselves so that they will have a peace of mind? if we can comprehend the power structure and struggles that are working itself in the society, and if we interject that with our abilities, will we be happier? even if that provokes aggression, ignites anger.
maybe anger and agression will be present in the other party. however i think that the doer, the protagonist, the provoker, the interjector herself should remain calm, as calm as the particles in water and air. unabashed by waves of wind because they are in and within the elements themselves.
if we remain calm as we ride the waves, will the others see?
simple may be beautiful but perhaps things will always seem complicated.
we are walking the complicated road, i am walking down that complicated path.
-------
so have i convinced myself that my research indeed relates to my thoughts and ideas?
then how can that help in my project?
shall we go on?
the middle world - the middle world is only plausible if the protagonist is able to balance the official and unofficial world with patience, understanding, repose, confidence and acceptance.
is that possible?
Thursday, January 17, 2008
the performance studies of opposition tactics in sg
current working paper~ a comparison of 2 different opposition performance art tactics in singapore
even though i'm feeling lousy right now for my lack of competence today, i shall jolt down some differences in these two 'tactics'.
the first 'tactic', i shall give it a nick name: the official performance.
the second 'tactic': the unofficial performance
i'm using the term performance very very loosely here.
what are the official and the unofficial performances?
+ official performances are performances that are made legit by the state. they can be performed by registered companies and earn a profit, they may be funded by the government, they can be part of the state councils, they are bounded by state rules and they are oblidged to pursue state goals (when told to). eg are: any artists and companies who are funded by the national art council - theatre companies, dance companies, the national art gallery, art studios that are funded by the council, in fact i think that almost all art companies are state funded in singapore. even if companies are not state funded, they will be corporate funded (or both) either ways, they are oblidged to follow the rules.
+ unofficial performances are performances that made by groups who are not bound to follow explicit rules of the state. eg are autonomous groups and individuals and non-government organizations. mostly non-profit performances.
i think that oppositional views are expressed in these 'official' and 'non-official' performances, but they are hidden and encoded. when i say oppositional views, i mean views that are oppose to the state's views or that are oppose to the dominant perspectives of the society.
for example criticisms of the government's paranoia of terrorism and problems of racism in the society is encoded into an 'educational' play that depicts and help audiences rehearse possible actions in a crisis. in another case, resistance against a local anime distributor is depicted in a photo shoot session of toy models staging a protest.
what are the difference in these performances?
- the 'official' performances are often advertised in the dominant channels - newspapers, radio stations, television etc. and the actors also get to be interviewed in these medias that are strongly state regulated. thus they may reach further and wider and to the people who need to know the most. however, word of 'unofficial' performances are often distributed by 'side' channels. channels that are not regulated of regulated in a lesser extent by the state. eg. internet, word of mouth, newsletters. thus only the people who are in the know, will know.
- i think opposition messages in official performance are more hidden than those of unofficial performance. just because official performance are more serverly state regulated than unofficial performance. however actors in both performances in singapore still do follow the laws of the country. thus it is probably easier to catch the codes in an unofficial performance rather that in the official performances.
- inspiration and spontanaity.
unofficial performance are made by the regular people who are motivated to perform their opposing views. other regular people can intervene or comment. it acts by and with the community. however the official performance is performed by a fix groups of actors and are most probably self-contained.
- the unofficial performance is not thought of as performed by professionals. they are mostly not considered to be 'art'. they are seen more as events or activities. they may not be viewed seriously by the society, or they may be viewed with contempt. the official performance are mostly thought of as being professional and of high art.
- to add if i think of more.
in thinking of these 2 tactics and the ways that their views are disseminated through performance studies.
- looking at it as play. unofficial performance being the nature of a darker play than the official performance. ie one more dangerous than the other
- the archive and the repertoire. (dian taylor) while both have traits of the archive and the repertoire, the official performance leans more towards the archive while the unofficial, the repertoire.
- liminal and liminoid. they are both liminoids, taking over rituals. or like-rtuals but not rituals. the performances are in between moments that are neither real nor fake, hence possibilities are greater during this period of time. however the actors themself put a cap on these possibilities.
are there more possibilities in official performance or non official?
even though i'm feeling lousy right now for my lack of competence today, i shall jolt down some differences in these two 'tactics'.
the first 'tactic', i shall give it a nick name: the official performance.
the second 'tactic': the unofficial performance
i'm using the term performance very very loosely here.
what are the official and the unofficial performances?
+ official performances are performances that are made legit by the state. they can be performed by registered companies and earn a profit, they may be funded by the government, they can be part of the state councils, they are bounded by state rules and they are oblidged to pursue state goals (when told to). eg are: any artists and companies who are funded by the national art council - theatre companies, dance companies, the national art gallery, art studios that are funded by the council, in fact i think that almost all art companies are state funded in singapore. even if companies are not state funded, they will be corporate funded (or both) either ways, they are oblidged to follow the rules.
+ unofficial performances are performances that made by groups who are not bound to follow explicit rules of the state. eg are autonomous groups and individuals and non-government organizations. mostly non-profit performances.
i think that oppositional views are expressed in these 'official' and 'non-official' performances, but they are hidden and encoded. when i say oppositional views, i mean views that are oppose to the state's views or that are oppose to the dominant perspectives of the society.
for example criticisms of the government's paranoia of terrorism and problems of racism in the society is encoded into an 'educational' play that depicts and help audiences rehearse possible actions in a crisis. in another case, resistance against a local anime distributor is depicted in a photo shoot session of toy models staging a protest.
what are the difference in these performances?
- the 'official' performances are often advertised in the dominant channels - newspapers, radio stations, television etc. and the actors also get to be interviewed in these medias that are strongly state regulated. thus they may reach further and wider and to the people who need to know the most. however, word of 'unofficial' performances are often distributed by 'side' channels. channels that are not regulated of regulated in a lesser extent by the state. eg. internet, word of mouth, newsletters. thus only the people who are in the know, will know.
- i think opposition messages in official performance are more hidden than those of unofficial performance. just because official performance are more serverly state regulated than unofficial performance. however actors in both performances in singapore still do follow the laws of the country. thus it is probably easier to catch the codes in an unofficial performance rather that in the official performances.
- inspiration and spontanaity.
unofficial performance are made by the regular people who are motivated to perform their opposing views. other regular people can intervene or comment. it acts by and with the community. however the official performance is performed by a fix groups of actors and are most probably self-contained.
- the unofficial performance is not thought of as performed by professionals. they are mostly not considered to be 'art'. they are seen more as events or activities. they may not be viewed seriously by the society, or they may be viewed with contempt. the official performance are mostly thought of as being professional and of high art.
- to add if i think of more.
in thinking of these 2 tactics and the ways that their views are disseminated through performance studies.
- looking at it as play. unofficial performance being the nature of a darker play than the official performance. ie one more dangerous than the other
- the archive and the repertoire. (dian taylor) while both have traits of the archive and the repertoire, the official performance leans more towards the archive while the unofficial, the repertoire.
- liminal and liminoid. they are both liminoids, taking over rituals. or like-rtuals but not rituals. the performances are in between moments that are neither real nor fake, hence possibilities are greater during this period of time. however the actors themself put a cap on these possibilities.
are there more possibilities in official performance or non official?
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
release paralysis
brainstorming ideas of the performance.. shall i call it 'witnessing' (perhaps too convinient a word?)
main words
- witness
- ship - the middle passage
- pain
- outsiders insiders, divided by generations
- audience participation
- performance
- visual arts
- ritual
we are witnessing
how to let people witness
performing to remember, performing to witness
eyes... watching, ears... listening
how are we effected? -memory -trauma
hardship that leads to surviving and thriving
we are all witnesses of something in history.
storytelling.. what did you witness?
(quotes of people's testimony. what can i do with them?)
what are you to do after you've witnessed? what can you do?
main words
- witness
- ship - the middle passage
- pain
- outsiders insiders, divided by generations
- audience participation
- performance
- visual arts
- ritual
we are witnessing
how to let people witness
performing to remember, performing to witness
eyes... watching, ears... listening
how are we effected? -memory -trauma
hardship that leads to surviving and thriving
we are all witnesses of something in history.
storytelling.. what did you witness?
(quotes of people's testimony. what can i do with them?)
what are you to do after you've witnessed? what can you do?
Monday, October 22, 2007
the clueless witness
two saturdays ago i blurted out in a class discussion that i have absolutely no feelings whatsoever over the abolishment of the slave trade 200 years ago. being a singaporean and chinese i felt like an absolute outsider of this political/social/historical bad blood between the white and black people. the issue has become so much more about the two races than any other equally important subjects like the european colonalization, oppression, eurocentricism, human rights etc.. that even if i could relate to any one or all of the other subjects, i couldn't break through the first wall of defence, that of the feud between the blacks and the whites.
and without the emotional drive i cannot bring myself to prepare a heartfelt performance to commemorate the historical event which the rest of my class have been so enthusiastic about for our assignment. it just doesn't seem to concern me and xiao (yes, this is a name), the other chinese girl in our class. we felt emotionally disconnected. of course everyone else in the class was either black or white (with the acception of the canadian indian guy ali),or from north america or the carribean and had lots to talk about and to get 'connected' with. me and xiao, we only felt connected to each other.
so prof honor wanted us to read this article about witnessing. after reading it i thought this would be my best bet to draw out some inspiration for the performance. after all it is addressing my position as a witness. this entry would be my exploration of that inspiration. gave myself a deadline by monday to draw out a proposal.
Julie Salverson's very ineresting article 'witnessing subjects' - main points
- witnessing is 'the notion of coming upon something unexpected and being impacted by the encounter such that one is comelled to respond to the address.
- to become a witness is to become exposed and vulterable.
- is to respond to a call of the other.- ethical (but what if there is no call?)
- the idea of a quick-fix mentality reduces the other to become a tragic victim. artists may eroticized the pain in their representation in mimesis- a very reducting way.
- witness should not restrict herself to perceive strength and resilience in survivor and the possible vulnerbility or damage in oneself as a lister to stories of violence.
-witnesses as being paralyzed
-how to include witness's own relationship to violence in the transaction of witnessing. for the victim sake to trust the witness and for the witness's sake to address his violence.
and without the emotional drive i cannot bring myself to prepare a heartfelt performance to commemorate the historical event which the rest of my class have been so enthusiastic about for our assignment. it just doesn't seem to concern me and xiao (yes, this is a name), the other chinese girl in our class. we felt emotionally disconnected. of course everyone else in the class was either black or white (with the acception of the canadian indian guy ali),or from north america or the carribean and had lots to talk about and to get 'connected' with. me and xiao, we only felt connected to each other.
so prof honor wanted us to read this article about witnessing. after reading it i thought this would be my best bet to draw out some inspiration for the performance. after all it is addressing my position as a witness. this entry would be my exploration of that inspiration. gave myself a deadline by monday to draw out a proposal.
Julie Salverson's very ineresting article 'witnessing subjects' - main points
- witnessing is 'the notion of coming upon something unexpected and being impacted by the encounter such that one is comelled to respond to the address.
- to become a witness is to become exposed and vulterable.
- is to respond to a call of the other.- ethical (but what if there is no call?)
- the idea of a quick-fix mentality reduces the other to become a tragic victim. artists may eroticized the pain in their representation in mimesis- a very reducting way.
- witness should not restrict herself to perceive strength and resilience in survivor and the possible vulnerbility or damage in oneself as a lister to stories of violence.
-witnesses as being paralyzed
-how to include witness's own relationship to violence in the transaction of witnessing. for the victim sake to trust the witness and for the witness's sake to address his violence.
Sunday, April 15, 2007
on reading about resistance in sg
after reading 'mediating the liberalisation of singapore theatre; towards a bourdieusian analysis', i am blown away just because i have never read a piece about resistance in sg described in such a powerful academic way. framed with bourdieu's concepts some more and have examples! ok. good for me because easy for me to understand. 3 theorists i wanna read about after this: bourdieu, brecht and gramci. (i'm sure i've read them all before but i can't remember what brecht is about accept for him being connected to the 6 penny opera or something) t chong rocks!! definitely rocked my world today.
perhaps its because i never expected to read something like that. some articles i've read so far (which isn't many actually) seem too impersonal, maybe not a very good word, distant, apathic? there may be some criticism of the state but on the whole they are about the movements of the bigger things by the power that be, so much so that i feel that they lack a discussion of the micro levels- ie the communities and the people. globalization yes, u can talk about how the whole world moves, but we shouldn't forget about the individuals, the communities that live within it and the effects and the efforts that they've put in it. understandably its probably not feasible to write about the micro and the macro all in one paper. but why issit that almost every article i pick up on sg globalization and art (in fact i can't find many art articles if they are not bound to globalization - prob york don't have many journals on critical asian art and culture) sounded like we are just small little unnoticeable flies that will have no effect what so ever on the bigger politics of the world? that the world is moved by all the big names, the government, the state, the big corporations, the big guys with the money, that u the reader, the small fly have nothing in your power to change a thing in it and can only see the story unfold before your eyes with your hands tied, no more like you have no hands or deformed ones that can't do anything.
maybe there's something between the lines that i couldn't catch. in any case, i wished there were more case studies and examples on what the little people did in the age of globalization.
but anyway the thought of active practice of (non-confrontational) resistance by your middle class citizens existing in sg is an exciting and strangely comforting thought to me. because i've always wondered how and why there are no news or knowledge of such things happening. accept for mr brown n his supporters on the internet, how come no one else talked about other communities of resistance?
so what i'm thinking about right now..
all this about resisting the state and liberalising our voices and all that.. first of all i've to be careful not to create a dichotomy between state and civil society. because that can easily lead me to disillusionize the state as the one and only people's 'enemy' frame of mind. that doesn't make a lot of sense seeing that the state is also keeping the society together. plus there are multiple communities in the society we all have to live with, not only the state. we aren't homogeneous. the public will also have clashes in views. like religious views. thus the idea of liberalization as something only the state can give the people is somewhat inaccurate. cause we are also bound by our religion, gender... principles, frame of mind? ..
second point. and i can't help questioning this: is liberalization (and human rights) all there is to it??
this one i don't know how to answer. but i have a feeling it isn't. it is important yes, but...
perhaps what i am thinking of is that, if the people resist and disent against the state, what grounds would that be on, towards what kinda goals? if its just for the sake of being liberalised- of gaining freedom, that still leaves alot of problems unsolved. but if to be liberalised gives the people a chance to express and speak about other concerns, of working towards something beyond freedom of the individual.. of something else.. i dun even know what. i have this idea of a common good and it sounds socialist but then more of like- is it possible that everyone can work to be equals with no leaders? sounds easy to say but almost impossible to realise. and anyway, how do u make everyone understand things on the same page?
thus i've been thinking about this resistance thing. base on what reasons should we resist on? education? awareness? common good? (but then what is the common good?) i'm tempted to put in sprituality but i don't know how to connect that. inner peace? how do u resist for inner peace?
ok. that's probably going to be my project.
perhaps its because i never expected to read something like that. some articles i've read so far (which isn't many actually) seem too impersonal, maybe not a very good word, distant, apathic? there may be some criticism of the state but on the whole they are about the movements of the bigger things by the power that be, so much so that i feel that they lack a discussion of the micro levels- ie the communities and the people. globalization yes, u can talk about how the whole world moves, but we shouldn't forget about the individuals, the communities that live within it and the effects and the efforts that they've put in it. understandably its probably not feasible to write about the micro and the macro all in one paper. but why issit that almost every article i pick up on sg globalization and art (in fact i can't find many art articles if they are not bound to globalization - prob york don't have many journals on critical asian art and culture) sounded like we are just small little unnoticeable flies that will have no effect what so ever on the bigger politics of the world? that the world is moved by all the big names, the government, the state, the big corporations, the big guys with the money, that u the reader, the small fly have nothing in your power to change a thing in it and can only see the story unfold before your eyes with your hands tied, no more like you have no hands or deformed ones that can't do anything.
maybe there's something between the lines that i couldn't catch. in any case, i wished there were more case studies and examples on what the little people did in the age of globalization.
but anyway the thought of active practice of (non-confrontational) resistance by your middle class citizens existing in sg is an exciting and strangely comforting thought to me. because i've always wondered how and why there are no news or knowledge of such things happening. accept for mr brown n his supporters on the internet, how come no one else talked about other communities of resistance?
so what i'm thinking about right now..
all this about resisting the state and liberalising our voices and all that.. first of all i've to be careful not to create a dichotomy between state and civil society. because that can easily lead me to disillusionize the state as the one and only people's 'enemy' frame of mind. that doesn't make a lot of sense seeing that the state is also keeping the society together. plus there are multiple communities in the society we all have to live with, not only the state. we aren't homogeneous. the public will also have clashes in views. like religious views. thus the idea of liberalization as something only the state can give the people is somewhat inaccurate. cause we are also bound by our religion, gender... principles, frame of mind? ..
second point. and i can't help questioning this: is liberalization (and human rights) all there is to it??
this one i don't know how to answer. but i have a feeling it isn't. it is important yes, but...
perhaps what i am thinking of is that, if the people resist and disent against the state, what grounds would that be on, towards what kinda goals? if its just for the sake of being liberalised- of gaining freedom, that still leaves alot of problems unsolved. but if to be liberalised gives the people a chance to express and speak about other concerns, of working towards something beyond freedom of the individual.. of something else.. i dun even know what. i have this idea of a common good and it sounds socialist but then more of like- is it possible that everyone can work to be equals with no leaders? sounds easy to say but almost impossible to realise. and anyway, how do u make everyone understand things on the same page?
thus i've been thinking about this resistance thing. base on what reasons should we resist on? education? awareness? common good? (but then what is the common good?) i'm tempted to put in sprituality but i don't know how to connect that. inner peace? how do u resist for inner peace?
ok. that's probably going to be my project.
Saturday, April 14, 2007
some thoughts about my POS
yesterday's meeting with the pop ed class people was really refreshing. talked about alot of stuff and i've ideas swimming round my head now.
some conversations i had with denise brought me back to thinking about my interests in love and compassion and what to make of life.
niko and i had a common interest in interactive work with the public. his ideas came from the diggers - giving things out for free and instigate some kinda revolution. my ideas came from art practices i remembered reading and wanting to do them in my 3rd yr undergrad. n we talk about the possibility of working on our final projects together on something like this.
so now comes the question: what am i going to do for my final project. and how am i going to change my POS? (deadline next tuesday. am going to meet honor to talk about it.)
some of my thoughts:
- trying to change my POS to something more meleable. maybe my final project will not be about singapore. but a reflection? a reflection plus a project work.
- the idea of spirituality? can i put spirituality into art, into thinking about politics, into education, into changing the society?
- i think maybe i can leave my POS the way it is. the final project will just be a different thing. a reflection.
i think sometimes this studying of singapore is a little bit forced on myself. because i've found that it is really restrictive and it kinda stopped me from being creative. perhaps i need to add in some art or practical component. perhaps i should just follow what i really want to study. - love and compassion in spirituality and art - interactive, conceptual art. art that can be also not art. depending on how u see it. but which is interactive and hopefully beneficial to the people who come across it. possibly like what the diggers would do..
in terms of singapore, how would that connect?
what i've learned about singapore.
- globalization in sg.
- activism.. somewhat.
- art and theatre. and the dessent coming from these practitioners.
- civil society
- how community-based art is used n worked in sg (just a little0
how can this be connected to spirituality and art?
art and doing things.. hmmm..
thinking of it. alot of artists are activists.. kind of.
i dunno man. gotta let it sink abit.
some conversations i had with denise brought me back to thinking about my interests in love and compassion and what to make of life.
niko and i had a common interest in interactive work with the public. his ideas came from the diggers - giving things out for free and instigate some kinda revolution. my ideas came from art practices i remembered reading and wanting to do them in my 3rd yr undergrad. n we talk about the possibility of working on our final projects together on something like this.
so now comes the question: what am i going to do for my final project. and how am i going to change my POS? (deadline next tuesday. am going to meet honor to talk about it.)
some of my thoughts:
- trying to change my POS to something more meleable. maybe my final project will not be about singapore. but a reflection? a reflection plus a project work.
- the idea of spirituality? can i put spirituality into art, into thinking about politics, into education, into changing the society?
- i think maybe i can leave my POS the way it is. the final project will just be a different thing. a reflection.
i think sometimes this studying of singapore is a little bit forced on myself. because i've found that it is really restrictive and it kinda stopped me from being creative. perhaps i need to add in some art or practical component. perhaps i should just follow what i really want to study. - love and compassion in spirituality and art - interactive, conceptual art. art that can be also not art. depending on how u see it. but which is interactive and hopefully beneficial to the people who come across it. possibly like what the diggers would do..
in terms of singapore, how would that connect?
what i've learned about singapore.
- globalization in sg.
- activism.. somewhat.
- art and theatre. and the dessent coming from these practitioners.
- civil society
- how community-based art is used n worked in sg (just a little0
how can this be connected to spirituality and art?
art and doing things.. hmmm..
thinking of it. alot of artists are activists.. kind of.
i dunno man. gotta let it sink abit.
Friday, March 23, 2007
devising my plan
underlines from my 'plan of study' abstract
strategies of resistance (transnational civil society --- contest citizenship? --- relate to identity? --- a diff kind of individualism that is of obligation to others?)
highly politically controlled environment
investigate the internalized costs of this environment
explore the strategies of resistance to it through art making and popular education
notes i wrote at the end
to investigate the internalized costs of a highly politically controlled environment (with effects from globalization)
-- should i investigate resistance- or would better word be dissent?
there is dessent (or is there?) because.... globalization also? transnational citizenship and activism?
can this be seen in cultural expression?? (blog, film, plays, performances, art, what other expressions?)
*******
themes.. topics
how do people identify themselves, see themselves and their lives in this globalized and transnational, politically controled environment. how do they produce their identity or what kind of identity have they produced?
what are people doing to make things better (or to change things). what can be done to make things better (or to change things). -- not necessarily that things are bad and needs to become better, but what are the actions that have been done or are being acted out?
how do they express themselves.
resistance, dissent, cultural expressions, social services, activism, education and awareness etc
possibility of pop ed and community arts-- in the form of workshops in non-profit organizations.
so do i want to look at how people express themselves of their identities
strategies of resistance (transnational civil society --- contest citizenship? --- relate to identity? --- a diff kind of individualism that is of obligation to others?)
highly politically controlled environment
investigate the internalized costs of this environment
explore the strategies of resistance to it through art making and popular education
notes i wrote at the end
to investigate the internalized costs of a highly politically controlled environment (with effects from globalization)
-- should i investigate resistance- or would better word be dissent?
there is dessent (or is there?) because.... globalization also? transnational citizenship and activism?
can this be seen in cultural expression?? (blog, film, plays, performances, art, what other expressions?)
*******
themes.. topics
how do people identify themselves, see themselves and their lives in this globalized and transnational, politically controled environment. how do they produce their identity or what kind of identity have they produced?
what are people doing to make things better (or to change things). what can be done to make things better (or to change things). -- not necessarily that things are bad and needs to become better, but what are the actions that have been done or are being acted out?
how do they express themselves.
resistance, dissent, cultural expressions, social services, activism, education and awareness etc
possibility of pop ed and community arts-- in the form of workshops in non-profit organizations.
so do i want to look at how people express themselves of their identities
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
who campaigns?
what i was thinking about this morning.
thinking in terms of campaigns.. (maybe can substitute it with other words?)
what kind of campaigns (can be awareness, charity, persuasive) are there in singapore? (let's think of campaigns that reach a significant amount of people)
- local activist
- transnational activist
- the government
correct me if i'm wrong, are there more government campaigns than other campaigns? or are government campaigns more 'national' hence more people know about them and so it seems that campaigns in singapore are governmental. or maybe the combination of both.
speak chinese campaign,
courtesy campaign
romancing singapore
no smoking campaign
art outreach (not really a campaign but an educational organization with programs to teach art appreciation to the public. because we dunno how to appreciate art enough?)
nkf show?
the other campaigns that i can think of, are transnational.
breast cancer, women awareness, action for aids, landmines, LGBT awareness (got anot? i think not.. not sure)
are there any local campaigns?
the free hug campaign? hmm
is it possible for local campaigns to happen? or it is a once in a blue moon thing? is the group who want to save chek jawa a local activist campaign or is it a transnational one (since it is environmentalist)?
perhaps the 3 categories can be blurred into each other's boundaries.
government campaigns can also be a transnational one and vice versa, transnational campaigns can also be local ones and vice versa?
(just thought of another type of campaign, the transnational corporations)
i was just thinking about how all these work in sg. it seems to me you are either with the government or the transnational society if u want anything at all to happen. so maybe the local activists are also part of the transnational activists. since we all know english and is easier to communicate. (partly a joke)
hmmm...
is everything either governmental or transnational with spurts of ad hoc local activism?
this is what i think so far,
if there is a need for campaigns or awareness or anything like that (in sg), they most effectively work top down. ie the government directs it because they feel that there is a need of something in the society. in these cases they are not really what the people realized and thought that they needed themselves, that they could change themselves.
its difficult to look for any activism in local independent organizations. (if there are, it is spontaneous and ad hoc and they disperse right after.) if there are action needed to make the society 'better' or more 'aware', it seems to be mostly the job of the government who does this nationally.
on the other hand activism in sg seems to be under the umbrella of transnational activism. some sort of outside in. campaigns that are not governmental are most effective if they are connected to a transnational organization or corporation. and this could be attributed to the need for the state to maintain a 'global reputation'.
if transnational campaigns are outside in, then does that mean that the local activist are just hitching a ride to wherever these transnational organizations want to go?
or maybe it benefits both ways??
why am i thinking about this?
because i realised why community art or popular education is so unpopular in singapore. not just because nobody knows what those terms mean. i mean why i think that they will be hard to practice in singapore. or why there almost non being practiced right now.
1st i realised that community art has a different meaning in sg. was looking up the national art council website. community art is being organized by the art council, ie government.
for them, community art is to make art available for the community to appreciate. art is understood still in the sense that it is elite and 'high class' and only people who are 'talented' can make them. the art council is promoting art awareness. how to and why appreciate art.
but the community art that i learn here is different. it is about making art with the community, about letting the community express themselves and learn with and from each other. art is not thought of as a something that only 'talented' people can make, nor that only the final product is useful (as a form of analysis and decoration). in community art, the process of making art is also very important. everyone can be an 'artist' and learn from being artists together.
as i was thinking about this difference, it struck me that in a way, sg the country of people is a huge community in one. a community that changes when it is told that it is time to change. it is made to move in this huge body. instead of transforming internally part by part, it transforms externally as a whole. whether the community actually did transform wholly as it was told to, i dunno (since it only changed externally, not internally. how can u change as and when u want when u don't really understand why u r changing?)
but that's how i think the system works. (unlike here, where change is done in pockets, i think)
so what i am pondering over is, can campaigns and raising awareness.. change.. can it be born locally, bottom up?
maybe the system of governance is such that it is difficult for that? to make change we have to do it in indirect ways? through the transnational way?
on the other hand, are we effected/influenced by transnational thoughts and ideas?
thinking in terms of campaigns.. (maybe can substitute it with other words?)
what kind of campaigns (can be awareness, charity, persuasive) are there in singapore? (let's think of campaigns that reach a significant amount of people)
- local activist
- transnational activist
- the government
correct me if i'm wrong, are there more government campaigns than other campaigns? or are government campaigns more 'national' hence more people know about them and so it seems that campaigns in singapore are governmental. or maybe the combination of both.
speak chinese campaign,
courtesy campaign
romancing singapore
no smoking campaign
art outreach (not really a campaign but an educational organization with programs to teach art appreciation to the public. because we dunno how to appreciate art enough?)
nkf show?
the other campaigns that i can think of, are transnational.
breast cancer, women awareness, action for aids, landmines, LGBT awareness (got anot? i think not.. not sure)
are there any local campaigns?
the free hug campaign? hmm
is it possible for local campaigns to happen? or it is a once in a blue moon thing? is the group who want to save chek jawa a local activist campaign or is it a transnational one (since it is environmentalist)?
perhaps the 3 categories can be blurred into each other's boundaries.
government campaigns can also be a transnational one and vice versa, transnational campaigns can also be local ones and vice versa?
(just thought of another type of campaign, the transnational corporations)
i was just thinking about how all these work in sg. it seems to me you are either with the government or the transnational society if u want anything at all to happen. so maybe the local activists are also part of the transnational activists. since we all know english and is easier to communicate. (partly a joke)
hmmm...
is everything either governmental or transnational with spurts of ad hoc local activism?
this is what i think so far,
if there is a need for campaigns or awareness or anything like that (in sg), they most effectively work top down. ie the government directs it because they feel that there is a need of something in the society. in these cases they are not really what the people realized and thought that they needed themselves, that they could change themselves.
its difficult to look for any activism in local independent organizations. (if there are, it is spontaneous and ad hoc and they disperse right after.) if there are action needed to make the society 'better' or more 'aware', it seems to be mostly the job of the government who does this nationally.
on the other hand activism in sg seems to be under the umbrella of transnational activism. some sort of outside in. campaigns that are not governmental are most effective if they are connected to a transnational organization or corporation. and this could be attributed to the need for the state to maintain a 'global reputation'.
if transnational campaigns are outside in, then does that mean that the local activist are just hitching a ride to wherever these transnational organizations want to go?
or maybe it benefits both ways??
why am i thinking about this?
because i realised why community art or popular education is so unpopular in singapore. not just because nobody knows what those terms mean. i mean why i think that they will be hard to practice in singapore. or why there almost non being practiced right now.
1st i realised that community art has a different meaning in sg. was looking up the national art council website. community art is being organized by the art council, ie government.
for them, community art is to make art available for the community to appreciate. art is understood still in the sense that it is elite and 'high class' and only people who are 'talented' can make them. the art council is promoting art awareness. how to and why appreciate art.
but the community art that i learn here is different. it is about making art with the community, about letting the community express themselves and learn with and from each other. art is not thought of as a something that only 'talented' people can make, nor that only the final product is useful (as a form of analysis and decoration). in community art, the process of making art is also very important. everyone can be an 'artist' and learn from being artists together.
as i was thinking about this difference, it struck me that in a way, sg the country of people is a huge community in one. a community that changes when it is told that it is time to change. it is made to move in this huge body. instead of transforming internally part by part, it transforms externally as a whole. whether the community actually did transform wholly as it was told to, i dunno (since it only changed externally, not internally. how can u change as and when u want when u don't really understand why u r changing?)
but that's how i think the system works. (unlike here, where change is done in pockets, i think)
so what i am pondering over is, can campaigns and raising awareness.. change.. can it be born locally, bottom up?
maybe the system of governance is such that it is difficult for that? to make change we have to do it in indirect ways? through the transnational way?
on the other hand, are we effected/influenced by transnational thoughts and ideas?
Sunday, March 18, 2007
1st post
i've originally decided to use this blog for grievances. but not today. i need to sort out my frustration on what the hell i'm gonna research on.
argh! how.
my confusion.
on one end, i have pop ed, community art, oppression, activism, creative expression, art and all things art, facilitation activities, organization. etc
on the other end, i have globalization, development, politics, economy, dessent, asian studies, singapore modernity, very academia and no hands on.
the more i study about the globalization part, the more distracted from pop ed i got. i thought globalization is the key to pop ed. ie because of globalization and all the bad stuff that development brought, sg needs pop ed activists for something 'revolutionary'. (whoa.. ) but it seems that it has instead disproved my hypothesis, i think.
what i saw was that sg takes on development and democracy in a different way, a more authoritarian way. the states take charge of the market and the economy to build up the country's economy status. it uses the same passion for many other areas of governing the country.
when i was looking for some organization in sg that i can go to for an internship, i googled community arts in singapore and i realised that it has a different meaning and it is in a different sphere altogether. community arts is government sponsored and encouraged. it isn't organized by the people nor is it grassroots. it is top down, not bottom up. its like a huge collective thing, like a campaign for art awareness. there is community participation but without the personal politics. it seems somehow that community arts is country development, not personal development. and i begin to realise the many other collective activities and campaigns that are initiated by the government too.
so if all these are already initiated by the government to be not political, can the grassroots bring it up as political? or can it not?
what should i research on? should i just focus on the development of singapore? the effects of globalization. and the dessent in sg?
argh! how.
my confusion.
on one end, i have pop ed, community art, oppression, activism, creative expression, art and all things art, facilitation activities, organization. etc
on the other end, i have globalization, development, politics, economy, dessent, asian studies, singapore modernity, very academia and no hands on.
the more i study about the globalization part, the more distracted from pop ed i got. i thought globalization is the key to pop ed. ie because of globalization and all the bad stuff that development brought, sg needs pop ed activists for something 'revolutionary'. (whoa.. ) but it seems that it has instead disproved my hypothesis, i think.
what i saw was that sg takes on development and democracy in a different way, a more authoritarian way. the states take charge of the market and the economy to build up the country's economy status. it uses the same passion for many other areas of governing the country.
when i was looking for some organization in sg that i can go to for an internship, i googled community arts in singapore and i realised that it has a different meaning and it is in a different sphere altogether. community arts is government sponsored and encouraged. it isn't organized by the people nor is it grassroots. it is top down, not bottom up. its like a huge collective thing, like a campaign for art awareness. there is community participation but without the personal politics. it seems somehow that community arts is country development, not personal development. and i begin to realise the many other collective activities and campaigns that are initiated by the government too.
so if all these are already initiated by the government to be not political, can the grassroots bring it up as political? or can it not?
what should i research on? should i just focus on the development of singapore? the effects of globalization. and the dessent in sg?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
