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?
Friday, October 31, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
