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.