For me, this week’s reading brought together a number of the concepts we’ve been studying in class: notions of authenticity, power, biopolitics, representation, language, and difference.
Foucault argues that from the 18th century onward, the taboos of the “age of repression,” disappeared, and discourses concerning sex proliferated – in the church, medical establishments, government, legal and educational institutions, and so on. He further adds that this shift was in no means accidental: One had to speak of sex so that it could be “managed, inserted into systems of utility, regulated for the greater good of all…” (24).
How does Foucault’s analysis of this “incitement to discourse” relate to his theories on biopower? To shifting conceptions of the individual body vs. populations? public vs. private? discipline vs. regulation?
Is this “discursive growth” around the subject of sex a good thing, a bad thing, or both? What does Foucault think?
Chow draws on Foucault’s theories to reveal and problematize the seemingly enlightened yet ultimately racist assumptions that the discourse of ethnic/cultural difference can generate. She argues that liberal anthropological (multi)culturalism, with its “regard for cultural difference, (17)” can often serve to reinforce racism instead of challenging it. As example, she points to the paradox that racial violence is often most apparent in places where people give the most lip service to issues of “diversity” and “awareness.”
She also addresses the problem of mimeticism (imitation) in cross-cultural representation. Many post-colonial scholars have addressed the ways in which the ethnic subject is expected to “copy” the ways of the colonizer, but fail to note that they are also expected to resemble what is recognizably ethnic: “the original that is supposed to be replicated is no longer the white man or his culture, but rather an image, a stereotyped view of the ethnic” (107). Chow goes on to illustrate how ethnic people and minorities can internalize and perpetuate these stereotypes, particularly through the process of self-representation (what she calls self-mimicry).
I found her critique of self-representational texts an interesting contrast to Fabian, and also thought-provoking in the context of the autoethnographies and indigenous media films we’ve been watching.
Can you recall examples where ethnographies written/created by a colonized or ethnic subject seemed to reinforce stereotypes? Conversely, can you think of examples in which a colonized or ethnic subject has reclaimed a stereotype in a way that challenged or resisted the status quo?
Sunday, July 11, 2010
Thursday, July 8, 2010
RESPONSE: Frota and Moore
My post is in response to the quote at the end of Chris’ post: “The Kayapo appropriation of the medium of video reaffirms the notion that it is people who make their own history and that in the age of "the global village" one makes history by controlling the media of self-representation” (pg 278).
In the film we watched in class yesterday, I found it fascinating how the Waiapi strategically appropriated western technology, not to affirm/advance their position in “the global village,” but - on the contrary – to promote their autonomy from the dominant Western worldview. Moreover, I was surprised at how readily they acknowledged the seemingly contradictory nature of this exercise. It was clear that the appropriation of Western tools constituted a form of resistance to them, even as they took advantage of the realities of globalization. In other words – if the Kayapo considered the camera as a weapon, it was a weapon that they’d turned on its original wielders. This I think is an interesting contrast to the “oh, if only we could go back we would be better off perspective” that Chris addresses, which considers Western technology an infiltration, regardless of who’s controlling it.
I was also struck by how the use of video was not simply a matter of “externally-facing” communication, a means to make the “general public” aware of their situation, but a “internally-facing” communication, as well. Both the Waiapi and Kayapo spoke at length about how video could be used to strengthen ties with neighboring relatives, preserve their culture, and to record their histories. Here, I think the identity-forming potential of video played as important – if not more important – a role as its potential for transmission to Western societies.
For me, Indigenous Media raises a lot of complex questions about authenticity, manipulation, and the exploitation of cultures that have already experienced subjugation by dominant Western societies. Regardless, in today’s globalized world, I still think it offers some productive models for both raising awareness of non-dominant cultures, and promoting the alliances and traditions that preserve those cultures.
In the film we watched in class yesterday, I found it fascinating how the Waiapi strategically appropriated western technology, not to affirm/advance their position in “the global village,” but - on the contrary – to promote their autonomy from the dominant Western worldview. Moreover, I was surprised at how readily they acknowledged the seemingly contradictory nature of this exercise. It was clear that the appropriation of Western tools constituted a form of resistance to them, even as they took advantage of the realities of globalization. In other words – if the Kayapo considered the camera as a weapon, it was a weapon that they’d turned on its original wielders. This I think is an interesting contrast to the “oh, if only we could go back we would be better off perspective” that Chris addresses, which considers Western technology an infiltration, regardless of who’s controlling it.
I was also struck by how the use of video was not simply a matter of “externally-facing” communication, a means to make the “general public” aware of their situation, but a “internally-facing” communication, as well. Both the Waiapi and Kayapo spoke at length about how video could be used to strengthen ties with neighboring relatives, preserve their culture, and to record their histories. Here, I think the identity-forming potential of video played as important – if not more important – a role as its potential for transmission to Western societies.
For me, Indigenous Media raises a lot of complex questions about authenticity, manipulation, and the exploitation of cultures that have already experienced subjugation by dominant Western societies. Regardless, in today’s globalized world, I still think it offers some productive models for both raising awareness of non-dominant cultures, and promoting the alliances and traditions that preserve those cultures.
Questions from Frota& Moore response
Questions from Frota& Moore response
Frota states that the Navajo film project is different from Mekaron Opoi D’joi because Adair and Worth explained to the Navajo the reasons why the Navajo should make films even though their interest was low. Is the Mekaron Opoi D’joi project similar to the Navajo project in that the filmmakers came with specific research goals that they wanted to see completed? Why or why not?
I think the project is different because in the case of the Kayapo the anthropologist show them the possibilities and the benefices of this new tool of this “weapon”. The case of the Navajo is completely different they were expose to a tool that they didn’t find useful. They thought it wouldn’t hurt but also it wouldn’t do any good like the example with the “sheeps”. They were instructed to do whatever they wanted with the cameras and yes the anthologist had a goal. The goal was to analyze footage like if it was language to read video language like if it was and extension of their culture and not the result of people just exposed to a new technology.
With the Kayapo there was a goal also the goal was to “empower” like we said yesterday to made them realize the power of this tool and with that awaken their interest. I think the projects are totally different but I don’t know to which extent any of these projects is related to work of an anthologist or an ethnographer.
Dani
Frota states that the Navajo film project is different from Mekaron Opoi D’joi because Adair and Worth explained to the Navajo the reasons why the Navajo should make films even though their interest was low. Is the Mekaron Opoi D’joi project similar to the Navajo project in that the filmmakers came with specific research goals that they wanted to see completed? Why or why not?
I think the project is different because in the case of the Kayapo the anthropologist show them the possibilities and the benefices of this new tool of this “weapon”. The case of the Navajo is completely different they were expose to a tool that they didn’t find useful. They thought it wouldn’t hurt but also it wouldn’t do any good like the example with the “sheeps”. They were instructed to do whatever they wanted with the cameras and yes the anthologist had a goal. The goal was to analyze footage like if it was language to read video language like if it was and extension of their culture and not the result of people just exposed to a new technology.
With the Kayapo there was a goal also the goal was to “empower” like we said yesterday to made them realize the power of this tool and with that awaken their interest. I think the projects are totally different but I don’t know to which extent any of these projects is related to work of an anthologist or an ethnographer.
Dani
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Questions: Frota & Moore
Frota:
On pg. 264-265, upon arriving in the Kayapo village, the filmmakers and anthropologists show the Kayapo scenes of news broadcasts from the Raft War and footage of the chief from a neighboring village. Frota says that from the Kayapo’s reaction to the screening, the logical extension was for the filmmaker’s to hand the Kayapo the camera. Do you see this as manipulative in order to pursue an objective on the part of the filmmakers and anthropologists (as an [auto]ethnography)? Frota states that the Navajo film project is different from Mekaron Opoi D’joi because Adair and Worth explained to the Navajo the reasons why the Navajo should make films even though their interest was low. Is the Mekaron Opoi D’joi project similar to the Navajo project in that the filmmakers came with specific research goals that they wanted to see completed? Why or why not?
The political role of film is showcased in Frota’s project. The Kayapo, according to Frota, understood the power of media in a modern Brazilian state. The chief refers to the camera as a weapon (Moore also references this role: “the imbalance between those behind and those in front of the camera [is] that of its ever allegorized twin, the gun...it was time to hand it over"), one that can help them subvert the dominant control of Brazilians. However, this is not expressed by the chief until the anthropologists and filmmakers screen multiple political, local and metropolitan videos for the Kayapo. Where does ethnography and politics diverge or meld? Should outsider anthropologists enter other cultures to help empower them? Is this a reactionary method in opposition to the participant-observation model of ethnography?
Consider this: “Who are we to keep technology from them? In our society it is all too
commonplace to see "primitive cultures" as a set of survival skills and traditional customs incapable of articulating with current history” (p.269). This is Frota’s response to the underfunding of the Brazilian state, hindering the Mekaron Opoi D’joi project while the anthropologists/filmmakers were unable to return to the Kayapo villages. This is an interesting statement and I would like to know what the class thinks about it. Cultures outside of the capitalist states of modern times are often subjugated and exploited. Not only by labeling them as “developing” or “third world” and taking advantage of their land and resources for the benefit of those in powerful positions, but also by using them as a model of simplicity. The “oh, if only we could go back we would be better off” perspective. There seems to be a growing view in popular opinion that the “tribal” way is a desirable and perhaps necessary quality to be happy. Maybe they’re right and maybe not. More importantly this view keeps those who actually might want technology and change from achieving that goal. Cultural tourism, eco-tourism, and the like directly force the subjugation these peoples.
How about we also discuss this quote which I found interesting: “The Kayapo appropriation of the medium of video reaffirms the notion that it is people who make their own history and that in the age of "the global village" one makes history by controlling the media of self-representation” (pg 278).
On pg. 264-265, upon arriving in the Kayapo village, the filmmakers and anthropologists show the Kayapo scenes of news broadcasts from the Raft War and footage of the chief from a neighboring village. Frota says that from the Kayapo’s reaction to the screening, the logical extension was for the filmmaker’s to hand the Kayapo the camera. Do you see this as manipulative in order to pursue an objective on the part of the filmmakers and anthropologists (as an [auto]ethnography)? Frota states that the Navajo film project is different from Mekaron Opoi D’joi because Adair and Worth explained to the Navajo the reasons why the Navajo should make films even though their interest was low. Is the Mekaron Opoi D’joi project similar to the Navajo project in that the filmmakers came with specific research goals that they wanted to see completed? Why or why not?
The political role of film is showcased in Frota’s project. The Kayapo, according to Frota, understood the power of media in a modern Brazilian state. The chief refers to the camera as a weapon (Moore also references this role: “the imbalance between those behind and those in front of the camera [is] that of its ever allegorized twin, the gun...it was time to hand it over"), one that can help them subvert the dominant control of Brazilians. However, this is not expressed by the chief until the anthropologists and filmmakers screen multiple political, local and metropolitan videos for the Kayapo. Where does ethnography and politics diverge or meld? Should outsider anthropologists enter other cultures to help empower them? Is this a reactionary method in opposition to the participant-observation model of ethnography?
Consider this: “Who are we to keep technology from them? In our society it is all too
commonplace to see "primitive cultures" as a set of survival skills and traditional customs incapable of articulating with current history” (p.269). This is Frota’s response to the underfunding of the Brazilian state, hindering the Mekaron Opoi D’joi project while the anthropologists/filmmakers were unable to return to the Kayapo villages. This is an interesting statement and I would like to know what the class thinks about it. Cultures outside of the capitalist states of modern times are often subjugated and exploited. Not only by labeling them as “developing” or “third world” and taking advantage of their land and resources for the benefit of those in powerful positions, but also by using them as a model of simplicity. The “oh, if only we could go back we would be better off” perspective. There seems to be a growing view in popular opinion that the “tribal” way is a desirable and perhaps necessary quality to be happy. Maybe they’re right and maybe not. More importantly this view keeps those who actually might want technology and change from achieving that goal. Cultural tourism, eco-tourism, and the like directly force the subjugation these peoples.
How about we also discuss this quote which I found interesting: “The Kayapo appropriation of the medium of video reaffirms the notion that it is people who make their own history and that in the age of "the global village" one makes history by controlling the media of self-representation” (pg 278).
Response to Through Navajos Eyes
I, much like Daniela, knew little to nothing about the Navajo Indians (and based on the reading and interviews by Worth and Adair) are a people with very little exposure to or experience with film or picture-making, so it was fascinating to see how they used motion picture cameras to analyze the relationship between their language and culture and the way they structured their world through film. The project itself is most certainly ground breaking in the sense of its purpose; the idea of bringing Six Navajos to see if motion picture film, conceived, photographed, and manipulated by them would reveal aspects of cognition and values that may be inhibited, not observable or analyzable when the means of investigation is dependent on verbal exchange and particularly when it is done in the language of the investigator. The film that stood out the most to me was Intrepid Shadow and how Al Clah attempts to reconcile the western notion of God with his traditional Navaho notion of gods. I also saw that the circle was very symbolic in that it represents our forever quest for peace and tranquility.
The fact that this particular project” is considered by many (and indeed declares itself) to be the originator of the model of "handing over the camera to others" makes me wonder if it also paved the way for similar projects such as “Kids with Cameras” and “ Eyes on Gaza’s Children” initiatives and entire non- profit and human rights organizations whose sole purpose is handing used and up to date cameras to Palestinians children in the Occupied territories of the West Bank And Gaza. They would document everything from their day to day activities, but mostly human rights abuses often perpetrated but rarely highlighted or captured in such detail.
If it weren’t for this particular project and the terminologies that sprouted and stemmed from such “Politics of representation” and “multiculturalism” and the recognition of film as a legitimate field of study, the plight of many marginalized and disenfranchised across the world would seize to be heard or given much attention to.
But certain questions linger in my mind regarding this project: Do we as viewers and absorbers of their stories actually see through their lens? Do they get to see through their lens? How can this project be titled through Navajos eyes if the very people who were provided with the basic tools were under the watchful instructions of non Navajo filmmakers?
The fact that this particular project” is considered by many (and indeed declares itself) to be the originator of the model of "handing over the camera to others" makes me wonder if it also paved the way for similar projects such as “Kids with Cameras” and “ Eyes on Gaza’s Children” initiatives and entire non- profit and human rights organizations whose sole purpose is handing used and up to date cameras to Palestinians children in the Occupied territories of the West Bank And Gaza. They would document everything from their day to day activities, but mostly human rights abuses often perpetrated but rarely highlighted or captured in such detail.
If it weren’t for this particular project and the terminologies that sprouted and stemmed from such “Politics of representation” and “multiculturalism” and the recognition of film as a legitimate field of study, the plight of many marginalized and disenfranchised across the world would seize to be heard or given much attention to.
But certain questions linger in my mind regarding this project: Do we as viewers and absorbers of their stories actually see through their lens? Do they get to see through their lens? How can this project be titled through Navajos eyes if the very people who were provided with the basic tools were under the watchful instructions of non Navajo filmmakers?
Response to Through Navajo Eyes
The shorts, to me, were quite interesting. I agree with Maureen in that the authors/creators of the project seemed to have some idea of the outcome even before they started the project. I wouldn’t go so far as to deem their effort as failed or even mundane, however, perhaps slightly inductive is suitable. Well read social scientists will no doubt make assumptions about specific outcomes of their fieldwork. No anthropologist can divorce themselves from their own cultural environment, and these include assumptions about their research. To state the opposite would be dishonest and misleading. Anthropology is defined as the holistic study of human beings and up until the post-structuralist, post-processual movement this primarily concerned “the Other”. Through this early experiment we might begin to see the field shifting to include the other and the observer together to create a “shared” anthropology (note that this “shared” anthropology is still subject to biases). It’s methods were unique and ahead of their time and through respectful retrospective analysis we might be able to uncover some very useful insights into the effectiveness of an “autoethnography”.
Of course, I have biases as well (as I stated I think we all do). One being that I believe anthropology has evolved into a fascinating field that possesses a practical value. In the past it was the way Western social science attempted to understand the differences and similarities of the whole. It is a multi perspective view, often one-sided, often short-sighted, but always changing and important. It’s roots are ethnocentric but it has branched out to encompass multiple views from multiple cultures.
The idea to include a “native voice” in ethnography is noble. It broke the previous model and I believe the intentions were to better understand people as a whole, not to portray a certain culture as a novelty.
Through Navajo Eyes has the possibility - like other ethnographic or autoethnographic films - to continue to be analyzed. Unlike a written ethnography the visual ethnography can be viewed and interpreted in a much more abstract, and often more informative way. I am reminded of a Jean Rouch film he made in Senegal (I think). He filmed a funeral procession that included possessed dancers dancing to a crew of drummers. There were questions about the reasons why the rhythm was “out of synch” to the dancers at times. This was answered when an ethnomusicologist slowed the film down to see that the possessed dancers and those merely in accompaniment were dancing to different drummers. In fact, the drummers were following the rhythm of the dancers. That speaks to the importance film can have in ethnographies.
Of course, I have biases as well (as I stated I think we all do). One being that I believe anthropology has evolved into a fascinating field that possesses a practical value. In the past it was the way Western social science attempted to understand the differences and similarities of the whole. It is a multi perspective view, often one-sided, often short-sighted, but always changing and important. It’s roots are ethnocentric but it has branched out to encompass multiple views from multiple cultures.
The idea to include a “native voice” in ethnography is noble. It broke the previous model and I believe the intentions were to better understand people as a whole, not to portray a certain culture as a novelty.
Through Navajo Eyes has the possibility - like other ethnographic or autoethnographic films - to continue to be analyzed. Unlike a written ethnography the visual ethnography can be viewed and interpreted in a much more abstract, and often more informative way. I am reminded of a Jean Rouch film he made in Senegal (I think). He filmed a funeral procession that included possessed dancers dancing to a crew of drummers. There were questions about the reasons why the rhythm was “out of synch” to the dancers at times. This was answered when an ethnomusicologist slowed the film down to see that the possessed dancers and those merely in accompaniment were dancing to different drummers. In fact, the drummers were following the rhythm of the dancers. That speaks to the importance film can have in ethnographies.
RESPONSE: Through Navajo Eyes
In the reading, I was intrigued by the authors’ analogy of filmic conventions to the rules of speech. They ask: if the ability to learn language is indeed innate, are there also certain filmmaking/viewing conventions—“universal patterns” of organizing visual information-- that can be understood and analyzed by people from another group?
Though the authors do not take a definitive position on this question, and take pains to acknowledge the cultural relativism at play in their field, I think their answer would be yes. This for me brought back some of the ideas we discussed during the first week, particularly Derrida’s decontructionist critique of semiotics, and his distrust of drawing definitive or overarching conclusions from any given sign system.
In general, I found that the authors’ analysis shared many of the same characteristics – and criticisms-- as those of structural anthropologists. There were a number of passages that struck me as ethnocentric (notably the passage on page 29 on “guided innovation”), and I found some of their conclusions (notably the passage on “walking) quite underdeveloped considering the relatively narrow range of source material.
That said, I understand that the project pre-dated postructuralism by many years, and that it was an important turning point in the fields of cultural anthropology and film theory. I was also impressed by the timeliness of its central concepts in contemporary Youth Media studies, which aims to give voice to disenfranchised young people by giving them access to media tools.
As for the films themselves, I agree that they were visually beautiful, particularly the closeups of hands engaged in material activity – weaving, drawing in the sand, washing, etc. I also thought it was interesting that many of the films avoided linear chronologies, and that they varied so significantly in their pacing (ie. Intrepid Shadows employed rapid jump cuts, while Old Antelope Lake and the Weaver seemed much more stable/static).
Though the authors do not take a definitive position on this question, and take pains to acknowledge the cultural relativism at play in their field, I think their answer would be yes. This for me brought back some of the ideas we discussed during the first week, particularly Derrida’s decontructionist critique of semiotics, and his distrust of drawing definitive or overarching conclusions from any given sign system.
In general, I found that the authors’ analysis shared many of the same characteristics – and criticisms-- as those of structural anthropologists. There were a number of passages that struck me as ethnocentric (notably the passage on page 29 on “guided innovation”), and I found some of their conclusions (notably the passage on “walking) quite underdeveloped considering the relatively narrow range of source material.
That said, I understand that the project pre-dated postructuralism by many years, and that it was an important turning point in the fields of cultural anthropology and film theory. I was also impressed by the timeliness of its central concepts in contemporary Youth Media studies, which aims to give voice to disenfranchised young people by giving them access to media tools.
As for the films themselves, I agree that they were visually beautiful, particularly the closeups of hands engaged in material activity – weaving, drawing in the sand, washing, etc. I also thought it was interesting that many of the films avoided linear chronologies, and that they varied so significantly in their pacing (ie. Intrepid Shadows employed rapid jump cuts, while Old Antelope Lake and the Weaver seemed much more stable/static).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)