Including Difference Performance

Including Difference Performance

Script written by Eunjung CHoi, Performed by Eunjung Choi & Juhun Lee

Nov 4, 2014_SUBJECTIVITY_Reading Response

According to Nyman (2013), “difference is both a process and product; it characterizes how we process reality as well as how exterior forces and energies work upon us.” Thinking about difference as a notion that cultivates productive and enriching forces made me revisit my memory of having a conversation with a museum visitor named Alvin as part of my research a few years ago. Alvin was a college student majoring in communication studies. He shared his story of learning American sign language while standing with me in front of three Buddhist gilt-bronze sculptures from the Joseon period.

“When I was looking at the three Buddhas over here, I was guessing the hand positions of these must be very important. It reminded me and my mom and sister learning American sign language when I was younger…So I was wondering what he is trying to say. What he could be saying in American sign language which obviously is not the case. But perhaps he’s saying something still. But why in sign language? Maybe it’s more kind of a universal language.”

The viewing experience encouraged him to take notice of the sculpture’s distinctive hand sign, which also made him relate his experience to this specific feature. Alvin assumed that knowing the meaning of the hand sign, or mudra, of the Buddhist sculptures plays a critical role in interpreting the artwork. Being unaware of the different meanings assigned to the mudras, he tried to apply his knowledge of sign language to make sense of the object. Being a communication studies major, Alvin was interested in both making personal communications through sign language and learning about communications across cultures through art. Those two “languages” are based on the use of symbols, which Alvin attempted to interrelate. 

The TED talk, given by Joseph Valente, touches upon the bilingual abilities of the deaf culture. The focus is not on the “impairment” that needs to be fixed. Decentering normative views of this culture elicits a whole new perspective that focuses on a unique and different ability—the ability to see and perceive the world with a different “language.” Alvin acknowledged that his application of sign language to the interpretation of a Buddhist sculpture would not make sense in an art historical context. But for me, his interpretation of the object made me think of something that I had never thought of. By blending in his own cultural background to the surface manifestations of art, Alvin was trying to make sense of the object on a very personal level. The process also enriched my insight of viewing the artwork with a different perspective. Overlapping the readings with my narrative, I wonder how to apply this cross-cultural encountering/co-creative process beyond the museum and to everyday life and how this would enrich our lives.

Oct 28, 2014_TECHNOLOGY_ Reading Response

The readings for this week underline the importance of process and relationship in building a communication model to include difference. The process of first meeting the different-abled students and then working with them requires many skills different from those traditionally used in the education setting. Such skills are less concerned with systematic learning, but more about negotiating, building genuine relationships, and fostering confidence. The Communicative Competence Inventory introduced by Chung and Douglas (2014) shows a collaborative approach based on four elements that are essential to support students having difficulties in speech production: students as active communicators, peers as competent communication partners, family as involved collaborators, and educator as effective facilitators. The inclusiveness of this model comes from the fact that it involves everyone in and out of the class setting to become a part of this learning process. It gives everyone a chance to contribute and provides ownership in building an effective communication model. It is “empowerment by difference,” claimed by Kraft and Keifer-Boyd (2013). It is crucial to understand "the strength of differences and ways to share those strength for a community of learners" and convey those strength through resources and strategies. 

What has been done so far for the different abled students and what needs to be done in the future for them should be examined in depth in order to find out what works and how we can incorporate successful theories and methods into our individual fields, not only school settings but also other institutions where learning happen. Well-grounded understanding is vital in detecting the students’ needs, which will further enable the facilitator to develop and implement programs to build a platform for the individuals to fully demonstrate their potentials.

*Food for thought
http://thecreatorsproject.vice.com/show/make-it-wearable-part-1-human-connection

Oct 21, 2014_(Re)present_Reading Response

What is it that advertisements want to sell? Where does the advertisement want to situate me and where do I situate myself within the context of representation? Does the advertisement’s intended scope and where I see myself within that scope come to an agreement? “Me” as the subject is asked to consume the “code” or “sign” that the advertisement is trying to sell. This code of the Dove ad discussed in Heiss’ essay intends to encompass a broader range of consumer by associating signs of “real beauty,” but “the word 'real' coupled with these nearly "normate" bodies is cause for concern because 'real' connotes 'natural' or 'authentic.'” The advertisement’s idea of “real beauty” and its act to further position “the body as a site of dichotomous evaluations” is problematic since it excludes women with disabilities that do not conform to an image of idealized body and thus re-categorizes and reinforces the notion of normative standards of beauty. By watching the ad, who would feel a sense of belonging and who would feel as being shut out? What is the relationship between representation, identity, and commodity culture? Are we still stuck in the dominant Western discourse that confines “self” within the framework of being “ordered and discrete, secure within the well-defined boundaries of the body rather than actually being the body” (Shildrick)?

Oct 14, 2014_Embodied (differences)_Reading Response

The readings for this week once again push the parameters that grounded my educational standpoint. And changing this standpoint allowed me to different sides of disability studies and how it disrupts the process of coding, marking, and normalizing by extending the limits of “thinkability.”

South Korean artist Lee Bul’s recent work deals with notions of self-reflection. In relation to her work, she states: "I sometimes have these thoughts nowadays that what we think or believe is ourselves, is actually a reflection of ourselves that we accept without hesitation. I wonder how we saw ourselves before we had mirrors in front of us." 

We should also think about embodied differences outside the framework of institutional archiving and catalog subjects, but should bring myriad pieces of mirrors to project and reflect diverse spaces within disability studies. The readings provoke me to look beyond the physical surface of the body and regard body as a site that “reject[s] the dominant binary division of the world into able-bodied and disabled or normal and abnormal.” Here, the objective singular medical gaze transforms into a subjectively experienced multiple perspectives. This aligns with how Erevelle points out that “knowledge of bodies is a social and not just a clinical event where all bodies are in a state of renewal and adjustment in changing physical and environmental contexts making bodies intensely aware, not just of their being but also of their mutual becomings in the world.” Like the fragmented mirrors in Lee Bul's work reflect different aspects of self, the focus of examining difference should focus on “exploring the subjectivities of lived experience replete with unanticipated meanings.” 

Oct 7, 2014_TRANS (Transformative Education)_Reading Response

The readings from this course are constantly and gradually expanding my thoughts and ideas about (dis)ability. Rake’s argument from this week’s readings stimulated me to take another perspective on examining the notion of disability. While claiming that the examination on intersections that feminist philosophers/theorists focus on tends to be based on their own identities and experiences, Rake cites Rowe’s idea of “cartographies of belonging” as to think how we “map the ways in which we are turned toward and away from others and how this positioning and ir/relationality are central to the construction of subjectivity itself.” Rake introduces the argument made by Clare to dig deeper into this notion of “ir/relationality” to identify the “normalizing force” that perpetuates the idea of viewing impairment as “always already disabled.” Positioning self on a map that loosens or even reduces our conceptualization within this reductive binary system is crucial in disability studies.

From an art educational standpoint, the HEARTS model, suggested by Kraft and Keifer-Boyd, presents effective ways to shift the “normalizing” perspective towards impairment by implementing “art’s ability to maximize individual differences as a strategy for empowerment.” While proposing practical methods to bring modifications for different needs, such as the utilization of digital technologies, the model also puts weight on the importance of devising directions and structure that are flexible enough to visualize or make tangible of the participant’s “strength, interests, and expressive modes” through art. By engaging both typical and different-abled participants in the process of making art, it carries out inclusion strategies based on reciprocal communications between the educator/typical-abled/different-abled students. The model fosters further thinking of how the distinctive values of art could be utilized in developing a more relational mapping of identity (an identity as an ongoing process) based upon the intersection of diverse experiences and perspectives.

My Identity Map

http://prezi.com/ecd5zmnpah5o/?utm_campaign=share&utm_medium=copy&rc=ex0share

Mapping my identity was an act of engaging in a complex process of self-determination. It was a process that empowered me through self-perception. Visually mapping out the diverse social identities and situating myself within this delineation made me think of the relation between my personal connections, family traditions, external conditions, social situations and prejudice, and shared cultural values. It was a virtual experience of exploring and recovering my personal spaces and see how they relate to the community, public space, and real life.

As I was reflecting on the various aspects that affect my identity, I was constantly asking myself if I was omitting anything that influenced who I am today. The more I became aware of the complex elements that were taking place on the map, the more I experienced a sense of self-awareness. During the first phrase of mapping, I visually identified the explicit or sometimes implicit signifiers that wield control over life and minoritize difference and also recognizing the targets of oppression that are affected by them, using the four questions as my guideline. I placed these social identities inside rectangular boxes and spread them out on the map. During the second phrase, I placed my personal identities in a circle and placed them between other social identities that I identified in the first phrase. Finally through the connecting process, I was able to elucidate how the complex interconnected relationships of the different identities affect each other and how my identities were in play under this effect. I used the purple lines to reveal the places where I am privileged, red lines to show where I am oppressed, and orange lines to display the general power relations between certain components on the map. The connecting process made me become aware of not only the categories of identities but also of the means in which they developed. 

While I was finding to locate my own position in the identity map, I remembered the moments when I became aware of or became confused of my identity. For instance, I remembered the moments when the sense of “inclusion” changed to “exclusion.” Spending my childhood in the U.S., I had some sort of pride in being the only Asian in the entire school at that time. During that time, I enjoyed being on the spotlight whenever the class was learning about different countries and different cultures. I even had a chance to introduce the customs of Korea in front of the class with my mother, both wearing our traditional costume, Hanbok. I was a minority then, but my experience of alienation started when my parents abruptly decided to go back to Korea. My Korean language skills improved as the time passing, but my classmates gave me a hard time by treating me as a foreigner in my own country. Things got better as I grew older but I remember that the sudden change brought to my life at that time caused confusion and a disorder for a certain time in my childhood. Then coming back to the U.S. after getting married, I once again experienced how being an ethnic minority forced me to face prejudice through media and everyday life. I was struggling to maintain the “pride” for being an ethnic minority that I held so tight as a child, afraid that it would become substituted by a sense of alienation.

Taking this certain experience of mine as an example, I contemplated on how my vision of self was affected by others. To what extent? Do I rely on that too much? How did the experiences formed the way I am? How did it become an integral part of my personality? How different is the image I view myself from the image others think of me? The identities spread out on the map look like montages but they are contingent upon each other. Similarly, my own experiences are not an isolated series of events. Each of them connects my past and present, and makes me ponder what it means to experience a certain time, place, society, beliefs, and attitudes that affect the process of constructing my identity as a whole. In the map, I was being present and was trying to figure out how I navigate the external social space and see what blocks me in my movement.

As I was trying to figure out what I see as the affects, however, I also began to wonder if this “process of seeing” was in fact blocking my sight at the same time. I was able to see from the map that the position where I’m oppressed and privileged is relational. I wanted to find out if my inner vision was distracting my eyesight that affects what I see in the present moment. What am I missing? What are the other complex elements that I fail to see? What are the signs that I see but not their meanings? What am I making things present and making other things absent? What are the multiple other rectangles and circles that should come into play on the map? How should I negotiate the territory in between the rectangles and circles that are already visible on the map? Am I making appropriate interpretations of the identities and am I being conscious of the inappropriate ones that I have made in the past? I was asking myself if the identity of the “we,” as the category where I confine myself, is a “false identity, based on an agreement and a sameness that do not in fact exist” (Weir, 2008, p. 128). Since everything is relational, it is impossible to maintain a stable sense of self due to my position in the dizzying sociocultural context and to my relationships with each other.

The map delivers a visual message to me that my identity is not constructed from a fixed context. It is a product derived from a fluid territory based on relationships in flux. It’s about how the external world comes to inform and construct my own and others’ identities and how we cannot be separated from outside influences. Accordingly, I consider my sense of self not as a result of an internal process but as a reflection as an external understanding. As Greene (2000) points out that “we are more likely to uncover or be able to interpret what we are experiencing if we can at times recapture some our lost spontaneity and some awareness of our own backgrounds” (p. 52), it is important to acknowledge what my self-reflexive self is reflecting about and to pinpoint where my self is positioned at the external location.  

Being self-reflective is the first step towards diversity awareness, because only after this process we can “go beyond the limitations that come from one's location in a particular place at a particular moment in history and the experience derived from this” (Weedon, 2002, p. 3). As it is visible in the map, I view myself as a product of academic discourse. My education comes from an institutional structure, enabled by the privilege of having the economic means to gain access to education, which is also grounded on the system of capitalism. Through my education, however, I think of ways to extend the discourses only available to the privileged and to encompass everyone in the conversation so that they could inhabit their own interpretations of the discourse. I want my self-reflexivity not to be centered on me and not to be confined to the text, but to be placed in the center of an intersection of shared dialogs. Standing on the intersection where multiple crossings of ideas occur, I will be able to examine everyone’s front, back, and both sides and negotiate the meaning of things, whereas standing on a two-way zone will only allow me to see someone from the front and cause us to collide.

Greene, M. (1995). Releasing the imagination. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Weedon, C. (2002). Key issues in postcolonial feminism: A Western perspective. Gender Forum: An International Journal for Gender Studies.

Weir, A. (2008). Global feminism and transformative identity politics. Hypatia, 23(4), 110-133.