Tuesday, September 30, 2014

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.

Monday, September 29, 2014

Sep 30, 2014_METAPHOR (decentering normal)_Reading Response


The essay by Schalk problematizes the use of disability metaphors in feminist arguments since they associate negativity with impairment, which conceptually marginalize and ostracize people with disabilities. Schalk argues that these metaphors indirectly contribute to sanctioning ableist language, since “metaphors rely upon presuppositions or assume a shared understanding and knowledge of the chosen concrete item.” Regarding that all readers understand this shared understanding on the same basis and affiliating negativity with different bodily experiences fails to “recognize the social dimension of metaphor and the key role that language plays in realizing these social and political values.” In this light, I align language with visual culture. Like visual culture, language is political and not always neutral. We read images based on our respective experiences and knowledge, which results in multiple interpretations. These sets of processes through which individuals come to make sense of things are based on multi-layered contexts of their background. Acknowledging and understanding how viewers identify with image and examining how they gain meaning in various cultural contexts can also be applied to the process of using language. Being mindful of the “open-endedness of our inherently metaphoric language,” the complex implication of the language, and the concept of inclusion in using them will foster shared practices of producing meanings.

Monday, September 22, 2014

Sep 23, 2014_RACE (Intersectionality)_Reading Response

The readings that were based on the intersection of race and sex/race and disability offers a phenomenological approach of examining “difference.” The arguments made my M’charek (2010) and Annamma, Connor and Ferri (2013) provides different but connected set of lens to criticize how the socially constructed materialities of difference affect the experience of a lived body. The theoretical framework of the arguments are grounded on the belief that the marking of difference opposed to the normed body is a product of reductive binaries and ideologies of racism, sexism, and ableism. This process of regulation and categorization that is based on social and institutional practices resonates with the ideas of the “docile body.” As Foucault explains, modern state normalizes bodies by codifying them in relation to social norms. What lies under the effects of this exercise is the normalizing process that aims to maintain dominance. However, as the readings claim, the knowledge of difference cannot be based on a homogeneous experience. Rather, it is concerned with the relational experience surrounded by the various social, cultural, political contexts. It is the cross-section of  “relation” and “effect” that we need to focus on. The socially constructed markings elicit “real material outcomes” that affect the lived bodies.

As Merleau-Ponty pointed out, it is important to recognize bodies as the entity through which we experience the world and emerge as individual subjects. However, it is equally important to understand these bodies as complex fields where various discourse intersect, cause tension, and where new meanings of difference emerge. These bodies should be perceived as multidimensional, plural, and complicated opposed to viewing them as universal, standardized, and homogenized entities.

Tuesday, September 16, 2014

Black Female Voices: Who is Listening - A public dialogue between bell hooks + Melissa Harris-Perry

In relation to Sep 16 reading, "A Pornography of Violence: A Dialogue About Precious" by bell hooks with Gilda L. Sheppard & "Too Precious for You" by MARIA-BELÉN ORDÓÑEZ, 

Monday, September 15, 2014

Sep 16, 2014_AFFECT_Reading Response

      As normative concepts of beauty inundate our daily lives, Corker (2001) claims the necessity to reconceptualize the notion of identity in relation to sensory embodiment. The binary perspectives that privilege the presence and visible aligns with the conventional Western philosophy which favors the sense of vision and hearing over the sense of taste, touch, and smell. Sight and hearing may be labeled the “cognitive” or “intellectual” senses, while taste, touch, and smell constitute the “bodily” senses. Whereas the higher senses mostly function at a certain distance from the object, the lower senses require physical contact that is directly involved with pleasure or pain. Also, it has been suggested that the physicality and subjectivity of this sense, along with the other bodily senses, sets bounds to one’s absorption of information.
      It is this institutional practice that creates the knowledge of disability and restricts its meaning in relation to “socially constructed value judgements.” The "regulating power of 'universalizing'"controls the discourse of biological and socio-cultural differences that determines and circumscribes its meaning. If this discourse continues to be based on "rational consensus" and overgeneralization, the progress of communication will not evolve from but only revolve around the concept of both physical and sensory disability.



Monday, September 8, 2014

Sep 9, 2014_PLACE_Reading Response

As we discussed in last week’s class, it is important to decenter the meaning of “normal,” which is encoded with values and concepts of power, in order to examine how representation affect what society regard as cultural norms. This week’s reading takes off from this idea and argues that perceptions of “others” based on the notion of cultural norm affect the behaviors and communication towards people with difficult-abilities. Thus, I agree with Kraft and Keifer-Boyd’s (2013) claim that we need to first acknowledge that disability is a “social process” and identify the social barriers that hinders these people to gain full access to engagement.

The reading for this week made me ponder upon the word “access.” It is crucial to devise access to assist groups that are unable to visit the museum due to their lack of mobility and create an exhibition setting that caters to the diverse audience. What is equally important, however, is to facilitate access to the ways of communication made in the museum. In this light, I find that the Find Cards project practiced at Maude Kerns Art Center exemplifies the process of connecting narratives in relation to artworks in the museum that can assist this active conversation in taking place among the audience. To perform such projects, I believe that it is essential that the facilitator encourage the participants to believe every artwork has the power to be experienced in different ways in accordance with their desires. Every moment turns into a unique experience when they are having a dialog with an artwork and establishing their own relationship with the artwork, which also extends to a collective level when the participants connect their own interpretation to each other’s. The positive effects that are stimulated by engaging with art in a group setting increase meaningful social interaction.

           Another point that I would like to add is the importance to form a genuine partnership with the collaborating party. From a museum education standpoint, this can be strengthened by an interdisciplinary approach towards developing the curriculum of programs at the museum by seeking advice and support from partnerships. Museums should first devise procedures for effective cross-organizational collaboration and strategies to receive and provide support from community-based art organizations and school professionals. While the community-based art organizers and special educators can offer practical support in professional training sessions so that museum staff can get a better understanding of the target audience, the museum can arrange sessions that enable their partners to explore and use the museum resource and investigate ideas and activities to use with their participants during a museum visit. 

  • Kraft, M. & Keifer-Boyd, K. (2013). Including difference. Reston, VA: NAEA. (Chapter 6).

Sunday, September 7, 2014

From the Margins to the Core? - 2010 Conference @ V&A, U.K.


"An international conference exploring the shifting roles and increasing significance of diversity and equality in contemporary museum and heritage policy and practice."

http://www.vam.ac.uk/content/articles/f/from-the-margins-to-the-core-2010-conference/

Monday, September 1, 2014

SEP 2, 2014_BODY_Reading Response

      The readings suggest a holistic approach towards the discourse surrounding the term “disability.” The discourse of disability is not limited to the physical difficulties that one might experience. Rather, the subject expands to cover a broad range of sociocultural perspectives encompassing the term by focusing on the social, economical, political, cultural interactions that a person with “difficult abilities” would have with the “material environment” that he/she is living in. This notion brings in an even broader discourse about disability by questioning the cultural meanings attributed to bodies. As Garland-Thomas (2005) argues, the cultural meanings that a body entail cannot be separated from the use of language. Since the language we use to describe an entity is closely associated with perception, it functions as a hidden structure that prescribes our understanding of a certain concept. This imposes an “ascribed identity” to a disabled person. Therefore, it is possible to witness that the term “disabled” itself contains a subjective paradigm that is derived from the standard of a dominant social system. Shifting my perspective towards art education, Kraft and Keifer-Boyd’s (2013) argument helped me think about the ways of how such education can contribute to challenge this given identity towards people with difficult abilities through “inclusion,” both in academic and non-academic ways. Art as a school subject can empower students to critically tackle the term disability by challenging its prescribed meaning associated with “abnormality.” Accordingly, art education should develop curriculums that view disability as difference rather than disadvantage. 


  • Garland-Thomson, R. (2005). Feminist disabilities studies. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture & Society, 30(2),1558-1587.
  • Kraft, M. & Keifer-Boyd, K. (2013). Including difference. Reston, VA: NAEA. (Introduction & chapter 1, ix-18).