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.
M’charek (2010) discusses "the difference between multiple and plural is crucial" (p. 308). With plurality, dominant ideologies create a hierarchy, while a lens of multiplicity (building on Annemarie Mol's argument in Ontological Politics, 1999 and The Body Multiple, 2002) focus attention on "activities and interventions in practice" (p. 309).
ReplyDeleteThank you for pointing this out. Through the readings, it's very interesting to read and get introduced to the new meanings that are layered upon the obsolete ones that I were initially aware of, yet it's often difficult to immediately apply those subtle but powerful subversions in the writings. I think it's an evidence of how difficult it is to get out of the box that constrain my thinking by breaking off from the circumscribed meanings of certain words. The conceptual breakthrough really starts from changing the "language" we use, as we discussed in class. It's a small step to make which entails a huge impact.
Delete