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.

2 comments:

  1. 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).

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank 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