divyawrites

[divyawrites]

Absurdity and Remembrance: How Mental and Physical Spaces are Forms of Resistance

It is only the absurd that shows the presence of what is human – Doris Salcedo, a Colobian visual artist, quotes post-war poet Paul Celan when she describes the detailed, labor-some, and seemingly ‘absurd’ artistic processes that precede her final installations. The absurdity she references is related to the unique complexity of her work. Salcedo’s pieces are layered – to a viewer at first, a table looks like a table, shoes in the wall are simply observed as they are, and a 500-foot crack in the floor of Tate Modern appears to be a random art idea (if not completely disregarded as an art piece.) However, closer analysis reveals human hairs sown into the wood table, shoes pressed into a wall behind animal skin, and the technicalities of the prodigious crack that probably necessitated many complex design decisions. Salcedo describes these processes as absurd, as many of these seemingly ‘simple’ pieces were produced after year-long endeavors. However, it seems that the absurdity is somewhat intentional, exposing the human experience intrinsic to its creation. In fact, her process and pieces seek to subtly yet powerfully validate traumatic, often invisible lived experiences that she bears witness to[1]. Her final installations, then, are physical manifestations of this absurdity, the material objects that are testaments to remnants of collective trauma, telling untold stories slowly, carefully, absurdly, to achieve a semblance of collective justice. Salcedo addresses social justice by constructing both mental and physical spaces for grief/mourning, the former through seemingly 'absurd' aesthetic methods, and the latter through the physical arrangement of installations. Salcedo's labor-some artistic processes actually dramatizes and makes visible absurdity/futility/illogicality and uses it as a vehicle to expose forgotten histories that are a consequence of State violence. The finished pieces are physically glaring hints at how violence manifests. Therefore, the forgotten invisible is transformed into mental and physical visible space. In order to prove this end, this paper will first offer brief visual analyses and an explanation of Salcedo’s methodologies. Next, it will analyze how her intricate process constructs mental space, and how her physical pieces are a product of those intricacies. Finally, it will explore relevant concepts of decoloniality and Salcedo’s own viewpoints on true ‘justice.’

As mentioned previously, since the process and labor of art-making give her final pieces their meaning, it will be important to be historically situated and visually analyze the installations Unland: The Orphan’s Tunic (1997)[2]and Atrabiliarios (1992/2004)[3] in terms of appearance and creative development. Salcedo’s process begins with interviewing victims of violence in Colombia conflict zones, where the ‘political killings’ carried out by the military squads has caused traumatic State-inflicted violence[4]. Through this, she discovered that women were subjected to extreme brutality in Colombia[5]. Her practice is a direct response to military regimens in Colombia responsible for massacres. She aims to amplify the loss of human bodies by using body parts (like human hair) after subjection to State-inflicted violence. She acts as a listening witness to these testimonies, taking years to create objects that most accurately (yet subtly) depict the violence.

Unland: The Orphan’s Tunic (1997) is an example of her efforts. It is a rectangular arrangement made of two wood tables somewhat unevenly placed together. One table is oak-colored, the other appears white, and the difference in color is stark. Between the two tables, small holes were drilled – human hair and raw silk were threaded through and sown[6]. As Salcedo describes in the interview (Module 3), the project took over a year to finish. As a continuous piece, the ‘uneven’ quality of the table makes it look used, unfinished, and held together by only the sewn hair. Cathy Park Hong describes that the “object [is] all used, rubbed down and softened by the bodies that have handled, lain, and sat on them for years[7]”. Hong suggests that the piece is a representation of lived and ‘handled’ space that is now left behind. She also states that the presence of threaded hair is “like cryptic inscriptions from the dead", highlighting the remnants of an uneasy, lived experience that is no more. The thin, sown hairs hold the distorted tables together, as if subtly grieving that their broken existence cannot be mended because it resides in a permanently disrupted state. As put by Daryl Chin, the hairs were taken from actual people Salcedo interviewed that were victims of violence. Thus “this removal can be seen as an example of violence, however miniscule[8] - It is a removal meant to showcase the remnants of violence, and perhaps how broken families, bodies, and traumas can be perpetually fragmented. Even the title “Unland”, through negating the word ‘land’, hints at the idea that the horrors inflicted on these people is in a place that only exists as a fragment, as an unfinished story. Similarly, Atrabilirios (1992-2004) is an installation art made by forming multiple square indents in a plain white wall. Women’s shoes, either single or in pairs, are placed in the wall standing up. They are covered by a sheet of animal fibers which are affixed to the wall using multiple stitches, but the shoes are still slightly visible – No other clothing is part of the art piece. As an entire installation, they are striking against an all-white background. The animal skin serves as a separative force between the viewer and the shoes that, according to Salcedo and Dan Cameron, “creates a strangely tactile sensation that invokes the shoes’ missing owners with chilling familiarity[9]”. The aforementioned description suggests that the shoes serve as reminders of the past intended to cause momentary discomfort and awareness in the viewer that the shoes are ‘missing’ from a woman who once was. Hyper-visible against the wall, it is a historical reality of violence against women and the disappearance of bodies, uncovered by a seemingly every-day object (shoes) that can never be returned because they were left behind, perhaps making the viewer ask what was made of the other worn items?

The visual analyses provided that have ‘absurd’ procedural elements intrinsic to them will serve to emphasize how mental and physical spaces were constructed by Salcedo to expose the stories of political violence she bore witness to. Mental space was made through artistic labor, an endeavor that is seemingly ‘absurd’ and unnecessary given the relative simplicity of the final installations (but is intentionally so.) In the case of Unland: The Orphan’s Tunic, sewing hair into wood was achieved through multiple volunteers working together with Salcedo – the process was thus time-consuming (make it inherently laborious.) In an interview, one of her volunteers said that while he was drilling holes into the table, he heard gunshots and saw blood in the streets. He stated, “Suddenly you understand why you have to make millions of holes and it was not rational, but it makes sense in that moment.”[10] The volunteer highlights that his ‘irrational’ labor was justified in that moment because it almost directly counteracted the real, also absurd violence occurring outside. Making mental space and time to counterbalance this absurdity (by using absurdity in a different strain) “made sense”, like a long mourning journey that was immediately necessary to be undertaken. Additionally, taken alone, the act of sewing into a table is uncommon, so it comes across as ‘absurd’. The method may seem inefficient or even futile – For example, why did Salcedo not elect to use machinery to sow? Why did she not sow into cloth instead of wood? Therefore, through investments in time and ‘inefficient’ methods, Salcedo mentally processed the trauma of the victims she interviewed. She showed up to work on an ‘absurd’ project for years, remembering every day the stories of those who suffered under military power and dictatorship. The physical installation is an illustration of this labor, even more striking because the final piece is minimalistic. Salcedo thus dramatizes absurdity in a way that turns invisible violence and trauma into hyper-visible mental and physical space. By the same logic, shoes in a wall standing up and not flat on the ground (Atrabilirios) is an unnatural, absurd physical placement. The mental space is made in the viewer upon recognition of their discomfort with placement, location, and the nonexistence of other clothing. Once again, Salcedo dramatizes absurdity to make visible a physical state of reversal from the norm and the subsequent mental discomfort.

It will now be appropriate to consider notions of decoloniality – Salcedo’s practice was partly decolonial because it seeked to validate ways of being that were disrupted by violence, but not particularly decolonial because of Salcedo’s comment that art cannot save (interview, module 3). Catherine Walsh, as stated in Lecture 1A, defines decoloniality as “modes of thinking, knowing, and being that often precede colonial invasion. Decoloniality is a form of struggle and of survival practices by those who have been colonized responding to the colonial matrix of power[11]”. By this definition, Salcedo’s work is decolonial because it highlights ‘modes of being’ that precede colonial invasion/violence/disturbance. These modes included emphasizing hair and shoes as remnants of being before disruption. However, it is not decolonial in all regards because Salcedo describes her work as ‘impotent’ – she believes her work is futile, that it cannot fix any problems. Walsh’s definition of decoloniality is more active, stating that there are practices that respond to matrices of power. However, Salcedo’s practice itself is subtle and does not seek to respond or fix, but simply to depict reality in a subtle way. There is no practice of struggle or survival, because the work always already acknowledges that struggle/survival were impossible against violence. Salcedo simply listens, creates, and lets the artwork represent a forgotten reality. Such an analysis ties in to whether or not Salcedo is conducting social justice “work”. Justice is a layered term because it often assumes a sort of reparation for wrongdoing. In the same interview, Salcedo mentions that “life is wasted but you can build something poetic.” Salcedo does not believe that “art can save” and believes that the lives were truly ‘wasted’ away by violence. The unfinished pieces and odd arrangements seem to signify a permanent state of grief/mourning. Thus the artist only wants to flip the terms of normalcy and logicality in her practice to make visible the invisible – Such an act acknowledges that ‘true’ justice cannot be attained.

Salcedo inhabits and creates mental and physical spaces that are ‘absurd’, and magnifies this absurdity in order to expose violence in Colombia. For example, she seeks to remind viewers of death by amplifying loss and exaggerating remnants of people murdered by the State. Mental space is made through labor and time, while the final piece is a product of these endeavors. In all, her efforts were necessary to be done in vain, with no immediate purpose, to illustrate a larger significance. Her art exposed residues of violence without depicting real bodies or actual scenes. Perhaps it reminds viewers of how the most disturbing part of death is not the gruesome portrayal of it. It is a worn shoe sitting in the closet that has no owner anymore, the hair that does not have a head, the subtle remnants of life that remind of what once was. Salcedo’s art has this kind of effect, reminding spectators of truly absurd every-day realities. Her work demonstrates that ‘true’ social justice (as close as one can get) is not acquired simply through surface-level recognition or reparation, but by ongoing (and often grueling) forms of resistance and remembrance. It is ultimately true, then, that the presence of the absurd shows the presence of the human.

Title: Unland: The Orphan’s Tunic (1997) – Art installation

Artist: Doris Salcedo

Title: Atrabilirios (1992-2004) – Art installation

Artist: Doris Salcedo

References

[1] Interview with Doris Salcedo. Doris Salcedo in “Compassion” on art 21, season 5, October 7, 2019. [2] Orphan’s tunic 1997 (see picture with caption below) [3] Defiances 1992 (see picture with caption below) [4] Doris Salcedo and Dan Cameron, “Unland”, Jean Stein on Jstor Vol. 61: page 81 [7] Cathy Park Hong, “Against Witness”, Poetry on Jstor Vol. 206, Issue 02: pages 151-157, https://www-jstor-org.oca.ucsc.edu/stable/pdf/43592005.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fdefault-2%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3Aeec33449b0b72533ead27990af525345 [8] Daryl Chin, “Beau Geste”, PAJ Publications on Jstor, Vol. 20, Issue 02: pp. 57-61, https://www-jstor-org.oca.ucsc.edu/stable/pdf/3245930.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fdefault-2%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3Af829f137a79aab93c3d09e33b0c676ee [9] Doris Salcedo and Dan Cameron, “Unland”, Jean Stein on Jstor Vol. 61: page 81, https://www-jstor-org.oca.ucsc.edu/stable/pdf/25000098.pdf?ab_segments=0%252Fdefault-2%252Fcontrol&refreqid=excelsior%3A0959a2c8f7d815b429368b33c286abbb [10] Interview with Doris Salcedo. Doris Salcedo in “Compassion” on art 21, season 5, October 7, 2019. [11] Rosa, Tatiane. “Lecture 1A – Deconstructing the Category “Latin America” – What does it mean to decolonize?” Class lecture, HAVC 144A from University of California, Santa Cruz, Santa Cruz, CA, June 30, 2019.

[divyawrites]

Creative work: Reimagining Public Space - Alternative History and Mount Rushmore

Is Mount Rushmore an accurate representation of our nation’s history? I coupled this experience with a piece I read online about how racist/sexist monuments are being torn down and (re)built to memorialize forgotten heroes (women, POC, LGBTQ folks, etc.) I wanted to deeply investigate what implications building can have. Is rebuilding monuments the best way to rewrite history? If we tore down Mount Rushmore and carved other faces into the mountain, would we have made adequate reparations? Or is there another way to envision this idea that would shake space and time at their colonial foundations? This piece is my dabble with social dreaming narratives, a kind of writing that ‘dreams’ of a better future while in the present. ___________________________________________________________________

[divyawrites]

Scientific “Revolutions” + Gender / Race / Capital

A notable focal point of scientific experimentation is the resulting production of knowledge that is often conceptualized linearly in space and time. Linear frameworks assume a consistency and regularity in information production that lacks analysis of epistemological ruptures intrinsic to the history of science and technology. Therefore, in both dialogue and practice around discovery and ‘innovation’, it is important to understand scientific knowledge as an accumulative process that is bound to larger institutions and social structures. Thomas Kuhn in “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” outlines a cyclical scheme of scientific knowledge production. Kuhn defines a ‘pre-paradigm’ (Kuhn 1962:163) state that is disturbed by a scientific ‘anomaly’ resulting in a ‘crisis’ that scientists attempt to resolve through ‘normal science’ paradigms. If crisis prevention is unsuccessful, he contends, a ‘paradigm shift’ occurs that leads to a ‘revolution’ of scientific understanding. In a sense, Kuhn suggests a dynamism in discovery by elucidating particularities of non-linear ‘progress’. This paper has two purposes: The first is to apply Kuhn’s theories to two instances of scientific and technological “revolution” in order to analyze paradigm shifts and their differing effects on gendered and racialized bodies. The second is to both compare and contrast the innovations in a non-linear fashion to determine whether a true, objective ‘revolution’ has occurred.

This paper will draw upon Hannah Landecker’s book “Immortality, In Vitro: A History of the HeLa Cell Line” and Ariana Eunjung Cha’s article “The struggle to conceive with frozen eggs”. Although it may be tempting to conceptualize the initial proliferation of HeLa cells by George Gey as the major turn in tissue culture innovation, this paper will argue that the paradigm shift came about by an epistemological rupture that straddled racial and scientific lines. Similarly, the paradigm shift in Cha’s article will be conceptualized as the growing distrust around in-vitro technology and its effectiveness in female fertility.

In order to appropriately investigate both Landecker and Cha’s innovative accounts, it will be important to define Kuhnian pre-paradigmatic ways of thinking and the general social perspectives present before any paradigm shifts. According to Kuhn, the “pre-paradigm” stage, which will be later referred to as the ‘dominant paradigm’, is a period that features a variety of competing knowledges and theories but also one where “individuals practice science, but in which the results of their enterprise do not add up to science as we know it” (Kuhn 1962:163). In other words, science as a body of knowledge is comprised of hypotheses and schools of thought that often do not adhere to a unified theory. Landecker’s description of a ‘pre-paradigmatic shift’ was an initial valorization of HeLa cells due to their expansive research utilization and economic capital. To illustrate HeLa’s profound influence, Landecker states that “the cells were seen as universal human cells” (Landecker 2000:58) and “...referred to as the ‘golden hamster’ of cell biologists, and their concomitant personification was in the form of an angelic figure...thrust into a kind of eternal life of which such a woman would never dream” (Landecker 2000:58). Social attitudes around HeLa were of appreciation for HeLa’s immortality, and included imagery language to valorize the ‘eternal life’ cells. This was the pre-paradigmatic language characterizing the pre-paradigmatic stage: valorization and praise. Henrietta Lacks was viewed as a woman that had rattled gendered boundaries in her death. Her cells took on an ‘eternal life’ that a female body could supposedly never have had. It is significant that the pre-paradigmatic state only involves gendered underpinnings because Lacks’ race was not known. In all, the pre-paradigmatic state was one of HeLa hypervisibility in the scientific community. In contrast, in Cha’s article, the pre-paradigmatic state involves women being empowered with and in control of their fertility. Although the majority of the article describes the paradigm shift and following, Cha does mention Brigitte Adams who “remembers feeling a wonderful sense of freedom after she froze her eggs in her late 30s, despite the $19,000 cost. Her plan was to work a few more years, find a great guy to marry and still have a house full of her own children” (Cha, 2018). Such a statement highlights Adams’ need for ‘freedom’ in being able to work and have a family on her own timeline. The social attitudes in this state is the impossibility of freedom and democracy without a woman having control over her body. Language of freedom and empowerment characterized the pre-paradigmatic situation. Kuhn describes the stage following as “normal science”, where there is “no new sort of fact” (Kuhn 1962:61) that emerges, but instead where ‘progress’ within disciplines can occur due to research. Such research, according to Kuhn, is almost always conducted under a prevailing paradigm. The aforementioned instances can be thought of as moving into “normal science” after a point. It is notable how time in the pre-paradigmatic state is similar and different between Lacks (through HeLa) and Adams (through egg freezing). In both instances, halting time was a motivating factor in developing/utilizing science and technology. However, the development was conducted and consented by different parties and moved through time differently. Lacks’ ‘immortal’ cells “stopped time” after her death and without her consent, while the latter’s cells were immortalized in her life and with her full consent.

Now that the pre-paradigmatic states have been defined and briefly compared, the process of the paradigm shift in each instance will be detailed. According to Kuhn, an ‘anomaly’ and resulting ‘crisis’ precedes a ‘paradigm shift’. He contends that “normal science” continues until there is a “perception of anomaly” (Kuhn 1962:57) that threatens to alter the course and perhaps very actuality of the dominant paradigm. In Landecker’s book, she describes how the anomaly threat was not only scientific but also gendered and racial. She highlights a “disturbance [as] the announcement that HeLa cells had contaminated and overgrown many other immortal human cell cultures” (Landecker 2000:61) resulting in a crisis of “cross-species contamination” (Kuhn 2000:61) that was highly racialized. She explains how Geneticist Stanley Gartler announced that the G6PD enzyme variant A in the HeLa cell line was found only in African Americans. Landecker reveals that Gartler’s declaration was scientifically inaccurate and that he had more accurate evidence that he chose not to announce. The ‘crisis’, Landecker states, was a “disruption of a complacent sense of control” (Landecker 2000:61), where scientists feared that the “integrity and value of past work” (Landecker 2000:61) had been tainted by HeLa. Fundamentally, theories, methods, and practices were re-evaluated with the larger goal of transforming a pre-paradigm to comprehend the anomaly of racial contamination. Another crisis was that of widespread fear of the contaminating “black gene” (Landecker 2000:63), an essentialized, racialized understanding of contamination of white human by black human. Cells were animated to be human, so contamination was too. Therefore, science, in that moment, entered a stage of “change of paradigm...called a revolution” (Kuhn 1962:92) where HeLa was hypervisibilized in a drastically different way. Such language of contamination, proliferation, and destruction of credibility by HeLa characterized the post-paradigmatic situation. In Cha’s article, the paradigm shift process was centered partly around gender but also around the technology itself. The shift was a sudden distrust in egg freezing technology which Cha spends the majority of her article discussing. Cha describes the anomaly “when the last of [Adams’] frozen eggs failed to produce a pregnancy...Adams said she realized how one-sided the conversation about egg-freezing had been, and how little information was available about what she calls ‘part two’- when you actually try to use those eggs to get pregnant” (Cha, 2018). In this case, the paradigm shift process began with a sudden democratization of fertility and the anomaly was misinformation and a distrust in the in-vitro technology and the industry as a whole. The ‘crisis’ was Adams’ desperate need to save her fertility (and likewise her lost empowerment) by researching to make sense of her predicament and then using donor egg and sperm. The paradigm shift occurred when Adams lost trust in the tools she used to garner her freedom. Language like ‘one-sided’ and ‘little information’ characterized the post-paradigmatic situation in Adams’ case. The difference between the two instances lies in the differing perception of scientific and technological “failure” at the paradigm shift stage. As mentioned previously, HeLa cell contamination led to a notion of scientific failure and loss of integrity. Such a visible failure had nothing to do with any scientifically sound ‘flaw’ in HeLa cells, only the perception of one. Adams’ notion of technological failure had to do with a concrete lack of scientific research into fertilization. Moreover, the latter was a consented to, transactional agreement gone wrong. It is ironic, then, how HeLa and Lacks herself were disparaged for being intrinsically ‘contaminated’, while egg freezing technology was disparaged because the actual science and technology backing it were intrinsically flawed.

The paragraph prior discussed how, in Landecker’s account, the paradigm shift process was gendered and racial, while in Cha’s account, the process was gendered and technical, a matter of systematic error in the technology itself. As a relational aside, it is interesting to note the “thought communities/collectives” involved in both as well as the technology that made shifts possible. In the case of HeLa, discourses circulated mainly within scientific communities. Henrietta Lacks and other Black bodies that were victims of historical experimentation were not involved. In Cha’s article, older mothers were the thought communities involved. In the former, power worked without Lacks in an exploitative manner, while the former was a more symbiotic relationship of power between individual and institution. The technology that made innovative shifts possible in both cases was the uterus. It was a boundary point for manipulation of tissue culturalists, geneticists, and egg freezing companies alike. All three groups benefited monetarily from exploitation of the uterus in direct/indirect or consensual/nonconsensual ways. The process is what Landecker explains as the “excision, cultivation, exchange, mutation, and a sale of a living, reproducing fragment of a black woman’s cervix” (67). A similar commercial “sale” is evident in the case of Adams with the difference being that she consented to a procedure that was supposed to empower her.

It now is crucial to ask the question: To what extent were the two scientific ‘breakthroughs’ enabled by the state? In the HeLa case, profit was made primarily from research that is state and federally funded. Intellectual property in scientific communities is rewarded monetarily. That is, everyone that benefitted institutionally and structurally had incentive in HeLa. HeLa was used so extensively it is nearly impossible to track how much capital the cells have produced. In fact, Landecker questions how monetary compensation is even possible when considering HeLa as an ever-growing cell line whose various uses (and subsequent profits) are almost impossible to discern. Gey’s utilization of the cells and all intersecting science domains, vaccine industries, medical professionals administering those vaccines, and so on make up the State-motivated project. The State perpetuated continued exploitation for economic gain and established intellectual territories, thus the paradigm shift could not have occurred without it. In Adams’ case, the influence of the State is more subtle. This is because power fashions itself in what Jenny Reardon, a sociologist and professor at the University of California, Santa Cruz, calls a “symbiotic relationship between public and corporate corruption” (Jenny Reardon, 2018). It is difficult to discern whether or not misinformation was politically motivated or not. However, it is clear that economic capital for the State was produced once again on the female body.

While notions of race, gender and identity were all contested on the Lacks and Adams’ female bodies, they were done in different ways. In the HeLa case, understandings of gender and race intersected to produce racialized discourses in science. Lacks’ gender was hypervisibilized and she was viewed as a heroic woman in the pre-paradigm stage, but hypervisibility was brought to her race after the paradigm shift. Gartler’s incorrect facts about enzyme variants reinforced ideas about nationality and ethnicity. The contamination discourses following the paradigm shift reinforced notions of White and Black identity. The discourses reinscribed the “metaphors of miscegenation” (Landecker 2000:64). In Adams’ case, the paradigm shift reinforced notions of female susceptibility to technology that is supposedly empowering. She originally viewed herself as a mother with the choice and power on a “quest to have it all” (Cha, 2018). After the paradigm shift, she viewed herself as someone who had to educate herself and make grand efforts to be empowered again.

To conclude, the Kuhnian process evident in Landecker’s book was initial valorization of cells and a female body, followed by misinformation leading to a disparaging of Black cells and the Black body. The Kuhnian process in Cha’s article was initial empowerment, followed by systematic errors and lack of information, leading to a disparaging of the technology itself. It is now more possible to discern whether or not the Kuhnian “revolution” was complete. The revolution is one where competing schools of thought re-emerge as there is a strong, intentional shift to a new worldview. In the HeLa case, the revolution was that of racialization - There was a change in worldview that perpetuated racialized science. Evidence was evaluated differently and the human on human contamination ‘issue’ became mainstream in science. In Adams’ case, it was difficult for Adams to move away from the trust she placed in egg freezing technology, however she was eventually able to do so. Economic and gendered lines of power intersected with her experience. So, in asking if the revolution was complete, perhaps it is more important to ask for whom the revolution was complete for. Old questions are posed once again: Who benefits from the risks taken? What populations were still invisibilized in a dark history of case studies, experimentation, exploitation, bodily manipulation, and incision? How does social hypervisibility shift knowledge production? Perhaps the lines women are left straddling transform with the power that is relational and perpetuates non-linearly through time. Perhaps these lines become both more blurred and more clear when gendered, racial, and economic power and scientific knowledge production are analyzed in intersectional, dynamic ways.

References

Kuhn, Thomas S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago :University of Chicago Press

Landecker, Hannah. 2000. Immortality, In Vitro: A History of the HeLa Cell Line. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press

Cha, Ariana Eunjung. 2018. “The struggle to conceive with frozen eggs.” The Washington Post, January 27. Retrieved March 23, 2017 (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/01/27/feature/she-championed-the-idea-that-freezing-your-eggs-would-free-your-career-but-things-didnt-quite-work-out/?utm_term=.d269b36193e9).

[divyawrites]

Alternative History : Why Is Space and Time Essential in the Conceptualization of a Global History of Technology?

The scope of human possibility is socially, politically, and historically intertwined withn and dependent upon spacial and temporal possibility. Disparities in geographical and militaristic global positions situated in chronology shape the transformations of possibility and the notion of progress, namely technological progress. Space and time often influence the development and adoption of technologies based on varying perceptions of inventive possibility, but in some geographical spaces, degrees of necessity. Accordingly, an inclusive conceptualization of history affects the ways in which accounts of global technologies can be understood. However, the invisibilization of certain ‘poor world’ histories has been prominent in Western historical accounts of the developing world. David Edgerton, in his sociological work titled “Creole technologies and global histories: rethinking how things travel in space and time” argues for the necessity to reconceptualize and deconstruct academic historical accounts of technology that “equate technology with the rich world” (Edgerton 2007:111) and instead incorporate “creole technologies” that existed in different spaces and times. Edgerton defines a creole technology as “one which finds a distinctive set of uses outside the time and place where it was first used on a significant scale” (Edgerton 2007:101). He suggests that many ‘poor world technologies’ are derivations of ‘rich world technologies’ that evolved differently due to necessity of use instead of novelty. He argues against this “conflation of stories of innovation and use” (Edgerton 2007:81) in historical accounts and urges for a rethinking of “a history focussed on high-tech, masculine, industrial technologies” (Edgerton 2007:82.) This paper intends to highlight how Edgerton’s emphasis on space and time is essential in situating and conceptualizing use-centric technology, namely transportation and agricultural technology, in the poor world that will accurately represent global history in the contemporary moment.

Edgerton highlights historical patterns and shifts in social relations in the poor world that helped drive use-centric ‘creole’ technology that was continually locally reproduced in a way it never was in the rich world, suggesting that relative spacial and temporal positionality greatly influences technological evolution. He references the rick-shaw in India, pulled by hand, bicycle, and then motorized, that continued to thrive despite governmental attempts at restriction, due to distinct population densities. The author states that, in the early 1900s, “the poor megacities of the East had different transport patterns” (Edgerton 2007:104) than the rich cities that “never had, for example, the bicycle or motor-cycle densities of the megacities of late-twentieth century Asia” (Edgerton 2007:104). A difference in spatial organization of population, particularly in regards to traffic densities, influenced the necessity of continual use of the rickshaw. Density difference ultimately led to varying patterns of adoption and development. In Edgerton’s view, such a consideration of space is crucial because it emphasizes the preconditions of ‘poor world technologies’ that can help visibilize them in global history. Edgerton focuses also on the auto-rickshaw that “followed, rather than preceded, seemingly newer transport technologies” (Edgerton 2007:107). The auto-rickshaw, and other ‘poor world technologies’ are often relegated to the past in literature and discourse without consideration of their temporal positionality. The author offers statistics that suggested an increased demand for auto-rickshaws that countered the the desire of expanding cities to get rid of “demeaning technologies of poverty” (Edgerton 2007:107). Poor world reliance on creole technology like the rickshaw was dependent on spacial considerations like territory, location and capacity and existed at the same time as ‘new-world’ technology, even though it is historically conceptualized as ‘the past.’ The idea of progress is central to Edgerton’s argument, where he urges that space and time makes progress relative. Innovation into ‘the future’ is viewed as progress, but the definition is rooted in political imperatives that disregard technological necessity in the developing world.

In addition to transport technologies, the differential development and adoption of agricultural technology was caused by variations in space and time. Edgerton describes how, at the same time that horses were disappearing from the rich world, they were reappearing as a creole technology in the poor world. He explains how “animals replaced tractors” (Edgerton 2007:91) in post-colonial Cuba, but pre-colonial Cuban agriculture relied on Soviet technology. Militaristic historical accounts of agricultural innovation often disregard “the sense of earthy, local, genuine, vulgar, popular, in contrast to the sophistication of the metropolitan” (Edgerton 2007:101) evident in the reappearance of animal power use. Post-colonial areas are reconfigured in spatial terms, shifting the parameters of necessity and possibility. In addition, a linear theorization of time risks a disregard of the effects of colonialism in developing countries, ultimately resulting in history erasure. 

Edgerton calls for a “distinctive, new technology of poverty” (Edgerton 2007:95) where the developing world can have a rich history of their own that distinguishes how necessity drove technology in some areas, while invention/innovation did in others. For this to occur, it will be important to “[rethink] the whole map of technological history” (Edgerton 2007:111). Proper historical accounts, according to Edgerton, will include creole technologies and shift global epistemological notions. If deconstruction is successful, conceptualization of possibility and progress will be altered, thereby reconfiguring ‘rich world’ history as well.

[divyawrites]

The Visible and Invisible Racialized Body in Medicine

A notable focal point of social justice activism is bringing awareness to racial, social, and economic issues, among others, so they may gain visibility in the public sphere. Sociology scholars often grapple with the enigma of the invisible and advocate for the aforementioned problems to be brought under an analytical spotlight, or simply to exist as issues worth emphasizing and defending. While it is true that many contemporary affairs need to be made visible, the mechanisms by which they are made visible are often problematic and, ironically, invisible themselves. For example, French philosopher Michel Foucault (1963) describes how the disease became visible under the clinical medical gaze (1963) by historical shifts that reorganized knowledge at both social and corporeal levels. However, diseases are often made visible by racialization where racial and social categories are produced and linked to a specific disease, thus prescribing a genetic, biological basis on which to justify the use of race in scientific data collection and research. Frequently, sociohistorical causes of disease are neglected in this process, as the science and social stay disconnected and perpetuate racialization.

Racialization as an effect of visibility is troublesome and the hidden way racialization comes about is even more detrimental to subpopulations it affects. Ultimately, visibility by racialization does not lead to a better understanding of disease because the means by which it was understood is faulty to begin with. In this paper, I intend to argue that disease visibility is often a direct byproduct of subtler processes at play, namely racialization, by analyzing the work of various authors who grapple with questions of genetics, race, and the development of medical knowledge. I will begin by outlining some Foucauldian ideas regarding the medical gaze conditions and continue by extrapolating on other authors’ works to determine their perspectives on disease visibility and racialization of sickle cell anemia and type 2 diabetes. I will end by explaining my positionality with respect to category, and how the information I receive affects how I view myself in society. In all, I hope to expose some subtle yet very real consequences of visibility in the clinical sphere.

Foucault, in his book Birth of the Clinic discusses how disease was rendered visible under the clinical medical gaze by the association of the human body with power and how disease came to be classified by a deeper investigation of the body and new ways of seeing. He outlines how modern medicine came to be and therefore eludes to its contemporary visibility. Foucault references a drastic restructuring of knowledge at the end of the eighteenth century, where the body was mapped and studied with precision. In other words, the author describes an epistemological disruption that transformed medical knowledge and suggests how the modern understanding of life is tied to history and the relevant discourses in different epistemes. Foucault states that there was a “syntactical reorganization of disease in which the limits of the visible and invisible follow a new pattern” (Foucault 1963:195). To Foucault, the shift in knowledge signified that there was no one reality or truth of the human body, but many truths that have different meanings based on their time period in history. Thus life and disease are bound by social, political, and economic discourse and became visible under the medical gaze by engaging with history and power. For one, disease was rendered visible by the historical shift marked by human body entering a realm of power and being manipulated. Foucault argues that “it is this formal reorganization, in depth , rather than the abandonment of theories and old systems, that made clinical experience possible” (Foucault 1963:xiv). Social and historical transformations made contemporary medicine possible and brought visibility to it. A second way that disease was made visible stretches deeper, to the level of human tissue. Under the new medical gaze there was a pattern of “plunging from the manifest to the hidden” (Foucault 1963:135) and “seeing” the body as “an essential network” (Foucault 1963:135), where the physician uses new knowledge to bring organs and disease into visible focus. This process, the author describes, “establishes the individual in his irreducible quality” (Foucault 1963:xiv) and is a result of a new kind of historically mediated ‘seeing’. Furthermore, Foucault’s theme of the connection between word/things and saying/seeing points directly to the shift in knowledge from the eighteenth to nineteenth century. When there was a transformation of knowledge, “doctors described what for centuries had remained below the threshold of the visible and the expressible” (Foucault 1963:xii). According to Foucault, doctors could finally “see” a diseased organ for example, describe its mechanisms and recommend treatment by “saying”. Such a process blossomed into a nosography where a physician could look below the surface. “A new alliance”, Foucault says, “was forged between words and things, enabling one to see and to say ” (Foucault 1963:xii). The aforementioned alliance meant that disease could be categorized by means of culture and language. Foucault ultimately contends how the human body being mapped at such a deep, precise level made its diseases visible and intertwined with knowledge and power dynamics that enabled disease to be classified in terms of things said.

While Foucault argued that disease became visible by the metaphorical human body passing through an epistemological rupture, James V. Neel (1962) in “Diabetes Mellitus: A “Thrifty” Genotype Rendered Detrimental by “Progress”?” claims that genetics and patterns of consumption brought visibility to the disease type 2 diabetes. Neel grapples with why minority populations are more prone to diabetes and concludes that they must have had a “thrifty genotype” (Neel 1962:354) that served as a hibernation gene of sorts during prehistoric famine days. Now, he believes, since long periods of famine are uncommon, type 2 diabetes and obesity are widespread. Neel alludes to the genetic conditions under which type 2 diabetes became visible. He suggests that minorities making “genetic readjustments” (Neel 1962:359) to fit the environment have made their diabetes risk increase, and therefore more visible. Neel suggests that genetic changes through history make diabetes more visible under the medical gaze, but does not discuss the social factors that might make minorities prone to disease. While Neel does reference “new types of stresses and altered reproductive patterns” (Neel 1962:359) as possible contributions to the diabetes epidemic, his description of “altered selective value” (Neel 1962:359) makes it clear that he is more focused on the genetics and the evolution of consumption, than on social events in history that have made obesity prevalent. The effect of Neel’s genetic conditions for visibility is the prescription of type 2 diabetes to the minority populations he is studying, ultimately making the disease racialized.

While the preceding authors explain how diseases gained visibility under the clinical eye, it will be important to note viewpoints regarding the process by which diseases like sickle cell anemia become racialized. Keith Wailoo (2001) in Dying in the City of the Blues believes racialization happened mainly by certain diseases being ascribed to populations as they simultaneously gained visibility. Michael Montoya (2011) in Making the Mexican Diabetic and Margery Fee (2006) in “Racializing Narratives: Obesity, Diabetes and the “Aboriginal” Thrifty Genotype” believes diseases are racialized by the disjunction of the social and science. Wailoo elaborates on media images of Black folk that gave them visibility with the consequence of a sickle cell anemia linked to them. He relates how the “stereotypic ‘Negro’” (Wailoo 2001:56), as portrayed in the media, “stood as a stubborn affront to modern notions of hygiene and advancing scientific understanding” (Wailoo 2001:56). Such stereotypes connected Black identity with certain diseases, resulting in portrayals like “the syphilitic black man, the tubercular black woman, and the black child harboring infectious disease” (Wailoo 2001:56). Wailoo argues that a problematic kind of Black visibility existed at the time which eventually racialized sickle cell disease. However, not only did racialization occur, it persisted because it subtly altered its threat to fit modern discourse. Wailoo states that stereotypes “were variations upon old racial themes, updated to fit with new twentieth-century anxieties” (Wailoo 2001:56). Visibility led to racialization, which discretely maneuvered into the time period. On the other hand, Montoya discusses how illnesses were racialized at the level of blood and tells about how social factors were left out of scientific research. I wish to focus my attention on the style of writing in his chapter “Recruiting Race” where he discusses the commodification of DNA. He writes about Jaime as “a subject number on a data set” (Montoya 2011: 146) while describing the process by which his blood was taken, labeled, and shipped off. Research subjects like Jaime, who is Mexican, become commodities because their biocapital has value in a market. In the process, the actual subject is dehumanized into a number or category, and their blood becomes another’s possession. Marxist thought problematizes the process because subjects are decontextualized from the social context of production. In other words, factors of production that go into making a DNA sample possible is where the true value lies. Montoya’s work reflects Marxist theory because he aims to find out the “Life History of a Racialized Blood Sample” (Montoya 2011:145), implying that he wants to consider a sample’s existence from beginning to end, production to distribution, and everything in between. Such an approach shines a spotlight on the DNA sample itself and does not leave much room for the social to be decontextualized from the science. According to Montoya, people themselves became biocapital and the treatment of those Mexican individuals as numerical categories eventually racializes. Once again, the racialization process is subtle. Montoya references Sundar Rajan that individuals are “‘bundles of genetic variations that can be targeted, tested, monitored and changed in new ways’” (Rajan 2003, as cited in Montoya 2011:150). However, Montoya says, this viewpoint is not without, “...structurally concealing that the biocapitalist enterprise writ large is working upon the meanings of ‘the biological’ and life itself” (Montoya 2011:150). Leaving the social conditions of science production out of the story ultimately racialized diabetes at a biological level in an almost invisible way. In a similar line, Fee contends that scientists ignoring social issues concerning the Aboriginal peoples of Canada perpetuates racialization. She relates that “...scientists [do not] feel the need to consider how their work is embedded in social discourses” (Fee 2006:2990) because they want to remain objective. In the midst of remaining objective however, a “...blindness to socioeconomic status, history and culture is widespread” (Fee 2006:2993) and race triumphs as the ultimate science ‘marker’. Fee, like Montoya, take issue with scientific research and discourse separating themselves from sociohistorical events, which leaves no option but the convenient one of racializing science.

While Fee and Montoya are similar in that they both attribute racialization to a disregard of social influence by science, they are different in how they describe race being correlated with type 2 diabetes risk. Montoya revolves his book around the Mexican-American identity and researchers looking to profit off racialized diabetes etiology. By focusing only on one population, diabetes risk could easily yet incorrectly be attributed to Mexican-Americans. Fee writes a more postcolonial account of type 2 diabetes and carries Neel’s thrifty gene hypothesis through her article. She introduces various authors, their viewpoints on the thrifty gene hypothesis, and their general stances on the biologization of race. Her article is formatted as a collection of case studies that she resonates her own ideas with. On the other hand, Montoya relays his own research and the conclusions he arrives at. Both ways of describing how ethnicity/race is tied to type 2 diabetes risk are similar in their message, but different in their method.

Visibility of sickle cell anemia and type 2 diabetes came about by Foucault’s description of “saying and seeing”/”words and things” because doctors verbalized what was hidden and took part in knowledge and power dynamics. Once again, the aforementioned concept affected disease visibility by racialization. It begs the question: How did disease gain meaning for medical practitioners? According to Montoya, researchers looked at ‘under the surface’ genes from blood samples that “are the raw materials of the diabetes enterprise” (Montoya 2011:142). Doctors saying and seeing the words and things they observed unfortunately turned “‘descriptors’ of humans groups into ‘attributes’ of human groups” (Montoya 2011:186). Type 2 diabetes gained meaning for medical institutions because of profit and power, so knowledge was produced in the simplest way: racialization.

In conclusion, racialization does not contribute to a better understanding of sickle-cell disease and type 2 diabetes because, as Wailoo and Montoya portray, the process of racializing disease is flawed. If race is the most prominent scientific marker used, the data will be skewed to one population. Montoya relates geneticist Nora’s role of “getting one person’s genotyping information into useful, informative shape so that the data could be merged with a larger set” (Montoya 2011:122). Basically, Nora uses data collected from Mexican-Americans, tidies it up, and extrapolates it to make larger conclusions. Montoya problematizes this approach by saying that if Nora makes a procedural error, it will “jeopardize the individual data set, which, when pooled with multiple data sets, then diminishes the power of the entire collaborative venture” (Montoya 2011:124). I agree with Montoya, because racializing a disease by only including some individuals in a data set will not help the larger cause of understanding the disease from multiple angles. Wailoo discusses how sickle cell anemia was racialized in part by President Nixon calling for “concentrated research” (Nixon 1971, as cited by Montoya 2011:166) to understand the disease better, but only to repair the politics behind a disease that had been “largely neglected throughout our history” (Nixon 1971, as cited by Montoya 2011:166). As Montoya states, Nixon racializes sickle cell anemia in an effort to reverse history that “ushered in a new era in the national politics of disease research” (Montoya 2011:166). Racializing sickle cell anemia opened up new frontiers for profit and, while troublesome, led to more visibility. Montoya almost suggests that attributing race to disease was the only way to motivate general research on the disease, but not accurate research. Personally, I know Montoya does not see any true benefit of racialization except for public visibility, so I agree that extreme measures like the political speech had to be taken for the clinical sphere to take note of the ‘neglected’ disease.

Researchers, the media, and medical institutions racialized sickle cell anemia and type 2 diabetes, thus making them visible. Since racialization was so subtle, it persisted and could be justified in scientific endeavors. The social and the historical are ignored as science seemingly makes strides towards progress, further linking ethnicity/race to specific illnesses whenever convenient. Foucault and Neel concern themselves with disease visibility, while Wailoo, Fee, and Montoya explain racialization processes as the intertwine with politics of visibility. In the end, racialization does little for the end goal of scientific advancement. It is almost as if racialization serves no other purpose but to continually compartmentalize individuals through elaborate yet discrete systems of power and knowledge. It is almost as if, by something becoming visible, other things become invisible. It is almost as if, in order for true progress to happen, we must lay naked the intersectional politics in medicine as precisely as researchers have mapped the bare physical body for centuries. If done, it will perhaps be a familiar pattern for all those who profit off racializing bodies: it is only when something is exposed, uncovered, and bare that you can see it for what it truly is and render it vulnerable and powerless.

References Clarke, Adele E., Laura Mamo, Jennifer R. Fishman, Janet K. Shim, and Jennifer Ruth Fosket. 2003. "Biomedicalization: Technoscientific Transformations Of Health, Illness, And U.S. Biomedicine". American Sociological Review 68(2):161. Fee, Margery. "Racializing Narratives: Obesity, Diabetes And The “Aboriginal” Thrifty Genotype". Social Science & Medicine 62.12 (2006): 2988-2997. Web Foucault, Michael. 2010. The Birth Of The Clinic . 1st ed. London [u.a.]: Routledge. Montoya, Michael J. Making The Mexican Diabetic . Berkeley: University of California Press, 2011. Print. Neel, James V. "The “Thrifty Genotype” In 19981". Nutrition Reviews 57.5 (2009): 2-9. Web. Wailoo, Keith. 2001. Dying In The City Of The Blues . 1st ed. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

[divyawrites]

Hypervisibility of Sickle Cell Anemia Under the Medical Gaze

______________________________________________________________________

Capillaries are thin blood vessels that wrap around the body’s organs and tissues in an almost inconceivable fashion. In fact, at one moment, it is nearly impossible to discern a linear path because blood runs in various directions through these vessels with tremendous surface area. Michael Foucault was a theorist who believed power manifested itself in such a fashion; being relational and perpetuating through time. He argued against a linear working of dominance in which power flowed from top-to-bottom or vice versa. Instead, he theorized that power spread through the mesh of social relationships and institutions. In Keith Wailoo’s book Dying In The City Of The Blues, sickle-cell anemia was brought into a stage of “hypervisibility” not through the actions of dominant social structures, but through a delicate interplay between authority, the oppressed, and historically motivated political change. Although the author mentions many ways that the disease was brought into life, this paper will focus in depth on Black social change movements and political interests. Taken together, power flowed through the aforementioned sites through race, politics, and the media. Such a phenomenon also demonstrates how each group had a distinct stake in making sickle-cell anemia a hypervisible condition under the medical gaze.

Sickle-cell anemia entered identity politics because it was used as a liberation tool against racial injustice. Wailoo describes how “the disease was a powerful case in point for all those whose pain was unrecognized, and for all who continued to be misunderstood and shut out from access to medical care” (Wailoo, 138-139). In other words, sickle cell anemia became the cornerstone of social policy and popular culture, informing ideas about Black health and innate identity. After a while, sickle-cell-anemia was “an index of African American history and experience” (Wailoo, 139). The disease became associated with the Black community and was shaped as an illness disproportionately affecting those of African descent. Such an association led to increased visibility around the precariousness of Black lives in the medical arena, a seemingly liberatory social position. Social and historical theorists were others that used the disease “to weave elaborate and far-fetched explanations of African American death, survival, history and life” (Wailoo, 147). In such cases, racial indifference brought sickle-cell anemia under the medical gaze as the disease continually “acquired celebrity status, exemplifying even more dimensions of the African American experience” (164).  

In the aforementioned political moment, sickle cell treatment and therapy were sought after as tools to further economic and political power by providing overdue racial reparations. Wailoo describes how President Nixon promised extra funding for sickle-cell anemia when he stated during a speech that, “‘We cannot rewrite this record of neglect, but we can reverse it’” (Wailoo, 166). Wailoo suggests that Nixon’s intent is controversial, in that it reverberates a political agenda of voter appraisal and speaking for a “silent majority” (Wailoo, 166). The president, while on the surface seeming to apologize for a lack of sickle-cell anemia care, is unconsciously associating with disease with racial hostility. The affiliation confirms the disease’s establishment as a racialized disease for political gain. Over time, as Wailoo mentions, the disease took various social and political forms as more and more experiences took on meanings. Wailoo writes that, “In the early 1970s, the disease had become to bear the promise, and the enormous burden, of many political agendas” (Wailoo, 184).

According to Wailoo, “Black identity” (Wailoo, 137) and “Promising therapy” (Wailoo, 165) became racial and political incentives to make sickle-cell anemia visible in the twentieth century. A Foucauldian revelation, power worked through African Americans hoping even for metaphorical liberation, authority figures that found it politically beneficial to cater to minorities, and experiences/meanings that transformed in the midst of it all. Conclusively, the incentives worked together to produce social constructions of sickle-cell anemia and place it under the spotlight.

___________________________________________________________________

Course: Sociology of Health & Medicine (Socy 121)

[divyawrites]

Medical Sociology: An Introduction

______________________________________________________________________

Medical sociology became a prominent field in mid-twentieth century, due to sociologists recognizing medicine as a practice intertwined with social relations and institutions. Early developments in the field came about from the shifting of pharmacotherapy concerns to more holistic medical approaches. In William C. Cockerham’s “Medical Sociology” journal, the author states that, “The medical sociologist is in the enviable position of participating in influencing the course of an exciting, challenging, and important field whose application to human life can provide significant benefits” (Cockerham, 234). His argument mirrors medical sociology’s transition to a whole-body treatment of illness. However, the meaning of the term “significant benefits” in reference to the merging of sociology and medicine has transformed based on past and current research methods. Cockerham outlines “Past Research Trends” and “Current Research Trends” in which he discusses concerns about medical sociology in terms of how it was perceived and applied to individuals and future medical practitioners. Early research was concerned primarily with studying professionalism’s effect on socialized nursing and medical students, while current trends are social constructionist in that they study individuals as they are impacted by their societies. This paper investigates the research analysis work of Cockerham in order to argue how medical sociology concerns open up space to critique and investigate.

In Cockerham’s “Past Research Methods” journal section, he discusses “The Socialization of Medical and Nursing students” (Cockerham, 239). Medical sociology was concerned with socialization effects and studied nurse and physician perspectives in depth. The author mentions that nursing students held an “initial idealism” (Cockerham, 241) for patient care which he argues is derived from “traditional mother-surrogate role(s)” (Cockerham, 241). Eventually, nurses became “detached and objective” (Cockerham, 240) due to professionalism guidelines and approaches in the medical field. In other words, nurses subscribed to professionalism and trailed into jobs that were more administrative and could help gain status in the “authority structure of the health care work hierarchy” (Cockerham, 241). Cockerham’s references to the sociological application of medicine reflects this time period where social influence was taken into account. The research ultimately studied how nurses were influenced and socialized by professional standards. Therefore, critiques on professionalism could arise that exposed and advocated for a rethinking of what was “beneficial” for a patient.

In “Current Research Trends”, Cockerham describes how medical sociology concerns revolved around investigating social effects on individuals, while allowing for critiques regarding methodology in achieving this goal. For instance the role of “stress and life events” (Cockerham, 244) being interconnected was emphasized. Cockerham cites Selye (1956) who argued that “any type of environmental change, pleasant or unpleasant, requiring an individual to adapt can produce a stress response” (Cockerham, 244). Such beliefs led to subsequent studies on subjectivity in an individual’s stress responses. Vocabulary like “undesirable” and “perception” became more and more intertwined with medical knowledge. Thus “medical sociology’s application to human life” (Cockerham, 234) being concerned with social-medical parallels allowed for methodological critiques of medical vocabulary and subjective experiences.

Cockerham advocates for medical sociology as a frontier in research and his argument about beneficial outcomes arising from its application are reflected in the field’s concerns with professionalism affecting nurses and the relationship between stress and life. When medical sociology is analyzed in such a way, it makes room for methodological and professional concerns regarding implementation to be investigated as well.

____________________________________________________________________

Course: Sociology of Health & Medicine (Socy 121) 

[divyawrites]

Medicalization & Biomedicalization: An Economic Take

______________________________________________________________________

Economists often say “there are no bad people, just bad incentives.” Often, such “bad incentives” cause people in power to produce biased systems of control through which they can reap monetary benefits, rendering sectors of the population invisible. However, clever forms of social control make it simple for dominant groups to maintain hegemony by subtly extracting compliance from oppressed groups. Peter Conrad in “Medicalization and Social Control” grapples with the phenomenon of medicalization, a “definitional issue” that he explains is turning non-medical problems into medical ones. In other words, medical knowledge is applied to social problems to produce medical solutions. He argues that medicalizing issues allows medicine to become a vehicle for social jurisdiction, but by means that are subtle enough to create market economies around newly defined health issues. The twenty-first century features oppressive regimes under the guise of medical authorities, concepts, and institutions that can consolidate rule while simultaneously incorporating the benefits of the oppressed into medical and technological discourse. Such rule is achieved by the power to define an issue as medical or not. Another such concept is described by Adele E. Clarke in “Biomedicalization: Technoscientific Transformations of Health, Illness, and U.S. Biomedicine” when she defines biomedicalization as a social framework that extends medicalization into a technological era and transforms biomedical application. She argues that biomedicalization enforces perspectives and practices that are detrimental to the very people it is intended for, once again shaping a system that is subtly controlling yet seemingly transformatory. Since biomedicalization is often viewed as a sociohistorical output after the era of medicalization, the two concepts are distinct because they conform to the acceptable control methods of their respectives eras. However, they are similar in that they are fueled by economic incentives that lie on the underbelly of “therapeutic style(s) of social control” (Conrad, 215), while also being masked as life-saving lifestyles. The aforementioned irony demands an evaluation of the systems within the realm of capitalist America. This paper compares and contrasts the work of Conrad and Clarke in order to argue that medical forms of control, especially biomedicalization, are driven by capitalistic morals that encourage bodily regulation and ultimately construct unequal outcomes.

Medicalization and biomedicalization differ in that the former is associated with normalized control and the latter involves customizable transformation. While both displace personal responsibility for health in different places, they are perpetuated by similar economic drives. “Medicalizing deviance” Conrad (1979) encouraged the blend of “medical ideology, collaboration, and technology” (Conrad, 216) to normalize social dominance. Ideology allowed for incentivized medical concepts and institutions supported by physician collaboration and mediated by technological innovation. For instance, premenstrual syndrome (PMS) became a kind of “female deviance” (Riessman 1983, as cited in Conrad, 217), an ideology capable of creating markets around hormone-induced pain. PMS is an example of a symptom category that, under the control of medicalization, was expanded. Other categories include aging which views “cognitive decline...as a result of a specific disease rather than an inevitable aspect of aging” (Conrad, 221). Furthermore, issues of suicide, homosexuality, and infertility used to be under religious jurisdiction but have become medicalized since the eighteenth century. Medicalization, through defining “deviance” seeks to make everyone the same kind of healthy by prescribing an issue and normalizing it in medical terms. Yet another social condition encouraging medicalization was the changing field of pediatrics. Physicians are capable of monopolizing on definitional illnesses, because regardless of categorization the practitioners of medicine can exert authority and define health labels for mass populations. “Behavioral pediatrics” (215) allowed pediatricians to extend their power to begin medicalizing psychosocial problems. At the time, the field had become to some a “routinization of work” (215) that craved professional standing and respect. By redefining and expanding medical categories in children, pediatricians could expand their incomes and professional reputations. In such instances, social control was normalized by pediatricians being “claims-makers” (Conrad, 219) under the guise of providing much-needed care for what were previously every-day symptoms. Biomedicalization, other the other hand, blossomed in an era where freedom and diversity were embraced even more openly. Health transformed into a “individual moral responsibility to be and remain healthy” (Crawford 1985, as cited by Clarke, 171-172). The trend trailed from physician and medical institution guidance to managed care systems that created markets around “behavioral and lifestyle modifications” (Clarke, 182). Industries thrived by developing “stress management regimens, wellness programs...and over-the-counter pharmaceutical and nutraceutical technologies for ‘maintaining’ health and ‘controlling’ chronic illness” (Clarke, 182). Such developments were customized to a daily routine and presented as way to transform a life without being controlling. Personal responsibility for health was displaced on the individual and constructed “technoscientific identities” (Clarke, 182). The biomedicalization role in forming identity makes it an ontological tool “that can enact itself at the level of subjective identities and social relations” (Clarke, 182). Unequal outcomes can arise when “social relations” shift due to what has been biomedicalized or not. “Beautiful” is mentioned as one such “subjective identity” that is biased and thus unequal. Evidently, economic motives regulate bodies to the level of subjective personal identity and has the potential to generate biased outcomes.  

In addition to normalization and customization, medicalization and biomedicalization are similar in that they categorize, but different in the ways they tackle important sociological concerns. Conrad discusses that it is best to think of the “degrees of medicalization” (Conrad, 220) because different diseases are medicalized to different degrees. For instance, the author mentions how spouse abuse is more feminist than medical, and therefore is regarded a social justice cause that weighs in on social responsibility. However, Conrad believes that “the medical model decontextualizes social problems” (Conrad, 223) by supplanting social issues with individual issues. He offers an example of woman battering and how a medicalized solution involves therapy, which completely disregards “patriarchal values and social inequality” (224). Medicalization thus may not allow for a sociological and feminist analysis of power in abusive households, but instead assumes that all abuse is a medical issue that can be alleviated with therapy and medication. On the other hand, biomedicalization has begun to develop “culturally competent care” (Clarke, 182) like “high-end birthing clinics” and single rooms for AIDS patients in order to “avoid costly hospitalization” (Clarke, 182). In the diversity of the era, cultural, religious, and economic sensitivity are socially stressed, but also cleverly monopolized on. Clarke writes that, “Pharmacogenetics, and new social forms- new systems of service provision designed to render increasingly customized care” are features of biomedicalization. Such services provide care that is seemingly concerned with accommodating diversity and difference, but profits off such customization greatly. An unequal outcome of such supposed concerns is the continued compartmentalization of individuals for the wrong reasons. While cultural sensitivity is often necessary and liberating, it can be detrimental if not enacted properly. Therefore, while the medicalization approach is to make social problems personal, biomedicalization caters to people experiencing social problems under a guise of making life more manageable. However, both medicalization and biomedicalization compartmentalize individuals and the medical issues they are perceived to have and face in society. Effectively, both increase illness categories while serving different sensitivities, which ultimately regulates bodies for monetary benefit.

Furthermore, medicalization and biomedicalization are both involved in knowledge production, but produce medical knowledge in different ways. As mentioned previously, knowledge production in medicalization is from “medical claims making” (Conrad, 219) that involves “writing in professional journals, official professional reports, activities in speciality organizations, and developing special clinics or services” (Conrad, 219). However, biomedicalization trends focus on a “heterogeneity of production, distributions, and access to biomedical knowledges” (Clarke, 177). Clarke discusses how anyone can share their own medical knowledge on discussion boards, producing unequal outcomes because information is not always objective. Marketing strategies are often built around these discussions which demonstrate how companies have stakes in a variety of medical knowledge being circulated. Epistemological analyses are crucial because knowledge production can vary accessibility and distribution in underprivileged populations.

Economic incentives have the ability to produce economic systems of control that regulate bodies. Medicalization is a “definitional issue” and a form of social control that normalized medical dominance over health, made social problems individual ones, and produced knowledge through authority claims. Biomedicalization is viewed as a transformation of life through “technoscientific practices” that customized health, catered to cultural and social issues, and produced knowledge from multiple sources. While biomedicalization sounds liberal and beneficial in theory, it has drawbacks that ultimately leave members of society stratified and unequal. Through its implementation by technological practices, it is able to grasp power in subtle forms while benefiting monetarily. Conrad and Clarke write on how medicalization and biomedicalization, no matter how similar or different, exist together in a capitalist society where regulation and dominance strive to be normalized.

______________________________________________________________________

Course: Sociology of Health & Medicine (Socy 121)

[divyawrites]

A Brief Take on various Feminist theories...

______________________________________________________________________

In the introduction of “Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples”, Linda Tuhiwai Smith critically analyzes Western research’s effect on indigenous people. She seeks to relay “the history of Western research through the eyes of the colonized” (18) which relieves the effects of “taking indigenous knowledge” (18). Deconstruction of colonizing theories are important in her descriptions of theorizing for social justice. Since “indigenous peoples represent the unfinished business of decolonization”, situating research in a sociohistorical context will prove more beneficial to colonized groups. The concept of privilege is subtly brought up when she mentions how the colonizers have not struggled for survival in the same way that indigenous peoples have, and because their “cultural loyalty” (23) lies elsewhere, they will never be able to conduct research that ties together a unified experience under colonialism. The perceived post-colonial world, she relays, “is viewed as the convenient invention of Western intellectuals which reinscribes their power to define the world” (30). The form of investigative research that is conducted by Western scholars disregards the interests, scope, and differential experiences that are a crucial aspect of indigenous peoples’ lives and history. In Chapter 1 of the book, Smith writes on the “struggle to assert and claim humanity” (42). In employing the use of the “universal human subject” (42) in research methods and analyses, Western researchers are once again taking away indigenous peoples’ humanity. They are subtly reinforcing what it means to be “savage” and not “civilized”. In pushing research forward that assumes so, colonizers treat indigenous lives and bodies as commodities for labour power, namely power that results from doing research. Therefore, research that should be conducted in the incorporation and interest of indigenous lives does just the opposite by fragmenting indigenous voices. Lastly, the author delves into the categories of analysis that Western thought has attributed to history. These arguments remain effective today. For instance, the concept of a "universal history" (46) for example, strives to make human subject and societies the same across the board. Smith argues that the making of universal qualities are of "historical interest" (46). Society still functions, capitalist or not, as self-serving in its historical interests. America as a whole functions as a system that exploits to benefit itself. Our institutions are still built upon lands that were seized not so long ago. Recent events like "Standing Rock" prove how capitalist production and progression are valued over the lives of indigenous peoples. In addition, the concept of making indigenous peoples "not civilized" stems from the Western conception of history as a list of chronological events, often documented in modern textbooks. This kind of thinking that is supposedly post-colonial is reproduced by all too familiar ways of thinking that continually urge the right implementation of theory for social justice issues.

Chandra Talpade Mohanty in “Under Western Eyes” premises her points of contention around deconstructing the Western world’s ethnocentrism when utilizing feminist thought as a means for liberation and social justice. She explains how “imperialism in the eyes of particular third world women” are a consequence of “dominant ‘representations’ of Western feminism” (161) and relates universalism to the issue of assuming female homogeneity prior to the application of cross-cultural analytic methods. Such a presumption, she argues, renders women “powerless (163) and does not allow for agency and intersectional inquiry. The author delves into “Woman And Familial Systems” as a category of analysis that involves cultural implications when universalizing a woman’s identity. She calls for a study of the “political nature of kinship systems” (167) that addresses how women are differentially located but defined within their familial systems. She engages with the work of Juliette Minces who describes "the patriarchal family" (167) as a starting point for analyzing the oppression of women under hegemonic patriarchal systems. Mohanty counteracts such thought by criticizing a lack of "discussion of the specific practices within the family that constitute women as mothers, wives, sisters, etc" (167). In addition, she scrutinizes the tendency in Western feminist analyses to assume a “cross-cultural operation of male dominance and female exploitation” (171) as a “descriptive generalization” (172). In other words, the oppression of Muslim women is defined by an “arithmetic method” (171) that correlates almost directly the number of veiled women to the amount of patriarchal oppression faced by them. Such correlations are based on cross-cultural assumptions of what is means to be oppressed without regard for cultural and sociohistorical context. For instance, purdah is practiced by many women as an "oppositional and revolutionary" (347) move but is only studied critically in the realm of institutionalized sexism. Such theories, Mohanty argues, imagines Western ideals as the the universal norm thereby further victimizing Third World Women and ultimately rendering them invisible.

Audre Lorde, in “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House” expresses her concern with only being asked, at an NYU Humanities Conference, about Black women’s issues. The phone call “consultation” she received depicted assumptions of universality and a lack of intersectional studies because it does not concern itself with different combinations of knowledge based on experience. Lorde refers to the “vision of the conference”, in its practices, as assuming “that lesbian and Black women have nothing to say about existentialism, the erotic, women's culture and silence, developing feminist theory, or heterosexuality and power” (1). The “vision of the conference” that she refers to is almost a microcosm of the way hegemony is constantly instilled into Western societal practices: by making invisible the very voices feminism seeks to make heard. In fact, Lorde states that “it is this real connection which is so feared by the patriarchal world” (1) in reference to the sharing of knowledge between different women. The identity and experiences of Black, lesbian women are multi faceted, she suggests, and does not allow for the universalization of “woman” as a category.

According to Louis Althusser, ideological state apparatuses produce subjects through ruling ideologies that ensure that hegemony continue to be established in systems of dominance. The author provides the metaphor of an edifice, where the fate of the upper floors relies on the base. In other words, the livelihood of the ruling class in society is perceived to be maintained by the continual ideological dominance over the base class. Althusser defends this point of contention by asking the question “how is the reproduction of the relations of production secured?” (109). Such an inquiry exposes the intricacies of how the dominance over the base is established. Relations of production are reproduced in schools, where ideology of the dominant class reigns supreme. Schools teach “know-how” (113) that ultimately contributes to “capitalist social formation” (113). The apparatus’ tools are concealed from the students being made into labour producers, by offering them “the path to the freedom, morality and responsibility of adults" (113) but actually functioning in ways that reproduce capitalist control. Therefore, the "relations of production" between ideological state apparatuses like the School and to-be labour workers result in reproducing those same relations. Althusser also describes how “interpellation” or hailing someone makes them into subjects. When called to on the street, people will turn around and in doing so, situate themselves as “the subject”. The author tells how this realization comes from “believing/suspecting/knowing that [the hailing] is for him” (122). Althusser suggests not only how power is operative in the production and distribution of ideology, but also how the sense of self is constituted in the ideological state apparatus. Subjects are interpellated into the legal apparatus as well as in the School through disciplinary practices veiled as liberatory free education, ultimately being subordinated to power. The Marxist notion of the state apparatus is similar to Althusser’s views in that it describes the individual as a subject constructed by social ideology that in a structure with many levels, similar to the edifice analogy provided by Althusser. In other words, individuals are made up of society instead of society being made up of individuals. In the same way that Althusser relates the economic base to the “upper levels” of the ideological state apparatus, classical Marxism provides a social model that relates the economic base to a superstructure. According to Marx, economic factors do not necessarily shape the relationship given in the model, but rather an interdependency that continually reproduces the model. Lastly, Foucalt believes that power produces subject positions and that analyzing subject positions can provide rules on what is “normal” in a situation. He describes how race has historically been biological rather than militaristic, in terms of striving to eradicate races. It is the very theory that eliminating racial or biological threats allows for survival of the dominant one that is perpetuated by ideology and technologies of power.

__________________________________________________________________

Course: Feminist Theories (FMST 100)

[divyawrites]

The Subject, The Object, and Knowledge Production

___________________________________________________________

Epistemological analyses concern the politics of knowledge production and the academic quest for true knowledge. Epistemology often relates the subject and object of knowledge, and how their relationship eventually formulates what knowledge is produced and valid. Therefore, in order to evaluate the implications of knowledge production, it is necessary to understand how the subject and object come to be constituted in society. The subject is, with or without their conscious trying, the knower of the knowledge that ultimately affects the position of the object.This paper analyzes the work of Louis Althusser and Audre Lorde in order to demonstrate how epistemology pertains to the subject and the object, and how the means of knowledge production can enforce or inhibit hegemonic discourse.

Althusser’s realm of thought is concerned with a theory of ideology in which the subject and subject position are products of social practice constituted through the ideological state apparatus (ISA). The ISA is described as a private sector of society comprised of educational, religious and familial institutions with the ability to maintain hegemony by reproducing the conditions of ideological subjection. For example, the author mentions how “the school”, as an educational ISA “teaches ‘know-how’, but in forms which ensure subjection to the ruling ideology or the mastery of its ‘practice’” (133). Althusser suggests that, in order to continually reproduce “labour power provided for in a capitalist regime” (132) the ISA must deliver to the individuals it subjects a particular form of knowledge that allows system of dominance to persist. Schools relay academic skills “which are directly useful in the different jobs of production” (132) and the “rules of good behavior” (132) that correlate to the societally “ideal” labour worker. Through mechanisms of subtle ideological “exploitation and repression”, the subject is defined in the ISA. Over time, the subject becomes a knower of knowledge with object-like characteristics, implying that their consent of rule under the ISA allows them to view the “object” of knowledge in a biased manner. One could theorize that the reproduction of subjection allows for further subjection to be enacted by the original subject. Therefore, the ironic relationship between subject and object under Althusser’s ISA ultimately shapes the production of knowledge. Ontology and consciousness are social products mediated through ideological institutions. Thus an epistemological implication is biased knowledge production that is constantly reproduced with the ultimate purpose of spreading dominant ideology and reinstating social order.

Audre Lorde’s “The Master’s Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master’s House” describes how the subject is constituted through the “evasion of responsibility” (2) in viewing the object and how such a constitution defines what knowledge is valid and where. Lorde expresses how the “tools of a racist patriarchy are used to examine the fruits of that same patriarchy” when lesbian and Black women were called upon at the NYU Humanities conference to speak only on issues of heterosexuality and Blackness. She mentions how a common excuse includes “not knowing who to ask” which is ultimately a “cop-out” that does not allow for a true embracing of difference. Lorde expresses her concern with not allowing women of color to speak on issues relating to womanhood and feminist theory. In this manner, “only the most narrow parameters of change are possible and allowable” (1). By compartmentalizing knowledge based on social category due to a simple “evasion of responsibility” (2), numerous subjects and objects are constituted. The author suggests that subject positions outline epistemological foundations and that true epistemological questions in feminist research must stem from how to best capture knowledge based on how it is produced and who it is for. Developing a world view that is inclusive requires work by the knower because feminist analyses are necessarily complex. Treating some women like a simple “consultation” and compartmentalizing struggle based on a certain notion of how knowledge should be distributed inherently spreads hegemonic discourse which ultimately affects the object of knowledge. Agency and understanding of difference are powerful tools, as Lorde relays, that will allow epistemological implications to not be rooted in dominance structures.

Personally, I find Althusser’s theory most useful in understanding epistemology and social justice. While Lorde’s writing is intersectional and passionate, Althusser’s work allows for a more concrete theoretical framework that can be used in social justice activism. Althusser engages with ideas of “interpellation” in a legal apparatus, the phenomenon of subjection in relation to the law that affects one’s notion of themselves. In my opinion, such theory is necessary in our political moment. In a time of “alternative facts”, concepts of agency, individualism, and knowledge production allow me to remain empowered. Althusser states that we are “always-already” subjects in a society, a remarkable statement that will allow for a deeper analysis of the way society functions. Through this study of knowledge production, social change can be enacted in ways that are informed and relevant.

The subject and object of knowledge are constituted through two forms of subtlety: institutions like the ideological state apparatus and the excuse of a too complex feminist politics. The way we know what we know is circulated through hegemonic systems of power by either exploitation under the guise of labour production or by refusing to acknowledge difference in a way that only allows the dominant form of rhetoric to persist. The relationship between the knower and the known ultimately shape epistemology and is implicated in hegemony.

____________________________________________________________

Sources cited:

Althusser, Louis. Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays. New York: Monthly Review, 1972. Print.

Lorde, Audre. "The Master's Tools Will Never Dismantle the Master's House." (n.d.): n. pag. Web. <http://collectiveliberation.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Lorde_The_Masters_Tools.pdf>.

Course: Feminist Theories (FMST 100)

[divyawrites]

In The Eyes of the Image & the Beholder: Corpothetics & Art in Post-Independence India

_____________________________________________________________

The practices and popular culture of post-colonial India caused the nation-state to be in a constant battle between tradition and modernity. On the one hand, India sought to embrace contemporary values of the “West”, but on the other fought to maintain tradition through religion and cultural forms. Familiarity was a component of post-colonial India that was common among many popular culture artists. These artists all produced material that seemed to incorporate modern ideals yet employed art technique that demonstrated a constant reversion to tradition and nationalism. Familiarity is the overarching tool that these artists, as they are described by Chris Pinney, utilize as a connection with the nation-state’s culture while also representing other facets of the modern, post-colonial India. Pinney also defines “corpothetics” as the entire body and all senses “seeing” an image. He puts the images in context of consumerism by stating “The consumption of images by Bhatisuda villagers needs to be understood in terms of these processes of bodily empowerment, which transforms the pieces of paper into powerful deities…” (Pinney, 191). Pinney views artwork as a visual experience in which the entire being interacts with the image. In addition, he discusses the idea of “anaesthetizing discourse” where “Western” images lead to numbing of the senses due to a lack of interaction, but that corpothetics involves a transformation of both “...the image and the beholder” (Pinney, 19).

This paper intends to briefly trace these artists’ simultaneous incorporation of both modernity and nationalism in their artwork, and centers around ideals of corpothetics in defining a very particular kind of Indian popular visual art in post-independence India.

Chris Pinney discusses the work of B.G. Sharma whose artwork, although fairly new and modern in that in included sport, became familiar and accessible because it drew on prayer (pooja) books for inspiration and used bright colors reminiscent of South Asian clothing. His artwork was popular among untouchables, lower caste folk, and rural Indians because they allowed for familiarity as a particular kind of accessibility to popular culture. His art around sports drew on “folk games” and spectularized sport at the same time. His use of bright colors, as Pinney attempts to analyze, surround discourse around a particular form of seeing and the way that visual materials are experienced at looked at by the viewer. Such artwork compels the viewer to think about the definition of the visual itself. In this way, it represents “sticky mutuality” where the consumer looks at the image and the image looks back at the consumer. Penny speculates a breaking of the separation between viewer and artwork in Sharma’s art, a major facet of corpothetics. Although Sharma spectacularizes and commodifies sport, he does so by drawing on familiarity in culture.

Mulgaonkar and Pednekar were a set of artists analyzed by Pinney who worked immediately post-independence, who added a “filmi gloss to the lifestyles of the Republic of India’s new citizens.” Their practice of airbrushing film actors/actresses from movie magazines is seemingly modern in that it involves film actors that were thought to embody “Western” ideals. In addition, since television was not always accessible, film stars were foreign and therefore exotic enough to be spectacularized. Regardless of their modern tendencies, the artists’ practices of focusing on the “everyday citizen” and their depictions of rural communities maintained the battle between modernity and tradition. Their artwork was exuberant and focused on individuals in portraying the nation-state in a dynamic, spirited condition. Popular depictions went from a Goddess mapped on the state, to a citizen that could represent the nation. For instance, in one such art piece, a woman was depicted with the “filmi gloss” defined by Pinney in a rural community. She stood out in this setting and one can conclude that she portays the early 1970s’ tendency to revert back to tradition. Once again, there is a straddle between the new and the old. Just like there was an accessibility to artwork through Sharma’s images, there was an apparent familiarity for the viewer through relatability in the artwork of Mulgaonkar and Pednekar. There is also an inevitable interaction between viewer and image in this kind of artwork, because it not only breeds familiarity and thus closeness, but also causes the viewer to question why the woman stands out in the picture. In this way, the viewer analyzes visuality even further and can interact with the image by means of corpothetics.

Yogendra Rastogi was yet another artist studied by Pinney whose art strokes were thin with weak colors, pastel shades, and transparent light settings. In an analysis of his artwork, it is clear that he does not prefer the bright colors of Sharma. He attempts to stay away from theatricality and the “frontal gaze” that was popular in the era. He usually painted with a central portrait amidst a landscape that held national symbolism. Although Rastogi experimented with new art colors that were unpopular and therefore foreign/modern, he employed symbolism in his corepothetic art so that the consumer could once again find something culturally familiar.

H.R. Raja’s work focused on “pastiche and bricolage”, both being reproductions of already available sources. Sharma employs a similar tactic in making new art from old devotional books, a repetition which allows for both familiarity and contemporary. Corpothetics is an important part of his work because “...the repetitive volatilization of popular texts ensures that we never experience them for the first time.” (Pinney, 55). This technique is coined “pseudo-individualization” to describe something recognizable yet slightly different in its relation to individualism. In both the aforementioned artists, there is an experience in viewing the image nonetheless.

Pinney traces the aforementioned authors because they all produce popular cultural visuals that embrace the unique facets of post-independence India, but constantly make an effort to preserve nationalism, tradition, and culture. In a way, these artists create an “...involvement and desire out of thwarted colonial imposition of a space of analysis and detachment” (Pinney, 100). Images are reproduced time and time again by the repetitive techniques these artists use and their meanings shift with context as well. The images can therefore be liberated from colonial aftermath and release their full effect. Although the artists’ tactics, techniques and effects differ, their final outcome is the same: The viewer engages with the image in a new way and not only views a reflection of history, but also becomes a part of history itself.  

_____________________________________________________________

Written by Divya Ramani on May 8th, 2016. “Popular Culture in South Asia” course.

_____________________________________________________________

[divyawrites]

Between Two Worlds: The “New Indian Woman” and Modernity

_____________________________________________________________

When analyzed in a historical paradigm, discourse and examination surrounding the concept of modernity were integral facets of India’s post-colonial condition. An economic shift towards market economy, deregulation, and mechanical reproduction became indicative of contemporary socio-cultural norms that fit the period’s tendency towards liberalism. The social penchant for modernity played out in the field of visual arts where, in one instance, cartographic forms of art depicted the Hindu goddess Kali mapped onto the nation-state. Mechanical reproduction allowed for the accessibility of such visual elements within popular culture despite class or caste. The widely distributed visual images of an Indian goddess and the prioritization of capitalism through the medium of popular culture allowed a representation of Hindu women to become literally and figuratively mapped onto the nation. Similar portrayals of women in advertisements and television throughout the post-colonial period inconspicuously placed women at the core of Indian nationalism. In Chapter 2 of Making of Neoliberal India, the author Rupal Oza described the “new Indian woman” emerging as the urban, bold, and sexually autonomous representation of modernity in the 1990s. She embodied globalization and “Western” ideals due to her accepted provocativity. However, she remained an ironic model of tradition. In this paradigm, the “new Indian woman” became the subject of debate around “vulgarity” in images that were believed to compromise a “...unified Indian (Hindu) culture” (Oza, 23). Released obscene material set parts of India into moral panics that raised social concern over how women’s sexual purity represented such a “unified culture”. Therefore, a constant battle emerged between emphasizing female bodily autonomy as a means of globalization and modernity, and criticism when such liberal deeds needed to be suppressed so nationalism and tradition could still be embraced. The fabrication of culture in India was a rejection of modernity that established women’s ideological work as the culture and nation-state’s moral compass. In doing so, it further stripped their agency under the obsession to maintain nationalism in the “new” India.

The inevitable globalization of the post-colonial period was equated to modernity while nationalism was paralleled to traditional culture. Since both political ideologies had been quantified and qualified on women’s bodies, their effects in the new India left women straddling between modernity and culture, a circumstance that emphasized hegemonic gender roles and patriarchal practices. This paper intends to analyze how controversial popular culture media, namely advertisements, engaged in the dichotomy of modernity and tradition through their provocative material and subsequent governmental prohibition. It studies how prohibition was a shift away from modernity under the guise of preserving nationalism and how the entire controversy denied women their sexual autonomy, a major contributor to patriarchy.

The provocative nature of the Kamasutra Condom advertisement controversy of the early 1990s and its consequent ban outline a moral panic that portrayed how the balance of nationalism and globalization led to a more fortified patriarchal “new India”. The advertisement featured models Pooja Bedi and Marc Robinson laying intimately and nude with each other. Before the release of this endorsement, condom advertisements depicted a man and woman, evidently married, walking together holding hands. Such ads reiterated heteropatriarchal norms and paralleled the use of condoms to pregnancy and STD prevention, thereby reinforcing prescribed gender roles. The 1990s advertisement juxtaposed pleasure and sex, which allowed sexuality to be viewed in the realm of female pleasure. However, this advertisement was banned due to its “controversial” components and subtle moral panic of the Indian youth being influenced negatively. According to Oza, “this discourse on obscenity and vulgarity was meant to protect “public” morality and decency and extended seamlessly to protecting Indian culture” (Oza, 23).  In other words, such a ban demonstrated a distancing from modernity and globalization that also signified a distancing from nationalism and tradition, all with the purpose of preserving Indian culture. The two aforementioned ideologies were framed in terms of panic around female sexual autonomy, a fear that continued to portray women as solely mothers and sexual objects. Oza describes how “...threats to national culture are measured on women’s bodies and representational practices” (Oza, 23) In this way, the liberalization of gender and sexuality in post-colonial India was the fear that led a shift towards tradition under the secret guise of nationalism described by Oza “...threats to national culture are measured on women’s bodies and representational practices” (Oza, 23). Once again, women are left to straddle the new and the old with no agency and a loss of sexual freedom, effects that reinforced hegemonic social systems.

Another controversial advertisement was the Tuff Shoes advertisement controversy of 1995 whose juxtaposition of religion and nudity started a moral panic around modesty and morality. The advertisement showed two models, Madhu Sapre and Milind Soman, holding each other wearing nothing but Tuffs shoes and a python wrapped around them. Some court cases filed against them were not only for “indecent behavior”, but also for wearing a python that, in some strains of Hindu religion, is viewed as sacred. Juxtaposing nudity and even a hint of religion brought upon a social scare that suggested that nudity was unacceptable. In the same way, it suggested that an emphasis of sexuality through popular culture mediums was unacceptable. The prohibition of this ad in its entirety demonstrated that although obscenity was subjective (as ruled by the Court), society related nationalism and tradition to purity and morality, thereby establishing Indian culture as different from the globalized, “modern”, and sexually liberal “Western” world. In the end, the social effect was again viewing gender and seuxality as the determinants of a modern or traditional post-colonial India, and seeing the liberalization of sexuality as a threat to national culture. Such a viewpoint, in and of itself, is inherently patriarchal.

It is important to note social functioning of popular culture when discussing issues of nationalism, globalization, gender and sexuality in post-colonial India. Popular culture had the ability to cause national controversy in post-colonial India due to a free market economy where mechanical reproduction thrived. Certain popular cultural artifacts, such as the Kamasutra and Tuff shoes advertisements, placed moral panics around gender and sexuality in the context of modernity and tradition. In this placement, sexual liberalism, especially in relation to female bodies, was paralleled to a rejection of tradition and thus a rejection of Indian nationalism. Female bodies and the social function of sex became the dictators of morality in the nation-state, which left women battling between the modern and the traditional, the global and the national, the old and the new. Within this battle, hegemony was further established and consecrated and prohibiting “obscene” popular culture materials became the only way to preserve nationalism and Indian culture. Through a closer analysis of the era, one may conclude that perhaps the forced ideological work of women and the prohibition of sexual liberation had less to do with preserving tradition and more to do with regulating women’s bodies so they can serve both practical and ideological purposes.

_____________________________________________________________

Written by Divya Ramani on May 8th, 2016.

 “Popular Culture in South Asia” course.

_____________________________________________________________

[divyawrites]

Capitalism and Free Expression: Street Artist Regulation in Downtown Santa Cruz

__________________________________________________________

Introduction

The famous artist and sculptor Christo Vladimirov Javacheff once wrote, “A work of art is a scream for freedom.” Free expression and artistic production have been historically associated due to the enjoyment that artists provide to themselves and other individuals that relish their art. From ancient cave engravings that researchers believe was early human abstract art to present-day graphic design artwork transforming society’s perception of digital media expression, the freedom to articulate meaning in one’s life has been integral to emotional prosperity. Amidst the waves of artistic evolution, street performers and vendors emerged as artists who gained popularity by demonstrating their talent and work on city streets. They attracted people far and wide because they stirred a revolution of inclusion and a established a vibrant city culture. Those who made their art a profession found their street businesses lucrative because of the active, often interactive atmosphere that their unique method of expression conjured.

The city of Santa Cruz’s downtown has been a recreational site for both residents and tourists mainly due to the great number of street performers and vendors. Although the city itself has undergone major reform in infrastructure and education to conform with industrial standards, downtown culture’s unchanged feel has been appreciated by tourists throughout the decades. In other words, tourists have been attracted to the experience of enjoying historic street performances and artwork strewn among the quaint boutiques, restaurants, and theaters that line the downtown space. Santa Cruz is heavily reliant on maintaining the city’s nature in order to continually attract tourists. In fact, the city’s profit from tourism is one of the three largest contributors, along with higher education and technology, to the city’s economy. However, over the past decade, regulation of street performance by the City council has limited the space, duration, and location of acts and vendors, an act that has sparked city-wide controversy to its legality by the First Amendment. For example, according to the City of Santa Cruz website, performers are now required to maintain a 20 foot distance from main stores and intersections, can only play for an hour at a time in one location, and are required to obtain a permit unless their performance or vendor stall follows another set of rules outlined on the website. Santa Cruz City Council, street performers, tourists, business owners and law enforcement all hold differing opinions not only on the necessity of regulation, but also on the logistics of approval, implementation, and enforcement. Many who do not support regulating street performers and artists cite either the subtle or intentional influence of capitalism on City Council, and suggest the motive of economic benefit for all regulators and enforcers.

The goal of this paper is not only to study the differing perspectives on regulation between the aforementioned parties, but to also analyze if and how capitalistic morals play a role in regulation. The world’s economy is led by top businesses and technology while being fueled by education. Especially at this current social and political moment in California, it is integral to study if and how societal values as a whole have changed on a local, state, and federal levels with regards to money. Certainly capitalist drives do not have the full capability to overtake free expression due to the First Amendment in the Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech to all. Nonetheless, this paper intends to analyze what recent regulations on street performers, and not on businesses, have to say about the intention if not successful action to eradicate a part of a city’s culture for profit. If there is no correlation between regulation and capitalist values, I hope to determine another reason as to why street performing has been restricted recently. Evaluating the physical and metaphorical separation between both high-class stores and businesses that reflect more “old-fashioned” interests and street performers is a central component to this paper. I hope to analyze what such a partition means about what Santa Cruz values as a city, or if the segregation has no bearing on the city’s values whatsoever. In essence, I hope to answer the question: How does the regulation of street performing reflect the city's changing views on capitalism vs. free expression? What does that say about the character of our culture and the kind of character we value in our culture? What kinds of lives, bodies, and experiences do we value more than others? What is the socially structured reasoning behind such logic? Extrapolating the data I receive, I hope to understand if and how regulation has changed the culture of Downtown Santa Cruz.

Potential Reasons for Regulation

Initial evidence for my claim stemmed from personal insights and experiences regarding the city of Santa Cruz. I reasoned that there would be three reasons as to why street performance regulation was included in city council legislation at all. The first concerned the effects on Santa Cruz's economy which centers around tourism, high technology, and higher education, including the entirety of the tertiary economic sector and various industries. The need for regulation, from an economic standpoint, might have evolved out of an interplay between the aforementioned economic concerns. For instance, the city may have believed that tourists prefer an environment that is catered to consumerism. This line of thinking follows the trend in the post-Industrial Revolution area in which mass production greatly influenced the consumption culture in America. However, ironically, old-style Santa Cruz culture reflects recent criticisms of consumerism, especially a desire/alternative solution to revert back to "local" and "simple" production (Penny Ice Creamery, Assembly, etc., that focus on getting back to the roots of simply/organic food production.) These areas demonstrate efforts to revert to the primary and secondary economic sectors. Conducting a deeper study of consumerism will be an important part of this part of the paper and the rest of research. A second reason as to why regulations might have been introduced is the belief that street performance and higher education do not go together according to societal standards. Over the last 50 years, Santa Cruz has been redefining research and higher education worldwide, thanks to the UCSC community. Higher education might be viewed as the opposite of a "hippie" or "shabby" way of life that street performers are often stereotyped as being in. The surge of higher education could give a sense of superiority over the old culture of the city, and might make the council feel as if they need to live up to a proper, academic, and refined culture. Yet a third reason is that the regulations could be unrelated to any real concern and could be indirect. This paper acknowledges that cities and culture change, and restrictions could simply have changed according to unrelated cultural phenomenon.

Hypothesis

My hypothesis is that the city has begun to value businesses and tourism over the free expression of street performers, therefore creating and enforcing law that separates the two entities. Potential evidence for this claim has been collected through interviews with members of city council that were involved during this changing time, street performers, three store managers whose business themes differ greatly, and law enforcement officers. Evidence is also obtained and analyzed through online literature, internet photos, and researcher observations in order to accurately prove or debunk my claim. Through these multiple lenses and perspectives, I aim to evaluate my hypothesis.

City Council Perspective: Richelle Noroyan

The first part of this paper studies the City Council perspective. City Council members have come to an overwhelming consensus that although Santa Cruz culture is enhanced by street artists, it is still necessary to regulate due to business owner demands, structural entertainment, and reorganization of performances. Council member Richelle Noroyan was chosen as the interview subject representing the Council perspective. Richelle Noroyan grew up in Santa Cruz, California and studied political science during her undergraduate years at California State University, Fullerton. She was hired by technology companies like Apple, working primarily in developer and software relations. A majority of her career has been spent working with federally funded non-profit organizations on leading and engaging with political campaigns. She has worked with campaigns for education, public health, and voter registration. Such interests in the private sector have carried over to her current position on the Visit Santa Cruz Board, where she handles tourist affairs. During her election, she published on her website that she proposed to “improve our city by repairing our streets and public spaces, improving public safety...and creating meaningful economic opportunities.” (Noroyan, 2014). Her proposal suggests that she is passionate about public well-being.

Having grown up in Santa Cruz, Noroyan understands the cultural impact that street musicians and vendors have and is trying her best to preserve it. I wished to first determine, given that tourism is an important part of the economy, if tourists’ opinion mattered and to what extent. If it did, I could prove that the regulations are, if not strictly political, at least part of economic system perpetuated by City Council. When asked to determine if tourists enjoy street performing based on observations, feedback received, and studies she had done, she replied, “I think [street performing] adds to the whole tourist experience of coming to Santa Cruz.” However, catering to practicality, general interests of the council, and a dislike of aggressive panhandling, Noroyan’s views on regulation are sympathetic for performers but strict for vendors. She mentioned that “The street musicians don’t seem to be the issue for people it’s the people setting up tables to sell knick-knacks. In order to regulate them, we have to include the street musicians. The law doesn’t allow us to say ‘we only like street musicians not the street vendors’...so you can’t have separate laws for both. And that’s where the issue comes in.” Noroyan suggested that she was doing her job to protect the interests of the tourists and business owners who may not be pleased with street vendors on their property. She stresses that the law is shaped in a such a way by the Supreme Court that does not provide much allowance or alteration, especially because it applies to everyone equally. She believes there are many intricate issues interwoven into a larger one, and is trying to find a middle ground that works for everyone. When space regulation was brought up, she replied, “The space regulations were tried but it wasn’t working and it was confusing so right now we’re going back to the drawing board to see if we can come up with something else. We wanted to limit the merchants because if you don’t, some of them will spread out over a whole block, and there is no space left for street musicians. It is a complicated issue. If you’re going to go out there and sell goods and set up a table, in all fairness, you should pay. Now for street musicians though, I’d hate to have them swept up to have to pay a permit. But, in order for us to apply it to the merchants we may have to apply it to the musicians. That would stink in my opinion. I would hate to see that culture leave Downtown Santa Cruz. I really would.” Once again, Noroyan expresses her interest in maintaining street performance but also mentions that City Council is bound by law. Additionally, during the course of the interview, she stated that the only regulation currently in place was the one hour time restriction, claimed the permit was still in the proposal stage, and had no knowledge of the $33 fee required by performers with keyboards. However, she said she would “scrutinize highly” any regulation that made performers pay, because she recognizes that for many their art is a means of survival.

The interview suggested that Noroyan hoped to preserve street performance for the culture it represented and not for the individuals it symbolized. She favored street performers strongly over street vendors by stating, “The underlying part of this isn’t the musicians, it’s the people who are sitting out and turning Pacific Avenue into their own flea market.” Such a comment demonstrates that her approval of proposals might be biased based on what kind of street artist she values over another. She also expressed disapproval of “someone standing in front of your door and beating a drum for eight hours” when asked if she sympathized with business manager concerns. In a sense, Noroyan advocates only for popular, appealing performances. Noroyan recognizes street performers as production factors that can reap long-term economic profit through tourism without advocating equally for vendors who may not be as popular. In the same way, capitalism culture views individuals in terms of production, supply, and demand without truly considering their humanity. However, Noroyan has no direct intention to suppress the needs of performers and explains that she does not view this struggle as a capitalism vs. free expression issue. She says that  “in order to have a vibrant Downtown where street musicians can exist and get money, you have to have a successful vendor culture too. Because if you don’t have the stores down there, then there’s no one down to play to. So they’re dependent on each other. I don’t necessarily see them as being at odds.” But ironically, by viewing street expression and vendor culture as transactional processes, she portrays capitalistic tendencies that are inevitable due to her position in the legislative process. Conclusively, the interview debunked my hypothesized reasons for regulation: believing tourists dislike street performing, valuing higher education over “hippie” street art culture, and no reason at all. Instead, I summarize that the reason for regulation is control over who and what kinds of performers express themselves Downtown. Control and determination of legitimacy are associated with authoritarian capitalism.

Street Entertainer Perspective

The famous singer and songwriter Bob Marley once said, “One thing about music, when it hits you, you feel no pain.” However, street performers have apparently been hurt by sharing their music in public. Street performers unanimously believe that regulation is in direct violation of their First Amendment rights. Such is the case because street performers and vendors made their art into a business and hope to make profit off their expression. When a man selling artwork on a huge vertical stand was asked his opinion on space restriction he laughed, “I don’t like [the regulations] at all. Just look what I have to put up with to just live!” When a woman selling trinkets asked if she felt politicized by the system, she mentioned that law enforcement officials frequently told her to move her stand and that it affected the profit she earned. A few others said they had not been directly affected by ordinances or had never heard of the regulations. The reason for this could either be a refusal of artists to comply to regulation or a lack of communication and enforcement by the City Council.

I considered how many people expected to perform or share artwork to make money to understand if a fee, having to wait for permit to be approved, and a time limit could be debilitating to their lives. A theory proposed at the beginning of this paper outlined that street performers are deemed as inferior and thus devalued. Council members might have been driven by fear and used regulation to mask, if any, attempts at gentrifying Downtown Santa Cruz. Given the majority of street art as businesses, city council acknowledgement of street performing as a survival means, and the economy’s dependence on tourism, it seems that displacement of lower-income individuals through regulation is present. Gentrification is driven by capitalism’s unrelenting quest for profit. In fact, American history and greatness is predicated on the removal of indigenous peoples from their homeland and by the subtle tactic of pretending to incorporate minority groups’ needs into legislation just to acquire consent of the governed. Essentially, history at the federal, state, and city level exists on an ironic spectrum. Ryan Masters in his online article “Busted Buskers” describes the irony of placing restrictions in the name of space and then building public structures that take up the same space by quoting performer Noddy, “‘I think it’s a little suspicious that benches and statues have begun to appear downtown which seem to complicate the spacing issue.’” Such paradoxical, “suspicious” actions may be viewed as political and for economic benefit. Another irony exists around the claims that city council members make about the ordinances. Masters describes that members “...appear willing to find a solution beneficial to all” but in reality are doing the exact opposite. The act of an authority finding a “solution” to the needs and demands of the general public constitutes the literal and metaphorical separation between common man and state. The evasion of responsibility for public demand and rights is the same drive that capitalism thrives on, and the same force that free expression is compromised on. In fact, it is the same force that has rode America into supposed greatness. It seems possible to argue, given the irony of regulation and the power dynamic between the two parties, that regulations of the authorities are just another form of driving people out of rightful occupancy.

Bringing together City Council and Performers

Georgia Perry’s online article “Will New Rules Change Culture of Pacific Avenue?” published on Good Times Santa Cruz urges a compromise between street performers and City Council members. In addition, she evaluates potential changes in the culture of Santa Cruz if such an agreement is not met. Perry debates the effects of the 12 square foot space regulation of street performance and the City Council’s viewpoint on this ordinance. She suggests that downtown culture will shift drastically due to civic resistance and the difficulty of abiding by stringent rules. The author describes the swift passing of the regulative ordinance and how city council members were quick to expel notions that they were breaking constitutional rights, even in the face of public opposition. The article is interspersed with quotes from street performers and city council members to contrast perspectives on the issue. For instance, in constructing a claim about the “hasty passing” of the ordinance Perry states that “Mayor Cynthia Mathews publicly dismissed the artist’s concerns that the ordinance limited their First Amendment rights to free speech as ‘disingenuous at best, and honestly, idiotic at worst.’” Perry subtly takes issue with Mathews’ belief when involving the idea of the First Amendment and, in the lines following, debunking the belief using legislative evidence. The author foresees and imminent threat and connection between regulation and free expression, and voices the public and city council in order to suggest change.

Business Perspective

Business perspective is integral to understanding the interplay between City Council and street entertainers. Business input is taken into consideration through surveys and interviews, and then implemented into legislation. While they both acknowledge the cultural impact street performing has on the city, business managers are split between their overwhelming support for the rights of entertainers and an anger towards listening to unappealing performers and having to pay rent for parts of the sidewalk the performers use. Three distinct business owners were chosen as interview subjects for this perspective. The first is a sports store called “Sports Extreme” that sells American sports gear. The business is meant to attract foreign tourists or people interested in representing their favorite teams. The second was “Cold Stone Creamery”, a chain business that has been branded as mainstream and traditional. The third business is called “Go Ask Alice” and is a Bohemian herb store that sells smoking blends, essential oils, tapestries, and jewelry. It represents the “hippie”, liberal culture that has stereotyped Santa Cruz for decades. I acknowledge that the following businesses do not accurately represent the entirety of business viewpoints in the Santa Cruz area. Businesses differing in mainstream popularity and types of tourists they attract were selected in order to receive varied, multi-dimensional perspectives.

The manager of Sports Extreme was asked if street performers and vendors disrupted his business. He replied, “Yes, they sit out there and are very loud sometimes. My customers come in and leave with an experience but have to face this startling music outside. Sometimes it discourages people from coming in at all.” The manager suggests that the street performers playing outside his store decrease the profit he makes. When asked if he would sign a petition for further regulation, he said he would. However, he mentions “the performers bother me but I feel guilty sometimes because I know they add to the experience of this place.”

The manager at Cold Stone Creamery expressed a similar viewpoint but stated “I do not have too much of a problem with them because I have a patio outside. But sometimes I hear them and my customers get disturbed.”

The manager at Go Ask Alice had a completely different perspective from the other two business managers. She was disturbed by such regulation and shared, “I think it’s so nice to hear someone down the street playing their instrument when I lock up every night. It really builds a connection with everyone here.” However, when asked if she has had any problems with entertainers or vendors, she mentioned, “Well there was this one woman who impersonated one of the readers we had come in. She sat outside and pretended to be her. But I asked her kindly to leave and haven’t seen her since.”

It is interesting to observe how businesses that represent mainstream, chain-industry culture oppose free expression but cultural, old-fashioned stores appreciate entertainers. For the first two businesses, the problem became a property issue, an ideology of entitlement prevalent under capitalism.

Law Enforcement Perspective

Law enforcement was the last group of interview subjects on the street performance issue. Both officers interviewed sided with businesses, expressing that it is often “annoying” to have entertainers around a business. Both were also confident that there were no regulations currently in place for street performers and were not aware of time restraint. Such a lack of awareness suggested a lack of communication between City Council and law enforcement that entertainers are often penalized for. Street performers, then, are literally and metaphorically separated from both businesses and law enforcement officials, placing them at an ultimate disadvantage with respect to regulation.

Hidden Ironies

Two final issues conclude the debate of capitalism, profit, and tourist consumerism when placed in terms of value systems. Both issues might serve as counterarguments for my claim, but I hope to analyze them to ascertain hidden ironies.

Make it Big Paradox:

The first is the regulation of street performers being attributed to opening up space for “larger performances” an excuse I hypothesize fails to acknowledge class differences present between artists. In Georgia Perry’s article, the author writes, “Scott Collins, who is Assistant to the City Manager, created the proposal for the ordinance with Santa Cruz Redevelopment Manager Julie Hendee. Collins is adamant that the goal of the ordinance is not to drive away street performance, which he says is something that makes Santa Cruz special. He is quick to assert that ordinance does make allowance for larger acts at a couple locations downtown, but the performers would have to get a permit to take advantage.” Collins argues that City Council has no intention of “driving away street performance” and thus of changing the culture of Santa Cruz. His main point of contention is that the regulations would simply allow larger performances to acquire spaces downtown. Paradoxically however, Collins’claim is fashioned around American capitalistic beliefs. The practice of regulating those who are not “large” (and thus cannot produce, contribute directly the economy by paying for larger venues, and attract wider audiences) seems to be in favor of the city’s economy. Furthermore, Collins’ viewpoint suggests that street performers will not leave, but the reality is that the restrictions are causing performers to relocate to different cities (such as The Great Morgani, a very popular street performer before the late 20th century rules.) Additionally, Collins’ assertion that “...the performers would have to get a permit to take advantage” might seem harmless at first. However, the problem is that his statement of “advantage” dismisses the privileges that “large performances” have and the oppressive forces (poverty, regulation, venue, civic support, funding, etc.) that street performers may or may not have. Essentially, his excuse of “advantage” and “allowance for larger acts” allows the continuation of class separation without a real acknowledgment of where different performers are situated economically. Therefore, my hypothesis of the failure to acknowledge class difference is supported by Collins’ actions.

The Busker Paradox:

The second issue concerns city-sponsored events like “Busker Fest” that rely on street performer activity that have been on an increase at the same time that regulation decreased the amount of performers. I hypothesize that this event showcases an ironic position that suggests a capitalistic benefit in using talent for economic gain without allowing it to thrive on the streets. The Busker Festival is heavily marketed and lucrative for Santa Cruz. According to the Santa Cruz Sentinel article by Jessica A. York, Executive Director Chip “will sort through applications to find a diverse selection of high quality performers.” These performers are given $100 stipends to perform at the festival. Chip also describes, “From my perspective, the musicians have always been in some ways the dolphins in our tuna net of trying to deal with some of the street issues.” Finally, the article mentions how one of the most popular performers Great Morgani “boycotted Pacific Avenue for performances after 17 years, due to police warning about his proximity to a business in violation of a city ordinance”, a boycott that caused the City Council to revise their ordinances. However, some street performers support the festival wholeheartedly. Thomas Spearance who “makes a hand saw sing with a bow” reportedly said, ““Santa Cruz is famous for its street performers, and sometimes we’ve been encouraged and at times discouraged. There’s a trend toward respecting the street performers here, the better ones,” said Spearance, in black-and-white striped overalls. “To have good performers is good business.”

The Busker Festival’s performers are selected based upon preference of one authority, a system that may allow for subjectivity. The practice of rewarding “high quality performers” with large stipends plays into the idea of “making the rich richer”, a capitalistic ideology that increases the gap between rich and poor. It embodies a method of valuing certain bodies and talents more than others, especially ones whose products will lead to economic gain. My hypothesis is supported in this regard. However, my claim might be rejected by the prevalence of entertainers that support the festival. But the correlation of performers with business is in itself a capitalist association, which actually supports my hypothesis.

Conclusion

Every interview subject and article writer views street entertainers and vendors as integral to Santa Cruz culture. They recognize that both free expression and profit is an essential component to any street demonstration. After thorough analysis of my sources and evidence, I  can summarize that capitalism affects the decisions made and the beliefs held by council members, business owners, and law enforcement. Santa Cruz’s societal values are, according to Noroyan, influenced by federal rulings. They are also largely determined by the references authorities have made to “bad performers” versus “good performers”. Labor is valued differently based on discrepancies in economic gain. Santa Cruz ultimately values, in the spirit of tourism, lucrative entertainers, suggesting that the culture is becoming increasingly industrialized. There is a correlation between regulation and capitalist values, but there is no direct intention by any party that establishes this correlation. Street performing is being restricted solely due to order in the city’s streets.

I conclude that there seems to be a physical and metaphorical separation between businesses and entertainers. Chain businesses are supporters of regulation because of property issues, while simple stores are against regulation. I believe this partition establishes that the character of our culture is based in wealth and that we value capitalistic character in our culture. Therefore, my hypothesis that the city is valuing business and tourist interest over entertainer interest is supported. However, further analyses must be conducted in order to support this claim entirely.

Christo described art as a “scream for freedom”. In analyzing the entire authoritarian episteme where the knowledge of the rich is valued over the knowledge of the poor, it is clear how accurate Christo was. However, art is not only a scream for freedom, but a scream for recognition, and a scream for change.

____________________________________________________________

Written by Divya Ramani in March 2016 in “Rhetoric and Inquiry” course. 

_____________________________________________________________

[divyawrites]

Keep Race Relevant: Modifying Methods of Advocacy

_____________________________________________________________

Race discourse and examination are integral facets of America’s seemingly post-racial condition. Numerous academic disciplines and activist groups seek to use their understanding of previous structures of oppression to advise against societal practices that may reproduce oppression in a new guise. However, such notable efforts to avoid transformations of hegemonic systems that prevailed in the twentieth century often fail or are met with resistance today because advocates employ old techniques to combat current issues. For instance, the turn of the century featured the flourishing of social diversity, boasted a prosperous technology industry, and resurfaced liberal ideals in politics and society. Many passionate individuals committed to racial reform do not adapt their advocacy methods to suit the features of the century and thus face a challenge in their social justice efforts. The unique facets of the twenty-first century necessitate an adapted understanding of race that seeks to maintain race’s relevance in the modern era. In order to analyze modern racial systems, activists must acknowledge that the aforementioned characteristics of the century demand a modified understanding of race and racial practices, because race functions much differently today than in the past. Such an awareness is based upon underlying principles of earlier advocacy efforts but incorporates the distinct culture of twenty-first century America. Many distinguished authors and race scholars analyze race’s influence and advocate for the importance of racial awareness in the contemporary United States. This paper analyzes the work of Alan G. Johnson, Omi and Winant, and the contributing authors of the “Critical Resistance Incite! Statement” in order to argue that the features of the century and the resulting societal perspectives require that a modified examination and advocacy of race be in practice today.

The social diversity of the twenty-first century, evidenced by the “melting pot” theory, necessitate an intersectional viewpoint when analyzing the modern complexity of race and racial practices. At the turn of the century, the “melting pot” theory became prominent due to increased immigration, incorporation of people of color in globalization efforts and entertainment, and a general openness for inclusion of the “outsider.” The product of “melting pot” America is a multicultural society that represents diversity in all regards, including sexuality, gender, class, and religion. The diversity of individuals in the current age requires an intersectional mindset in analyzing race because a person in a melting-pot society never fits solely into one social category; they are a combination of classifications and their racial oppression must be interpreted accordingly. The authors of the “Critical Resistance Incite! Statement” encourage intersectional frames of reference when examining racial violence within the criminal justice sector. The documents states that “...movements that address state violence...often work in isolation from activists/movements that address domestic and sexual violence” (Incite! Statement 141) and that “...women of color, who suffer disproportionately from state and interpersonal violence, have become marginalized within these movements” (Incite! Statement 141). The statement essentially argues that efforts to eradicate state violence must coexist with efforts to eradicate gender violence. Race exists in relation to prejudices in other social categories and defines biases within the criminal justice sector that prevail in the twenty-first century. Women of color are a prime example of a group subjugated in society due to a lack of intersectional approaches in analyzing the oppression they face. Diversity in the twenty-first century includes the diversity of gender in addition to class, sexuality, etc., all of which must be integrated into modern racial analyses. The relevance of race today depends upon both the acknowledgement of overlapping structures of domination and the development of  “...holistic strategies for addressing violence that speak to the intersection of all forms of oppression” (Incite! Statement 141). Diversity urges an adapted, intersectional understanding of race so that strategies for addressing racial issues can be inclusive and relevant.

The twenty-first century as a “technology era” makes it simple for dominant groups to maintain hegemony by subtly extracting compliance from oppressed groups, an irony that demands an evaluation of race within the realm of contemporary media. In the case of White dominance over people of color, present-day society does not allow for use of explicit intimidation and force to marginalize people of color. Instead, as Omi and Winant describe in their essay titled “Racial Formation in the United States”, systems of dominance are maintained by “coercion and consent” (67), a method by which the ruling group, Whites, manage to subordinate people of color while simultaneously incorporating people of color’s benefits into social and political discourse. The dominant group does this indirectly by maintaining a “popular system of ideas and practice” (67) called “common sense” (67) that deludes inferior groups into giving an unknowing consent to be dominated. In twenty-first century America, “common sense” is easy to spread through technology so it is no surprise that dominant groups use “...education, the media, religion…” (67) to achieve the “...consolidation of rule” (67). For example, such a tactic is employed by White news reporters that speak about the necessity of racial classification. At first glance, such a claim might be applauded because it seems as if the dominant group is providing coverage on the issues of minority groups by stressing the importance of race. However, upon closer analysis, it becomes evident that even a seemingly progressive declaration on the importance of racial classification is tinged with White superiority. In Chapter Two of his book Privilege, Power, and Difference, Allan G. Johnson argues that racial classification has historically existed to benefit Whites by designating people of color as “Not White”, thereby taking away their power. He explains that, according to Adrian Piper, Native Americans and Blacks were classified differently in the 19th century, because one kind of classification was advantageous to Whites and another was not. Johnson argues that such disparities are about “...preserving White power and wealth” (19) and that Whites tend to neglect disparities so long the outcome is a “...continuation of [White] privilege” (19). Even though racial classification ideas from Whites may be received as humble and revolutionary by people of color because it demonstrates an awareness of racial issues, it is ultimately detrimental to the social standing of people of color. Since the prevalence of racial classification ultimately benefits Whites, it is clear how Whites advocating for racial classification on global media are not in the interests of people of color. Instead, Whites use “common sense” like the media to normalize their seemingly liberal racial perspectives and derive consent from people of color. When analyzing race’s function within ruling systems, it is crucial to understand the role technology plays in the subtle deception of the oppressed.

The “culture of liberalism” in the twenty-first century has a tendency to create claims of reverse discrimination because racism is not as explicit as it was in the past, an unfortunate social situation which necessitates an analysis of race that defines the different forms of racism. Social liberalism has enjoyed many successes in the century through gay marriage legalization, a wider acceptance of third wave feminism, and the various attempts at social justice reform in politics and society as a whole. In addition, a marking feature of the century is the election of Barack Obama as the President of the United States. Such supposedly social and racial victories give the impression that racism no longer exists in America. Many individuals, amidst the trumpets of the Pride Parade and the international media coverage of America’s first Black president, overlook the implicit discrimination in microaggressions and dominant systems that still exist in the underbelly of American society. Individuals may then argue that reverse discrimination is prevalent, meaning that society now favors the originally oppressed groups and discriminates against the dominant groups. Reverse discrimination claims, however, are meaningless because indirect racism still exists and the oppressed are still fighting for their representation and rights in every walk of life. To combat such claims, activists must understand the difference between “White” and “Black” racism. Omi and Winant compare the two forms of racism in a historical paradigm when they state that “Thus black supremacy may be an instance of racism, just as its advocacy may be offensive, but it can hardly constitute the threat that white supremacy has represented in the U.S., nor can it be so easily absorbed and rearticulated in the dominant hegemonic discourse on race as white supremacy can” (Omi and Winant, 74). The authors argue that since Blacks have been historically oppressed and prejudices against them can be related to dominance structures perpetuated by Whites, their racism is not as “threatening” as White racism. Therefore, reverse discrimination claims are essentially meaningless if they are formulated from any illusion of Black superiority. It is imperative for advocates to interpret race in a time where race seems irrelevant and adapt their advocacy efforts accordingly.

Furthemore, Omi and Winant go so far as to suggest that reverse discrimination claims neutralize racial issues and are components of “structural racism” (Omi and Winant, 75)  that are “...all the more brazen because on the ideological or signification level, it adheres to a principle of ‘treating everyone alike;” (Omi and Winant, 75). It also manages to consolidate power with the dominant group. A key part of studying race in the twenty-first century’s culture of liberalism is to not treat all individuals the same way, and to understand that dominant groups may try to in order to maintain their privilege. Therefore, if race is to remain relevant and empowering in a society that has a propensity to do the opposite, it is essential to modify social justice efforts so that they can both combat reverse discrimination claims and incorporate a deeper understanding of how racism functions today.

The complexity of race is a product of its evolution over the centuries. The way race functioned in the last century is not the way it functions today. The current century features social diversity that demands intersectionality, media that can be used to consolidate racial dominance, and a social liberalism that strives to make race irrelevant. Therefore, if society is to conduct racial reform, it must broaden its definitions of race, study the ways in which media is used as a platform for subtle discrimination, and analyze race’s social implications. Racial reform is imperative to the future of the nation, and advocates must shift their methods to better tackle the nuances of the era. They must also be aware that racial transformations and classifications will continue to evolve, subjugate, and influence the function of hegemonic systems. Race will continue to affect future centuries, and for this very reason, those that believe in social justice can work to make certain that race’s evolution will be one of embracing difference, not punishing it. In essence, an adapted understanding of race is crucial in the twenty-first century so race can continue to matter in America. Race needs to matter because it demonstrates to society time and time again that “[they] are, both individually and collectively, stuck in a kind of paralysis that perpetuates the trouble and its human consequences” (Allan G. Johnson, vii). Society can hope that one day racial recognition and reaction will lead to human progress, not perpetual stagnation.

_____________________________________________________________

References:

"Critical Resistance Incite! Statement." Social Justice 3.3 (2003): 141. Web. 3 Nov. 2015.

Johnson, Allan G. "Introduction and Chapter 2." Privilege, Power, and Difference. Mountain View: Mayfield, 2001. N. pag. Print.

Omi, Michael, and Howard Winant. Racial Formation in the United States. 2nd ed. New York, London: Routledge, n.d. Print.

_____________________________________________________________

Written by Divya Ramani in October 2015 in the “Communicating Diversity” course. This paper won the Oakes Core Award in November 2015. 

_____________________________________________________________

[divyawrites]

I care too much about humanity to be silent.