1,
Finally, someone mentions about #queertrouble in regards with social and health research methods. Really, really enjoyed #AlexMuller’s paper!
———
Thanks to #VerenaMolitor, #Tatiana Zimenkova, #ChristineQuinan, #MarjoleinvandenBrink & #AlexanderKondakov, who organized a brilliant panel with regard to “Human Rights and Gender Identity Registration: Examining Relationships Between Claims of (sexual) Citizens and Global Justice”
All the presentations were impressively interesting and provocative. #ISA2018WCS
———
2,
Very fascinating panel on ‘After Political Violence: Trauma, Memory, Commemoration, and Representation’, organized by #RC07 #FuturesResearch
#WangHorngLuen spoke on “How to Reconcile the Traumatic Past?: A Case Study of Historical Dialogue in East Asia”; very interesting for myself. I hence ask some questions:
With regard to the exclusion of participants from Taiwan and North Korea, are there particular reasons for this? Although the voices of Taiwanese and North Korean have been excluded from the project, I wonder whether these two societies and people living there were at least mentioned and discussed. And if so, in what manner? Also, why was Mongolia not included either, which struggled in between Japan, China and the Soviet Union during the wartime?
- One-China policy + China’s political overtone
- 1st meeting: North Korea, disagreements from South Korea
- No one mentions/remembers Mongolia
Regarding #MandiGray’s (co-authored with Deborah Davidson) talk on “Body Politics, Sexual Violence and Trauma: Tattoos to ‘Re-Member’”: I wonder if they also consider the relationship between tattoo and stigma, which lasts and lives after the moment of being offended. In addition to a choiceful trauma, tattooing seems also making sense to turn the negativity of stigma related to sexual violence victimization to a more positive perception of the self, not just bodily but also emotionally.
———
3,
Very intense panel on ‘Rethinking the Role of Political Economy in Critical Theory’, organized by #ISARC35 #ISA2018WCS, chaired by #GurminderBhambra
#JohnHolmwood speak on #DecolonizingClassAnalysis (yet encountered many questions from feminists and class theorists):
“Very often, critical social theorists take ‘race’ as either a secondary category of social analysis or a form of embodying class, but, analytically, enslavement, defined here as commodification of labour, determines the dialectical relationship between possession and dispossession – and hence, the legitimation of (re)production and (de)valuation processes and outcomes.”
Following this, he seems to imply that the basis of (de-)commodification is involved with the moral economy in terms of (non-)recognition, by subjectifying/objectifying the possessable, usable and exploitable human labour.
———
Commodification of labour as ‘enslavement’
Dialectical relationship between possession and dispossession
Basis of (de-)commodification: moral economy of (non-)recognition, by subjectifying/objectifying
———
4,
Victims v. Victims
Colonialism perpetuates by changing its own name and form.
Articulation of different social movement agendas
Although ‘fear and hope’ have been once considered as the source of motivating social movement and social change, a long neglected problem is the unequal distribution of fear and hope between different groups of people, and yet, such an inequality is further rationalised by neoliberalism, from simply an ideology to a universal epistemology.
* Geoffrey:
I think Geoffrey makes a very important point with regard to more analyses of the interactions between progressive and reactionary movements.
Take LGBT rights movement in Taiwan as an example. Some participants I interviewed who are new to social activism and decided to come out and even join related organizations were actually motivated by the conservative groups’ actions against same-sex marriage legislation.
Also some participants joining in the ‘No es no’ protest in England, who were originally from Spain, was quite indifferent to Spanish politics and women’s rights movement was ‘shocked’ by the judgment by the Pamplona court and decided to stand out.
So, I think, in terms of analyzing such interactions, one interesting point is the affect of the reactionary moves that unexpectedly ‘triggers’ new agents and actors, and the other is the meanings and strategies regarding emotions such as anger and anxiety.
(But, this is not without cost and danger. As many of you also mentioned, these new comers sometimes don’t necessarily share the same long-term, revolutionary and coalitional goals as old activists; they are focused on a single objective and agenda, and sometimes potentially undermine the original activism. I wonder how you would understand this kind of one-time activists.)
* Through all the presentations, the role of emotions seems important, from fear and hope to anger, anxiety and disappointment. However, these feelings are often expressed as ‘losing’ and ‘not having’ something, which is embodied in a material sense. We can observe this from both progressive and reactionary social movements. So, in terms of ‘the good life’, I don’t think we can define it based on reason but by feeling something that we don’t have but can imagine it. Then, the questions is: what constructs that imagination and its imaginability.
———
Very interesting panel on ‘Social Movements in a Polarized World’ by #RC47
So happy to finally see and listen to #BoaventuradeSousaSantos: Although ‘fear and hope’ have been once considered as the source of motivating social movement and social change, a long neglected problem is the unequal distribution of fear and hope between different groups of people, and yet, such an inequality is further rationalised by neoliberalism, from simply an ideology to a universal epistemology.
From all the presentations, the role of emotions seems important, from fear and hope to anger, anxiety and disappointment. However, these feelings are often embodied by ‘losing’ or ‘not having’ something, which are expressed in a material sense. We can observe such an entanglement of emotion and materiality from both progressive and reactionary social movements.
So, in terms of ‘the good life’, I don’t think we still can define it based on reason or any social cause without understanding that kind of ‘feeling something that we don’t have but can imagine it’. Then, the question becomes: what constructs that imagination and its imaginability.
留言列表
