I'm feeling a little exposed

I just googled "empowering nihilism" to find the Hooks article we read so I could refer to it without finding my paper copy and, much to my surprise, the very first thing that came up was my own blog entry from a few weeks ago. Oh boy.

At any rate, what I really wanted to talk about here is Hooks' exploration of the post-modernist condition of lost identity and hopelessness as something that could be useful to women, as well as blacks, in terms of being a starting point for producing empathy. Women have been losing their identities as feminism and social constructs progress, just as Hooks talks about in terms of the black experience. If everyone in post-modernism is losing their identity, because we no longer know what is real anyway, perhaps there is an opportunity here to point out what it is like to be without definition. Do white (propertied) men suffer a loss of identity in the post-modern paradigm? I would argue that they do. The question is, do they recognize it?

Yesterday in our zine group, John said something that got me thinking about all of this. Basically he was talking about the need for someone to recognize their own situation before they can empathize with someone else. Do any of us truly recognize our own loss of identity as it happens? I think many of us cling to the social constructs of our gender, race, status, etc, because there is nothing but a black hole beyond that. What are we if we are not defined? This brings up another question for me. Is this similar to never being outside of the ideology? If we lose (or reject) one identity, do we instantly step into another? What I am getting at is that perhaps there is an opportunity for empathy inherent in the post-modern point of view, but it requires self-awareness.

Refunctioning or Reinventing

Before yesterday I did not have a clear idea of what a zine was. Thanks to Michelle and her ever-so-helpful list of links to websites about zines and e-zines, I am starting to see what we're going to be working with in the coming weeks.

Looking at all of these zines I started thinking something that I often think about the Internet: where do these people find the time? I am always surprised that there are so many people who work so diligently to create websites, blogs, and, now that I know, zines. The opportunity to express a specific point of view, without censorship (I hope), without (great) cost and without any constraints in terms of format is obviously very appealing. The zines I looked at seem like obvious examples of refunctioning a pop culture product (magazines, of course) to produce something with a real message from a human being, instead of an over-produced, profit-driven, piece of junk food for the world to consume.

I think the same could be said for many websites and blogs, like this one. In fact, this is a perfect example, because there might be nothing on this blog that interests anyone other than me, but that should not matter. The beauty (and the problem) with these forms of communication is the lack of "regulation" that takes place in forums like television. As Mimi White points out, the narratives on television may become fragmented and seemingly diverse in order to appeal to a broad audience, but the format and general message contains obvious regulation (hegemony). There is no way that you would ever see a television show about the Women's Studies 320 discussion, because it is far too specific to draw the ratings needed to make a profit, but this discussion is published here on the web for anyone to read. We have taken the webpage and refunctioned it for our own purpose. I want to get started experimenting with the refunctioning of magazines for this next assignment. Now I just have to come up with something worth telling the world...

Better late than never

I was forced to take a brief hiatus from all things academic over the past week, so this blog is late, and I know it won't be eligible for a mark, but I wanted to say something anyway.

As a history major, and someone passionately interested in the past, Baudrillard was a particularly poignant read for me. I think I can personally relate to the feeling that there cannot be one truth about anything in the world around us, and I think anyone who studies history in depth discovers quickly that this uncertainty is everywhere in the history books. Historians disagree on, discuss, redefine and reevaluate their perspectives on historical events all the time. For me, this is one of the best things about studying history. Once you get past the frustration of having to memorize "facts" and dates that may or may not be the important ones, I think the subjectivity of history opens up a whole new world. It means that there are millions of ways to see the "progress" (or decline, depending on your perspective) of humanity. Each conflicting historical lesson I learn, whether it's in a class, from a book, or even through a movie, I find myself more able to open my mind to other perspectives in my day to day life. History is an opportunity to explore human behaviour and our own lives, as a result.

I think the idea that history is disappearing is interesting because I think there will always be ways to look at the past, regardless how complex or manipulated the records may be. There will be people who study old CNN broadcasts, emails and blogs, and all the other bizarre documents we are currently leaving behind. It's all evidence of who we are now, what we do, why we do it, how we do it. History, like the study of literature or art, is all about interpretation and you work with what you have.

Thanks for voting Conservative

This isn't my post for the week, but I had to say something about this. My husband caught the tail end of a news story on CBC Newsworld about a change in federal funding for women's interest groups and I'm outraged about two things. First of all, that it was difficult to actually find on a news site (try the CBC) and second that the truth is our government thinks it's more important to fund "faith-based" women's interest groups and REAL Women than anyone who is working for women's equality. I'll let you read the story for yourself, even though it's not "top headline" material, but no one should be surprised. We'll all be at home with our babies like good Christian women in no time. Like I said, thanks for voting Conservative Canada.

My 2 Cents

The idea of 50 Cent's music, regardless of his authorial intention, operating as "empowering nihilism" is not something I would have come up with on my own. The discussion in class on Thursday was fascinating to me, and still not crystal clear. As I understand it, in the context we were discussing, empowering nihilism is destroying the textual identity imposed on someone to reappropriate power. So, in terms of 50 Cent, by embodying a highly exaggerated version of negative black male stereotypes that have been imposed on him (and his ancestors) for centuries, he is doing two things: regaining power by making his imposed persona powerful instead of subjugated, and reflecting that persona back onto those who imposed it on blacks so that they voluntarily adopt it and therefore alter the connotations of it. This interpretation of aggressive, often violent and sexist, rap music has certainly changed the way I think about some music, and even other forms of pop culture. Although what confuses me is where to draw the line in interpreting the effects. Is this empowering for anyone other than 50 Cent? Is the empowerment as a black man more important than the negativity in the sexist, violent, materialistic messages that are part of the package?

Also, how is this different than the feminist rappers we listened to in class? Is it less empowering for them to rap because they are not necessarily (I don't actually know) from the black community and rap is rooted in black culture? How does what Britney Spears does in her ultra-sexualized, objectified performance differ from this? If she is also acting out an hyperbolized version of imposed ideals of women as sexual objects, why isn't her performance empowering nihilism? It is arguable whether or not Spears is gaining real power from her performance. Could the same not be said for 50 Cent? Perhaps this is reductive thinking, but I'm not sure I can separate for myself the difference at this point. Does anyone have an explanation for this?