You used the example of romantic love: noting that it is culturally informed, and yet you still know that you love. I think, in a close manner, this question is related to the question of what a person is supposed to do with theory, especially post-colonialism and deconstruction.
Through a brief example I hope to be able to bring light to what I'm really trying to say.
Last evening I went to a movie showing at Carleton College. The movie was titled "Papers", and it covered the topic of undocumented youth in the United States and their struggles with education and life after high school. Of the three youth profiled in the movie, all had come to the US when they were very young. Their illegal immigration into the US had nothing to do with their conscious decision making process. So their situation was created by decisions made completely by someone else, it was out of their hands. After covering each of the youths' story, the movie ended with a short montage on the DREAM Act, which is a bill that offers undocumented youth, in good legal standing, who have been in the US at least five years prior to the acceptance of the bill access the US residency for 6 years. This residency is based upon the understanding that the youth will then either graduate from college or join the military in this time.
The DREAM act has yet to be passed. Throughout the movie, there were multiple interviews with congressman and senators, explaining the how the governmental process has been going, what difficulties they are facing, and furthermore what the implications of such as act could have upon the state of things in the US. Phrases including "structural" or "systematic" change ranged as some of the most often quoted. It was noted that this bill has been presented before the Senate and Congress in some form or the other for the past ten years, and either hasn't actually been addressed or wasn't passed. Each year, youth from all over the country travel to Washington DC to support this bill and advocate for its passing.
During this entire movie I couldn't help wondering why the government has been neglecting this issue: "Why haven't these people been heard?" Because of a broken immigration system in the US families are being torn apart, people are living on unlivable wages, being treated as second rate citizens, or not even being acknowledged as citizens. It became obvious to me (probably because we just read Spivak and completely understood it all (right??)), although admittedly on a much smaller scale in comparision to the tribals in Pterodactyl, that there is a distinct repressive relationship between a dominant ideology and those living within the society of the dominant ideology. To call these undocumented youth citizens of the country would be a harsh criticism upon our own country: in its dramatic and gross failure of providing for its citizens; or classifying these undocumented youth as citizens would be just a plain lye. Either way, these undocumented youth occupy a marginal and liminal place within reality. I do not hope to convey that these undocument youth maintain any less value or need for education and basic human rights of health care and so on, only to point that the blatant fact that undocumented peoples, like the tribals in Pterodactyl occupy distinct positions within countries.
After the movie, there was a conversation concerning how the audience in the room could improve the situation. Now, understandably because we live in Northfield, Minnesota and because the movie was held at Carleton college, the audience was full of well-off white adults. The conversation included topics on updates on Minnesota's situation with this topic, to what exactly the DREAM act entailed. It seemed that the audience realized that something wasn't being done. There were specific reasons why the DREAM act hasn't been signed, and passed. And these reasons included racism, republican contrariness and prejudices that produce unwillingness in the general public.
All of these reasons are valid and true (though the republican stab is a little biased, I admit). However, I couldn't get over a feeling of stagnation within the room. This conversation was productive to an end: educating those already educated in the issues, and hoping that they will in the end go and help those undocumented youth who need this help. That previous sentence is fraught with difficulties, inequalities, and ideology.
I became convinced, through the movie and the conversation after that this is an issue that will not be correctly addressed: that the liminal situation of the undocumented within our country will note be solved, until the basic repressive, deaf ideology confronts a situation or environment where it is forced to accept and change its stance. In the end, I found I came to the thought that this will not be correctly addressed until the general dominant ideology which is inherently repressive and deaf to these second rate citizens, undocumented, liminal youth or adults changes its stance.
All of this, I think is distinctly related to the question of what can we do now that we have admitted that we are confronting a "subaltern" position, where the subaltern cannot speak nor can they be heard. Furthermore, one should be wary of this analysis, admitting that my thoughts, outlooks, and biases (see, the republican jab was biased) are textual as well.
So, am I screwed? Am I better to sit around and check out of the situation; yielding that no matter how I am to act, I will be operating out of some ideology against another ideology (assuming oppositional ideologies are possible)? If everything is "just textual" is there a concrete, experiential reality that I may point to as T/truth?
As you mentioned, though textuality may call into question Truths, is does not give up the fact of truths: certain authoritative statements concerning reality as I see it, understand it, internalize it (all of this accepting through various ideological lenses) have massive, and paramount impacts upon my life.
The question of what we do now is distinctly related to the question of how we are to approach ideologies, how we are to approach textualities and our own situations withing both of these. The DREAM act is not a futile attempt, it is an reaction to the general ideological deafness toward the undocumented people within out country. Textuality then, seams to go back upon itself, through biases that exist through cracks in ideologies that are shown when various truths come into contact with other truths. Action then, is not futile, yet inherently through textuality that does not negate truths, but strongly questions the notions of Truths and the nature of reality and humanity within it.
-Hopefully that last paragraph makes sense. I'd appreciate any comments you have to this.
No comments:
Post a Comment