From: ask-AT-unlinfo.unl.edu (alpana knippling) Subject: from bridges to conflict? Date: Sun, 13 Aug 1995 09:28:52 -0500 (CDT) In response to the dialogue between Parlo and Gareth: We are all, to a greater or lesser degree, implicated in the politics of positionality, myself, Gareth, Parlo, Stephanie, Diana . . . and all other listmembers, even if they are lurking. To claim not to have a position on something is to still have a position on it. So that is a given. But thanks to Parlo I stand corrected in conflating or eliding two different positions, Diana's and Stephanie's, for which I sincerely apologize. In fact, I was aware of the "invisible" markers of race/ gender/class, etc., even I was writing my earlier message; I tried to be mindful of these as I wrote, but that's not always enough, I see that now. Maybe some of the people involved in the initial postings from Australia will enter the discussion at this stage, and as Samir Dayal put it, lessen our ignorance even more. Having said that, let me quickly say that I think Parlo and Gareth are talking abt different things that are not perhaps commensurable. I read Parlo as saying that "minority" communities, esp. the women among them, need to forge alliances across geopolitical borders in sanctioned and authorized forums: conferences, e-mail lists like this one, etc. When they do this, they challenge the very humanistic foundations (read straight white Christian men of property) of those sanctioned and authorized forums, because these have traditionally been contructed in a way to silence and exclude "other," different voices. What is so wrong with this argument? It not only makes perfect sense but opens doors to exciting radical interventions of all kinds that I would want to be in on and participate in. The fact is, though, that we have never been confronted, historically or systematically, with situations involving vocal, public, and productively disruptive interventions like these (like the conference Parlo mentioned) from the margins, and in the face of them the tendency is to retreat into the safety of being a "majority" group and having the bigger say. I can recall a couple of (U.S.) conferences recently where intervention from the margins was stabilized and neutralized simply by virtue of the bigger numbers of the mainstream; most of these would flock to the "hot theory" panels, no doubt assuming that panels on questions of cultural difference (Native American, Asian, Chicano/a) would involve simple "storytelling" and boring global washing of laundry. I didn't mean to go this long. Begging your patience, Alpana Knippling ask-AT-unlinfo.unl.edu --- from list postcolonial-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005