I find
Butler and Athanasiou’s discussion about appropriation in Chapter 10 to be
quite interesting. Athanasiou asks “if the vulnerability of the other calls
upon our own susceptibility to previous and current violent modes of appropriation,
how might we retain a responsive openness to the political and futures of
alterity, as a prerequisite for the openness of political temporality and
spatiality?”(116) Leading up to this question is a discussion about a shift
from the I, the “ethnocentric, moralistic, and narcissistically unilateral
narrative of trauma” to a third person view of struggle that is affected by the
vulnerability of others as “I cannot conceive of my own struggle…without him or
her”. This point worried me because I think about the ways in which the vulnerabilities
of different groups are not matched so I don’t see how we can operate from this
third person view. The vulnerability of those who are made to become dispossessed
by systems of oppression is higher than those who are not. So I’m back to the question I quoted originally,
I don’t see how such a view escapes violent acts of appropriation as the vulnerability
that comes along with becoming dispossessed is not a feeling that all groups
have. I was not able to pinpoint an answer to this question in the reading.
In
thinking about appropriation, I thought back to the conversation we had earlier
in the semester when Iggy Azalea came up. She has become the poster child for appropriation
and I think that Athanasiou’s question can be applied here. Where do we draw
the line between the interconnectednesss that comes with being dispossessed and
appropriating culture or experiences? Where/what
are the lines between being in hip hop culture end and living hip hop or living
in the conditions that lead to the emergence of hip-hop and continues to inform it? Are Butler and Astanasiou arguing that there
are none/shouldn’t be any?
I thought this post was excellent, especially your linking the reading to our conversation on Iggy Azalea. The line of interconnectedness and cultural appropriation is extremely blurred. However, in terms of how to draw that line I am not so sure. The issue is that the marginalized are not only vulnerable as objects of oppression but only have platform to voice their displeasure through the voices of the oppressor. I am of belief that the line must be there, or else what differentiates us as individuals if we're allowed to appropriate culture for our own personal gain and then impose ethnocentric views on the other as if we know their struggle.
ReplyDeleteYour post is very thought provoking. I hope that Butler and Athanasiou aren't arguing for the nonexistence of a line distinguishing appropriation and vulnerability.I agree with Jeffrey's comment and belief that the line is crucial for understanding ones own struggle as well as determining whether or not someone is appropriating someones struggle and severely misrepresenting it for someone else.
ReplyDeleteJeff thanks for this robust response! I struggled with the idea of losing the lines that delineate the individual but I think that is the point that the authors are trying to make; that we must look/exist outside of ourselves. But I think we're on the same page with the question of how to mediate between the I and the other in this theory. But I also think that we are ingrained with an individualist way of thinking that stops us from seeing the benefits of there being no lines at all and maybe that way of thinking should be deconstructed.
ReplyDeleteMatthew thanks for the response!! I definitely agree!
ReplyDelete