Log in

No account? Create an account

phalangingle in theoryishotcrew

Can I just substitute an interpretive dance in place of a list?

Although I am generally of the opinion that I would never be a member of a club that would have someone like me as a member, I decided to give this a try.

<input ... ><input ... >
<lj-cut text="List">

  1. "Foucault" in "Dictionnaire des philosophes" 1984, - Maurice Florence


  1. Distinction - Bourdieu


  1. El Laberinto de la Soledad - Paz


  1. The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life - Goffman


  1. Borderlands/La Frontera - Anzaldua


  1. The Interpretation of Cultures  - Geertz


  1. Aberrations in Black - Ferguson


  1. Ain't I a Woman  - bell hooks


  1. Giving an Account of Oneself - Butler


  1. Selections from the Prison Notebooks - Gramsci

<input ... ></input><input ... >


Re: General opener

"All theory is performed" strikes me as high-flown hogwash.

Suppose Anzaldua had set out to write a book attempting to make precisely the point as in the book she actually wrote, but did it in a different style/format. Suppose, for instance, she'd employed what you describe as a philosophical style: making arguments through formal exposition of logic.

Would any of this change the content of her theory? In what way? Or is it only a difference of presentation? And if that is the case, does "all theory is performed" just mean "all theory is promulgated through some sort or presentation"?

Re: General opener

By all theory is performed I did mean something along the lines of "all theory is promulgated through some sort or presentation". Approaching theory as performed calls attention to performative effects of the text. If Anzaldua wrote Borderlands as a "traditional philosophical text" then it would not produce the new mestizo/a reader and major element of her project of theorizing the borderlands, or perhaps theorizing from the borderlands, would be lost. Her choice of narrative strategy, language, and figures are an integral component of her theory. Borderlands shifts between languages and narrative threads (history of conquest, indigenous myth, first person account). These shifts position the reader into a space of mestizaje, a space of hybridity. Rather than logical deduction or induction, Anzaldua turns more to poetry and narrative.

I think my discussion is posing a bit too sharp of a contrast between "traditional philosophical text" and Anzaldua's borderlands. There are parts of Borderlands that depend more on formal reasoning and a more traditional presentation of argument. While discussing the figure of La Malinche (the translator for Cortez) Anzaldua argues that La Malinche's actions were less decisive for the conquest of the Aztecs than the extreme social divisions and inequality that were emerging. The social inequality of the Aztec society created conflict and bands of indigenous warriors aided Cortez. These kinds of social historical arguments can be made through logical exposition and a careful consideration of historical evidence. If Anzaldua wrote Borderlands solely with this mold of argumentation, important aspects of the text would be lost. The historical context appeals to reason. Is it more reasonable to cast the downfall of an empire at the hands of a single woman or to examine the wider social context of rising inequality within Aztec society? The poetry, narrative, and memoir aspects of Anzaldua's text do not appeal to reason. These portions of her text are attempting to produce a consciousness of the new mestizo/a.