1 Aralık 2011 Perşembe

this entry suppose to be about voice

yet we dont know where the words guided by my mind will take us.
by voice, i try to capture many areas at the same time, I guess. that is probably why i keep postponing to talk about it, clarify it. within it i enclose my hopes for all my solutions.
i mean with voice, a position to speak from, the situatedness of my act, speech, doings.
it brings to mind a political stand, the self as something that stands for something bigger than itself.
the subject as representative of a community.
in terms of postcolonial identity politics, it is a political act, giving voice to the unvoiced stories of the other, suppressed.
yet it can also promote essentialisation of identity. and that trap is the same one orientalist gaze produces, confining it within an image, a stable entity, timeless, cliche, streotypical, that can be produced, reproduced from an earlier, subverted impression. a failed encounter, in the sense that it is failure of seeing the other. whether of too much distance or too much of proximity.
that distance-proximity axis is determined by the belief in knowing. the belief in knowing it all, prohibits the curiosity for the attempt to understand. the antibody of which could be doubt, suspicion.
i want to be able to speak without standing for a homogenised, essentialised identity category.to keep away from streotypical conceptions attributed to that category. as a respect, acknowledgement of its multidimensionality and also its fluidity, unrepresentability, and constructedness.
starting with contextualising, situating oneself has the risk of entrapping oneself I guess. that framework you are drawing can squeze you inside, an inside that is far away from you.

then, as a concern of an author,  voice also  raise the issue of mode of articulation, how you speak.
the uncanny connection of author and authority, cast suspect on the writing act totally.
how do i sound than, in practice? avoiding saying this and that, a whole lot of things kept in silent.
is that because they are denied, neglected, suppressed, avoided? or was not said because it is just irrelevant?
they are not uttered mostly because they are irrelevant, i guess. i use those cultural reference very carefully, in order not to exoticize myself, but I do use them, when i feel there is no way i can imply, give that story without recourse to some condensed images, abbreviations, short cuts. metaphors, substitutes that helps me to communicate.
the way i go through, find my way within this strange lands depends on my limited vocabulary as well. i dont have the elaborate, eloquent language, imagery to go beyond the surfaces. the literal language of the newcomer looks for the substitutes, the exchangebility in things, practices, that builds a shanty town in the foreign, unfamiliar practices. it has the quality of makeshift solutions, that shows the origins, previous histories materials used for the construction. that makes unimaginable pairs, combinations with things at hand.
in that aesthetic the inbetweennes is hidden, not settled down, it makes a suitcase a bookcase, a plastic bottle  a water warmer etc.

Hiç yorum yok:

Yorum Gönder