Dialectical Images (for dummies)

"The reflection on history seems a constant theme in Walter Benjamin's thought (1892-1940). From his early works to his last texts, this concern constitutes the conducting thread, which grants to his diverse work an underlying unity. For Benjamin, the fundamental question seems to be how to interweave "the theory of historiography with the theory of the real course of history," how "history itself is referred to its 'making' — political praxis," [Tiedemann 1983-84, 91] that is, how to generate a certain interrelationship between history and politics. This question refers us not to the nature of the historical process but to the way we acquired historical knowledge, not to historiography but to philosophy of history. Here the implicit issue is the construction of a new concept of history"

(On Walter Benjamin's Concept of History 2010).

Dialectical images are the fragments to which create a mosaic of history, allowing the past and present to interact and intersect. Evidently, there is a close association of the dialectical image to be linked with historical capitalism.

"Socrates' dialectical method is a simple and elegant solution to a thorny problem—how can we counter the skeptics' challenge about the relativity of truth? After all, each of us is locked in our own individual perspective—how can we possibly move beyond the relativity of our own beliefs? For Socrates, the answer is in the nature of the mind, soul or psyche(psychology). Through a dialectical process of proposing and testing beliefs, we can transcend our individual perspectives and unite in Universal Mind. This is the purpose of human beings—to achieve knowledge of reality through the proper functioning of their psyche. But finding people who are willing to really question their own beliefs was as difficult in ancient Athens as it is now. Religion and cultural tradition will often blanket a person in a comforting and familiar story, making difficult to engage them in philosophical inquiry" (http://owli.org/portal/file.php/2/Socrates/SocratesLec4.html).

EVERYTHING IS A PROCESS

Have you ever thought about what stands behind the object? How was it made? Who made it? What materials were used? What is it's purpose? Is it damaging the environment? Was it ethically produced?
One of my favourite television shows is called 'Blood, Sweat and Luxuries' and played on ABC a few months ago. It follows six british young people who travel to impoverished countries who produce the Western World's shoes, technological products such as ipods, televisions and computers, and also diamond production.

Marx is explicitly concerned with this transformation of the products of human labor into appearances of things:

"A commodity appears at first an extremely obvious, trivial thing..... So far as it is a use-value, there is nothing mysterious about it, whether we consider it from the point of view that by its properties it satisfies human needs, or that it first takes on these properties as the product of human labour. It is absolutely clear that, by his activity, man changes the forms of the materials of nature in such a way as to make them useful to him" (Agamben 1993, p.37).
Marx uses the term commodity to refer to objects that are assigned a monetary value and are exchangeable (Woodward 2007, p.37). he further explains how the commodity is not just an object but more so a "material container or expression of the history of capitalist relations- the exploitation, alienation and oppression of the working class" (Woodward 2007, p.37).

References
Agamben, Giorgio 1993, "Marx; or, the Universal Exposition" and "Beau Brummell, or, "The Appropriation of reality" in Stanzas: Word and Phantasm in Western Culture. Trans. Ronald L. martinez, Stanford: Stanford University Press pp. 36-40 & 47-55

On Walter Benjamin's concept of history 2010, essay supplied by Alfredo Lucero-Montano, viewed 31 August 2011, http://www.philosophos.com/philosophy_article_69.html

Woodward, Ian 2007, Understanding Material Culture, Sage publications, London.

The material as culture?

OBJECTS

Objects are the material things people encounter, interact with and use. Objects are commonly spoken of as material culture. The term 'material culture' emphasises how apparently inanimate things within the environment act on people, and are acted upon by people, for the purposes of carrying out social functions, regulating  social relations and giving symbolic meanings to human activity" (Woodward 2007, p.3). 

We can think of objects in a variable of ways, however Woodward points out that there are three identifying categories to determine the ways in which objects can be 'cultural':

• Objects as social markers
• Objects as markers of identity
• Objects as sites of political and cultural power

(Woodward 2007, pp. 6-12).

With ALL objects it is important and extremely crucial to look at not just at WHAT the object is but the WHY and HOW.

Objects as social markers 
Bourdieu's writing on taste depicted the ways in which objects came to be markers that could represent aesthetic and cultural value. His theory looks to develop key idea's as to how the role of aesthetic choice or one's personal choice can ultimately reproduce social inequality. Bourdieu was particularly concerned with how personal taste was based on "objective and absolute criteria" that tended to fit to specific social and class fractions, showing how those within particular classes had distinctive taste preferences. Taste, to Bourdieu becomes a visible marker of difference and aides in defining social position and status structures (Woodward 2007, p.6).

Case notes:

This is a crystal chandelier, but how does this object become a marker of aesthetic value?
For the owner who displays this in their home, the chandelier becomes a lighting choice to depict a way of self-presentation. "The object is given meaning through the narrativisation of broader discourses of self, identity and biography, which link aesthetics to ethics of self, and social identity" (Woodward 2007, p.6). The narrative and performative accompaniment in which this object displays is much further than just a light fitting; extending to a wider social and aesthetic trend which fits to the cultural knowledges of what defines 'good taste'.
Despite the crystal chandelier having a functional aspect, whereby light is emitted it too becomes a signifier of classical style, simplistic but tasteful and all the while symbolising 'good taste' accordingly.

Objects as markers of identity
Woodward uses the example of the bible as an identity marker. He says that the interviewee's bible "looks at a very private object with a high degree of personal meaning and a very strong association with personal identity" (Woodward 2007, p.10). For Woodward's interviewee, the bible is mass-produced like any other text, however the interviewee has personalised the hard cover with pictures, texts, and photographs in which she carries with her everywhere. The bible is a crucial aspect of her identity.
Her personalised bible is something she saved to pay for, hand covered and reads frequently (Woodward 2007, p.11). it has come to represent her "decision to identify with the Christian beliefs" (Woodward 2007, p.11).

Case notes:

• What does this shoe 'say' about the wearer?
• Why does the wearer choose this style of shoe?
• How is it's meaning mediated through popular and contradictory discourses surrounding this style of shoe?

"Chuck Taylors have long been popular in related subcultures, such as punk rock and straight edge."

(http://www.enjoy-your-style.com/emo-clothes.html 2011)

When we think of clothing codes as identity markers I can almost bet you instantly think of different styles that represent specific styles/subcultures.






Dress becomes a defiant way to express and communicate the status and group membership of the wearer.

"The codes 

built into a set of clothes can provide an eloquent description not only of 

the wearers’ group identify but of their perceptions of self and identity 

within their social contexts and their aspirations for prestigious 

affiliations with desirable groups. In other words our clothes can tell 

others what we are and what we would like to be" (Lowe 2000, p.80). 

Objects as sites of cultural or political power
This is most concerned with how "objects are constructed by particular power relations, and in turn also actively construct such relations"(Woodward 2007, p.12). This is commonly known in the field as actant -network theory and tends to focus on new technology objects such as mobile phones, machinery which 'acts for' people such as elevators, remote controls and also 'technological network' objects such aeroplanes and cars (Woodward 2007, p.13). It is important to mention Foucault's scholarly input here, specifically surrounding the panopticon; explaining "how objects are at the centre of the discourse and networks of power, and how they act to influence human action" (Woodward 2007, p.13).

References
Lowe, Barry 2000, Clothing codes as identity markers: communicating style for Hong Kong Youth, viewed 31 August 2011, from http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:yW2LMjmbC1IJ:sunzi.lib.hku.hk/hkjo/view/10/1000108.pdf+clothing+codes+as+identity+markers&hl=en&gl=au&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESh4REFpvvjkbfdugFzVGK9MyRK5GDYkmcB7nsPc_wnqUIL-Ggsoitxxq2WrIN_T-Ocia38siDUxZ8dO-PVdgPmj0b-dHQw8h_IVdG1hMiZtll-IelT3W3sYZMVsqXi8bxB7MDij&sig=AHIEtbQ1STSVq2CUrWKPfw8QbmLZmZvFIQ

Woodward, Ian 2007, Understanding Material Culture, Sage Publications, London.

Performing

" ...The vibrant theatricality of city life is not just for show, but is typical of the kind of performative norms (of forms of 'acting out') that regulate urban co-existence" ( Smith & Davidson 2008, p.235).

The city acts as a place of performance. It is depicted as a place that is the epitome of "sophisticated, fashionable and civilized behaviour" (Smith & Davidson 2008, p.232). Yet is this a facade that conceals deeper, darker incivility that challenges the apparent etiquette  of 'decent' behaviour?
On the face of the city we see objects that act as symbols of wealth, money, power, status. Think business suits; fast cars; smart phones; money; smog; fast-pace;forward movements to the city centre. Goffman proposed when we enter the presence of others we are interested in information regarding the individuals general socio-economic status, self-presentation, attitude, values, beliefs, their trustworthiness- all of which tends to be read at 'face-value', by 'what we see' (Goffman 1959, p.1). The information helps us to understand the person or the situation better; ways to act, behave or interact. We observe the information about the individual via clues we gain from the outer appearance of the individual. However, just as the city is a facade, perhaps too the individual is a facade to what or who they really are. The facade of upper class, civility and etiquette depicted by the city is simply a 'sign-vehicle' because the existence of economy lies deeper than skyscrapers, stockbrokers and briefcases.

Smith and Davidson write of the indecent activities undertaken by the the middle class of Victorian London who had both a social dependence and economic ties to the urban underclass , which included prostitutes whose wages were paid by the very social class who were said to inhibit 'family values' (Smith & Davidson 2008, p.233). Such thinking leads me to current happenings in the ALP, surrounding Australian MP Craig Thomson. A figure of authority and position in Government has seen a clash with the private and public sphere come to light over allegations that he used a Union credit card to pay for prostitutes. Thedaily telegraph says that Gillard's defense of him tells a picturesque story of "everything that is wrong with the labor party" and suggests that the labor party needs to re-align its moral compass (Labor must re-align its moral compass 2011).  So, perhaps there is no historicity to the tales of facade in Victorian London, because "consequently, we should be aware that the call for civility, in whatever form, always has a hidden socio-political overtones" (Smith & Davidson 2008, p.233).

Probing the surroundings...

"The point is not so much do we notice (attend to) the city? No doubt we do. Rather the point is, how do we notice it?...

            There and not there, only fitfully attended to" ( Thrift 2004, p.399).

There is something romantic about the Flâneur. There too is something appealing about the city. So when we begin to notice the city, how do we capture the city as experienced? Many will argue that they in fact experienced the city- the city which tends to every vice; the city which performs a caste of suspecting characters; the city which captures the growls and roars and thunderous honks, toots and beeps of taxicabs. But...is this to experience what every other fast paced suit can see?

"Walking along these city streets Seeing people busy Pacing Each with their own itinerary Cracked city sidewalk Aged city structure Smoggy city air Going here, getting there Never seems to be a minute to spare As cars stream along Arteries of streets, the blood flow of the city The machine is breaking down Gradually The cracks and leaks slowly showing Urban decay Coupled upon Moral collapse The path, which I tread Is laden with traps Waiting to destroy me The city is dirty A crowded cacophony A droning noise Always there and never gone away The city is our cage We the animals Are under its oppression. Jeremy Patnou- http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/in-the-city/." Thrift suggests there are some contradictory undertones to the thinking of the city as experienced. He recalls the snobbish romanticism about the city and its inhabitants as proposed by authors such Benjamin, Breton and Debord.  He says: "These authors want to believe that the city is an all-consuming capitalist machine, a space of subordinate strategies, and, at the same time, a treasure trove of chance encounters which allow us to see round the dominant system, a subordinate space of tactics" (Thrift 2004, p.400). For what I understand of Walter Benjamin, the city was both interior and exterior; " "knowable and known, and . . . mysteriously alien and fantastic" (Rignall 113-114). You can see the objects, the buildings, the people, but can you really take in and absorb what is going on around you? For Benjamin, the rise of the Flâneur came about with the architectural parisian changes. The capitalist roots that came in the form of the arcades provided an one who can stroll at leisure, an idle pace to experience what is being seen. These passageways seen in the arcades were representative of "neighbourhoods which had been covered with a glass roof and braced by marble panels so as to create a sort of interior-exterior for vending purposes" (http://www.thelemming.com/lemming/dissertation-web/home/flaneur.html). Baudelaire explored the site of the arcades and went on to explain how in some ways the arcades were much like a world in miniature- with there own comings-and-goings, a fast paced changes, and even it's own language.  "Yet Benjamin also suggests the flâneur enters the scene with commodity capitalism; here Benjamin in fact equates the flâneur with the commodity and the consumer: “[t]he flâneur is someone abandoned in the crowd. In this he shares the situation of the commodity” (p. 55). On the one hand, the flâneur is the very definition of alienation, and on the other it is in fact the flâneur who can see through the commodification of human labor and social relations within capitalism, and—rather unlike the commodity—protests against it" (Pope 2010, p.6).                                                                              Does/did the flâneur exist? Feminists today argue that the term flâneur is a predominant male character and rightly so. The textual representation presents he as as a well-dressed man "strolling leisurely through the Parisian arcades of the nineteenth century--a shopper with no intention to buy, an intellectual parasite of the arcade. Traditionally the traits that mark the flâneur are wealth, education, and idleness" (http://www.thelemming.com/lemming/dissertation-web/home/flaneur.html). However, today scholars suggest there to was/is a binary opposition in the form of the female; "flâneuse"(Akkelies & Nguymen 2009, p.122). She experiences the city differently as she can not show the same behaviours as the flâneur, wandering aimlessly around town. Observations today have accounted how men and women use urban spaces and thus a better understanding of the flâneur/flâneuse has come to take form. Baudelaire and Benjamin forgot to mention the woman's experience of modernity, thus lending to the flâneur in modernity as male. Janet Wolff, feminist scholar writes, "  (Wolff 1985, p.37).

References
Nguymen, T.M. & Akkelies, V.N. 2009, 'Gender differences in the urban environment', in Daniel Koch, Lars Marcus and Jesper Steen (eds.) 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm.


Thrift, Nigel 2004, "With child to see any strange thing: Everyday life in the city" in Gary Bridge and Sophie Watson (eds.) A Companion to the City, Blackwell Publishing, Carlton. 


Pope, Richard 2010, "The Jouissance of the Flâneur: Rewriting Baudelaire and Modernity", in Space and Culture, Vol. 13, iss. 1. Retrieved 28 August 2011, from Expanded Academic Database.


Wolff, Janet 1985, 'The Invisible Flaneuse: women and the literature of modernity', Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 37, iss. 2. Retrieved 28 August 2011, from Expanded Academic Database.

Representation

What is the above image of?

I believe that universally one would answer that the image is of a dog.

"Structuralism suggested that we know everything relationally. That is, we know something by what it is not" (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.262). So, accordingly we know that a dog is a dog because it is not a cat. Seems simple enough. However, have you ever wondered how we KNOW what this representation means? The insights surrounding structuralism suggested that limitations lie in the meanings we collectively make, and that underlying systems rule language and how we engage with it. Representation requires the 'reader' to communicate the meaning of any object based on the underlying cultural codes that we share. The shape determines what the object is, despite differing colours, styles, designs etc. Think of a pair of sunglasses... we can understand a pair of sunglasses by a shared cultural understanding, despite varied colours or styles.

Within structuralist thinking the dog becomes a site for explanation, rather then something that contains 'true meaning' (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.263). So, we then begin to ask ourselves how we understand the dog to be considered a 'pet'? What enables us to look at the cultural conditions of the dog and begin to understand its position of 'pet' in culture?

• That the owners have built a kennel for it to sleep in
• It is allowed inside the house occasionally
• It is domestic and not wild
• It wears a collar,with a name tag
• A market exists for supplies to keep the pet healthy and alive ie. dog food, toys, etc.

All of these points allow us to understand how the 'pet dog' is a recognisable category in Western culture.
However, that is not to say a different culture may view dogs in a different way. As mentioned, the idea of representation is relational from a structuralist view, and requires the sharing of certain cultural codes.
To note, structuralism also pointed out how these relational systems work with people ('subjects') and things (materiality). The ways culture enables the naturalisation of categories , leads to the power relations which certain categories have over others because they remain unseen. This points to ideas surrounding categories such as 'heterosexual'- never do we see specific markings pointing to these representations- they become normal where as gay/lesbian/transgender etc. all become the 'other'. Compared to heterosexual, using the binary oppositions which place power in the hands of what is 'normal' in culture.

As we move through the post modern, we have seen a shift to post-structuralism. Post structuralism and Post modernism have been used in interchangeable terms however we can define Post modernism as being 

“A cultural and intellectual trend of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries characterized by emphasis on the ideas of the de-centredness of meaning, the value and autonomy of the local and the particular, the infinite possibilities of the human existence, and the coexistence, in a kind of collage or pastiche, of different cultures, perspectives, time periods, and ways of thinking. Postmodernism claims to address the sense of despair and fragmentation of modernism through its efforts at reconfiguring the broken pieces of the modern world into a multiplicity of new social, political, and cultural arrangements” (http://fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/glossary.htm). 

In ways we can understand how postmodernism has become much associated with post structuralism. The latter has been defined as “A doctrine that rejects structuralism’s claims to objectivity and emphasizes the plurality of meaning” (http://fajardo-acosta.com/worldlit/glossary.htm). This basically focuses on how there is no fixed meaning, and objectivity poses as a more suitable way of identification within reality. This is highly relevant to the study of semiotics. It is important to look past the underlying structure, and begin to explore how "language is a self-sustaining system in which words have no necessary relation to words" (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.263). 

So, the first aspect we can address is a basic definition of semiotics. We can understand that “Semiotics… is the study of how humans communicate. In particular, it is the study of how we created meaning and how meaning is understood by the people to whom meaning is being communicated. Semiotics is the study of how we use symbols such as letters and numbers to transfer meaning between parties” (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-semiotics.htm). It is a specific analytical practice that requires the reading of “direct and implicit meanings of texts in all media”(Anderson & Schlunke, 2008 p.317). Saussure believed that language, which is also known as La Langue was a structure that made itself readily available to every user, in terms of elements, rules and words.

Saussure goes further in his thoughts on the arbitrariness of language by discussing the ‘sign’. In a theoretical perspective, a ‘sign’ has two elements:

• a)    The signifier is the image as we perceive it, whether that is sensory or mental impression depends on the sign.

and

• b)   The signified, which is the mental concept to which the sign refers.

From this, we can gather how meaning can be produced between the signified and the signifier. 

 

"WORDS ARE NOT REAL" (?)

It is difficult for many to move past the idea that "many actions and social practices are relational in nature" (Greenwood 1991, p.15). However, thinking outside of the "a dog is a dog, because it is not a cat" idea, we can look at how semiotics shape the idea of representations. We can look at the social practice of tattoos in Western culture and how these texts can symbolise different meanings to different readers of the text.

Relating this back to tattoos, we can notice that the tattoo in the above image is of hands clasped in prayer, with rosary beads. From a Christian viewpoint this holds a very strong sense of religion, belief and values for many people. However, within a traditional tribe, such as the Hopi, a North American tribe, believed in a religion much different to that of Christianity. To them, the image of hands in prayer would have no meaning. Words, signs and symbols are not always cross-cultural. Therefore, we can understand how Saussure concluded that language is arbitrary, meaning there are different words for the same thing- the thing does not determine the word.

Post-structuralists believe that examination of the underlying structures, constructed by 19^th Century-early 20th Century structuralism and its theorists, is very bias in its approach, because the findings are based upon the conditioning of the examiner. It can be understood that the deeper meanings are not readily available to the everyday individual. The system of semiotics asks the reader to interact with the text and by doing so the reader brings their “cultural experience to bear upon the codes and signs which make up the text” (1001ART 2009, p.12).

This is only just a grazing perspective on the ideas surrounding representation, however, a lot can be taken away from this. 

• meaning can never really be fixed and that it can always be deferred towards further meaning
• deconstruction's are never really correct- it becomes a matter of perception and subjective understanding.
• Language is arbitrary 

Inventing Subjectivity

Theory

Define Subjectivity:

“In cultural studies the ‘I’ or ‘self’ is not something pre-given, that is, something that exists outside an historical context or society and culture. However, the terms ‘self’ or ‘I’ have traditionally been designated to describe this pre-given essentialist notion. Because of this, cultural studies uses the term ;subject’ or ‘subjectivity’ to convey the self as that which is situated and constructed in relations of power: that is, to others, to culture and society, as well as to gender, language, and political and ethnic contexts” (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.318).

In layman’s terms, Subjectivity is simply “judgment based on individual personal impressions and feelings and opinions rather than external facts” (http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=subjectivity 2010).

Key Philosophers and theorists:

-Friedrich Nietzsche

-Michel Foucault

-Julia Kristeva

-Gilles Deleuze

-Felix Guattari

-Jacques Derrida

When we look at the word "subjectivity", it is only assumed that there is a binary opposite. Such Western ways of thinking provoke oppositions, whereby one category is always privileged over the other; hierarchical and never neutral (Anderson & Schlunk 2008, p.2). So, if we apply this concept of the either/or distinction we come to recognise that the binary opposite of "subjectivity" is "objectivity". So, what comes first? The chicken or the egg? Objectivity refers to matters that are certain, valid or factual, and concerns matters that can be measured or quantified. Objective" means "not just from someone’s point of view. APPARENTLY,  "An objective matter is one that everyone (who is sane, rational, and appropriately informed) will agree about" (Thinking critically about the subjective-objective distinction 2008).  So, from a subjective view I'd say that "objectivity" is more privileged over "subjectivity". 

But, how/But, why/ But..BUT....BUt....bUT!

So, how does this all relate? Well, this leads us to the mind/body dualism, which again is a suggestion of binary oppositions. The beginning foundations of this particular binary looks at that Plato's ideas surrounding mind/body opposition. Anderson and Schlunke outline how in Western thinking the mind has always privileged over the body. However, Plato discusses the soul and how it can be differentiated from the body, and the ways in which the body acts "simply as a vessel for its existence" (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.2-3). According to Plato, the soul can exist without the body.

"One problem with Plato's dualism was that, though he speaks of the soul as imprisoned in the body, there is no clear account of what binds a particular soul to a particular body. Their difference in nature makes the union a mystery" (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ 2007).

However, with thought follows 'reason' and Descartes, French mathematician, philosopher, and physiologist of the 17th century determined in his De Homine that Mind could also affect body. From here, Descartes  produced his Meditations on First Philosophy.

"By localizing the soul's contact with body in the pineal gland, Descartes had raised the question of the relationship of mind to the brain and nervous system. Yet at the same time, by drawing a radical ontological distinction between body as extended and mind as pure thought, Descartes, in search of certitude, had paradoxically created intellectual chaos"(Wozniak 1992). 

Descartes established that the one true certainty for determining metaphysical foundations was 'the thinking thing' (mind). The mind privileges over the body, as Descartes believed that the mind was "the only way to produce certainty and dispel scepticism" (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.3). He rejects the 'senes', which ultimately sees a rejection of the body because to Descartes 'senses' are unreliable for understanding and measuring truth. 

I'm now starting to see Descartes occupational relations between "philosopher" and "mathematician". 

Descartes construction of such intellectual chaos can be directly related to western thinking, and I feel as though he (un)consciously places such binary constructs on the mind/body dualism which directly relates to opposing ideas surrounding "objective"/"subjective" thinking and which is measured more highly. In his final book, Passions of the soul he argues "that intellectual pursuits (reason or thinking) belong to the mind, and physiological and chemical impulses to the body" (Anderson & Schlunke 2008, p.4). 

I'm starting to tangle myself into a greater web because when we look at the binary opposition of male/ female, duality of characteristics are then placed to either male/female. It is assumed that males are associated with the "mind" and women with the "body", which as we tunnel further down reflects the "mind" as intellect and the "body" as emotion. despite Descartes arguing that sensations and emotions involve an intermingle between both mind and body, the binary opposition still favours the "mind" over the "body" from Descartes perspective. So, I guess now we can begin to understand the hierarchical structure of power relations between male/female and identity politics?

I'm beginning to get so confused. I actually thought I was starting to grasp this but now I'm tangled even more because I'm asking myself the following:

How do we measure ideas subjectively/objectively?

Why do we automatically feel obliged to shift towards Descartes concepts of mind/body duality more so than Plato's?

Is there Cultural bias in our every day thought processes? 

Philosophical relativism?

Anthropological relativism?

What is truth?

Human Universals? Do they exist?

The 'mind' contrasted with the 'body'- can this represent subjectivity versus objectivity?

MY BRAIN IS ACHING...

references:

Anderson, Nicole & Schlunke, Katrina 2008, Cultural Theory in Everyday practice, Oxford University Press, Oxford. 

Dualism, viewed 15 August 2011, http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/ 

Thinking critically about "Subjective"/"Objective" Distinction, viewed August 15 2011,

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/subjective_objective.html

Wozniak, Robert H.  1992, Mind and Body: Rene Déscartes to William James, Serendip, Washington 

Thought and contemplation

"Admittedly this access to a wider range of material in English will complicate the received picture of Benjamin even as it offers greater scope to track the development of his thought and the concepts through which it was expressed."1

Undoubtedly, Benjamin was a multifaceted thinker; a complex thinker compiled of constellations and intertexts. To me, I find it hard to understand his overall trajectory, however upon seeming research it is evident that his major works of interest surround "History, modernity, the rise of mass culture in an interrelation of art and technology"2. His thoughts were provoked by the crisis of traditions and the social and technological changes which saw an evident change in the structure of experience.  To attempt to blog a mere reflection of his intellectual writings poses as threatening because it is obvious that such a kaleidoscope of knowledges and expansive thinking cannot be briefly summed up in to a neat and tidy package. Instead, I will try my hand at providing a dysfunctional synopsis of some of his more enthusiastic and well-known knowledges.

Benjamin's complexity of thought is reflected in writer's who have come after him; those who attempt to piece together the difficulty found in his scribbles, collaborative writings. His writing encompasses that in which he seeks; levels and layers of meaning and how and why they come about. It has been suggested that his fragmented writing and collaborations of unfinished bundles in effect create a style of presentation which host a pause of breath to indicate a new level of meaning.  Reading Benjamin's writing requires a certain level of engagement , more appropriately, a "process of contemplation". By such method of madness(?) "contemplation is here understood as a process in which the different levels of meaning that can be attached to the original object are recognized and experienced"1. This provides the gateway to  to the ways in which objects, subjects have been made significant to us and how they have been made. This line of enquiry opens the forum to Benjamin's interests; what such layers mean.

Benjamin's metaphoric association of the mosaic to contemplation again is confusing, baffling but yet a beautiful remnant of what he attempts for others to grasp. He looks at the commonalities between the artisitic medium that is the medium and the written mosaic, and then asks how an understanding is to be conveyed1. According to Benjamin, the material in which the artistic mosaic uses to convey its meanings makes interpretation much simpler. Where, with the process of thought and it's relation to writing, it is difficult as there is no clear and defined path between the pieces of the written mosaic and the mind. This to me, is a very truthful response. It is difficult to create a clear line of enquiry that will suit the tastes of all readers. How does one gauge a writing style that will suit the tastes, understandings and knowledges of all viewers?

Anyhow, my thought and contemplation has led me on to Benjamin's idea's surrounding cultural and historical artifacts and the ways in which they are bound to promote an explanation for "political and human catastrophes of the interwar period"3. I have began to think deeply about how objects play a role in representation. Motifs of power, symbols of struggle, origins of family. I am starting to think this has now led me on to the path of understanding the connective path between Benjamin's critiques and writings surrounding Marx. The cultural representations and the signifying practices which Benjamin spoke of, have opened up a new level of understanding to delve into. Evidently, Benjamin's work is timeless. He was writing before his time, whilst still establishing works that were relevant to the current standings of the period in which he lived.

"In classically ‘modern’ terms, the present is defined as a time of crisis and transition, and philosophical experience (truth) is associated with the glimpse within the present, via the past, of a utopian political future that would bring history to an end. More immediately, the crisis is given political meaning by two possible resolutions: the one destructive; the other constructive/ emancipatory—fascism and communism, respectively"3.

1. Ferris, David S. (3004) "Introduction: Reading Benjamin" in David, S Ferris (ed.) The Cambridge Companion to Walter Benjamin. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp.1-17.
2. The European Graduate School, viewed * August 9, 2011,<http://www.egs.edu/library/walter-benjamin/biography/>
3.McCole, John J. 1993, Walter benjamin and the antinomies of tradition, Cornell University Press, New York.