Michael Taussig – The Magic Hour (23/3/10)

Michael Taussig examines the different ways of thinking about the times of day when the sun sets and the sun rises. He refers to these times as the Magic Hour and Twilight – mainly referring to the setting of the sun with these expressions. He defines the Magic Hour further as the time when “the night fuses with day”. Michael uses two main theories in his seminar. These are poststructuralist theory and visual anthropology. His presentation often interlinked thoughts and ideas regarding these framing devices, making it hard to define the theories utilized.

Taussig uses poststructuralist understandings to deconstruct the binaries associated with the Magic Hour, as well as the times in between when the fireflies light the sky. The most obvious binary in his seminar is that between night and day. He describes the ambiguity of the Magic Hour as neither day nor night as they fuse together in a single moment. A further binary Michael deconstructs is awake and asleep. He defines the moment between these states as “the threshold”. Taussig argues that we experience movement beyond this threshold twice a day, yet it is rarely spoken about as if it were a taboo subject. He furthers this argument, moving into anthropological and psychological views, stating that different people transcend the states of being asleep or awake. The concept of a good night’s sleep is not as widely accepted as we believe. He gives the example of some South American cultures constantly moving between the two states, where the sleep pattern is broken but not categorised as a bad night’s sleep. Another example would be insomnia. This condition, that cannot break the threshold between asleep and awake, is tortured by the concept of a good night’s sleep.

Taussig uses visual anthropology as a theory to further examine the Magic Hour. Michael employed projected photographs and visual art to accompany his seminar. The deconstruction of the night and day binary was enhanced by a picture of fireflies lighting up the sky during the Magic Hour. It added the discussion of the primacy of the sun as humanity’s homogenous light source. Taussig challenged the audience to think about fireflies as our light source in the absence of the sun. He describes this as heterogeneous and random. He also employs visual anthropology in a way to understand the image of the sun, particularly during the Magic Hour. He describes the differences in various cultures’ relationships to the image. Some groups clap when the sun sets. Other groups have a ‘Happy Hour’ at bars to compete with the sadness that comes with this time of day, when shadows lengthen. Religious beliefs often share stories and myths regarding the sun. Many groups see the sun as a metaphor of death. Taussig accompanied these different thoughts of the sun with images of the Magic Hour, as seen from different perspectives and geographical locations.

30/3/10 seminar with Jesper Gulddal

Jesper Gulddal’s lecture of the 30^th of March was entitled “To rouse the CIVIL power from its present lethargic state” Mobility, Identity and the Literary Passport Regime in Henry Fielding. Gulddal explained in his introduction that his lecture was a part of a greater study he is undertaking which examines the ways in which mobility and identity are used and presented in literature. The passport is an image that he uses to illustrate these ideas. Gulddal views the passport as being a tool that is used to control an individual’s movement and stabilise their identity.

Gulddal used biographical criticism to analyse Henry Fielding's novel Tom Jones. Biographical criticism uses the life of the author in order to extract meaning from their texts. Gulddal conceded that, at first glance, using biographical criticism to read Tom Jones might appear to be problematic. The professional and artistic lives of Henry Fielding appear to be in conflict with one another, however Gulddal argued, “we should study the two together and see how they become productive.” In studying both identities of Henry Fielding Gulddal has produced a reading of mobility and identity in Tom Jones that reconciles both facets of Henry Fielding’s life.

Henry Fielding was both a magistrate and a politically active member of society, writing political pamphlets. As a magistrate his job was to enforce the law and uphold social order. As a writer of political pamphlets Fielding was concerned with what Gulddal referred to as the “Unsettled Poor” an emerging class of travelling workers, vagrants, gypsies etc. The transient lives of the “Unsettled Poor” made them difficult to police, as they could easily evade the law by anonymously moving between towns. Gulddal also cited Fielding's pamphlet “An Enquiry into the Causes of Late Increase of Robbers” to illustrate Feeling’s concern with the ability of criminals to conceal their identities and evade the law. In his life as a magistrate and political writer Fielding campaigned for law reforms that would perform the same functions as passports, restricting the movement of the unsettled poor and thus stabilising their identities.

In contrast to his political and legal work, Feeling’s literary work, Tom Jones, points to a man who is fascinated with social disorder. The major characters are outlaws and members of the “Unsettled Poor’. Gulddal refers to Bakhtin’s theory or the chronotope, pointing out that much of the novel’s action occurs in places where the unsettled poor converge; on the road and in inns and in masquerades, a place in which identities are deliberately concealed. In short Tom Jones is a novel that is driven by the same characters and concepts that Fielding found so disturbing: the ease with which poor and criminal members of society could move between towns and the notion of identities being changeable and concealable.

Gulddal resolves the conflict between Fielding’s life and Fielding’s art by focusing on the narrator of Tom Jones. He argued that the narrator guides the narrative arc to an ending in which the protagonist has discovered his true identity and established himself in a stable, middle class life. Gulddal therefore identifies the narrator’s voice as a literary passport because it directs the reader to a conclusion in which both major themes of the novel, mobility and identity are stabilised. By utilising his own theory of the literary passport Gulddal is able to defend his use of biographical criticism as a reading practise. In using the two theories in partnership one can understand the life of the author through his novel and the novel through the life of its author.

Bryoni Trezise - seminar on use of theory

In a presentation on her uses of theory Bryoni Trezise began by presenting two images. One of these is of a memorial to murdered Jews in Berlin, the other a still taken from a performance witnessed by Trezise several years ago. She explains that without images she finds it difficult to speak to her research. Her presentation makes it evident that the object is not only a support for her presenting style but central to her use of theory. Later on it is explained that in her research she views “objects themselves as having theorising potential.”

Trezise immediately confronted the fact that she is a researcher who studies in the field of performance studies. The result of this being described as the tendency to view everyday behaviours and objects as ‘doings’ that create ‘truth effects.’ This is perhaps the most foundational use of theory in Trezise’s research. It is through this usage that she is enabled to view objects and on the other hand critique objects to reflect on theory. A cyclical relationship between theory and critique of the object was revealed as fundamental dynamic in her research.

The image of the memorial was continually referenced and Trezise makes a point of describing her experience of moving through the object. She described feelings of uneasiness, a blocking of vision, disorientation and mixture of sounds filtering through. The experience of engaging directly with this object was likened to a close reading of a literary text. In order to describe the engagement Trezise references a comment made by performance maker and theorist Richard Gough that saw performance studies as an ‘optic.’ This understanding of the field of study is supported by Trezise’s earlier assertion that performance studies forms a theory through which she views everyday behaviour. However she introduces the notion of the ‘haptic.’ The haptic involves the understanding of the object through touch. A haptic approach is argued to be a more fitting theory through which to understand her research in engaging with the object of the memorial. In this case Trezise reveals her use of theory as assisting her to understand her engagement with her object as well as considering its implications and significance.

So far I have placed Trezise’s use of theory squarely in the area of theatre of performance studies and evaluated how she engages with the object of her field of study. Despite this the main drive of her research comes out of a dialogue that can be found between the area of performance studies and that of trauma studies. Trezise’s understanding of performance as a ‘memory facility’ is placed under the theoretical gaze of trauma studies. To describe her use of theory on a very crude level it appears that Trezise employs two major scopes to view her object. These provide answers or perhaps more probing questions to resolve the ‘experience’ or the ‘haptic’ of the object itself. To argue that theory is used to explain experience, or experience is formed by theory would undermine the cyclical quality of Trezise’s research. Instead I would describe her research and use of theory as a consistent moving back and forth, a moving back and forth from performance studies and trauma studies. It is a motion that is instigated by questions each area provokes and the simultaneous myriad of understandings and responses afforded by the study of performance, trauma and the objects themselves.

Uses of Theory by Richard Smith in Space + Action + the Kinematic Field

Richard Smith conceives of cinema as a text that integrates structures of space, temporality, movement, and image sequence in order to illicit meanings, narrative, or a series of affects. In his presentation titled Space + Action + the Kinematic Field, Smith analyses Billy Wilder’s articulation of these concepts within Wilder’s 1945 film, The Lost Weekend.

The basic story is that of Don, an alcoholic writer, or inversely, a writing alcoholic, who is subject simultaneously to both writers block and the circular logic of addiction. The relationship between Don’s competing identities is complex and ambiguous. Seeking an insight into this convoluted relationship, Smith undertakes a visual and kinetic analysis of this film using Motion-Action Theory to reveal Wilder’s strategic montage construction. This theory affords Smith the ability to identify/recognise spatio-kinetic structures and patterns as a meaningful code that is fundamental to the progression of the films narrative.

What Smith discovers is that styalised sets of binaries operate throughout the film in such a way as to cultivate tension, confusion, and compulsion. And that these are the primary drivers of both the narrative and temporality within the film. Each of these binaries, be they actions, objects, body parts, gestures, posture, or the use of the interior field, alternately relate to one or the other facets of Don’s character (i.e. the writer or the alcoholic). For example, Smith conceives Don’s hands are usually those of the alcoholic, whereas his face is that of the writer. He recites a sequence:

Don’s hands reach out to type> they grasp a drink> he brings the drink to his mouth> and words, his story, come tumbling out...

This careful maneuvering of binary symbols structurally establishes a bewildering, illusiory, and cyclic temporality that visually articulates Don's cognitive states, as well as demonstrating the compulsive flux between mental activities and motor habits. These divisions, says Smith, determine the montage of the entire film.

If we are, as Smith suggests, to approach the reading of action as a kind of philosophy of language, then Don’s paradoxical movements and the dis/location, or 'confusion' of objects, such as the bottle with the typewriter, highlight the duplicity of Don’s reality. In light of this visual, spatio-kinetic analysis Smith is able to suggest that Wilder employs a “comic structure” in The Lost Weekend.

Richard Smith: Space & Action & the Kinematic Field.

Dr. Richard Smith’s seminar analyses Billy Wilder’s “The Lost Weekend” (1945) with interests to how the cinematic apparatus exemplifies the consequences of movement through temporal space which is tied in together with actions within the anterior field. He began by summarising that “The Lost Weekend” is a film about action and that elucidates the comic in the field through the action of the hand and lips. Smith evaluates that Wilder locates the action mainly in the anterior field; the act of drinking occurs when the hand and face comes to the lips and when Don prepares to write, his ideas are expressed through his lips, rather than channelled through his hands, nonetheless, the lips are taken over by having and drink and writing is quickly abandoned. Smith states that there can be no identification of both such actions but rather the falsification of the natural because writing consists of the act of the body.

Smith offers numerous examples of how meaning of these actions are expressed by the cinematic apparatus through a detailed frame-by-frame analysis of the film's opening sequence and other stills. Smith distinguishes the two kinds of spaces in the film and that these spaces of action are divided by competing motor movements of a drinker who writes and a writer who drinks. In the opening scenes, Don is packing his luggage with the ‘intention’ of going away for the weekend to write but the movement of his eyes points towards the bottle of alcohol hanging outside his apartment window. This division of motor movements determines the geography of our point of view/our ‘gaze’ because Don’s body is both ‘here’ (in the room packing his luggage) and elsewhere (gaze at the bottle of alcohol). The alcohol bottle becomes his object of desire, which is constantly shown through his ‘gaze’. The cinematic image is positioned in a way that we the viewer meets the cinematic subject, in this case, the rye Don wanted to purchase at the bottle shop. This infinite loop of action in the anterior field is a temporal paradox where there is no identity between the writing and the writer or the drinking and the drinker. We are only reconciled with the act of drinking and writing when the cinematic image reaches out of space (drinking) or dissolves in the space (when Don sobers up, he has written).

Smith critiques that action used in Wilder’s works in a different way, it is outside of melodrama in American film theory. Although able to only hear part of his research, it can be understood that Smith draws on various theories to help deconstruct his analysis on Billy Wilder’s film, The Lost Weekend, in regards to his interest in the space, action and the form of cinematic objects done through the cinematic apparatus without any reference to the ‘act’.

Mick Taussig - Liminal space 23/03/10

Taussig endeavors to explore spaces where thought is able to find new pathways. He pushes the boundaries of conformity, interested in the mystery of the edge of reason. It is the going down of the sun and its rise again that confirms a world of rationality. But what if this sun were to rise no more and the entirety of our world was lit some other way. This kind of thought pattern has become more urgent in the face of climate change. As we begin to discuss the change in weather patterns, so too are thoughts of our modal comprehension surfacing. Taussig argues that it is only through the liminal space of falling asleep and waking up that we are able to find ways of theorizing the relationship of our mood with our world.

Taussig tries to theorize our relationship to our world using reason and rationality to counter the mystery of their peripheries. The physical changes in and around our world inform our sense of being alive. This sense of living is arguably more apparent with the erratic changes in weather patterns. It is almost as if climate change is returning human sensitivity to the forefront of thought. Our interconnectedness with our Earth is apparent, once again, following the days of Copernicus who argued the Earth wasn’t actually the centre of the universe. This interconnectedness was lost in the facade of modernity and the mask of language, only to resurface in erratic seasonal change.

Our mood’s relationship to the sun’s movements is determined by pure reason but is manipulated through climate change. The setting of the sun is a ritualized practice opening the space for sublime thought. It is also associated with sadness as the darkness of the night approaches. Taussig makes note of the preemptive measure of “happy hour” in bars to counteract the sadness of the sun’s passing. The nature of walking at sunset captures the beauty and despair of colour and time lost. Now the heart of darkness approaches.

The late afternoon threshold, the sublime threshold and the falling asleep and waking threshold are all boundaries with no definitive edge. The space between its boundary and its edge in unknowable in the body conscious but is comprehensible in the bodily unconscious. The liminal spaces of these thresholds are the key to new pathways of thought. We are opened to these spaces at every evening, except in the case of the insomniac, and the preparation for thought is already in place. The brushing of teeth, the change of attire and the routine of “going to bed” beckons another world.

One final remark, Taussig grapples with the limited discussion on the liminal space of the threshold. He cannot understand why we don’t wonder more about the dialectical image – the space where dreams are real thoughts. Perhaps it is the limit of language that prevents us.

Space, Action & the Anterior Field - Katie Post

In his seminar “Space, Action and the Anterior Field,” Dr. Richard Smith explores the binaries of space, movement and the consequences of action through the 1945 film The Lost Weekend. In pursuing the film with Jacques Derrida’s deconstructive approach, he demonstrates the dichotomies and divisions within Don’s world and his consequent interactions with temporal uncertainty.

For Smith, The Lost Weekend is first and foremost concerned with the intent of a writer, who both struggles against and finds solace in, his action as a drinker. As Smith reiterates, Don is “a writer who forgets he’s a drinker and a drinker who remembers he’s a writer,” and Smith’s presentation also reflects the cyclical nature of Don’s experience through also assuming a circular theoretical framework to inform and guide his approach. Drunkenness and sobriety alternate, running to each other in the film like night and day in an otherwise Alaskan Winter. Instability is, therefore, ever-present in both periods regardless of their duration, where the time of wanting a drink is juxtaposed with that of having had a drink. Smith follows suit by consistently returning to this problem of identity, as a correlation between the writer and his writing, or the drinker drinking does not exist. Instead, his identity appears to be split, which is the source of the conflict that ensues through his body and body language. Smith also observes, however, that a reconciliation of opposites occurs within the space.

In the initial scenes shown from the film, Smith draws attention to the spatial context, motor habits and mental attitudes associated with Don’s actions and their interactions in Don’s pursuit of alcohol and story. In the apartment, Don is in a familiar space where his motor actions are conflicted, with hand and face relations opposing each other. Mental attitude drives these oppositions, where Smith draws a correlation between them and the Deleuzian perspective that informs the modern individual of Don. Deleuze looks to understand individuals and their values as products of their desires, and for Don, his blatant desire for the bottle and inability to fulfil his desire to write forces a clash upon his motor actions.
In an existential vein, individuality may be reckoned with but in many ways, Don is imprisoned by such conflict, which inevitably leads to a desire to end his life. The revealing of his intention to Gloria is delivered by the presence of the gun, and just as the typewriter and bottle objects organise the space relationship to Don, the object of the gun disturbs the anterior field through the action that is understood by it. These objects structure the space to make way for a cinematic realism that assumes Don’s perspective. His “gaze” becomes ours, but this gaze is for the bottle and the pleasure of intoxication, rather than its feminist origin in the fetishisation of the female body. As a consequence, the bottle assumes a femininity, boasting the persona of a femme fatale and rendering Gloria, the ‘real’ woman, obsolete as an object of desire.

Smith’s research draws on the relationship between Don, the space he exists in, the objects that govern him, and the conflicts that burden him. His condition is one of denaturalisation, with the drinking/writing dynamic spurring his action, both in light of and in spite of their individual consequences. It seems that time constraints saw Smith’s discussions only skim the surface of the theoretical discourses that are driving his research, however, and after having only mentioned a few so far, it would be very interesting to see more of his research and the theories informing it.

Dr. Richard Smith - The Lost Weekend

Billy Wilders film The Lost Weekend (1945) revolves around character Don Birnam, a writer who drinks and a drinker who writes, who sets forth on a four-day bender after evading a country weekend with his brother. In his paper, Space and Action in the Interior Field, Dr. Richard Smith analyses The Lost Weekend as a film of action.

Although this is a film about a writer and a drinker, Smith points out that there is very little drinking or writing that takes place. There is no clear identity forms by the actions of the writer or the drinker. The drinkers’ actions do not construct the identity of an alcoholic, nor do the writers produce that of a writer. While the writer attempts to write, he is interrupted by thoughts of a drink. On the other hand the drinker, after a temporal shift moving from periods before drinking to periods of having had a drink, is consumed by his work as a writer and begins to explain passages from his novel. Words that should be written leave the mouth that was meant to receive the drink. The novel remains on the lips when it should be channeled through the hands. The hand does not anchor the natural order of the body.

Smith places emphasis on the hand and eye movements of Don Birnam, in particular in the opening scene of the film where Don successfully avoids departing on his planned weekend away. Don is packing his suitcase, his hands are busy folding clothes into place while his eyes remain fixed on the window where he has hidden a hanging bottle on alcohol. It is the window, Smith argues, that is the point of movement. The point of bilateral symmetry is between the window and the interior of the apartment. While the hands of the either the writer or the drinker remain working in the frame of the camera, the eyes tend to wander out of frame in an attempt to grasp the unreachable – that is either a drink or the means with which to write. However, this changes when the writer is presented with the opportunity of grasping alcohol the position of the camera changes. The camera is where Dons’ attention lies and the bottle is with in his grasp and in his eye line. This is exemplified when he is about to purchase two quarts of rye the camera is placed between two bottles. Scenes such as this demonstrate the dual spatial operations of The Lost Weekend. One field of space determined by the movement of the face, in particular the movement of eyes and mouth and one that is acted out by the motor movement of hand gestures. This is coupled by fields of space that are enacted with in the frame and those that reach out of the audience’s sight. It is these shifts in space, dictated by Don Birnam’s motor actions that make The Lost Weekend, for Dr. Richard Smith, a film of action.

Reflective Response to V 1.0's This Kind Of Ruckus

Innovative Political Performance?

Why This Kind Of Ruckus isn’t a Ruckus

There are certain expectations I have for performance, let alone performance that claims to be innovative and political. As an artist who is also exploring similar themes to collective Version 1.0, I was really excited to read a flyer advertising their latest work This Kind of Ruckus.

“This Kind of Ruckus explores the forming and wrecking of relationships, patterns of control, and cycles of abuse. Drawing upon recent high-profile sexual assault scandals, accounts of relationship violence, and the subtle violence implicit within most relationships, this is confronting, unsettling and powerful theatre from Version 1.0, the acclaimed makers of Deeply Offensive and Utterly Untrue.”[i]

Now having seen the show twice (once in Sydney, in late 2009 and then again during the Adelaide Fringe, early 2010) I am frustrated. I am frustrated on many levels; as an audience member, as a young woman, as an artist, as a student, as a feminist and as an individual who has experienced more than one of the violence’s V1.0 claims to discuss in this work.

There is a lot to be said for the courage the people involved have had to even begin to explore such potent themes, this strength I admire to no end. But, there is something in the shows execution and collective energy, or lack of, that leave a lot to be desired politically and makes their choices for the piece questionable. I’d go as far as saying there are definitely moments in the show that are politically retrograde and, are so unforgiveable they squash instances of success I so desperately tried to cling to.

“A performance about power, control and violence in intimate relationships. The work explores sexual violence in a range of spheres – from the realm of the domestic, to the judicial system, to the media and popular cultural attitudes, to the recent spate of sexual assault scandals in the sporting arena…”[ii]

The structure of the show itself is a series of repeated actions, interspersed with verbatim text and bizarrely and ineffectively performed monologues. The shows sound track is incredible, (if it was for a different show) an incessant repetitive thumping of a beat that splinters the work into what could almost be called chapters, but not really. There is also the constant of media in the show, a video projection that is meant to mimic sporting footages live close-ups that “…magnifies the detail of physical actions and offers new perspectives on fine emotional detail, shedding new light on the minutiae of these human behaviours.”[iii] I disagree, media, in this case only highlights the lack of cohesion between imagery and message.

The set for the show is stunning, a bubble wrap curtain divides the space parallel to the audience, as performers disappear behind it and create ghostly figures reminiscent of alcohol-fuelled bleariness. Then, throughout the work a heavy red curtain of the theatre stage is drawn across the space bringing the performers to the edge of the stage where they sit and participate in storytelling and actions that are offensively obvious as throw aways to their claim to discuss the ‘recent spate of sexual assault scandals in the sporting arena…’. This opening and shutting of two worlds is incongruous , considering there has been no solid definition between the two spaces and their meaning. “…imagine fucking 12 of these guys in a row…. you haven’t got the balls.”

The three female and two male performers continuously swap roles in abstracted scenes of violence. (Always heterosexual and always with the man in power.) These ‘power plays’ are presented but never shift, violent action is placed in front of the audience and, then, it’s almost as if the performers creep away from it. Gender is split painfully into traditional roles, without this choice being made ironically. The two men are given all the power and, if this is a deliberate reflection of a patriarchal society then, it wasn’t clear. This isn’t successful political work for me, because I didn’t believe the performers really knew what they were questioning and whom they were pointing a finger to. Ideas were in there beginning stages, and, because of the style of the work, actions became immature and contrived.

“…Perhaps unsurprisingly , it’s been a dark and difficult work to make. The question we keep having to grapple with is why this and why now? Didn’t 70s feminist theatre comprehensively address sexual violence? Does this work need to be revisited by Version 1.0? Looking in the newspaper on a daily basis, with the ever-multiplying number of awful events, has demonstrated the urgent need for performance to return these themes.”[iv]

Of course there is an urgent need for performance to return to these themes. And it is, slowly. I disagree with this show because it gets lost in the performance of the action instead of keeping in mind and in energy the greater purpose of a political work. I can see how a collective might start with an agenda and then lose it in the process of making a work of this nature. It is shows like this that ride the importance of the voice they are claiming to give to women and victims of violence. An audience is then tricked into applause because, generally, (and it is so indicative of Australian audiences) they think any conversation about these atrocities must be good conversation, especially if it is coming from older, established white academic types, right?

As a community of Australian art makers we need to stop making work that is elitist and unapproachable. For this, ego’s must be removed, a work cannot be ‘actor-centric’. There is no time for people to run around patting each other’s backs in artistic circles. For a show describing itself as politically innovative it did not take any real risks. It felt like a work performed by much older players using stories that belonged to a younger generation that wasn’t acknowledged. And aren’t we, the youth, the ones who can change the socio-political climate? I feel it isn’t effective to perform your bird’s eye view of contemporary mainstream violence as mimicry; I became confused by the work using realism to perform highly common experiences, in it’s abstraction, V.1.0 has made the violence of their work foreign.

There was no real cohesion about an argument, no through line or gesture for betterment. Actions are thrown out and repeat themselves without building or changing. We, the audience, don’t need answers spelt out for us, it is in what questions are posed and how? I am left asking myself what this show is really about. Wondering, if this is really ‘a political work’ therefore a ‘show for the masses’. How can you charge $40 a ticket?

If, to quote Australian’s Sydney theatre critic John McCallum in that the growing power of documentary theatre is to do with “the power of bearing witness and testimony” then This Kind Of Ruckus falls short. Maybe my own struggle with performing a political work has made me stubborn. I just can’t help but come to the conclusion that This Kind of Ruckus is a work that had already given up the fight before opening night.

---

http://www.versiononepointzero.com/

[i] From flyer for their Adelaide Fringe Season 2010

[ii] From program for their Adelaide Fringe Season 2010

[iii] http://www.versiononepointzero.com/Online program note by David Williams and Sean 2009

[iv] From program for their Adelaide Fringe Season 2010

Post Colonial Europe

Frank Schulze-Engler’s lecture on Post Colonial Europe was arguing the case for reintroducing the study and use of Post Colonial theory in Europe. Schulze-Enlger described Europe as being in the midst of an identity crisis and argued that consideration of Post Colonial Theory is necessary in order to resolve the questions of culture, race and politics in new (that is contemporary) Europe. Schulze-Engler suggested that many of the political and cultural struggles facing Europe are symptomatic of a culture that is in a state of flux or evolution and evidence that Post Colonial theory is relevant to Europe.
He began his lecture by presenting three different understandings of Europe. The first is Europe as a geographical area. Schulze-Engler points out that this definition has been the source of much anxiety in Europe, the influx of immigration means that Europe is now home to a diverse range of cultures and religions, if Europe is solely understood in terms of geography then all cultures contained within it are by definition European. If Europe is to be understood in terms of a shared Judeo Christian cultural heritage then all people of different cultures living in Europe are excluded from the European identity. The third understanding of Europe as a political realm, however as Schulze-Engler explained this definition is problematic, as countries not included in the EU are influenced by its politics. The three definitions of Europe that Schulze-Engler discussed all carry with them the potential for racial, cultural and political discrimination. In light of these dilemmas Schulze-Engler concludes that if Europeans are to define themselves, they can no longer ask who they are but who they want to be.

Schulze-Engler concedes that term Post Colonial Europe is problematic as Colonialism is commonly thought of as being a historical period and therefore no longer relevant to Europe. Schulze- Engler emphasises that Post Colonial theory is relevant to contemporary Europe because Post Colonialism examines the aftermath of colonialism. To explain this he points to the influx of immigrants, both legal and illegal and examines the issue through using Post Colonial theory. Schulze-Engler presents the anxiety over immigration as being evidence of Europe confronting its colonial past. Europeans are now faced with the dilemma of how (and wether) to integrate migrants into their culture and politics. In terms of Post Colonial theory the “ other” is no longer a distant figure but a neighbour, potentially a fellow citizen. Furthermore notions of European superiority have been called into question by the rise of China and the United States. Schulze-Engler believes that while Europeans may find it difficult to recognise their own Post Colonial condition they are still faced with Post Colonial dilemmas. In Schulze -Engler’s words Post Colonialism would allow Europeans to create a new identity in a post euro centric world.

Schulze-Engler concluded his lecture with a question and answer session in which he discussed racism in Europe. He stated that racism is now more focused on culture than race, Post Colonial theory is particularly useful in confronting this issue as it called for critical examination of notions of cultural superiority. Schulze-Enlger stated that Post Colonial theory is not a chronological term but an active reading practise. It is a theory that forces critical engagement with current issues. The result of applying Post Colonial theory is a close consideration of the practical realities of Europe not idealised notions of what Europe is or should be. It is therefore necessary for Europeans to rediscover Post Colonial theory.

Postcolonial Europe, presentation by Professor Frank Schulze-Engler

Professor Frank Schulze-Engler heads the Department of New English Literatures and Cultures at Goethe University (Frankfurt), and lectures at its Institute for English and American Studies. Schulze-Engler uses theory as a tool to address issues of identity, place and culture. His 10/03/2010 presentation, Postcolonial Europe, provides a case in point. In highlighting the disjoint between “the idea and practice of Europe” Schulze-Engler proposes that postcolonial analysis is a viable method with which to begin grappling with Europe’s complex identity.

At the outset of this presentation Schulze-Engler admitted a general skepticism towards both postcolonial studies and the enduring nationalistic accounts of European identity. He elaborated on this by questioning the geographical, political, cultural, economic, and intellectual boundaries of ‘Europe’; and acknowledging the “diversity in lived reality” of Europeans. In an effort to confront this challenge of European identity, the gulf between what has at times been termed “old” and “new” Europe, Schulze-Engler began to re-think and extend theory beyond its usual limitations, applications, and bias, and focus on the concept of a Postcolonial Europe. Here, postcolonial analysis shifted from the ‘dominated peripheral colonies’ to the ‘dominating centre’ that was, itself, undergoing significant transformation from the backwash of colonialism, as well as the recent formation of the European Union.

Like so many of the ‘post-isms’ that flowed from the ‘moment of theory’ in the 1960‘s and 70‘s, this postcolonial approach required a kind of ‘transcendental reduction’ before tending towards a perspective of ‘de-centered and multiple’ truths (Hunter, 2006). With the complexities of Europe exposed, Schulze-Engler was afforded an angle from which to challenge both the concept of Europe, and the fallacy of Western Imperialism, hegemony, and Eurocentrism. In targeting Eurocentrism, “the originary fountain from which all good things flow” (Stam & Shohat, 2005), Schulze-Engler tied it intimately to theories of Modernity, in which the Western narrative is given as the typical benchmark, as well as Colonial theory, in which the Western narrative proliferated internationally throughout cultures, institutions and academia. The ability for education to reproduce thought structures/theory/‘optics’ further allowed the traditional narrative of colonisation to dominate.

By bringing to the fore this knot of theoretical issues, postcolonial analysis was able to be legitimately refocused from the colonies back onto Europe. Schulze-Engler admits that Postcolonial Europe is an irritant to both the discipline of postcolonial studies and to the concept of Europe. Yet with the past inextricably linked to the present, Schulze-Engler finds the use of this extended theory both provocative and productive. The transition from “old” to “new”, or “nationalistic” to “cosmopolitan”, Europe is complex and requires theorisation in order to be better understood. Within contested Europe, postcolonialism provides but one starting point from which to explore and understand some of the dynamics of cultural change and identity formation. It is one of the present tools at hand. And so long as there continues to be a disjoint between “the idea and practice of Europe”, theory will continue to emerge and be applied to this difficult case.

Postcolonial Europe

There are still a number of major issues with the process of transformation from the “old national” Europe to the “new cosmopolitan” Europe. As Beck and Grande explains, it is difficult to accurately define ‘Europe’ because of the “large geographical and political space”, so therefore ‘Europe’ can only be understood as a variable and not “a fixed condition”. This complexity in defining the idea of “Europe” is irritating “Postcolonial” studies. The Postcolonial discourse in Europe is a complicated issue as discussed by Professor Frank Schulze-Engler. It is asserted that this issue cut both ways; looking at the uneasy relationship between Postcolonial and Europe and Modern Europe written out of the Postcolonial world.

Today Europe is divided between two groups of thought, one being the modernistic approach by many of the countries within the European Union, “new” Europe. It includes countries such as Germany, France, England…etc, whose political and economic approach drives towards globalisation and multicultural relationships. This is exemplified in the contours of “new” Europe, which have become a problematic issue with many different relationships between various multinational European organisations like the EU, the Eurozone, the Schengen zone… etc. As exemplified by Morocco’s unsuccessful application for EU membership, Europe is replete with political complexities and the inability to tear itself away from its colonial past; this ultimately raises questions of where and who Europe essentially is. To write of post-colonialism we are essentially acknowledging the death of the colonial state. However, today many theorists see a new emergence of the Westernised colonies, or otherwise known as, the Americanisation of the global frame or cultural imperialism. This Americanisation can be seen as the latest revolutionary step of colonialisation, negating the theory of a postcolonial world.

It has been stated that in order for Europe to embrace its Postcolonial presence, it has to come to terms with its colonial history. There has been much talk about Europe moving beyond “Eurocentrism”, but however, is still facing issues with its cultural and political regimes regarding “Europeanness” and “Otherness”. Although Europe has been embracing modernity and moving past its “Eurocentrism”, the viewing of the “Other” has also evolved. During the erstwhile days of the “old” Europe, the Jews were the primary targets but in “new” Europe, the “Other” is perceived and differentiated by culture and who are also immigrants from neighbouring colonies. Balibar raises that the “Other” “is a necessary component” of Europe’s “identity” and its “future vitality, its power.” That being said, it can be suggested that the idea of postcolonial theory is non existent, and there is still a continuation of colonialism in Europe through new and different ways of thinking through about Europe and its political, cultural ways of function and its concern for power. Postcolonial theory challenges the development of a national identity, which in this case, does not exist. Prof. Schulze-Engler finally concludes that the idea of Europe and the practice of Europe are essentially two very different objectifications and that postcolonial is after all nothing but a reading discourse.

Postcolonial Europe (10/3/10) - Katie's Post

In significant contrast to Richard Gough’s seminar last week, Frank Schulze-Engler’s insights in to the postcolonial status of Europe have been marinated in an ongoing theoretical dialogue.

At base, postcolonial theory provides that the dominant discourse of a Westernised mindset is destabilised in favour of alternative discourses. For Europe, this notion serves not only as stimulation for movement away from Western influences, but also draws on the political arguments for finding postcolonial identity as European states under the banner of the European ‘nation.’

A hybridisation of identities becomes evident and in some ways problematic under this structure, which in turn stirs the irritations that have become associated with the term “Postcolonial Europe”. Schulze-Engler spoke of its ‘awkward’ nature as it pertains to identity, and the issue was further complicated when exploring the function of political institution and the pursuit of utopianism. He went on to explore Functionalism through Europe as a trading power, and although that integrated system complies with such structural and political cohesion necessary for transatlantic power, the drawbacks of Functionalist theory ultimately remain significant concerns for ‘Europeanisation.’

As Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande observe in Cosmopolitan Europe, however, “Europe is not a fixed condition. Europe is another word for variable geometry, variable national interests, variable involvement, variable internal-external relations, variable statehood and variable identity” (6). Perhaps this ambivalence and the ‘variables’ at play render the European condition politically conducive to the utopianism or social harmony that Beck and Grande speak of. According to Schulze-Engler, however, this attempt at pursuing utopianism in Europe is “one-dimensional” due to its disregard for the history, the barbarity, the process of decolonisation, integration of migration, and the unification of culture and space that has carved an ensemble of identities across the continent.

Postcolonialism has had a profound effect on European identity, having groomed individual cultures through the Barbarism and Modernity that have shaped Europe’s past. Paul Gilroy refers to these identities and culture as a “feral beauty,” a force of social progress sweeping through a ‘new’ Europe to establish fresh European cultures (142). Ashley Dawson also promotes the untamed façade of a nation recovering from violent struggle and displacement, through his identification of the postcolonial nation as a “Mongrel Nation.” As Schulze-Engler noted, this transition has seen “a largely realized dream of former enemies becoming neighbours,” and in doing so has promoted citizens towards an identification of oneself as European.

A consequence of Europe’s transition, however, has been the postcolonial ‘melancholia;’ challenging boundaries and offering Europe as a breeding ground for new, culture-based racisms. The status of refugee influx has also been conditioned in this way, bringing to question; who is acceptable to this new nation of nations? For Europe to achieve global recognition and maintain any sort of political cohesion, it must first be open to an acceptance of itself as a multicultural conglomeration of peoples, rich in a diversity of cultures, and retaining an innate desire to remain attached to Europe.

Schulze-Engler, however, poses the question that transcends theory by returning to the people's desire and their values of personal identity and community:

“What kind of Europe do we want to live in?”

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________

References:

* Ulrich Beck and Edgar Grande, Cosmopolitan Europe (Cambridge: Polity, 2007):2.

* Ashley Dawson, Mongrel Nation: Diasporic Culture and the Making of Postcolonial Britain (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 2007)

* Paul Gilroy, Postcolonial Melancholia (New York:Columbia UP, 2005): 142.