On page 80, Hall shares: "We were also formed in a more traditional relationship between the public and the private so although we may have been expanding with it we didn't necessarily have a language that was able to cross those boundaries easily, to speak from one to another." I think about narrative/language/changing language/multiple narratives/etc a lot and here I paused and thought, do we need to change/expand language, or just get rid of it? Meaning, how can we reimagine communicating? A few pages later hooks talks about Bill T. Jones and the ways he doesn't "work solely with language, and that he has such a presence in the body..." (83). What if communication was grounded in the body rather than language? How can our body/experience communicate and in what ways would it be different from language?
My two questions from this week have emerged from the Judith Butler piece, A 'Bad Writer' Bites Back , both centered around the journal, Philosophy and Literature —which Butler describes as the self-proclaimed “arbiter of good prose.” I agree with Butler’s staunch defense of questioning common sense and provoking “new ways of looking at a familiar world”, and was reminded of David Harvey’s quote in the introduction to his Companion to Marx’s Capital : “Real learning always entails a struggle to understand the unknown.” Butler describes Philosophy and Literature as a “culturally conservative academic journal” which naturally led me down a longer-than-anticipated visit to the journal's website . I was greeted with a video presented by the Philosophy and Literature’s editor Garry L. Hagberg, who rails against the “jargon infested” work that litters the journal’s field, locating Philosophy and Literature in clear opposition to such bothersome clutter. However, Hagberg...
Comments
Post a Comment