i have many many questions about these readings and our posts so far, but i will try to limit them to these:

This goes along the lines of Sarah's questions- how is Smalls using power in his article? Is it the dominant/submissive role from photograph to photograph that conveys the power of one individual over another? Is it the repressing/dominating of one individual for the pleasure of another, for the pleasure of the spectator? Smalls does not seem to be saying this, but I am not sure exactly what he is saying either. Where does Foucault's notion of positive power fit into fantasy? In "The Force of Surfaces" a question is raised concerning feminist critiques (as well as all critiques) of Zhang's films that relates directly to the issue of repressive power. "The ‘repressive hypotheses’...does not so much affirm the truth of sexuality or its need for emancipation as it testifies to the complex institutional networking of power through ‘discourse’...in concentrating on the search for concrete meanings, they seem to miss the predominant fact that filmic images operate as images as surfaces whose significance lies in their manner of undoing depth itself" (159). I am not exactly sure what to do with Chow’s conclusion with respect to Smalls. Saying that the surfaces of Van’s photos and were just that, with no deeper meaning, no “shi” of necessity, other than their ability to be self-conscious displays that self-exotify in order to critique voyerism would be a misrepresentation. Yet analyzing them within the repressive paradigm is also one.

Another question i have has to do with history and fantasy. Can we separate out “a historical racism that negatively impacts upon the real social lives of individuals, and a psychic racialism, that is, the focus on racial difference and stereotypes in the realm of desire that form the basis of erotic fantasy in representation?” (Smalls 215) What would Chow say about this? Bell Hooks?

Lastly, Bridget commented on ideology, and i think this subject is both provocative and quite relevant. I went to the Horowitz lecture last night, and sat through 2 hours of hearing that Brown is teaching us a “liberal ideology” which blinds us to the “way things really are” and “the multiple ways of looking at things.” The problem is, Horowitz never really laid out a good plan for how we should discern “the way things really are” and I think we all realize to some extent (or at least to the extent that we’ve read Foucault) that truth/knowledge is bound up in power and governances of all sorts. Filmic truth is no different. I wonder if the self-displaying, critical exhibitionism that Chow describes in the conclusion is really a surface, as she seems to be arguing. I also wonder if it is outside of an ideology, or what this even means.

posted by Jackie at 11:17 AM

I am not sure, Julie, whether we should read Judou's act of exposure/seduction as liberating (Chow's view) or subjugating (Julie's argument), or if it is even clearly discernible which is the case. For one thing, I agree with you that if Judou seduces Tianqing solely in order to have the male child that will appease her husband, then yes, it is an act that is 'the nadir of Judou's abjectification.' I actually was thinking that this might be the case myself. My qualm with your formulation is that it leaves out the possibility that Judou could have derived any possible pleasure from her relationship with Tianqing- sexually or otherwise. It perhaps constructs 'oppressed woman within patriarchical system as being who participates in sex merely as a means of exchange.' It perpetuates the idea that a female, even within this partriarchical society, finds no pleasure in the sexual act.
I think that there are ways in which Judou's weeping at the time of exposing herself to Tianqing could be seen, as Chow asserts, as liberatory- she could be weeping for any combination of a number of reasons: because she is thinking of the ways in which her body has been abused, because she is frightened to go against custom/morality, and because she finally has someone to see her and share her grief.
In any case, I appreciated Julie's counter reading, but am not entirely convinced by it because of the way in which it crushes any possibility of sexual pleasure for Judou, for the 'oppressed woman," and because I think that there are numerous ways of interpreting many of the crucial scenes.

more on the readings soon!
posted by Jackie at 5:52 PM

so this doesn't have to do with our readings in particular, but i was just thinking about the big pillow-fight that occurred on saturday night- driving by thayer st., i saw out of the corner of my eye the spectacle of what appeared to be a massive fight in the middle of the street, not realizing that the participants, all in good humor, had assembled publicly in order to bombard each other with pillows- an annual (semesterly?) RISD event. it also seems to me an inherently intimate act. pillow-fights are generally the domain of childhood sleepovers, lovers’ bouts, or bordering-on-pornographic fetish (an interesting enough combination). the risd students’ pillow-fight, however, had a sort of mob-mentality- according to folks who participated. the fighters dressed up in costumes, wore helmets, and pummeled cars and busses. from what i understand the annual pillow-fight continues, moving from location to location as the police kick them out of each, late into the night.

i guess i was just wondering 1) what do you guys think about this annual spectacle? does it have any importance for our class? 2) is it in any way an attempt to reclaim public space as intimate space? or is the fact that people wear costumes/form a mob grant them a certain anonymity that allows them to participate in these intimate actions in a public space that they wouldn’t otherwise do? (a la the brown daily jolt’s “anonymity” and the prevalence of intimate/sexual themes)

p.s. i wasn’t there myself so if anyone thinks this is all ridiculous let me know :)

posted by Jackie at 6:49 PM