herstory, history, history of capitalism, history of class, history of europe, history of gender, history of identity, history of language, history of race, history of religion, history of sexuality, Uncategorized

Book Review: Ann Laura Stoler, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense (Princeton University Press, 2009), Pp. 316)

ann.jpgAnn Stoler presents a twist to the readily acceptable “truth” of many archival documentation. In her monograph entitled, Along the Archival Grain: Epistemic Anxieties and Colonial Common Sense, Stoler discusses the hidden secrets of colonial archival documentation. Stoler specifically looks at colonial documents from the Dutch and critiques archival colonial discourse; or what she calls a “material force” (1-2).  Stoler’s central argument discusses the epistemological and ontological evidence of what she means by “colonial commonsense,” as well as those who may have had un-common sense, and how this was documented (3). In doing this kind of work Stoler looks at what she describes as “epistemic practices” in the nineteenth and twentieth century Indo-European culture (5). For Stoler, the colonial character becomes an aperture into the ways in which there was an “un-common sense” in the readily accepted “common sense” of archives.

This monograph is compelling and is a productive critique. I would recommend this book to historians and anyone who is interested in a solid critique of colonialism.

10/10

Advertisements
#feminism, black feminism, black feminist history, feminism, feminist agendas of the 1970s, feminist studies, feminist theory, lgbtq, politics, Uncategorized, women, women and gender studies

Article Review: Combahee River Collective, “A Black Feminist Statement” (1977)

combahee .jpg

(Photo Credits: https://combaheerivercollective.weebly.com/)

This article is produced by a group of black feminist  in the mid-70s. They outline four major topics that they provide as their mission statement. These topics included: “the genesis of contemporary black feminism,”“ specific province of our politics,” organization and unity problems and a “brief herstory of our collective,” and  “Black feminist issues and practice” (271-280). These topics provided a framework for this group ,of black feminist, to articulate their feminist agenda. The Combahee River Collective highlighted their aims in hopes of creating a strong group and powerful objectives that would translate to society at large. If you are interested in feminism, women, and black feminist power you need to check this article out!

10/10

folklore, history, history of europe, history of nature and science, science and technology, Uncategorized, world history

Book Review: Peter Mancall, Nature and Culture in the Early Modern Atlantic (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2017), Pp. 197.

book .jpg

Much has been said by historians and scientists about the history of knowledge production in the United States and how that knowledge relates to the world at large. But most of those documents, that have something to say, are usually that of colonial rule. For Peter Mancall this isn’t necessarily the case. Mancall calls upon a plethora of differential source material. Using not only what he notes as “traditional sources,” but he also uses visual and oral histories as well (x). In doing so Mancall sets out to discuss “humans and nature in the sixteenth-century Atlantic basin” in a nuanced way (ix).  Mancall is arguing for an expansive more epistemological framework, within analysis, history, and knowledge production of the Atlantic basin in the sixteenth-century. Furthermore, Mancall looks at motivations and contextual circumstances to illustrate intentions for knowledge production in the first place. Using plenty of differing sources Mancall notes that economic, political, and technological motivations drove knowledge within the sixteenth-century to be constructed in a very particular way (xii). Methodologically, Mancall calls upon many different sources. Working a bit backwards, in favor of discussing methodology, the section entitled “Notes On Sources” discusses particularly how and why historians can use a more intersectional approach in utilizing sources. Mancall states, “The chapters in this book focus not on brad environmental changes but instead on specific relationships between nature and culture in the sixteenth-century Atlantic basin…[revealing] there was not a single moment of transition but instead myriad encounters” (140).

Chapter one entitled, “The Boundaries of Nature,” discusses “monsters.” What constituted a monster? What made a monster real rather than fake? Mancall notes monsters “were part of the real world, even if they were invisible or existed only in the stories told from an alleged eyewitness to credulous listeners” (6).  Mancall unearths the legacy of knowledge on monster in the region of Fréjus. It is here where the stories of monsters come to be. Out of painted panels Mancall notes, “Many panels feature iconography common across the continents in the late Middle Ages…A whole catalog of exotic beasts roamed above the heads of late medieval congregants” (7).  Dragons and mythical beasts were just some of the painted monstrosities on these panels that aided in a knowledge of non-human nature. Mancall discusses the influence of Mandevill’s work. In the fourteenth-century, Mandevill’s writing on monsters not only spread across Europe but one person in particular grabbed ahold of it…Christopher Columbus. Mancall speculates if Columbus may have been moved to write about monsters and men due to the exposure of  Mandevill’s work (13).  With literature, travel guides, and scientists in Europe producing the discourse of monsters it is safe to say that the New World was not the only place with supernatural understandings.

Just like the New World the Old World had their own set of monsters, but each place had their own relationship with “monsters.” Mancall notes, “While Europeans tried to understand monsters and demons in their own communities…Americans were not obviously concerned with how monstrous entities came to be” (27).  The obsession to know and control seemed relegated to the European documentation of monsters and demons. For Mancall, the Native communities possessed more knowledge to grow and work towards incorporating the spirit and material worlds. For example, Mancall discusses the Mandan cosmology in relation to North American beliefs about spirituality and the supernatural (29). Cosmology of the spirit world created the landscape and aided in explanations on ecology. Mancall does note, briefly, the stereotype of the Native environmentalist troupe, by discussing more of the “good relations with the deities” that Natives wanted to have for their own economic gains rather than the “conservationists” stereotypes that have become relegated to the Native body. Very similarly Europeans wanted to understand monsters to conquer or dispel them just as much as Natives wanted to understand the spirit world to avoid disrespecting and gain relations to it.

Chapter two entitled, “A New Ecology,” discusses the ways in which cartography aided in mobilizing knowledge production and depicted the ways in which maps “provide clues about the new ecology of the sixteenth-century Atlantic basin” (47).  Mancall discusses the ways in which map making was infused with not only the map makers ideas but also the political climate of the map makers time. This is the problematic feature of maps for Mancall. This theme also highlights the historical aspect of anxieties that played a part in European expansionist projects. Mancall states, “Maps, then, reflected their makers’ understanding of what they knew and imaginary depictions of what they did not. They also revealed what was important to their patrons” (55).  “Bountiful” is one of the narratives that comes out of the storytelling attributes of the map. Another narrative is the theological aspects and the stakes of body and soul saving. This is particularly true of the Spanish exploration and “conquest.” But for Europeans, Mancall notes, the New World was much more interested in projects of knowing, exploring, acquiring, and owning. This is indicative of a picture, that Mancall calls upon, wherein a man on a boat is in a body of water. The scene is portrayed as a bountiful and cornucopia of different fish in the waters around them and are all ripe for captured on his boat for a plentiful harvest (62). These illustrative narratives provided specific narratives about the New World to the Old world. This narrative was major theme at the heart of many of these map making motivations. The idea of the utopian landscape of abundance and bounty had to mobilize itself and what better way then maps.

Chapter Three entitled, “The Landscape of History,” notes the mass migration across the Atlantic Ocean from 1492-1600 (85).  This was impart to Europeans thinking that they had divine rights over the Americas. The example of John Winthrop illuminates this point in full. Mancall states, “English Puritan John Winthrop, shortly before sailing across the ocean where he would become the governor of Massachusetts, argued that the English has a legitimate right to settle where Natives lived” (86).  This claim to “legitimacy” would become the main argument for not only exploration and migration but as well as settlement and civilization. This is the start of European entitlement, for Mancall, not only for land but of people, nature, and knowledge. This chapter discusses more of the critical analysis in why Theodor de Bry depicted Natives and the Americas differently. The European gaze fell onto the objects with fascination and the spectacle in de By’s engravings read—bountiful/abundant. Mancall discusses this at length in the critique of the image labeled, “The manner of their fishing,” in which more of everything was added to add to the fantastical pictorial narrative of abundance. Mancall states, “Each revision of the images by de Bry’s workshop constituted a manipulation of the eyewitness visual information about coastal Carolina” (101).  What is clearly problematic is the natural history of the Americas and its representation. These images became more important than the authors realized. They would be representative “picture[s] of a haunted place whose inhabitants would soon succumb to the invisible bullets of European newcomers” (119).

Lastly the postscript entitled, “The Theater of Insects” discusses the English naturalist and physician Thomas Moffet’s work. This last section, of Mancalls monograph, discussed the importance of Moffet’s work as “spectacle” and its interpretations (121).  This work is important because it signified knowledge that was directed at specific peoples. Moffet’s book is written in Latin, originally, and was for European scholars. But the performative piece is much more interesting in the analysis of Moffet’s work by Mancall. Mancall discusses the ways in which nature is personified to have its own class and culture. For example the perforative element of transformation, or more specifically metamorphosis, becomes representative of  narratives in the possibilities of nature. Mancall discusses this by articulating on the ways metal becomes a vessel of these narratives (126).  Mancall demonstrates how Moffet’s work tantalizes the European mind towards explorative narratives of progress and expansion by way of science and discovery. In this way, insects would become linked not to monsters but to divinity. This brings Mancalls premies of this monograph full circle.  Mancall notes the ways in which “insects revealed the wondrous powers and infinite potential of God” for Moffet (128).  Insects would become economic producers in this sense and have their own labor to Europeans. This short but provocative narrative, on the illustrative powers of sixteenth-century work in the Atlantic basin, showcases the ways in which not only travel logs promoted ideology but so did pictures. Mancall also highlights how nature and humans were now in a state of hierarchy and categorical control by the ideological and pictorial construction.  Mancall brings up many interesting points that others have not in the field or history: science and nature. By illuminating different motivations and interpretations of nature, such as the “Theater of Insects” by Moffet, Mancall added a little something extra to the historiography on science and nature! I would recommend this to historians, scientists, and those interested in the transformation of fantastical narratives.

10/10

feminist studies, feminist theory, history, history of sexuality, lgbtq, philosophy, political theory, queer history, queer studies, science and technology, Uncategorized, women and gender studies

Book Review: Michel Foucault, The History of Sexuality: An Introduction, Volume 1 (New York, Vintage Books, 1990), Pp.169.

IMG_6127.jpg

One of the most influential scholars in gender theory and history is Micheal Foucault. Not only does Foucault speak to ideas of resistant but also to the making of nation-states regimes. In this way, Foucault is interested in documenting legacy of medical body politics, knowledge-production, and discourse of the bodies and their taxonomy in history. Foucault thesis states, “I would like to…search instead for instances of discursive production,” “of the production of power,” “of the propagation of knowledge…I would like to write the history of these instances and their transformations” (12). Individuals become tied to discourse. Discourse then is the main taproot of how bodies and their identities get created for Foucault. Thus, the nation uses these discourses to produce a norm and to create its subjects.

Foucault specifically speaks to sex and sexuality in this narrative; addressing power through tracing the chronicling of  sex throughout the emersion and aggrandizement of societies. Foucault’s literary project in this book is to discuss the arenas of power and not only how power is used but also where it is coming from. For Foucault, power is not a repressed or muted entity. Power for Foucault is through the vocal and expressive. Foucault states, “the central issue, then…is not to determine whether one says yes or no to sex…but to account for the fact that it is spoken about” (11). This is fundamental to Foucault’s argument on power and thus sex. The importance of this, is in refuting the repressive hypothesis by Freud, and then moving forward looking/locating power from a different axis point. Foucault goes on to say, “to discover who does the speaking, the position and viewpoints from which they speak, the institutions which prompt people to speak about it and which store and distribute the things that are said” (11).  Again the significance placed not only on what is being, how its being said, but also on what come of it—ideology. This ideology begins to differentiate category and hierarchy.

Ideology, producing power, is the main theoretical investigation Foucault sets out to discover. Foucault clearly explains the realms in which power is mediated in, then what and how power is mobilized. Foucault states, “a transformation into discourse, a technology of power, and a will to knowledge…” (12). This explanation Foucault gives is insightful and pushes the critique of power further. Foucault uses a specific example of a “technology of power” which he arraigns as the confession. Foucault addresses this “technology of power” by stating, “for telling the truth of sex which are geared to a form of knowledge-power strictly opposed to the art of initiations and the masterful secret: I have in mind the confession” (58). This being another central idea that Foucault presents is knows as the “knowledge-power” ideology. This “knowledge-power”  idea questions the ways power works to control through individuals through spoken words, categorization, and then the production of knowledge that is derived from linguistic expressions. Foucault uses sexuality to present a critical analysis of power, as well as a historical reverberation, that can be woven in and out of time and spaces to demonstrate the power of construction of bodies.

It is imperative to rely heavily on the text in understanding the articulation of “knowledge-power” given by Foucault. Foucault elucidates his prime example, the confession, and how power is dispersed through the immersion of terminology, that gets spoken and then transformed. Foucault states, “the confession is a ritual of discourse in which the speaking subject is also the subject of the statement; it is also a ritual that unfolds within a power relationship…the authority who requires the confession, prescribes and appreciates it, and intervenes in order to judge, punish, forgive, console and reconcile…” (61-62). Foucault highlights how power relations are not only determined but then reappear.  Foucault states, “power is everywhere; not because it embraces everything, but because it comes from everywhere” (93). Within this sphere, the confession serves as a space where the speaking and the spoken swirl into a production of power through the construction and manufacturing of “truths.” This objectification, categorization, and simplification of bodies and their experience through articulation is the very point Foucault points out in moving into the calling into consciousness—sexuality.  

Foucault also proposes an unveiling into the acknowledgment of power through sexuality by stating, “the history of sexuality—that is, the history of what functioned in the nineteenth century as a s specific field of truth—must first be written from the viewpoint of a history of discourses” (69). Keeping this in mind one can now consider why and how Foucault uses sexuality to bring a rich and robust analysis of power to the forefront.

Turning back the hand of time, Foucault looks into the past for evidence of power stating, “power mechanisms are, at least in part, those that, beginning in the eighteenth century, took charge of men’s existence, men as living bodies…methods of power whose operations is not ensured by right but by technique, not by law but by normalization” (89). A direct linkage to forms of power and domination is in the normalization of bodies and interpretations of acts. Again pointing out and falling back to the example Foucault uses, the confession, to really showcase that operation. Before one looks to the counterattack or if there is any agency in these matters it is important to point out once more, to make sure there is a clear understudying, of why again Foucault calls upon sex in the analysis of power. Foucault states, “sexuality…it appears rather as an especially dense transfer point for relations of power” (103). Again, Foucault allows for an opening of understanding into a form of power. Foucault points out the apertures in these power relations stating,“where there is power there is resistance” (95). It is paramount to point out Foucault’s statement about just how one can resist and recognize resistance.

In conclusion Foucault distinctly leaves the reader with a few answers on  general question about resistance. Foucault answers questions about resistance drawing on the importance of social construction and historical underpinnings. Foucault states: “sexuality is a very real historical formation, it is what gave rise to the notion of sex…The rallying point for the counterattack against the deployment of sexuality ought not to be sex-desire, but bodies and pleasure (157).” This important articulations offer a new way at looking at the history of sex, deconstruction of bodies and their domination through sex and sexuality history. In conclusion,  Foucault touches upon the history of control, in critiquing  bodies politics, through gaining knowledge of acts that people do and the categorization of these acts. Foucault’s  history of sexuality becomes a road map in discussing not only how sex is used for building of empires but how race and gender get deployed as well in the making of the nation-state. I would most definitely recommend this monograph to academics, philosophers, and historians!

10/10

american feminist literature, american literature, feminism, feminist studies, feminist theory, herstory, history, humanism, lgbtq, philosophy, politics, science and technology, sex reassignment, Uncategorized, women and gender studies

Judith Butler, “Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of Transsexuality,” in GLQ: A Journal of Lesbian and Gay Studies 7.4 (North Carolina: Duke University Press, 2001), 621-636.

JudithButler2013.jpg

(photo credits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judith_Butler)

Bodies and their artistic nature of gender, sex identity and expression is a complicated notion. In the essay entitled “Doing Justice to Someone: Sex Reassignment and Allegories of Transsexuality,” Judith Butler discusses these complications in discussing the social construction of bodies, sex, and gender. Butler uses a Foucauldian framework to talk about body politics and the “regulatory regime” of medicine on bodies (621). Butler does this by specifically focusing on one individual in particular identified as “the case of Joan/John” (625).

The case of Joan/John is not a uncommon story but is an example of the ways in which the medical establishment constructs bodies that are “viable” and are coherent for the nation-state. In short the case of Joan/Joan is a story of an infant that goes through a botched circumcision, in which the doctor convinces the parents it will be better for the child to grow up with no penis and assume the identity of a female then to grow up with a deformed penis (622). The narrative gets more complicated as Joan/John grows up and ends up identifying more as a male than his produced female more identity (623). Through this case study, Butler identifies the debate between social and biological arguments for sex/gender (623) More important, this essay offers a theoretical framework for discussing the forced construction of gender on individuals and their bodies. Butler’s thesis states, “in recounting this story and its appropriation for the purposes of gender theory.…I hope to underscore here is the disciplinary framework in which Joan/ John develops a discourse of self-reporting and self-understanding…by which his own humanness is both questioned and asserted” (628-629).

Lasting thoughts from this piece are productive invitations to discuss the body and nation. Asking academics and intellects alike the question of what ultimately constitutes humanness?  Butler asserts there is  major “limits to the discourse of intelligibility [coherent/identification/taxonomy]” (635). If that is so, Butler’s contributions challenge the constructed categories of the nation-state and binary body politics. This essay highlights the nation-states perceived need for these categories to propel nationalism and its citizenship. I would recommend this essay to academics, intellectuals, and social activists. This is a perfect essay to sit down and discuss with like-minded thinkers. I guarantee you will engage in an exciting and stimulating conversation reading this and discuss it with peers or colleagues! 

10/10

feminist studies, feminist theory, philosophy, political theory

Essay Review: Louis Althusser, “Ideology and The Ideological State Apparatus,” in Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1971) 127-186.

How a nation-state is formed, sustains and then is able to acquires a legacy of nationalism is the driving question of theorist Lois Althusser. The author discusses in the selected pages entitled, “Ideology and The Ideological State Apparatus,” inner workings of institutions that manifest nationalism. This mode of thought engenders a Marxist theoretical lens, which produces an inquiry of nationalism, bodies, and production. Althusser is trying to explain the power of  idealogical forces in the history of capitalism, the infrastructure and superstructure; which he discusses through the notion of ideology and its apparatuses. Thus, Althusser’s “basic thesis” states, that in order to discuss the intricacies of power and production we must start “from the point of view of reproduction” (138). Although Althusser goes on to have a series of thesis[ “thesis 1: ideology” is an “illusion/allusion”…. “thesis 2: “ideoldogy has a material existence” ] the “basic thesis” and his central thesis will be discussed here (162 &165). The main entry points into his discussion of ideology is within the state. Althusser asserts, “the definition of the State as a class State, existing in the repressive State apparatus [such as: legal practice, police, courts, prisons, army, and gov.] casts a brilliant light on all the facts observable in the various orders of repression” (137 &139).

The major offering Althusser provides academics is his theoretical framework in identifying as two major societal systems. The first is the Ideological State Apparatus [ISA] such as: church, school, family, legal, political, trade union, press/radio/T.V., arts and sports (143). The second apparatus is defined as the Repressive State Apparatus [RSA] such as: police, jail, prisons, doctors, and politics— “which function by violence” (143).

Moreover, Althusser is quite helpful in understudying the inner or subversive vs. overt workings of state making and nationalism. Althusser offers an explanation in how an “independent” subjects become a subject of the state. Although the theoretical offing is dense, it is useful in the history of the state and understanding where ideas come from that promote radical and passive notions of sacrifice to the state. It is also important in theorizing  reproduction and the meaning making of citizenship, gender, race, and class. An essential read for theorists, feminists, and the like.

american feminist literature, american literature, feminist studies, feminist theory, herstory, history, history of africa, history of europe, history of india, history of magic, history of the united states, literature, political theory, postcolonial theory, religious studies, science and technology, short story, subaltern studies, Uncategorized, witchcraft, world history

Magickal Reviews

Thanks for joining me!

“You ran away to find freedom, and you found it. You made it. Now you gotta tell it. You gotta figure out how to tell the story.” — Leah Lakshmi Piepzna-Samarasinha