Saldanha and our week on Affect

In the book, Saldanha not only produces a materialist ethnography on racism in the rave scene of Goa in India, but he also makes an intervention in theories of race away from the field of signification and meaning and to a recentering on the body its concrete material qualities and capacities: ways of doing, and its dispositions in space what he terms as Viscocity which is a central concept in this work.

His guiding question also triggers a justification of why to look for non-constructivists, and non-representational takes on race, and is: How does racism emerge in a counter-cultural location where nobody mobilizes negative representations of "other" and yet there are processes of separation of "whites" (including European, American, but also Israelis and Japanese) from "Indians" and other others (including charter tourists). a

His study is an exploration of how whiteness reconstitutes even when is attempting to make a deep critique of western culture. In this hippie and more specifically psychedelic formation, there is a reconstitution, self-actualization that none the less excludes, pushes other bodies away. "Whites taking up the dance floor and pushing Indians away is not a question of representation" (p 8).  In contrast, he proposes to engage with race as an event.

He proposes a series of critiques to representation theory
1. In analyzing race as an effect of representation it does not engage with its materiality as an event: phenotype, behaviors, class location (as capacities). Race as event.  

2. In only focusing in the negative and contrastive meaning-making of race it does not engage in the variation, and race as positivity, as additions. Racism is not clear cut exclusion but shades of differentiation. Race as positive.

3. In considering a dialectics and relations as what constitutes of racial difference,  constructivists (ie Gilroy) suggest for a resolution of racism as a dialectical undoing and negation of race. In contrast, he suggests maintaining a positive perspective on race. More race instead of less.

Thus for him "race is a shifting amalgamation of human bodies and their appearance, genetic material, artifacts, landscapes, music, money, language, and states of mind." (p9)

Particularly relevant for me: He reengages with phenotype as mattering within the racial machinic assemblages.

He engages with a number of Spinoza - Deleuze set of concepts:

---Virtuality as the number of connections bodies are capable of establishing, thus is the capacities and possibilities of a specific body understood as an always compound body of multiple others entering in relation to others.

---Embodiment, as the specific forms of a body, for example through action, use of drugs,

---Location, as the relations of movement and stasis, understood not as opposites but rather stasis (and structure) as always emerging from movement and associations. 

---Viscosity as a central force constituting race, the stickiness of bodies coming together,

---Emergence racial difference emerges from a host of processes at different levels of organization, a series of material processes, of mutual interaction of biological, sociological processes. 

---Psychedelics, as a set of practices of transformation that white people engage in Goa that is related to engaging in a multiplicity of pleasures.



"Racial difference emerges when bodies with certain characteristics become viscous through the ways they connect to their physical and social environment. Race is a machinic assemblage, to use a concept of Deleuze’s collaborator Félix Guattari. (...) Basically, the concept presents constellations, especially biological and sociological constellations, as fully material, machinelike interlockings of multiple varied components, which do not cease to be different from each other while assembled. " (p 9)

"Instead of identity politics and a downright negation of whiteness, or a celebration of hybridity and anarchy, or a regime of multiculturalism and tolerance, the politics that follows from my ethnography acknowledges that an escape from whiteness can perversely reinforce it—as happens in Anjuna. But that is no reason to deny its emancipatory possibilities. Whiteness and race need to be understood and proliferated in new ways, not abolished or denied. In contrast to what is usually expected of bringing phenotype back into the human sciences, therefore, this study asserts that a materialist (or machinic) analysis of race cannot be appropriated by eugenics or biological essentialism (p 10)

in Chapter 1 he makes an overview on Spinoza's definition of the body as a set of capacities relative to its position in different social and material spaces. Thus psychedelic whiteness is highly critical and yet in its critique and variation it recreates white supremacy,

"I want to insist more strongly than Foucault and Bourdieu that a body’s capacities are always linked to its physical singularity, which, according to the space it finds itself in (patriarchy, racism, capitalism, ageism, the hospital, the gym, the school, the freak show, etc.), will circumscribe what is possible and what not." (p13)

He does not eject power, scale and is not married to an emphasis of a flat ontology (critique to Latour and De Landa) Racial difference is also a power difference: different capacities to self-actualizing.

He also does not eject race, sexuality, gender, nationalism. Elsewhere (Saldanha 2012) he is going to defend materialism in the Marxist tradition (against Thrift and other). If a notion of class that considers it as a default result of the process of production is reductionist, avoiding class is very limiting too. He suggests regarding class as a complex emergence of different levels and a concrete arrangement, that has very real effects in what a body can do, in the same way as sexuality and gender.  

I really appreciate how he is combining affect theory and capacities with some "structuralism" or what elsewhere he names as formalism or nominalism. So his distance is that he considers class and gender as a result and not a cause, and yet he considers then as active affective assemblages, ie linking type of bodies, type of phenotype.  With this, he makes a step that in some cases is missing in Thrift, Beasley Murray, although not nonexistent.  A key to how he is building his analytic machine is the entry through feminists Deleuzian as Grosz and Rich. 

In this sense, he is also creating analytic machinery that, just as Deleuze can consider meaning and representation as actions in the world. In the passage that I have been obsessed with, not what they mean, not how to decode them, but what do meanings do, how do they work, territorialize and deterritorialize.

This is only an engagement with the very first two chapters of the book. 

Saldanha, A., 2005. Psychedelic whiteness: Rave tourism and the materiality of race in Goa (India).

Saldanha, A., 2012. Assemblage, materiality, race, capital. Dialogues in Human Geography, 2(2), pp.194-197.

Coulthard Chapter 5

In this Chapter Coulthard explores the role of culture and cultural revival of colonized in the struggles for decolonization. He engages in the work of Fanon but first makes a detour through Sartre from which Fanon is drawing from and against.(In this he is also giving important insights about allyship in decolonial process).

He starts with the work of Sartre on anti-semitic racism, in which the jew have the option to deny who they are, flight and pass, or to assert who they are and confront the mockery. "Semitism" emerges from antisemitism. However, the black person has no option of flight and thus only to assert and reject racism as a subjective process. They is cornered. Culture can be a space of pride and resistance yet it may be restricted if it is only an inversion of the colonial order and nothing else. From a social perspective, however, for Sartre's assertion is a stage until the dialectic can be resolved in a classless/raceless society. Self-recognition and assertion is thus a stage only.

For Fanon on the contrary African past is a form of regaining self-respect by denying the racist tropes rejecting African culture as inferior and uncivilized. This past and culture in the past can also bring people together in a movement. Yet for Fanon, the fact that is still left in the past and does not engage with the material transformations effected by colonialism cuts the movement short. It also creates internal hierarchies amongst the movement that are not accounted for and are justified in the name of authenticity and an imagined past. The movement does not engage with the concrete material relations of the colonial society and does not recognize the (class) inequalities. [So in a way he is advancing and intersectional analysis]

Thus for Fanon too an emphasis on culture falls short and may fix a movement towards the future.

Here Coulthard makes the intervention over Fanon overlooking the role of culture in creating alternatives and not just resistance to colonial relations and politics.  The point is not just fixing culture in the past and turning it into a revival but also as a point mobilizing forces, understanding the arbitrariness of colonialism and also create other forms of life altogether. this can also enable a going beyond the colonial inversion mentioned above.  Culture is a space to go back and move forward and thus a space of resurgence.

For Coulthard, culture is an assertion, resistance, inversion but also beyond the relation and creation of new indigenous life. Some example is for him Idle no More.









 

 

Art and Politics: Rancier The distribution of the Sensible

In this article - conversation, Rancier defines his perspective on the aesthetic and its relation to art and politics. 

He is against the more traditional way of understanding art as part of a linear history, or through a post-modern/deconstructive perspective as a series of ruptures of one regime with the next (parricidio).   

I would also add that he is offering a way of moving beyond Bourdieu while not away from him. In that Bourdieu does not leave much space to discuss the practice of art beyond the function in h reproduction of class and status in a given social order. 

He defines Aesthetics as:  


"a specific regime for identifying and reflecting on the arts: a mode of articulation between ways of doing and making their corresponding forms of visibility, and possible ways of thinking about their relationships (which presupposes a certain idea of thought’s effectivity). Defining the connections within this aesthetic regime of the arts, the possibilities that they determine, and their modes of transformation (Ranciere XX, p20). 

A subsequent notion is the distribution of the sensible, as the modalities in which a collective defines a realm of the sensible and also distributes it amongst its members in regards to their participation capacities to participate in this realm. 

Aesthetic practice as "forms of visibility that disclose artistic practices, the place they occupy, what they ‘do’ or ‘make’ from the standpoint of what is common to the community." 





The aesthetic is one of the modes through which the community comes together as "it" identifies what is going to be regarded as art and not and what are the different regimes of visibility/discourse/making/practice. I add: aureability.  

This he distinguished this form of understanding aesthetics from the way art has been understood as the history a history of the mediums and their forms and rules of representation, their hierarchies.


First, he identifies the discussion of arts as images. He goes to Plato and a regard "arts" as any practice of representation, some truth others with the purpose of simulacra.  These last differentiated in their origin and their purpose. Simulacra provide education and fit in the city's occupations, it provides and affects an ethos to the community. In this sense "ethos" of art is not a separate sphere of sociality. An example is the greek tragedy and how it educates people about the law. At this moment there is not an idea of art as a separate sphere and rather any occupation is linked with art or a way of doing.
     

An ethical approach to art is thus the first type of development [I add: in the western world], one where art is pedagogical, demanded to contain truth and contains general principles of law and organization of society. The second is the representational one, at the moment in which specific forms of art are separated from other forms of doing (work) and become a social realm. Art becomes simulacra and each medium follows specific rules and genres. The third is the aesthetic.


The first form is the ethical, is normative, abstarct, pedagogical. In this first theatre is  related to democratic politics in ancient Greek and how tragedy enables the emergence of monarchy as a political regime where there is a superior order subordinating the collective.

This second he considers the poetic, dimension of arts, one that focuses on the representational / rupture power of the art pieces.  or in the other way as a history of the vanguards rupturing with the previous forms of what is deemed visible, legible, acceptable, (I would even think real?). This second is the more traditional way of thinking of the arts and of their history.  The representative moment will then separate it as a sphere: question the links between mimesis and poiesis, identify mediums and forms of doing. It is not initially prescriptive criteria but rather a pragmatic one. Substance becomes criteria for the divisions. An example is the modern novel, that moves away from the abstract characters of the greek tragedy and into the minute descriptions of the everyday, including action and thought process of mundane people ie Madame Bovary. this is for him a sign of the democratization, art becoming part of the move into modernity, creating a modern subjects. 

The third moment is the aesthetic one, where is not about a division of the arts but about the making of the sensible "factory of the sensible and the contestation that results in a specific distribution of the sensible. Distribution is not homogenous ethos (in the sense of Geertz) but is part of the conflict of wh can access to which type of activity. I understand that as a result there are realms of the sensible, is this something of the type of Bourdieu's fields, yet quite different in that they are not necessarily institutional.   




 For him the sensible does not reside in the author or the piece or the action of sense, but in the action that produces and negates at the same time. What I get away is that he is talking about emergence beyond agency or the signification of a piece or the structure of the act of viewing. But rather as the coming together, the relations of all of these with the beyond: ie in a detailed literary description what constitutes the "sensorial" is not the author or the description or reader's interpretation but rather the link of these and the beyond, some type of sensing that emerges in the description? I am not absolutely sure it is this,  this is my take.  

The first possible meaning of the notion of a ‘factory of the sensible’ is the formation of a shared sensible world, a common habitat, by the weaving together of a plurality of human activities. However, the idea of a ‘distribution of the sensible’ implies something more. A ‘common’ world is never simply an ethos, a shared abode, that results from the sedimentation of a certain number of intertwined acts. It is always a polemical distribution of modes of being and ‘occupations’ in [67] a space of possibilities. It is from this perspective that it is possible to raise the question of the relationship between the ‘ordinariness’ of work and artistic ‘exceptionality’. p 42

In the nineteenth century, this suspension of work’s negative value became the assertion of its positive value as the very form of the shared effectivity of thought and community. (...) Production asserts itself [71] as the principle behind a new distribution of the sensible insofar as it unites, in one and the same concept, terms that are traditionally opposed: the activity of manufacturing and visibility. 
 

Art anticipates work because it carries out its principle: the transformation of sensible matter into the commu­nity's self-presentation. The texts written by the young Marx that confer upon work the status of the generic essence of mankind were only possible on the basis of German Idealism’s aesthetic programme, i.e. art as the transformation of thought into the sensory experience of the community.p 44

Add a comment and a question.

On Indigenous Art, Politics and Aesthetics. Sa and Milanez,

In the piece by Sa and Milanez, they provide an entry into discussing the role of indigenous art production in countering racism in the country. They start by discussing first the denial of racism in Brazil, veiled under the ideas of racial democracy. They show the persistence of racism as forms of discrimination in the every day, in the legal system, and in structural dynamics. They highlight too, the way in which racism against indigenous people in Brazil is rarely discussed and spoken under the grammar and discourse of racism, and yet the way violence against indigenous individuals, as well as land grabbing deserves an examination under racism, as a system organizing the social structures after colonization that maintain the structures of land distribution, as well as ideas of identity located in the body, and behaviors as emerging from shared set of bio-cultural identifiers (Wade and Moreno 2020).
 Thus they identify politics and actions of indigenous and indigenous as being shaped in racist relations. Examples are the killing of indigenous people, the laxity of criminal justice towards perpetrators. The article is based on the analysis of art pieces and on interviews or written interventions of the artists. The authors explicitly define the artists voices as sources and not as informants as a political and methodological intervention

In this context, the pieces they discuss clearly position as a critique of specific actions of racism as well as larger structures. One example is (insert name of the artist) the portrait of a killed indigenous leader which puts into conversation the violence as well as the invisibility of the violence. Likewise, the interventions of an artist in an art history book brings the intelligible history of European internal colonization to understanding the actions in brazil as a comparable relationship. I would further argue that this becomes simultaneously an act of translation as translocation and an action of making a conflict visible, rendering it legible, for the European education "universal history" grand narratives. I found particularly interesting the piece "Faith in-dio", and the discussion on the polysemy of the piece refers to the action of religious colonization. Likewise, the pieces that interact with museum "collection" is a simultaneous critique of ethnography and science as another form of appropriation and subordination of indigenous knowledge, actions, and life. 

The questions that emerge for me is around what happens if we re-aggregate these pieces/events together. 

- In which ways, if they do, are artists mapping, linking different forms of racism and the effects of racist practices as producing the larger social dynamics? 
- How are the art pieces as interventions in this cartography reshaping these links and coming together with one and other? 
- Are there limits to this suggestion of "reaggregation," are there pieces by indigenous artists or by non-indigenous who engage in indigenous politics/ aesthetics around indigeneity and fail to confront racism, or may reinscribe stereotypes (as the mentioned "Dia do Indio")?.