“Deconstructing Simulation through Resistance”
Frantz Fanon (1925-1961) was a well-known figure and his ideas had significant influence. Today, Fanon is not as notorious as the dead, white male theorists, though his writings are frequently referenced in text and have become the subject of advocacy of violence in third world revolutions (Lemert 2004: 358). In his short life Fanon produced an impressive body of work. The fact that his personal narrative was being created during the time of decolonization (358); it is why his most prevalent concepts were “colonization/decolonization” and modes of revolution.
We are unprepared for the infinite extensiveness of criticism and history. It is there that one must fight. We are the simulators; we are living in the simulacra; we are hollow imitators fueled by social fancy. It is in this fantasy of the simulacrum that one will need to fight. Fanon posits that in order to decolonize the mind conformity is not the answer but resistance (359). Because one must not refuse the intense fascination that stem from this exchange of all power, text and politics included. This manifestation surpasses by far that of the commodity. “The naked truth of [deconstruction] evokes for us the searing bullets and bloodstained knives which emanate from it (359). This vision is our essential force. He would agree that we are no longer in a relation toward victorious forces, such as the Europeans or Westernization, but in a political one. The challenging directs at us in its disorder - liquidating without shame the law of profit, surplus value, productive finalities, structures of power, and finding at the end of its process the profound immorality (but also the seduction) of primitive rituals of destruction, this very challenge must be raised to an insanely higher level. Knowledge, like money, is inescapable and challenging to deconstruct. The need to attach to the cultural capital is expressed by the simulation as inevitable but indeed is. By seeking the divisions of the simulation through empirical research and explicit examination, we allow ourselves to deconstruct and the opportunity to reorganize. The ‘real’ knowledge is only in ‘meta’ transitioning and floats over our simulacrum. Contradictory to what is general belief, but the ‘reality’ is still within reach. Foucault would insert that as long a resistance is in play so is power. Deconstruction demands agency and appropriate attitudes. It is up to us to again become the critical thinkers of this time, parallel to those theorists of Frankfurt School, by disengaging from the illusions set in place by our carelessness. It is at this peak that the influence of discursiveness and discourse emerge and infuse major roles.
“Discursiveness and Discourse”
Michel Foucault (1926- 1984) has a large body of works that show the life of a political philosopher. He was vitally concerned with the understanding and transformation of the intersectionality of power, knowledge and truth. Foucault brings to light the way in which the individual is affected by the large and small segments of society. He examines the "abnormal" human subject as an object-of-knowledge of the discourses of human and empirical science such as psychiatry, medicine, and penalization. He demonstrates the power-knowledge relationship that the individual is also subjected to in everyday life.
Aristotle once stated in Metaphysics that, "‘All men by nature desire knowledge’ (www.wisdomquotes.com).” If one accepts the claim that knowledge is power, then it will be logical to assert that all people want power. The person or persons that have knowledge also acquire the power of that knowledge. With this knowledge, is it possible to change the way in which our society affects us? There really is no way in which we can rid ourselves of the power-knowledge relationship. If society changes one thing, it will lead to an affect on something else. Therefore, we must remain aware of this power-knowledge relationship, so there are no hidden power relations. The individual will then be liberated in self-knowledge. Ideas exist as long as they are perceived (class notes). The back and forth movement and the filling in the gaps that modernity set as fixed helps include all peoples for the attainment of the ‘reality’ of knowledge; therefore, further deconstructing the knowledge as simulation. Discursiveness is fundamental to the production of knowledge. Thus, in order to proceed in the deconstruction, reproduction of knowledge is needed via the cycle of power and knowledge. Foucault asserts that power is not owned or possessed but exercised (466). This exercise is the discursive action, but discourse is its counterpart. Broadly speaking, the discursiveness and discourse together, attempt to identify how relations of power/knowledge constitute domains of subjects and objects.
To understand this historicity, it is necessary to examine broader frameworks of cultural discourse. Throughout, I use the word discourse to refer to “clusters of ideas, images and practices” that provide context (Hall 1997:6). Discourses establish frames of clearness. The analytical interest for discourse analysis does not regard what one says, but rather, what constitutes the domain of the expressed from within which one is able to speak. According to Fanon, “Given the significance of elite discourses in maintaining power relations, knowledge produced by, for, and/or in behalf…becomes vitally important in resisting oppression (Hill-Collins 1998:45). Discourse analysis helps us to understand bodies as the products of particular histories. Hill-Collins, Hooks, and Reynolds present a resistance within a resistance. They understand that the language and lack of fluidity proposed in the text of the postmodernists such as Baudrillard, Foucault, etc. are misrepresenting the postmodern perspective. These three postmodern feminists’ theorists provide insight on the hegemonic powers that have been nursing us simulated knowledge. They cohesively recognized the importance of discourse. Discourse and discursiveness create commotion in the layering of simulation. In order to realize this, Hooks, Reynolds, and Hill-Collins had to take a step back and reflect on their personal narratives in relation to the sociohistorical context provided.
“Step back and Go ‘Meta’ ”
According to C. Wright Mills, there is a perspective called the "sociological imagination" that can be used to "frame," or interpret, perceptions of social life (349). In part, this imagination features a healthy skepticism, assuming that social appearances often aren't what they seem. But even more, this perspective involves awareness toward the linkages between history and biography, between social structure and consciousness, and between knowledge and its sociohistorical and cultural contexts. It is this one of this discipline's approaches to critical thinking.
Perhaps no where is this imagination so exercised than in the sociology of knowledge, which studies the social sources and social consequences of knowledge—how, for instance, social organization shapes both the content and structure of knowledge or how various social, cultural, political conditions shield people from truth. There are at least three broad intellectual traditions of this sub discipline. The first attempts to plot how various social and cultural orders spawn different knowledge systems- -why, for instance, the very discipline of sociology evolved, where and when it did and why the biographies of its "founding fathers" (e.g., Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Cooley and Mead) overlap as they do. As the combination of soil and environment determine the crops a farmer plants as well as their yield, so different types of knowledge (e.g., religious, political, scientific, everyday) are understood to differentially flourish within varying social situations. In developing precisely how knowledge becomes socially modified, reflexivity through the combination of biography and history is the climax of the deconstruction.
One of the most important factors in my decision to attend Spelman College was the concept of the strong and empowered Spelman woman. Since the graduation of the first college class in 1887, Spelman College has been famous for producing the ultimate young African American lady who portrays the characteristics of one dedicated to community service, professionalism, sisterhood, scholarship and assertiveness. During my freshman year at Spelman, I realized that there was hypocrisy clouding the institutional mission to produce academically superior leaders. That very distinctive cloud has been allowed to endure and cultivate greatly.
For just a moment in time, during the various social events of the school year perspective students, current student and even alumnae become victims of amnesia when it come to upholding the ideology of the Spelmanite. Although some feminist’s views of womanhood, such as independence, empowerment, and equity are still present within the student body of Spelman, the focus of becoming the ultimate young woman gradually fades from existence at certain social events and promptly reappears afterwards. When learning about the Civil Rights struggles of the African American community, the AUC is recognized to have constituted many of the demonstrations for equal rights during the Civil Rights Movement. Contrary to institutional concerns, Spelmanite and young men of Morehouse were famous for asserting themselves and fighting for the equality of all; however, in the latter classes of the African American scholars seem satisfied with social events and status within their simulated environment. My thesis explores the dynamics of gender roles between Spelman and Morehouse students in comparison to the students during the Civil Rights movement. The ability to use Mills reflexivity is more than helpful in the success of producing a valid research.
Research Questions:
Q1: What are the indicators of male and female privilege in the Spel-House relationship?
Q2: How do assumptions of the term feminism and/or feminist’s impact the gender roles taken in the Spel-House relationship?
Q3: What are the general levels of gender consciousness among Spelman and Morehouse students?
Q4: What are the factors that promote the gender constructs in the Spel-House relationship?
Previous studies on gender constructs have been more descriptive in the methodological approach and have not systematically attempted to empirically describe the manner in which the Spelman College and Morehouse College relationship is explained by select internal and external factors.
Work Cited
Baudrillard, Jean. 1983. “Simulacra and Simulations: Disneyland.” Pp. 471-476 in Social Theory: The
Multicultural and Classical Readings, 3rd ed, edited by C. Lemert. New York: Westview Press
Collins, Patricia H. Fighting Words: Black Women & the Search for Justice. 1998. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Fanon, Frantz. 1961. “Decolonizing, National Culture, and the Negro Intellectual.” Pp. 358-363 in Social
Theory: The Multicultural and Classical Readings, 3rd ed, edited by C. Lemert. New York: Westview Press
Foucault, Michel. 1976. “Power As Knowledge.” Pp. 465-471 in Social Theory: The Multicultural and
Classical Readings, 3rd ed, edited by C. Lemert. New York: Westview Press
Fredrickson, Darin D. and Raymond P. Siljander. 2001. “Racial Profiling: Eliminating the Confusion
Between Racial and Criminal Profiling and Clarifying What Constitutes Unfair Discrimination and Persecution.” Journal of ethic and cultural diversity in social work 10, Part 4 (2001): 106-108
Hall, Stuart. Introduction. Representation: Cultural Representations and Signifying
Practices, ed. Stuart Hall. London: Sage/The Open University, 199. 6.
Hartsock, Nancy. 1987. “Foucault on Power: A Theory for Women?” pp. 487-494 in Social Theory: The
Multicultural and Classical Readings, 3rd ed, edited by C. Lemert. New York: Westview Press
Hooks, Bell. 1990. “Postmodern Blackness.” African Studies Center, University of Pennsylvania.
Retrieved February 1, 2007
(http://www.africa.upenn.edu/Articles_Gen/Postmodern_Blackness_18270.html)
Jackson, Janet and Debra A. Bekerian. 1997. Offender Profiling: Theory, Research and Practice.
New York: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd
Lemert, Charles. 2004. Social Theory: The Multicultural and Classic Readings. New York: Westview
Press.
Macionis, John J. 2006. Society the Basics. New Jersey: Pearson Hall
Mills, Charles W. 1959. “The Sociological Imagination.” Pp.349-352 in Social Theory: The Multicultural
and Classical Readings, 3rd ed, edited by C. Lemert. New York: Westview Press
Reynolds, Tracey.2002. “Re-Thinking a black feminist standpoint”. Ethnic and Racial Studies. Vol25 no4 July. 591-606.
“Aristotle” www.wisdomquotes.com
The Tales of Borges: Language and the Private Eye by John Caviglia