this is a follow up to this post.
so let me see here, the issue of the loaded act...an issue that stems from the societal/cultural creation of a norm - what is deemed by any given society as normal.
Here's why normality is related go gdance.
Someone is walking down the middle of downtown, they see a space that looks particularly inviting and this person has the urge to dance in that spot. Like a child wanting to play with a new toy, this desire is innocent. The person moves towards the spot, and a pang finds her stomach. All these people walking to and from work will notice me (hesitation) that'll be weird; I'm not gonna do that.
That would not be normal, like the normal act of walking next to someone you know while you walk to Subway for lunch, or like the normal act of driving down the right side of the road in the States: an act that would be weird in somewhere like France. This is how what is normal relates to guerrilla. Normality is constantly in opposition to acting beyond the norm, and most importantly to me, can often be in opposition of someone doing what someone wants to do. Not an act that hurts anyone else, simply an innocent desire to dance in a cool place. Guerrilla dance is in the business of supporting what people want to do, and what makes them happy/feel fulfilled. Our norms can get in the way of that.
Now, before I end this post on that note, let me clarify that when I say "supporting what people want to do, and what makes them happy/feel fulfilled," I speak in relation to something that will not hurt another creature (human or otherwise.) Many people have the desire to shoot others, to take advantage of, to torture, to make fun of, to leave behind, etc. I won't even begin to reference such things. I simply don't understand the need for norms that continue to harm individuals by not allowing them to fulfill simple desires such as dancing all over.
p.s.
this is where the real meat is though. why do we think certain things, such as dancing in certain places, is weird, yet walking down a street while completely ignoring thousands of others in the course of any given week is normal? Why is going onto a stage, wearing one glove, and grabbing one's crotch seen as cool, but if I do the same thing on my street corner I get cockeyed looks? what makes a norm, who makes a norm, and why do some norms work to keep people from expressing themselves when they feel the need? lots of questions
...next time, I'll probably'll focus on the origin of norms/why norms are created in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
So:
ReplyDeleteTwo thoughts. First I think every norm/normativity has its own context/history/condition of production, and this is going to be varied depending on the society/era/culture in question. Avoid universals, because they almost always obfuscate the circumstances of a given situation, and those circumstances are the conditions to which you are responding (here in text, there in dancing). I think if you're going to be thinking about normativities, you could read some of Michel Foucault. "DIscipline and Punish" or "History of Sexuality" would be good reads. Foucault is accessible, even though he is at the heart of a lot of critical theory. Seriously, these might be really productive reads for you in that they might open up new ways of thinking/seeing what you are already giving your attention to.
My second thought: Where I see the real "meat" in all of this is an aspect that you don't always consider (which is fine, but may make your project a bit myopic). I would offer that what someone "wants" to do can (and often times is) just as much a product of norms and normativity as the constraints that prevent people from doing what they want to do. It feels bad to go against the norm; it seems like an obvious (if not a bit simplified) correlation that the things that feel good, thus frequently the things that we "want," are produced as desires through adhering to certain normativities. In order to avoid the displeasure of transgressing the norm, in order to experience the pleasure of inhabiting that which we are--through various and sometimes oppositional systems of production and normativity--taught that we want, we internalize (some) external regulations as our own system of values, as wants/desires or things we want to avoid. I might suggest that some of our multi-faceted experiences with "Sketches of Shame" might demonstrate this.
I think that's where some real "meat" of this project might be: questioning not only the overt normativities against which you are responding, but also questioning the internalized normativities that produce pleasure and displeasure.
thanks for writing.
-M
I'm not sure what universalities you're referring to. I never meant to express that any norm is found all over. I used specific examples, but only meant them in reference to the societies/cultures from which they were born, and now reside.
ReplyDeleteyeah, that's really interesting. My first reaction was to think of "Sketches" as well...
Hmmmm, I guess in response I think a couple things. For one, when I talk about fulfilling wants and desires in opposition to norms, I should specify that more accurately in response to opressive norms. I have no problem with norms as an entity. Norms create grounding/rooting for other things to happen, for people/societies to focus on other parts of life and to grow: sort of "load off the mind" so other parts of everyday life can be addressed, so not everything is being calculated at once. What I think is poisonous is when these norms, these bits of structure, are no longer questioned. Letting something become "the gospel truth," seems unwise and potentially harmful to me. It seems rare (if ever true) that anything that we think/prescribe/do should ever be excluded from being modified or on the chopping block if it no longer serves a beneficial purpose. Even the idea of having ANY rules, any norms/roots/structures. It's recently come to my mind that any and all stability as I usually think of it is unnecessary, and that a community that is constantly moving and changing instead is the most appropriate model for living/society/culture. Although, ironically the word "model" is itself a sort of structured idea. *shrug*
The second thing I think is something I brought up to you the last time we talked on Thursday, but didn't go into with much depth. I wonder how much of what we are/what we choose to do/what we desire/what we do not like, is really based on culture/life experience. Not to say that I think all of it is not based on such things, but I'm starting to entertain the idea that we are born with a certain set of ways of being. That parts of our personality are intertwined with our biological/chemical/genetic make up. More or less, the debate over nature vs. nurture: what are we born with, and what changes as we experience. While I definitely think that's some real "meat" for the act of guerrilla ________, I also feel like the connection with outward pressures is more relevant unless one has been guerrillaing for a while/has put in much time questioning norms. Like, that seems the first step...or at least an early step.
NOT to discount what you're saying though. The idea of a sort of internal mind culture/set of norms dictated/created by one's life experience is not only insanely interesting (meaty) to me, but it's vital to any real talk about...well, what we're talking about. While I've definitely thought about it, I don't think I've given it as much time as is due.