Although I found the Deluca article compelling, I think there is a tension that runs throughout the argument. Sometimes he contends that "bodies and images of bodies argue" (228); this implies that the images themselves are performing argument directly. Elsewhere, he contends that bodies are "crucial elements of arguments" (229), which suggests that they are not arguments themselves, but part of a larger discourse. In another location, Deluca argues that "bodies at risk are encapsulated arguments" (232), which seems different than the other two options. So the three different propositions I see here are:
1.) Bodies argue.
2.) Bodies are crucial elements of arguments.
3.) Bodies are encapsulated arguments.
I'm not sure that these three propositions work together in any kind of logical manner. Regarding the first proposition, I am skeptical. It seems to me that bodies do not directly argue; rather, that they imply an argument that can only be truly articulated through language. This may be a personal bias, but I genuinely cannot "think" an argument without language. The gesture in itself remains mute. Even Deluca's example of the EarthFirst! "bodies at risk" relies upon an intricate, textual analysis of the symbolic nature of the actions.
The 2nd and 3rd propositions seem like they might work together. It makes sense that bodies would be "crucial elements" of an argument because the "body at risk" is a material crystallization of the more abstract ideas. To bury oneself up to the neck to help preserve biodiversity reveals a commitment to "green" principles and implies an "ecocentric" rather than "anthropocentric" worldview. The body is, then, a manifestation of this philosophy and a crucial element in the larger argument. So, it seems to me, bodies are "crucial elements" in the larger, social argument exactly because they are "encapsulated" arguments; like all symbols, the body opens out into varied and complex domains of signification.
Ultimately, the 2nd and 3rd propositions seem quite intelligible to me. However, the first seems like a contradiction in relation to the other two. This relates also to Leta's post. Leta seemed to take issue with the idea of bodies as arguments because a mute body is irrefutable. One cannot argue with a symbol. But, if one considers the 2nd and 3rd propositions, it becomes clear that the body is a part of a larger, articulate argument -- a crystallization of that argument. One need not try to argue with the symbolic gesture; argue instead with the organization, the philosophy, etc. I think the gesture is usually a method of drawing attention to a marginalized or otherwise obscured issue rather than an "infantile" argument in itself.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
There are really some unclear points in DeLuca's argument. Actually, this article reminded me the theories of structural analysis that are based on statement of linguistic reality: everything in the world can be read like text.
The ecocentric activists is the most bright example for me because their devotion seems to be of a "religious" kind. One cannot do such actions without faith. Though I read about some contemporary artists who shock and provoke people only for art's sake.
All these examples are great in demonstrating that argumenr and persuasion exist far beyond academic discuorse, still they can be analysed and understood with the help of academic discourse.
When I read that "bodies and images of bodies argue" (228), I took that to mean that a body can state a position. I think that saying the body is a "material crystallization" (as you call it) of an argument is the same thing. The body (the signifier) is the argument (the signified).
But it seems to me that the body cannot "argue" on its own. For instance, imagine coming across a man buried up to his neck without any explanation of the situation at all. I would think he was probably crazy, or performing some kind of prank or art spectacle. But when you contextualize the situation with langauge, you see it as a "crystallization" of an argument. But the body itself remains mute. It's hard for me to see it as an argument, in itself, for this reason.
The idea of a body as an argument I found fascinating because I think on some level the body could state a position. For example, some manuscripts from the medieval time period used to write over the illustration of the body of Christ. His body in itself would of course be a part of the argument or position. However, I think that it is easier to see as a statement because it already has connotations "assigned" to it, whereas the man in the road would not necessarily have that. I think the body, to make an effective statement would have to be accompanied by some form of text (which is why I immediately thought of the article I read about manuscript illustrations).
Post a Comment