Week 3 19.10.09

Of the three articles we have been asked to read so far for this module ‘The Politics of Amnesia’ by Terry Eagleton is the one I am least comfortable writing about. I felt immediately alienated by the opening paragraph making reference to the late and great philosophers of our time of which I recognise the names and little more.

My gut feeling is that this article is somewhat sensationalist. I find it hard to believe that university libraries are full of ‘young Turks deep in incest and cyber-feminism’ or that middle class students are ‘at work on... subjects like vampirism and eye-gouging, cyborgs and porno movies’. I checked our library and they weren’t.

I found the tone of the piece to be confrontational, provocative, the voice of someone saying something to enjoy the reaction. It left me cold. It did however contain a valid description of the role of theory in relation to colonialism and developing countries. The writing on this topic (page eight onwards) was very revealing of the hypocrisies which accompany the politics of revolution, post colonialism and the establishment of new regimes. For me, I can never shake of the suspicion that theory and philosophy is a tool for the post rationalisation of events/phenomena that are non-rational, organic and difficult to generalise due to the complexities of specifics. What does this theoretical analysis achieve? It does reveal certain amusing statements and conclusions (I particularly like the bit on page 21 which describes how unpopular it is to be white and western but that having a shared identity with a marginal group helps to alleviate this, I find Irish relatives particularly useful for this purpose), it is also useful in developing theoretical and/or political argument. However in terms of overall gain the jury is still out. Perhaps I am of the new wave of theoreticians more concerned with the minutiae of everyday life and the discussion of specific fact than grandiose classical approaches. If this is the case then my ignorance of Lacan and Barthes may not only be fashionable but also to my advantage?

Week 2 13.10.09

It’s very easy to be critical about Dubai, to take a stance of superiority. ‘Ooh isn’t it awful what those rich Arabs are doing in Dubai, so unsustainable, such a humanitarian crisis’. However this is nothing new. Most civilisations have created a Dubai in their time of power; a roman forum in Celtic Britain must have seemed pretty wondrous, the pyramids must have seemed equally mystical in 2560BC (incidentally also built by slaves). What’s almost humorously ironic in this case is that the UAE have managed to create a monster mechanism that is not only built by the populations of our old colonies but also sustained by the incomes of those from the ‘enlightened’ nations. I’m not saying that what is happening in Dubai is by any means acceptable on a human level but part of me has a respect for these privileged few, who must be understandably laughing on the other side of their faces.

Can you, hand on heart, honestly say that you have no desire, however guilty, to witness any of the spectacles that can be found there? Are you not at all intrigued by the dinosaurs, the underwater hotel or the theme park of theme parks? The gigantism seems to tap into something primal, a desire to be awed. Herein lies the problem, yet we, the supposedly superior (in terms of economic development ) are in a position of power to stop this through our fuel consumption and tourism habits.

Which will win out?- logic or instinct?

Week 1 02.10.09

In the article 'Zaha the first great female architect' Meades describes an architect who is quite clearly not comfortable talking about architecture. What makes this statement more significant is that she is not any architect but an iconic architect with a reputation for being a tour de force- a guru. She will not describe her work other than in vague architectural jargon which quite clearly does not impress the author nor myself. She alludes to the process of her work in an almost mystical way and refuses to comment on the work of others. What is intelligible of her discourse has been said before and is firmly rooted in the institution.

I can however fully sympathise with this. It has taken drive, ambition and unwavering focus to be where she is now. Her work, the process of her work, the construct of herself is a precious commodity. It’s no wonder her life is contrived to form a predictably unremarkable background to the strange and mystical process of her creativity. She has a fear, as Meades notes, that if she or demystifies the formula of her success that her and her work will become of this world signifying the death of the icon she has created.

I find this all quite sad really. It must be a very lonely life at the top of the ivory tower.