In looking at the changing perspective of whiteness through the readings for this week there were a few repeated themes I noticed. These include:
Whiteness as a racial category that is no longer transparent. A need to be self-critical and self aware regarding whiteness.
Whiteness as it is related to economics and class.
Whiteness and privilege.
I have expanded on some of these themes below.
There were also some discrepancies I noticed between analyzing whiteness compared to a post-ethnic ideology.
The theorists and critics seem to be talking about whiteness in the same broad terms as other minorities (i.e. blackness).
It seems that in order to really analyze whiteness the playing field between white and other "ethnicities" needs to be leveled. The historical analysis of whiteness is no where near as in depth as other cultures.
And Roediger brings up an excellent point in the difference between theoretical whiteness and how whiteness functions in lived experience.
Opaque vs. Transparent
It becomes evident from the readings that we can no longer approach whiteness as meaningless, historically void and transparent. The very color white itself is loaded with social and historical symbolism; pureness, blankness, absence, etc. Roediger talks about the historical value of whiteness in terms of whites views of nonwhites. "When residents of the US talk about race, they too often talk only about African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans. If whites come into the discussion, it is only because they have 'attitudes' toward nonwhites. Whites are assumed not to 'have race,' though they might be racists," Roediger writes. White, as Roediger also writes, is an extremely imprecise term.
Whiteness, Economics and Class
It is undeniable that whiteness is often associated with class, especially the middle or upper class. Even the term white collar suggest a certain difference between whites' economic situation and the "others." We tend, as a society, to forget about the white poor, and associated the lower income population with minorites, often blacks. The fact that class is often closely associated with race was evident after the destruction of hurricane katrina. Poor and black became almost synonyms in the media representation of the victims of Katrina. Often poor economic situations are blamed on nonwhites. For example, Mexican immigration might be the most popular contemporary example. The US tends to blame the loss of jobs on illegal immigration and the influx of the nonwhite working class. However, there is nothing mentioned about the racial impllications of outsourcing US jobs. Maurice Berger uses the interesting phrase that it seems to be in people's best interest to "capitalize on their whiteness." Whiteness often implies economic power, even if that is mostly a false assumption. Even the poor have the ability to capitalize on their whiteness by having the benefit of assumed education and skill.
Broadness of Whiteness
In my own identity chart shown in a previous, I found it interesting that I didn't think to include "white" as a defining identity, but instead included norwegian, finnish, native american and german (with norwegian and finnish taking up the most "ethnic space.") This made me realize that in a way, my whiteness is still somewhat transparent to me. The first time I became self-aware of my whiteness was in preschool (around the age of 4), which I attend on a Northern Minnesota Native American reservation, where I was the minority. It was only at first that I was aware, and soon my whiteness was forgotten. Until I moved to Chicago, my areas of residency have had largely white demographic. However, I have always felt that my whiteness was more nuanced that just purely (for lack of a less ironic term) white. Stahlings talks about abolishing the normativity of whiteness in "Whiteness: A Wayward Construction," yet the very broad term WHITE is normatized not to include the different variations of whiteness. Although one could argue that the very appearance of whiteness bestows one with priveleges that others of different ethnicities are denied, it was not historically that way. Historically degrees of whiteness were much more divided, which is extremely evident in the neighborhood break-up in Chicago (although gentrification has erased much of that segregation, but not entirely). At one point Polish-Americans, Italian Americans, etc were not considered "white." However, these divisions have been erased, but what also seems to be diminishing is the ethnic diversity of whiteness. This is possibly why I chose to include my Norwegian and Finnish heritage as a large part of my identity, because the traditions associated with those nationalities are still very much embedded into my family life and tradition. It seems contradictory to try and integrate whiteness into the post-ethnic discussion when scholars seems to be using the broad discourse to talk about whiteness that they are trying to diseminate regarding other ethnicities.
Theory and Academics vs. Lived Experience
Although significant progress has been made in the intellectual and scholarly perception of whiteness, the fact that whiteness still holds severe economic, social, cultural and political priveleges in real live is pervasive. Although language has been invented in order to "politically correct" the way we refer to the social construction of race, it does not erase the social oppression, racism, prejudice and a certain degree of white supremacy that still exists. However, Wendy Ewald's "White Girl Alphabet" shows that language has symbolic racial connotations and there exists a certain lingual hierarchy that effect how we discuss and interpret race. Although post-structuralism has made vast improvements on the way we approach and talk about race, the existence of post-structuralism as it relates to race is not as evident in our general perceptions of society. All the "radical scholarship" does not equal radicial activism in society. Roediger explains that the intellectual demystification of race can cause disappointment when theory meets practice. I began making connections between the post-ethnic movement and the third wave feminist movement. It seems the 60s and 70s were a time of radical activism, for both feminism and civil rights, and now the "movement" is more intellectually based and there is much less "action" on the part of the general public. Maybe its a generational thing where the young, educated individuals feel a certain sense of apathy about how much good activism really does.
How does this all relate to art?
Art seems to function as a hyprid of intellectual study and lived experience. If we turn to Manet's Olympia, there is a reversal of the sexual, black female stereotyping and instead the white woman is the promiscuous sexual being, while the black servant (dressed in white) is the reserved, innocent, more asexual figures. During the multicultural period, it was common for nonwhite artists to make art about their ethnic identity, yet it was taboo to make art about whiteness (and to much extent...still is). However, one could argue that artists have been making art that is unintentionally about whiteness since the inception of art practice. William Kentridge's work has a lot to do with whiteness and apartheid in South Africa. Cindy Sherman made photographs about the B-Movie white female actress archetype. Still, the intentional depiction of whiteness seemed taboo. Maybe when this subject matter is no longer taboo will we be closer to a true post-ethnic ideology that includes the analysis of whiteness.
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Monday, March 31, 2008
Whiteness in Contemporary Culture
In thinking about examples of "whiteness" in contemporary culture, the first thing that popped into my head was Al Yankovic's "White and Nerdy." A remake of hip hop artist, Chamillionaire's "Riding Dirty." Although it may be considered extremely low brow...it is actually pretty interesting when you consider that it is making fun of white stereotypes and the "white" infiltration of hip hop culture, which is generally assumed to be comprised of mostly black participants.
I was also thinking about the movie Bruce Almighty, where the God figure is played by Morgan Freeman. Historically, God has been represented as being a white bearded guy. I read one review of the movie in which a person asked, "Is it supposed to be funny that God is a black guy?" I believe this statement shows that while in the scholarly world we may accept that race is a social construct, but in terms of lived experience, racism is still very much present. I was also thinking about Bruce's character, played by Jim Carrey, and the "moral" that is to be taught in the movie. Jim Carrey represents the "norm" (upper-middle class, white male). Morgan Freeman's character functions to bring a sense of "self-awareness" to Carrey's character about his privileged situation. It also shows how Carrey abuses his power when he is bestowed the power of God. This could also suggest how historically whites used Christianity as an excuse to victimize other populations. In terms of the readings on whiteness, this seems to fit right in with the historically transparent condition of whiteness and the growing need for whites to become self-critical about their own whiteness.
Or maybe I'm just reading too much into Bruce Almighty.
I couldn't find the seen with Morgan Freeman and Jim Carrey I wanted, but here is a selection from the movie.
I was also thinking about the movie Bruce Almighty, where the God figure is played by Morgan Freeman. Historically, God has been represented as being a white bearded guy. I read one review of the movie in which a person asked, "Is it supposed to be funny that God is a black guy?" I believe this statement shows that while in the scholarly world we may accept that race is a social construct, but in terms of lived experience, racism is still very much present. I was also thinking about Bruce's character, played by Jim Carrey, and the "moral" that is to be taught in the movie. Jim Carrey represents the "norm" (upper-middle class, white male). Morgan Freeman's character functions to bring a sense of "self-awareness" to Carrey's character about his privileged situation. It also shows how Carrey abuses his power when he is bestowed the power of God. This could also suggest how historically whites used Christianity as an excuse to victimize other populations. In terms of the readings on whiteness, this seems to fit right in with the historically transparent condition of whiteness and the growing need for whites to become self-critical about their own whiteness.
Or maybe I'm just reading too much into Bruce Almighty.
I couldn't find the seen with Morgan Freeman and Jim Carrey I wanted, but here is a selection from the movie.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Post-black...
Freestyle, a seemingly radical show of black artists work during the 1990s, caused a lot of controversy because of its disparate nature, suggested by its title. What the show suggested about blackness was that it was in fact a style...an affiliation filled with nuanced representations of what it meant to be black. What I find most compelling about the show is that is both accepts and rejects notions of blackness simultaneously. Lori Waxman's review of the show suggests that it may have been a earmark of the Post-Black movement. The show defied a collective interpretation of blackness, and instead presented an "overwhelming sense of individuality." I tend to enjoy work that relies on a certain "truth" about stereotyping, yet drawing a critical self-awareness to stereotyping (within the viewer) and uses the stereotype to confront themes about viewing the "other." I think that Susan Smith-Pinelo's video does this. It combines the stereotypical sexualized black female (specifically her breasts) with the word "Ghetto" on a necklace.
This is the same reason I have enjoyed Kara Walker's work. The graphic, cartoon-like nature is visually appealing and often reminded me of vinyl wall decals made for children's rooms. However, her work is very disturbing and relies on the stereotypical "look" associated with blacks (big lips, big butt, "nappy" hair) yet at the same time her black characters are enforcing "slave punishments" against their white counterparts. The violent and childlike juxtaposition often drew me to her work, as it functions like a fairytale gone awry. She bridges pop-art style with a multiculturalist view. Her view bridges the past (with characters from folklore) with the present (themes of racism, violence, gender and identity).
According to Thelma Goldin, Freestyle aimed to recontextualize blackness in terms of a multicultural, or even post-ethnic, society. I see the show as attempt to reclaim a black identity and not give in to a more normative society. However, I wonder if the show reinforces the racial relavatism that occurs when there are "all black" shows, or shows during February, or all women shows. Does this reinforce ethnic diversity and awareness over artistic ability? I would say that all the artists in the Freestyle exhibition are deserving of the exhibition, but I still believe that racial relavatism skews the artworld based on a societal guilt to incorporate diversity and a disregard for artistic accomplishment.
I also think that Holland Cotter brought up a good point in questioning if the label "post-ethnic" will merely become a marketing label. There was also an evident correlation between multiculturalist art and the economic market. When the market was down, multiculturalism was up. This follows the historical trend of art, to make what is considered to be "unmarketable" art while the country is in an economic valley.
Kerry James Marshall tuned into the success of hybridity, both in the representation of race and the use of media. His works, like Walker's, are very graphic; blending high and low culture. His work also deals with the juxtaposition, as sometimes overlapment, of stereotype and reality. All of his technical choices (color, composition, etc.) relate to the conceptual framework behind his pieces. I have generally been more impressed by the figurative work he created over the more experimental, mixed-media work.
The darkness of the figures in his work almost suggests an invisibility, or a simultaneously absence and presence. The figures remind me of the mass of a black hole, which is infinite and at the same time contains nothing. Many of the figures are indistinguishable from one another, which seems to speak to the stereotype of black not have individualized sense of identity. The narrative quality of his works also go against modernist art (generally ruled by the white, middle class male). He seems to be resituating the black figure back into history, giving the blacks more power.
What seems to be the overall them of post-blackness is both the acceptance and rejection of historical assiciations with African Americans and a more individualized approach to black identity, or in some cases, a complete rejection of black identity. It is a resistance to social judgment based on historical stereotypes and visual, physical featues. On that note, I think it would be good to end with a piece from Glen Ligon, in which he simultaneously "exagerates his black features" and "exagerates his white features."
This is the same reason I have enjoyed Kara Walker's work. The graphic, cartoon-like nature is visually appealing and often reminded me of vinyl wall decals made for children's rooms. However, her work is very disturbing and relies on the stereotypical "look" associated with blacks (big lips, big butt, "nappy" hair) yet at the same time her black characters are enforcing "slave punishments" against their white counterparts. The violent and childlike juxtaposition often drew me to her work, as it functions like a fairytale gone awry. She bridges pop-art style with a multiculturalist view. Her view bridges the past (with characters from folklore) with the present (themes of racism, violence, gender and identity).
According to Thelma Goldin, Freestyle aimed to recontextualize blackness in terms of a multicultural, or even post-ethnic, society. I see the show as attempt to reclaim a black identity and not give in to a more normative society. However, I wonder if the show reinforces the racial relavatism that occurs when there are "all black" shows, or shows during February, or all women shows. Does this reinforce ethnic diversity and awareness over artistic ability? I would say that all the artists in the Freestyle exhibition are deserving of the exhibition, but I still believe that racial relavatism skews the artworld based on a societal guilt to incorporate diversity and a disregard for artistic accomplishment.
I also think that Holland Cotter brought up a good point in questioning if the label "post-ethnic" will merely become a marketing label. There was also an evident correlation between multiculturalist art and the economic market. When the market was down, multiculturalism was up. This follows the historical trend of art, to make what is considered to be "unmarketable" art while the country is in an economic valley.
Kerry James Marshall tuned into the success of hybridity, both in the representation of race and the use of media. His works, like Walker's, are very graphic; blending high and low culture. His work also deals with the juxtaposition, as sometimes overlapment, of stereotype and reality. All of his technical choices (color, composition, etc.) relate to the conceptual framework behind his pieces. I have generally been more impressed by the figurative work he created over the more experimental, mixed-media work.
The darkness of the figures in his work almost suggests an invisibility, or a simultaneously absence and presence. The figures remind me of the mass of a black hole, which is infinite and at the same time contains nothing. Many of the figures are indistinguishable from one another, which seems to speak to the stereotype of black not have individualized sense of identity. The narrative quality of his works also go against modernist art (generally ruled by the white, middle class male). He seems to be resituating the black figure back into history, giving the blacks more power.
What seems to be the overall them of post-blackness is both the acceptance and rejection of historical assiciations with African Americans and a more individualized approach to black identity, or in some cases, a complete rejection of black identity. It is a resistance to social judgment based on historical stereotypes and visual, physical featues. On that note, I think it would be good to end with a piece from Glen Ligon, in which he simultaneously "exagerates his black features" and "exagerates his white features."
Monday, March 17, 2008
My Identity in a Nutshell
my blogs are a little sporadic since i got a little behind in my posts...but I attempted to make a diagram of my identity (the key word here is ATTEMPTED). This proved to be more difficult than I thought, as there are many that overlap, many that I affiliate with, many that are more heritage/tradition based that I don't affiliate with as much, and the size of the circles leads to a skewed view about how I rank them in importance. (For example, the FEMINIST oval is huge, and although feminism is important to me, I'm not sure that it makes up quite as much of my identity as this diagram would suggest.) I'm sure I left out a ton of things that contribute to my identity. don't be too critical.
Identity and Art
"Two factors determine the nationality of art: (a) the place where the art is produced and (b) the national background of the artist."
- John Graham, taken from Cultural Pluralism Versus the American Canon by Lowery Stokes Sims
Although this statement was made over 50 years ago, we still seem to be discussing its relevance today. In an earlier class we talked about the pressure to explore identity if you are an artist associated with any community which has experienced historical oppression. Ideally, as we move towards post-ethnicity, this will no longer be an issue.
I feel like this pressure still exists due to a phenomenon I will call "artistic/racial relativism," related to the exclusion of minorities in the artistic canon. It seems as though the art world is trying to make up for a history of oppression and/or exclusion by championing a select few contemporary minority artists (and female artists), yet the art institution still wields control over the context in which the art is shown, for example, during February there are numerous African-American art shows. Are these artists making detrimental choices concerning their careers by having work shown in "ethnic" shows? Or is it more important that they are getting their artwork into the world by any means they can?
- John Graham, taken from Cultural Pluralism Versus the American Canon by Lowery Stokes Sims
Although this statement was made over 50 years ago, we still seem to be discussing its relevance today. In an earlier class we talked about the pressure to explore identity if you are an artist associated with any community which has experienced historical oppression. Ideally, as we move towards post-ethnicity, this will no longer be an issue.
I feel like this pressure still exists due to a phenomenon I will call "artistic/racial relativism," related to the exclusion of minorities in the artistic canon. It seems as though the art world is trying to make up for a history of oppression and/or exclusion by championing a select few contemporary minority artists (and female artists), yet the art institution still wields control over the context in which the art is shown, for example, during February there are numerous African-American art shows. Are these artists making detrimental choices concerning their careers by having work shown in "ethnic" shows? Or is it more important that they are getting their artwork into the world by any means they can?
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Another P word...
Postethnic.
David Hollinger explores this concept in his book Postethnic America. This ideology follows a long list of interpreting how we approach indvidual identity, collective identity, and cultural diversity including Multiculturalism, Pluralism, Cosmopolitanism, etc. "Posting" any term seems to signify the end of the ideology, however Hollinger uses the term in order to show both a change in the way we see ethnicity and a continuation of previous views.
After reading Hollinger, I was initially left feeling a little lost. He seems to identify numerable problems with out current system of identifying based on heritage and descent, but also illustrates reasons that the ethnoracial pentagon is still necessary in terms of governmental or political factors. But what is the solution? Ideally, we would function in a world where identity is based on affiliation by revocable consent, yet the history of oppression that our government and political system is attempting to rectify still calls for ethnoracial divisions. However, these ethnoracial divisions are constricting and do not allow for more nuanced notions of identity, or tribal differences that are apparent in many cultures. I was thinking about people who have seemingly more complicated identities (although I do not intend to say that not everyone's identity is not complicated, by more complicated I mean those who do not fit into societal norms) such as people who are of mixed race, immigrants, children of immigrants and adopted persons.
I have mentioned my aunt before, who was Korean born and adopted by my grandparents at the age of 7. During the course of this semester my curiosity about how she negotiates her identity has continued to grow. I started to think about the ethnoracial pentagon and thought she would fit into Asian-American. However, after thinking about it, my aunt has met her biological mother (who is a native Korean) but she has never been told who her father is. Because her physical appearance is slightly different from her biological sisters and brothers, she has thought that her father may be white, however, she is unsure. Therefore, she may be of mixed race identity...or maybe not. Where do people who do not have concrete knowledge of their descent fit it? Also, she was born in Korea, yet remembers nothing about Korea and does not affiliate with the Korean community. She identifies with a Norwegian, Lutheran community.
After contemplating these questions, I decided to ask her about how she negotiates her identity and we have been having an email conversation back and forth about some of the identity issues she deals with. I feel like this gave me some insight. Here are a few excerpts from our conversations. Some of the discussions require some background information which I have put in parenthesis.
(Although my aunt did not come to American until she was 7, she does not remember anything about Korea. My grandparents thought it best to keep her Korean first name, MiSun, to ease her adjustment into a new family.)
Me: How important is your Korean heritage in your everyday life, if important at all?
MiSun: Really I don’t see my Korean heritage in my everyday life. Honestly my thoughts, beliefs and values are all based/influenced on my upbringing… which is Mid-western Scandnavian. The only times it impacts my everyday life is when I meet new people and they make the assumption I was raised as a Korean and will ask really questions like, Do you like to eat kimchi… Wow, you speak English really well… or my favorite of course – which is they say something in Korean to me and expect me to understand what they said, and when I say I don’t understand, they look at me in disbelief. I think the only times I’m really even aware of my heritage are during my visits to my biological family in Texas. Of course they really embrace their heritage and it impacts their everyday life – they all speak Korean, eat Korean foods every day, watch Korean shows… so it’s really only during those times that I ever really stop and think about my Korean heritage, the customs, values, and foods…
(My aunt was raised in a town of roughly 500 people in Northern Minnesota with very, very little diversity).
Me: Have you encountered times in your life where you were conflicted or made hyper-aware of your identity?
MiSun: When I was growing up I remember being picked on or teased about looking different… for me it was my Korean looks vs. someone else who may have had big ears or was chubby. There were days when I would beg my mom to let me change my name to “Heather, Holly, Susie” or other common names, and of course I had those nights when I would pray asking God why I couldn’t have blonde hair and blue eyes. Other than those early childhood years I think I was really isolated from a lot of the real predujice and discriminatory attitudes/behaviors, because as a small town they all accepted me as Clyde and Joyce’s daughter. In fact I remember it didn’t really hit me as an adult I was Korean until I went off to college at Concordia and many students and professors either assumed I was raised as one of the Asian ethnicities or would ask if I was a foreign exchange student.
(MiSun will be traveling to Korea with her biological family this summer.)
Me: How do you feel about traveling to Korea as an American of Korean descent?
MiSun: Really I feel more like I’m like many tourists visiting their ancestoral home out of curiousity. Maybe I’ll feel different once I get there, but right now I’m excited about visiting it just I would be excited about visiting Norway, England, France etc… I think my biological family in Texas are looking at the trip more as educating me about my past, and pointing out places that I probably knew as a young child (but don’t remember). For them it’s like going “home.” For me it’s a vacation to an exotic place with the best group of people to show me around. J Then again it will be really interesting to be in an environment where my race is the dominant one...
(My aunt has 3 children with my uncle who is of Norwegian/German descent. They are both practicing Lutherans).
Me: How do you negotiate your identity and how will you approach educating your children about their identity, both their affiliations and their descent?
MiSun: I have for years told people “I’m biologically Korean, but environmentally I’m MN scandanavin.” Truly those environmental influences have shaped me into the type of person I am. I was raised Lutheran, so I practice that faith and am passing that onto my children. The holiday traditions, foods, slang that I use are all those that I grew up with… and so I pass those onto my children. Do I see myself as a “dual person” with two identities… no, I see myself as an Midwestern American. I struggle sometimes with my personal beliefs on how new immigrants can create their own subcultures within our country… creating whole neighborhoods and communities for their race. I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t better to see that Korean grocery store next to a Blockbuster in the middle of “mainstream America” then amongst blocks and blocks of other Korean stores and shops. I can’t help but wonder if the first isn’t really what America should be about… not segregation, but the blending and mixing of all the wonderful things from the many ethnicities that exist in our country.
For me, my aunt's identity really illustrates the barriers between identity by consent or descent, discussed by Hollinger, since her "biological identity" and "identity based on lived experience" are very different. I also think that a move towards post-ethnicity is extremely valuable in cases like this. However, my aunt's experiences with being viewed as "other," also show that society is still quick to assume identity based on visual/physical characteristics. Although her physical appearance may classify her as Korean-American, I feel like she is a perfect example of a Norwegian/Lutheran/Midwestern, upper/middle-class woman (although here I am consciously stereotyping what it means to be Norwegian/Lutheran/Midwestern and upper/middle-class.)
David Hollinger explores this concept in his book Postethnic America. This ideology follows a long list of interpreting how we approach indvidual identity, collective identity, and cultural diversity including Multiculturalism, Pluralism, Cosmopolitanism, etc. "Posting" any term seems to signify the end of the ideology, however Hollinger uses the term in order to show both a change in the way we see ethnicity and a continuation of previous views.
After reading Hollinger, I was initially left feeling a little lost. He seems to identify numerable problems with out current system of identifying based on heritage and descent, but also illustrates reasons that the ethnoracial pentagon is still necessary in terms of governmental or political factors. But what is the solution? Ideally, we would function in a world where identity is based on affiliation by revocable consent, yet the history of oppression that our government and political system is attempting to rectify still calls for ethnoracial divisions. However, these ethnoracial divisions are constricting and do not allow for more nuanced notions of identity, or tribal differences that are apparent in many cultures. I was thinking about people who have seemingly more complicated identities (although I do not intend to say that not everyone's identity is not complicated, by more complicated I mean those who do not fit into societal norms) such as people who are of mixed race, immigrants, children of immigrants and adopted persons.
I have mentioned my aunt before, who was Korean born and adopted by my grandparents at the age of 7. During the course of this semester my curiosity about how she negotiates her identity has continued to grow. I started to think about the ethnoracial pentagon and thought she would fit into Asian-American. However, after thinking about it, my aunt has met her biological mother (who is a native Korean) but she has never been told who her father is. Because her physical appearance is slightly different from her biological sisters and brothers, she has thought that her father may be white, however, she is unsure. Therefore, she may be of mixed race identity...or maybe not. Where do people who do not have concrete knowledge of their descent fit it? Also, she was born in Korea, yet remembers nothing about Korea and does not affiliate with the Korean community. She identifies with a Norwegian, Lutheran community.
After contemplating these questions, I decided to ask her about how she negotiates her identity and we have been having an email conversation back and forth about some of the identity issues she deals with. I feel like this gave me some insight. Here are a few excerpts from our conversations. Some of the discussions require some background information which I have put in parenthesis.
(Although my aunt did not come to American until she was 7, she does not remember anything about Korea. My grandparents thought it best to keep her Korean first name, MiSun, to ease her adjustment into a new family.)
Me: How important is your Korean heritage in your everyday life, if important at all?
MiSun: Really I don’t see my Korean heritage in my everyday life. Honestly my thoughts, beliefs and values are all based/influenced on my upbringing… which is Mid-western Scandnavian. The only times it impacts my everyday life is when I meet new people and they make the assumption I was raised as a Korean and will ask really questions like, Do you like to eat kimchi… Wow, you speak English really well… or my favorite of course – which is they say something in Korean to me and expect me to understand what they said, and when I say I don’t understand, they look at me in disbelief. I think the only times I’m really even aware of my heritage are during my visits to my biological family in Texas. Of course they really embrace their heritage and it impacts their everyday life – they all speak Korean, eat Korean foods every day, watch Korean shows… so it’s really only during those times that I ever really stop and think about my Korean heritage, the customs, values, and foods…
(My aunt was raised in a town of roughly 500 people in Northern Minnesota with very, very little diversity).
Me: Have you encountered times in your life where you were conflicted or made hyper-aware of your identity?
MiSun: When I was growing up I remember being picked on or teased about looking different… for me it was my Korean looks vs. someone else who may have had big ears or was chubby. There were days when I would beg my mom to let me change my name to “Heather, Holly, Susie” or other common names, and of course I had those nights when I would pray asking God why I couldn’t have blonde hair and blue eyes. Other than those early childhood years I think I was really isolated from a lot of the real predujice and discriminatory attitudes/behaviors, because as a small town they all accepted me as Clyde and Joyce’s daughter. In fact I remember it didn’t really hit me as an adult I was Korean until I went off to college at Concordia and many students and professors either assumed I was raised as one of the Asian ethnicities or would ask if I was a foreign exchange student.
(MiSun will be traveling to Korea with her biological family this summer.)
Me: How do you feel about traveling to Korea as an American of Korean descent?
MiSun: Really I feel more like I’m like many tourists visiting their ancestoral home out of curiousity. Maybe I’ll feel different once I get there, but right now I’m excited about visiting it just I would be excited about visiting Norway, England, France etc… I think my biological family in Texas are looking at the trip more as educating me about my past, and pointing out places that I probably knew as a young child (but don’t remember). For them it’s like going “home.” For me it’s a vacation to an exotic place with the best group of people to show me around. J Then again it will be really interesting to be in an environment where my race is the dominant one...
(My aunt has 3 children with my uncle who is of Norwegian/German descent. They are both practicing Lutherans).
Me: How do you negotiate your identity and how will you approach educating your children about their identity, both their affiliations and their descent?
MiSun: I have for years told people “I’m biologically Korean, but environmentally I’m MN scandanavin.” Truly those environmental influences have shaped me into the type of person I am. I was raised Lutheran, so I practice that faith and am passing that onto my children. The holiday traditions, foods, slang that I use are all those that I grew up with… and so I pass those onto my children. Do I see myself as a “dual person” with two identities… no, I see myself as an Midwestern American. I struggle sometimes with my personal beliefs on how new immigrants can create their own subcultures within our country… creating whole neighborhoods and communities for their race. I can’t help but wonder if it isn’t better to see that Korean grocery store next to a Blockbuster in the middle of “mainstream America” then amongst blocks and blocks of other Korean stores and shops. I can’t help but wonder if the first isn’t really what America should be about… not segregation, but the blending and mixing of all the wonderful things from the many ethnicities that exist in our country.
For me, my aunt's identity really illustrates the barriers between identity by consent or descent, discussed by Hollinger, since her "biological identity" and "identity based on lived experience" are very different. I also think that a move towards post-ethnicity is extremely valuable in cases like this. However, my aunt's experiences with being viewed as "other," also show that society is still quick to assume identity based on visual/physical characteristics. Although her physical appearance may classify her as Korean-American, I feel like she is a perfect example of a Norwegian/Lutheran/Midwestern, upper/middle-class woman (although here I am consciously stereotyping what it means to be Norwegian/Lutheran/Midwestern and upper/middle-class.)
Monday, March 10, 2008
New Authentics....reflections
Admittedly, I do not know a whole lot about the Jewish faith, except for a brief description given to me by an atheist Jew acquaintance regarding what it meant to be kosher. However, I feel slightly more knowledgeable regarding the "history" of Jews in the 20th century. This is part of the reason why I enjoyed the New Authentics exhibition; there were loose ties to "Jewishness" yet many of the works spoke about human experience on a more universal level. I didn't feel like my lake of knowledge about Jewish faith inhibited my experience of the work.
One work that struck me as particularly universal to human spiritual experience was a 7 part video installation by Joel Tauber titled, "7 Attempts to Make a Ritual," which depicted exactly that. His attempt at creating a ritual was to dig a hole in the ground and meditate in it, but in each attempt the variants changed, although the hole in the earth and meditation remained the same. Sometimes he created a whole and sometimes he used a naturally created or found hole. A plaque below the monitor listed the procedure for that particular attempt. I appreciated the humor Tauber incorporated into the procedure, such as "This time wear clothes so I don't get cold and get out of hole." These were very pragmatic variants to create a spiritual revelation (which in itself does not seem inherently pragmatic). There's a ritualistic component to almost every religious sect, and I feel that this piece not only serves to show the frustration to find meaning in terms of religion or spirituality, but also in secular life.
In terms of Jewish history this piece is also interesting because it does seem "post-Jewish." Stacy Borris in the intro to the catalogue for the show identifies two main events that and early generation of Jews communed around, the repercussions of the holocaust on themselves or their ancestors and the longing for the homeland. However, the contemporary generation of Jews seems further removed from both of these things. This divide can be described as a difference between heritage and lived experience. The Holocaust and the longing for the homeland were collective endeavors, while many Jews have a more individualistic approach to their own Jewish faith (or lack of it). Tauber piece seems to be an individual endeavor to find meaning in the world and to have a personal spiritualistic revelation that is not specific just to Judaism. It was also interesting in relation to how Stacy Borris introduced the exhibit when she said that the exhibit was about "cultural and intellectual engagement, instead of religious," because Tauber is incorporating all three, although he uses a more personal ideology of religion.
If you are interested in another project by Joel Tauber, here is a link to another project that deals with a ritualistic saving of a tree in the parking lot where the Rose Bowl was held.
I also enjoyed Lilah Friedland's photographs in relation to a comment Stacy made about the "post generation" having more freedom to critique their Jewish background that previous generations. Her Jewish princesses depicted as sexual objects and Hasidic Jew (who is really a Jewish rockstar) critique orthodox Judaism. She seems to be also poking fun at Jewish stereotypes, but at the same time showing that those stereotypes are both negated and reinforced in contemporary culture. It also speaks to overlapping identities that is very pertinent to a post-identity ideology.
Seeing this exhibition made me realize that there is an obvious difference between the generations, in much the same way that there are differences in ideologies between second and third wave feminists. The contemporary Jewish generation seems more concerned with an individualistic approach to their identity (much like third wave feminism encourages a more individualistic approach). However, this causes the demise of the collective identity, which I still feel is an important part of an individual's history and identity. I was thinking about this in relation to the personal and political, specifically the New Authentics artists vs. older generation Jewish artists such as Ben Shahn, and his politically charged posters.
His works reflects a more collective Jewish identity and a group reaction against Nazi Germany. The artists in the New Authentics show reflect a personal approach to their Jewishness, as they are futher removed from the collective identity of post-war Jews.
One work that struck me as particularly universal to human spiritual experience was a 7 part video installation by Joel Tauber titled, "7 Attempts to Make a Ritual," which depicted exactly that. His attempt at creating a ritual was to dig a hole in the ground and meditate in it, but in each attempt the variants changed, although the hole in the earth and meditation remained the same. Sometimes he created a whole and sometimes he used a naturally created or found hole. A plaque below the monitor listed the procedure for that particular attempt. I appreciated the humor Tauber incorporated into the procedure, such as "This time wear clothes so I don't get cold and get out of hole." These were very pragmatic variants to create a spiritual revelation (which in itself does not seem inherently pragmatic). There's a ritualistic component to almost every religious sect, and I feel that this piece not only serves to show the frustration to find meaning in terms of religion or spirituality, but also in secular life.
In terms of Jewish history this piece is also interesting because it does seem "post-Jewish." Stacy Borris in the intro to the catalogue for the show identifies two main events that and early generation of Jews communed around, the repercussions of the holocaust on themselves or their ancestors and the longing for the homeland. However, the contemporary generation of Jews seems further removed from both of these things. This divide can be described as a difference between heritage and lived experience. The Holocaust and the longing for the homeland were collective endeavors, while many Jews have a more individualistic approach to their own Jewish faith (or lack of it). Tauber piece seems to be an individual endeavor to find meaning in the world and to have a personal spiritualistic revelation that is not specific just to Judaism. It was also interesting in relation to how Stacy Borris introduced the exhibit when she said that the exhibit was about "cultural and intellectual engagement, instead of religious," because Tauber is incorporating all three, although he uses a more personal ideology of religion.
If you are interested in another project by Joel Tauber, here is a link to another project that deals with a ritualistic saving of a tree in the parking lot where the Rose Bowl was held.
I also enjoyed Lilah Friedland's photographs in relation to a comment Stacy made about the "post generation" having more freedom to critique their Jewish background that previous generations. Her Jewish princesses depicted as sexual objects and Hasidic Jew (who is really a Jewish rockstar) critique orthodox Judaism. She seems to be also poking fun at Jewish stereotypes, but at the same time showing that those stereotypes are both negated and reinforced in contemporary culture. It also speaks to overlapping identities that is very pertinent to a post-identity ideology.
Seeing this exhibition made me realize that there is an obvious difference between the generations, in much the same way that there are differences in ideologies between second and third wave feminists. The contemporary Jewish generation seems more concerned with an individualistic approach to their identity (much like third wave feminism encourages a more individualistic approach). However, this causes the demise of the collective identity, which I still feel is an important part of an individual's history and identity. I was thinking about this in relation to the personal and political, specifically the New Authentics artists vs. older generation Jewish artists such as Ben Shahn, and his politically charged posters.
His works reflects a more collective Jewish identity and a group reaction against Nazi Germany. The artists in the New Authentics show reflect a personal approach to their Jewishness, as they are futher removed from the collective identity of post-war Jews.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)