The-Visual-Activist-blog

[the-visual-activist-blog]

THE MISUSE OF CULTURAL RELATIVISM MANIFESTO

Culture is fundamental to a person’s identity. It influences desires, fears and values. Therefore, culture will always be involved when discussing or trying to understand identity. Being aware of these differences prevents cultural insensitivity between people of different backgrounds. This humane concept has, however, been taken too far. Movements such as Political Correctness have led to an anxious sensitivity that prevents the freedom to criticise cultures where the critic is an outsider. This is because the values of for example South Africa are relative to that culture.

 It is due to this that I believe that cultures should be criticised when they go against universal human rights.

 How could I begin to excuse acts that permit Oppression, Torture and Child Mutilation? Whilst this does not mean cultures should not be respected, blatant disregard for Human Rights should never be excused because there is a difference between cultural prejudice and impeaching acts that are atrocious abuses of those rights.

 FGM or female genital mutilation is the practice of deliberately changing, cutting or injuring female genitals before puberty for no beneficial medical reason. Aside from it being traumatic as anaesthetics and antiseptics are not often used, it can lead to incontinence, Toxic Shock Syndrome, infertility, constant pain, difficulty enjoying sex, mental health problems and life-threatening problems during childbirth.

 It is carried out as a preparation to marriage, religion or social norm if the female members of her family have had FGM done to them as well.

 FGM is illegal in the UK and so often girls are taken abroad to parts of Africa, the Middle East and Asia, often over summer break as that allows them more time to ‘heal’.

 That is Inexcusable.

 This is not to say that only destitute cultures are to be criticised either. It is blind and naïve to think that only non-westernised cultures are flawed. Even in recent events in First-World countries, debates turned violent in the debacle of ‘Black Lives Matter’ versus ‘All Lives Matter‘ where something as simple as changing one word in a chant speaks so much of the condition of race relations in America.

 Slavery was abolished in 1863. It has been 154 years. So how did it get to this point?

 The point where black lives STILL must fight tooth and nail for the right to matter just as much as white lives. But the 44th president was African-American and only black people can say the ‘n word’.

 What racism?

 All Lives don’t matter, because if they did institutionalised form of racism would not lead to so many innocent lives being taken without their killers being rightly prosecuted. And the justified backlash against this would not be seen as unnecessary or exaggerated.

 Don’t let your fear of being tagged as a racist keep you from speaking up

What you call a risk could be called humanitarianism

 It’s not about pushing your culture as the superior one,

It’s about realizing that some actions are not excusable,

It’s about realizing that speaking out is not a choice

But a responsibility

It’s about being passionate

Not ignorant

 Choose a universal moral truth anxious sensitivity

Choose human rights over cultural relativism

 What will you do?

[the-visual-activist-blog]

500 word commentary on The Cheap Art Manifesto

During the 20th century, the manifesto began to be used by artist to declare their reaction and involvement in political or social issues. Similarly, the 1984 Cheap Art Manifesto of the Bread & Puppet Press makes the argument that art needs to be universally acceptable, a principle which is hindered by art’s appropriation by a capitalist culture, a stand with which I agree with in relation to the toxic nature of ‘valuable vs cheap art’.

The Bread & Puppet Press is a division of The Bread & Puppet Theatre which is a politically radical puppet theatre that was founded in the 1960’s by Peter Schumann. Its title is derived from the theatre’s practice of serving the audience free fresh bread during their performances. Similarly, art is seen as vital and basic to life as bread. This principle is carried forward to Schumann’s manifesto where the goal is to take a stand against society’s paradigm that ‘true’ art “is a PRIVILEGE of the MUSEUMS & the RICH” (P. Schumann, The Cheap Art Manifesto, 1984).

This declaration follows the two main objectives of a manifesto. Firstly, it details and reprimands a pattern in contemporary art. In this case, Schumann is stating that commercializing art only exhaust its originality and changes the intended meaning. However, just selling the original art can lead to the average person not being able to afford it as businesses intrinsically seek to make as much of a profit as possible through exorbitant prices. It is due to this that “ART IS NOT BUSINESS!” (P. Schumann, The Cheap Art Manifesto, 1984) is exclaimed in all caps . This could also suggest that this manifesto’s audience could be both corporations and artists so that they would not mistreat their audience. It could also be interpreted by the viewers of art as a declaration of their right to have access to all art.

Secondly, manifestos illustrate a set of principles to retaliate against that pattern. This manifesto uses hyperbolic statements of various sizes and typefaces many of which are boldfaced and end in exclamation marks. This could give the impression of several voices exclaiming, giving this piece a feeling of unity.  Moreover, most of these statements begin with “Art is-”, causing them to appear indisputable and have a rallying-effect.

The minimalistic design of this manifesto with a black and white colour scheme and no illustrations works in the piece’s advantage as it reflects the principle of basic necessities. It is affordable to anyone and easily understood.

The price of art is an issue that remains to be debated even in modern society. The Dutch YouTube channel, lifehunterstv, explored this by taking a £7 IKEA art print and placing it in the Museum for Modern Art in Arnhem to see visitors’ opinion of the print and their guess of how much it was worth with one stating that “If you could buy this for €2,5 million, I’d do it” (B. Lange, 2015). In this way, the price of art has a crucial role in people’s perception of the value of art and their accessibility to it.

[the-visual-activist-blog]

Response to an extract from Brian Longhurst’s “Introducing Cultural Studies”

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

The message is attempting to shed some light on where national identity comes from.

2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

The language is removed from the author’s opinion, and is rational.

3.     Which audience is being addressed?

General audience.

4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

Longhurst uses a neutral tone, and does not use his opinion, due to the nature of the text however, it could be assumed that he is a neutral libertarian.

5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I agree.

6.     Now write 400 - 500 words giving your considered opinion on the subject of the text. You should cite and reference the author using the Harvard referencing system at least once. Choose citations that represent the opinion, argument or political point of view of the writer. You may agree or disagree with the point of view of the writer but you should say why you are adopting this stance. (You may introduce other material to support your opinion on the subject).

 This extract from Brian Longhurst’s “Introducing Cultural Studies” takes a look at Ireland’s national identity and discusses its’s origin and importance.

National Identity results from the ability to have a sense of belonging to that nation. That is always tied to culture which is a shared sense of behaviour, language, custom, and values and these allow for symbolic meaning to be given to public areas such as streets or city monuments. Without these experiences and individual would have no reason to be invested in their nation. This, unfortunately, inevitably results in there being an ‘other’, a ‘rival’, whether that refers to a different nation, or a person from a different neighbourhood. As it is put by Longhurst “Nationalism is, therefore, always a matter of cultural politics” (2008, pp.118)

An appropriate example of the importance of a healthy National Identity would be the current position The United States find themselves in. Whilst Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, the Electoral College’s vote allowed Donald Trump to win which resulted in hundreds of anti-Trump marches and instances of tagging. It could be argued that America’s boisterous, self-imposed attitude of being ‘The Land of the Free’ may have resulted in a denial of any flaws, as the paradise land of the USA would not still have a deeply biased justice system or exclude anyone based on aspects they cannot control. The result of this presidential election was the final straw that allowed Americans to see just how divided they have become. In a way, this is a positive, as vital social issues such as prejudices based on gender, race or sexuality are not said to have been dealt with but in actuality are still very much prominent. It has been too easy to avoid properly dealing with these issues that are deeply rooted in tradition, especially Christian religion. This capitalist need to keep growing and become better has gotten out of hand into ignoring issues as if doing so would mean they don’t exist. The obvious downside is that the results have created a clear ‘Us vs Them’ between Clinton and Trump supporters.

In conclusion, I agree with the points brought up by Longhurst in that I can understand where how national identity is almost inevitable to form. I, however, am apprehensive whether it should remain an unchanged practice. This is due to the downfall of nationalism which can lead to isolation, socioeconomic cliques or war. Similarly, the lack of a national identity would lead to a chaotic, selfish world. A balance needs to be obtained.

Are you proud of your national identity?

Do you think nationalism is an issue?

[the-visual-activist-blog]

Response to an extract from Stephen Teo’s Hong Kong Cinema: The Extra Dimensions

1.       What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

The main message of the text is to discuss Bruce Lee’s film career and how that influenced Chinese nationalism.

2.       What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

The language is impersonal, and descriptive.

3.       Which audience is being addressed?

The audience is made up of outsiders of the Chinese culture.

4.       What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

Since the text is impersonal, it is difficult to discern their political beliefs from it. Similarly, my background research did not turn up any conclusive answers as any information on the author, Stephen Teo, is impersonal and to do with his position at RMIT University.

5.       Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I agree.

6.       Now write 400 - 500 words giving your considered opinion on the subject of the text. You should cite and reference the author using the Harvard referencing system at least once. Choose citations that represent the opinion, argument or political point of view of the writer. You may agree or disagree with the point of view of the writer but you should say why you are adopting this stance. (You may introduce other material to support your opinion on the subject).

This extract discusses Chinese, Kung Fu films in the post-war period with a focus on Bruce Lee’s work and its significance to both Western and Eastern audiences.

Bruce Lee’s fame and influence in action movies has become a part of Hollywood cinema and has shaped Western action movies. This, however, is not entirely positive as stated by Teo, in that Lee’s goal of showing pride in his culture, was misconstrued as camp by Western audiences. It may have been that during the 70s Western audiences could have been attracted to the exotic nature of the foreign Kung Fu practice. This, however, was a superficial interest which would only serve to satisfy curiosity and be entertained. This is not to say that Lee’s work did not accomplish anything, however. The exotic nature of his martial arts practice presented in a format accessible to Western audiences, allowed them to be exposed to a genuine part of Chinese culture.

With the perspective of a Westerner, I can confirm that I had only learned of Lee’s struggles with his American acting career or his Nationalist attitude through this extract. It is not my intention to imply that my lack of knowledge is a clear indicator of Western culture having a superficial understanding of radically different cultures. It mostly conveys my own ignorance, however, this is the experience I had as a millennial Westerner. On the other hand, it may be an indicator to the nature of media idolising the symbol of an important figure, which often dehumanizes said figure.

For Eastern audiences, Lee was a Kung Fu fighter meaning he “fought for a cause, seeking to restore power and dignity to the Chinese race” (Teo, 1997, pp.113) and he did so with such success, no other foreign actor has achieved before or since. The fame Lee still has also is very valuable to the Chinese people as it celebrates their culture rather than attempting to silence it. This was vital in the aftermath of China’s colonisation by the British.

In conclusion, while I am weary of the practice of nationalism, which can easily create a ‘us-versus-them’ mentality, I agree with Teo in that the way this was practiced by Bruce Lee was crucial for the morale of the Chinese people. Similarly, to the position America finds itself with having elected Donald Trump as the new president, minorities that feel threatened would only do themselves more harm by being complacent.

Has this information changed the way you view Bruce Lee?

How has post colonialism affected you?

[the-visual-activist-blog]

Response to CHIMAMANDA NGOZI ADICHE We Should All Be Feminists

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

The main message of the text is to shed some light on gender roles and how they can result in sexism. Adichie, uses her experiences as a Nigerian woman to give examples as to what setbacks even a modern woman still experiences.

2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

Adichie uses both anecdotal and general pieces of evidence to support her point.

3.     Which audience is being addressed?

Both men and women are being addressed, but in particular parents who are warned about the negative effects of raising their children with expectations based on their gender.

4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

While definitely a left-leaning liberal, more general than specifically political as this is more of an issue born out of culture.

5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I agree.

6.     Now write 400 - 500 words giving your considered opinion on the subject of the text. You should cite and reference the author using the Harvard referencing system at least once. Choose citations that represent the opinion, argument or political point of view of the writer. You may agree or disagree with the point of view of the writer but you should say why you are adopting this stance. (You may introduce other material to support your opinion on the subject).

This text uses the author’s experience as a Nigerian woman to shed some light on gender roles and how they can result in sexism. Adichie’s argument is that both men and women should be feminists as gender equality is not just a concern for women. Likewise, allowing gender roles to guide our actions would only result in trapping ourselves in what is allowed and what is expected of us based on our gender.

The subject matter of this text has and still is affecting me as a woman from a Second World country. It was only after immigrating to a First World country that I realised just how much better I could be treated. I was mortified and outraged after making this realisation as I knew I most likely would have not seen anything amiss with daily news reports of rape victims being blamed for being assaulted and an acceptance of domestic abuse as just a part of daily life. It may be possible that due to this acceptance that people such as Adichie’s friend, Louis, believe that “Everything is fine now for women.” (2014, p.14). If poisonous stereotypes such as those that men are not in control of their sexual urges are enforced, then so will views that if they rape a woman it could very well be her fault as she may have been wearing revealing clothing or ‘let herself’ get inhibited in public while being aware that she should not be vulnerable around or provoke any man.

This same stereotype results in men who are raped by women not being taken seriously. It is not a revolutionary statement to point out that sex is different for men and women, this, however, has evolved into men needing to enjoy any attention from an attractive woman otherwise they have failed as men. It is due to this that (attractive)female rapists are given much more leeway.

This is implied in the 2016 article “40 Female School Teachers Arrested For Sleeping With Students” on lifestylepassion.com where a 27-year-old teacher got involved with a 13-year-old student is said to have “luckily” escaped an 8 year sentence for a 9 month one. This is even though Pamela Rogers Turner has 5 counts of sexual battery and 13 counts of statutory rape with a student 14 years her minor. If the genders of the student and teacher were reversed, he would be seen as a monster not a woman who has gone slightly astray in life. One of the most unnerving aspects of this article is that it was written in 2016 and this sympathizing with a rapist cannot even be blamed on the time period.

This is only one view culture has projected on people based on their gender and its dues to this and other views like it that I agree with Adichie’s argument, that people of both genders should be feminists. As otherwise we would just be upholding the same gender standards without being able to express ourselves freely. 

 Blacks, C. (2016) 40 Female School Teachers Arrested For Sleeping With Students. Available at: http://www.lifestylepassion.com/15-1/40-female-school-teachers-arrested-for-sleeping-with-students/ (Accessed 30 October 2016)

 Why do you think some men find it difficult to understand that women are not yet equal to them?

Have you felt gender roles have kept you from expressing yourself?

[the-visual-activist-blog]

Response to Peter Singer’s Animal Liberation

1.     What is the main message of the text? Is the writer attempting to support or describe a particular cause, to promote a political idea or belief, or to condemn a certain state of affairs?

The main message of the text is to show the absurdity of the lack of rights for animals by comparing them to the rights of humans. This includes race and gender and how these aspects determine peoples’ worth.

2.     What kind of language does the writer use? Is it emotional, rational or polemical, for example? Does the writer make a convincing or strong argument?

The language is impersonal and rational throughout the extract which is likely due to Singer being a theorist and needing to give evidence for his arguments.

3.     Which audience is being addressed?

It would seem that the audience of this text is the general public who allow for animals to be mistreated for, what Singer believes, to be the most trivial reasons.

4.     What does the text tell you about the political beliefs of the writer? What do you know about the writer’s politics from your background research? Are they left-wing or right-wing, socialist, Green, conservative, liberal, for example?

From the text it would seem that Singer is a left leaning libertarian, and form further research this utilitarian philosopher used to be a preference utilitarian (promoting actions that fulfill the interests of those beings involved) where morality and ethics are subjective, but now is a hedonistic utilitarian.

5.     Do you agree or disagree with the author?

I agree.

6.     Now write 400 - 500 words giving your considered opinion on the subject of the text. You should cite and reference the author using the Harvard referencing system at least once. Choose citations that represent the opinion, argument or political point of view of the writer. You may agree or disagree with the point of view of the writer but you should say why you are adopting this stance. (You may introduce other material to support your opinion on the subject).

This extract gives a philosophical comparison of the rights of humans as we have developed them across history and how that relates to the rights of animals. The belief that all humans, not dependent on their gender colour or religion, are entitled to a set of rights is quite recent. Hints of acts that establish the worth of people occurred throughout history but always managed to exclude a minority, usually due to an aspect they could not change. This only changed in the aftermath of World War || which caused the birth of the United Nations that, at its core, put the rights of all members of the human race ahead.

Singer points out that not only are peoples’ gender or race irrelevant in their worth as humans, but neither does their intelligence. This then begs the question, why are we so reluctant to drift from this Inegalitarianism towards animals and what could be conceived to be their rights.

I agree with Singer’s views particularly due to the ideology he highlighted by quoting Jeremy Bentham’s argument, “Can they suffer?” (London: Pimlico, 1995, p.7), which, for me, creates a completely convincing argument. It being that, an animal’s biological distance from us or its level of intelligence is irrelevant to its rights if it has the ability to feel pain and therefore suffer. My view extends to twisting the argument of intelligence to the argument of maliciousness in intelligent beings, nothing animals do is malicious, but a series of instincts and therefore cannot be mistreated do to their acts. It could also be argued that, the less intelligence an animal has, the more responsibility we have in helping it cope with the way we are affecting its environment and wellbeing.

On the other hand, in my research I have not found Singer’s views on the use of animals in crucial matters such as medical experiments. Recently The University of Southern California have tested the effects of activated protein C in neuron stem cells to regenerate stroke trauma in lab mice. This proved to be successful and resulted in this practice already being approved for clinical studies in stroke patients. Is this a breakthrough or another instance of Speciesm?

Likewise, the necessary use of animals does not excuse the gross conduct of poultry, beef and dairy farming. Even if a balance was achieved between necessary and trivial animal use, the fact that it took until a disaster for all members of the human species to be considered equal to the mainstream public, suggests it would be some time until Speciesm was not the norm.

Do you think animals are currently being mistreated?

Do you think animals should have the same rights as humans?

[the-visual-activist-blog]

Response to Naomi Klein’s This changes everything

This Changes Everything takes a blunt approach of not blaming the very real outcome of disastrous climate change consequences on the ignorance of a conglomerate of organizations, but on an unwillingness to completely chance as it would break every rule in the ideology of a capitalist ‘free-market’. 

The book’s author, Naomi Klein, already had two global bestsellers in No Logo and The Shock Doctrine, where she tackled the exploitation of impoverished workers and the elite profiting from major disasters, when This Changes Everything became a third. Even with this legacy, Klein, due to having a very public feminist mother, led a consumerist lifestyle during her teenage years, obsessing over designer labels and turning away from politics. This changed when her mother suffered a debilitating stroke which delayed Naomi from going to the University of Toronto for a year. This, along with the École Polytechnique massacre of female engineering students in 1989, gave Klein a wake-up call.

Just as Klein had to be forced into acknowledging the attack on feminism the 1989 massacre presented, she wishes to make the general public aware of the distressing truth about climate change.

She points out that partially trying to change our lifestyle is still remaining ignorant to the damage done to the climate and at this point would not make a real difference. Actually making a difference would mean changing everything about our lifestyles. And this would not be the only time the prospect of a rapid and sudden change kept humanity from advancing.

Klein twice repeats the difficult question “What is wrong with us?” (2014, p.18) in reference to the often used excuse for how we have reached such a disastrous levels of CO2 emissions, being that self-destruction is just part of human nature. She disagrees and attributes our situation to the ideology of our economic model clashing with the changes needed to make a difference.

Klein first proposes this in her second bestseller The Shock Doctrine, where, in the rush of a disaster, the specifics of a response will go unscrutinized. This effect would allow influential decisions to be taken during a time of crisis without much public backlash. This would prove to be beneficial during difficult times such as the Welsh’s acceptance of blackouts during the World War to prevent bombing. However, Klein argues that this vulnerable position can and has been manipulated for the greater benefit of the 1%.

I agree with her stance as I was previously only partially aware of the issues surrounding climate change but also did not chose to get informed. The prospect of completely changing the way I live is worrisome but the points brought up by her are more so, one of the most being the deadline for reaching two degrees yearly emissions ending in 2017.

  Has this extract convinced you to attempt to change your lifestyle?

Have you experienced any extreme side effects of climate change?

[the-visual-activist-blog]

My response to an extract from Stéphane Hessel’s “Time For Outrage”

Stéphane Frédéric Hessel’s manifesto, “Time for Outrage!”, while focusing on the French people needing to become outrage, discusses issues that easily apply to people across the world, as it is shown by the book selling more than 3.5 million copies worldwide.

The meaning of the text comes down to helping the new generation of French people understand why they should be passionate as opposed to apathetic when it comes to the current state of affairs in their country. Hessel goes into detail on his own experiences with speaking up due to his long life giving him “a steady succession of reasons for outrage” (Hessel and Duvert, 2011, p.23). These range from resisting the German occupation to opposing the totalitarianism of the Stalinist mass trials of 1935.

Hessel’s language is understanding towards the reader, and does not blame them for distancing themselves from their nation’s issues. His language also has instances of inclusive language which persuades the reader into feeling as if they are involved. It is however, also emotional due to the subject matter involved. Another way Hessel used persuasion was with future language which implies that the reader has the ability to influence the future of their nature.

Hessel was a diplomat, concentration camp survivor, French Resistance member and a Human Rights advocate so it could be possible to assume that he was a liberal who promoted questioning and resisting authority.

In conclusion, Stéphane Hessel’s “Time for Outrage!” is an informed and respectful call to action towards the youth of today. It can be seen how powerful Hessel’s ideas have been with calls to action that have resulted from this manifesto such as the Spanish protests of 2011. These were against corruption and politics that were against compromise or change. These protests, referred to as “Los Indignados”, similarly sparked other protests into action, one of which was the popular Occupy Wall Street Movement. This demonstrates that one of the reasons why the youth of today don’t speak up is that they may feel they do not have the ability to make a significant change. It could also be argued that the right-wing beliefs might have promoted apathetic views. Due to this, I agree with Hessel in that being apathetic and ignorant is an easy state to fall in as believing you are too weak to make a difference is easier than actually attempting it. For actual changes to be made the reader must first allow themselves to become passionate.