In the third section of his book, Electronic Monuments, Gregory Ulmer writes of the process by which an event, or disaster, might become an emblem in the EmerAgency process of MEmorialization. Ulmer also talks about the importance of MEmorialization itself, the attempt at viewing and understanding oneself in relation to disaster (or any event that "stings.") The basic process for MEmorialization is to feel the sting from an event; to construct a concetto, or to form connections based on incidental similarities of various discourses related to the event; to infer from those connections some abject value/sacrifice; and to construct an emblem which captures a "trace of the real," of the emotions or mood of the abject sacrifice, which will allow the egent to "write a disaster we can't think or feel." In doing so, the egent is able to place himself in the field of the disaster in an awareness of how he relates to that disaster or to that abject value/sacrifice- all for the goal of fostering a collective awareness toward that abject, to the end of (hopefully) ethical action.
The Process of MEmorializing
According to Ulmer, the process of MEmorializing begins with the sting/punctum of a current event- something (maybe inexplicably) stings me and makes me feel it, even in spite of my own compassion fatigue. From there, the egent must fill "out the sting" (118) by way of building a "concetto" - a collection of associations and information from various sources and discourses, in order to map the relations of these things, not only to one another but to oneself. This process is rooted in the need to "feel" something. Ulmer would likely say that under literate apparatus, and under our societal conditions, it is impossible for us to truly understand the way that we exist in relation to any event or disaster- to be aware of the abject- for a few reasons: 1) because the literate logic would be to describe and explain, rather than to connect, represent or evoke any emotion; 2) because of our compassion fatigue as a result of the spectacle, we know more but feel less; and 3) because we (society) tend only to recognize and commemorate those disasters/sacrifices that fit with societal ideals, ignoring the abject sacrifices as such.
While Ulmer would say that we cannot become aware of the abject under normal circumstances, he clearly sees MEmorializing and the EmerAgency as a way to foster awareness of these things. From my own reading, there are a few reasons MEmorializing- and electracy itself- would work differently in bringing about our awareness. First, in stepping outside of the literate operation of "explaining" or "describing," we are freed from an apparatus which relates to the object/event from afar. In representing or evoking emotion, it may be possible for the viewer/subject to be interpolated by the image and find some way of relating to that image. Second, Ulmer would argue that the only way to break through our own compassion fatigue is through response to an event that stings. Further than that, compassion fatigue is amplified by the sense that any disaster occurs separate and independently from the "self," while the EmerAgency would strive to make the "self" aware of his relation to a disaster. If that is successful, it would be hard to maintain compassion fatigue, at least toward that particular event/disaster. Finally, in the process of MEmorializing, the abject itself is searched for and commemorated- not in an idealized or subliminal manner but for itself. If the abject is recognized and (ME)morialized, then it is more likely that we will be aware of it.
Ulmer's investigation into the abject begins with the juxtaposition of the inner and outer self in the form of human excrement. At a basic level, the outer self represents that which is ideal while the inner self represents that which is vile, repulsive (or unknowable, specifically to the subconscious) but a part of the self nonetheless. The suggestion, along the metaphor of human waste, is that the inner self naturally comes out and is manifest in the world and in our lives. However, just as our own waste is seen as filth and even at times shameful once "outside," the manifestations of our own subconscious are seen along the same lines- as repulsive, or to be feared (not that they are understood.) In these collective manifestations of the inner, the subconscious, the abject is created. Not tolerable to look at or talk about, the abject is a part of us nonetheless. Specifically, the abject is a value which demands a sacrifice- just as the ideals (outer self) of society demand sacrifices: freedom, liberty, justice, etc. The difference is that the sacrifices to the ideal are commemorated and even celebrated (or perhaps even turned into spectacle,) while sacrifices to the abject values- which we still cling to as a part of our way of life- go unnoticed or even worse, are met with shame or disgust.
However, Ulmer would say that overcoming these obstacles to feeling or even seeing the abject is essential to both an individual and collective identity in the age of the internet and electracy. If the MEmorial can cause a viewer/individual to "feel" the disaster, then it is possible for that individual to come to an understanding of his own role and relation to the abject and/or to the disaster. The typical mode of thinking of a disaster is "outside of self": as Ulmer quotes Blanchot "There is death and murder... It is an impersonal, inactive, and irresponsible "they" that must answer for this death and this murder. And likewise this child is a child, but one who is always undetermined and without relation to anyone at all." The goal for the egent is to shift this perspective, through the punctum of an emblem representing the abject values surrounding some disaster/sacrifice, to a perspective of thinking of a disaster as "inside of self." A successful result for the egent would be to confront the question, "how am I a part of this problem?" Given the nature of the abject, it is a reasonable goal of the EmerAgency to cause people to confront this question, because the answer will seemingly be a "yes." I am a part of the disaster of child abuse, because I hold inside of me the value of family and the rights of a parent to raise one's own child. Upon this realization, two responses are desirable for the egent: one, a collective recognition of the abject sacrifice as such; two, the arising of an ethical situation in the collective psyche. If an individual or a collection of individuals realizes that it plays a part in some disaster, and is outraged/disgusted/etc, the natural question is "how can we fix it?" And this is where Ulmer leaves us, with the question of what comes next after a successful MEmorial project?
My suggestion is that an appropriate reaction would not be the eradication of the cause of the abject. You don't eliminate parenthood because you realize that child abuse is in part due to your own family values, and you don't outlaw driving because you realize that car accidents are a sacrifice so that you have the freedom to drive. In the same vain, you don't eliminate the ideal of freedom because of the horrors of war. You do all that you can to avoid the horrors of war, while celebrating and remembering the sacrifices made in the name of your ideal. Similarly, I think the "ideal" next step once we become aware of our role within the abject is to continue to commemorate and remember the abject sacrifices in the same breath as the ideal. With the sheer volume of possible abject sacrifices existing in the world, the Internet seems like the perfect forum for that.
Questions:
1) Ulmer leaves the "next steps" after awareness of the abject up to the reader or the future. What would you say the next step is after the MEmorial is successful?
2) The abject values and ideal values of a society seem to be sharply separated; is it possible to cross that plane, for something that was once abject to be held in the ideal? Could that be a desirable "next step," after the awareness of the abject is formulated?
No comments:
Post a Comment