Trinh

Trinh T. Minh-Ha "The World as a Foreign Land"
The first part of Trinh's piece deals with "otherness," and the meanings and representations of the racial and sexual "other." According to Trinh, the attention now given to the study and theory of "otherness" is both exciting and worrisome, because it is being "reappropriated as a fighting ground by the named 'others,' and as a site of pilgrimage by the Master and his heirs." She goes on the describe the ways in which "otherness" can be co-opted and re-relegated to subordination by the dominant, explaining that "even when an other is being priviledged [sic], she is constantly, subtly reminded of the favor she enjoys." In this way, the dominant inscribes the other as forever subaltern, enjoying represenation only due to the generosity of the dominant. Trinh theorizes strategies of representation that can be employed by the "other." One possible strategy is repetition, the rehashing of stereotypes in order to criticize and de-naturalize them. Another is autobiography, the representation of the "other"'s own self, which invokes the subjectivity of the plural-I; the representation does not claim to speak for each and every othered individual, but bears witness to facets of the collective experience of the "other." Trinh also theorizes the anti-anti-limit text, a "text that acknowledges its experience of limits without being subjected to normalized limitations" as a strategy for representing the struggles and marginalization of the other without itself reproducing the subordination and re-relegating the othered subjects to a marginalized space. Trinh ends this section by stressing the importance of distinguishing between user-oriented and creator-oriented media, critically understanding the relationship between the "media-maker, media viewer, and media/image/word/sound," and understanding both media content and the features of media production when critically analyzing a media product.

"The Other Censorship"
The second part of Trinh's piece introduces the idea of the "other censorship," the erasure/ignorance of women/queer/people of color productions by the mainstream media. She begins by aruging that we must break down the artificial binary between artists and critics, in order to produce art that "upset[s] rooted ideologies, invalidating the established canon of artistic works and modifying the borderlines between theoretical and non-theoretical discourse," dissolving the division between critics and the works they criticize, experts and non-experts, art and non-art, and dominant and "other." Trinh criticizes theories that tend toward universalism and privileging "accessibility" as forms of intolerance, as they privilege the experiences and knowledges of members of the dominant culture, and erase markers of ethnicity/racel, gender, or non-normative sexuality. She also argues against separating issues of censorship, racism, sexism, and heterosexism, explaining that treated these as unrelated plays into "the colonialist creed of Divide and Conquer," and keeps marginalized subjects in subordination by diverting attention away from the interconnectedness of various struggles against censorship. She encourages utilizing the theory of the "third term": the alternative space that is neither the dominant discourse nor a direct reaction to it, but rather represents the vitality and creativity of othered individuals. If this alternative space is not cultivated, marginalized people will suffer from the "Other Poverty," a spiritual/cultural void caused by the Other Censorship.

The Trinh piece relates heavily to theorists I am reading/have read in Chicana/o Studies classes, most clearly Gloria Anzaldua, Chela Sandoval, and Emma Perez. Like Trinh, they all draw attention to the inevitable failure of revolutionary positions that position themselves as the "opposite" of the hegemonic institutions they struggle against, because they adopt the same power hierarchies as the entities they are fighting. Rather, we must acknowledge the multiple subjectivities of marginalized populations and incorporate all struggles against oppression, as they are inextricably linked. I really appreciate that Trinh draws in art specifically as a revolutionary practice, as art is often subordinated to theory in discussions of anti-oppression work. It's really important to me as a scholar, fan, and sometimes author of cultural productions that the critical and even revolutionary potential of all kinds of fields and practices be theorized and validated. I also appreciate that Trinh moves beyond theory to possible modes of practice in the first part of the piece; theory is only useful when we can apply it to our daily lives.

Trinh's condemnation of universalizing impulses is particularly heartening to me; I've become quite unpopular in several classes here at Stanford for suggesting that not all theorizes or pieces of art are directly addressing all audiences. I sincerely believe that there are certain productions which are meant for a particular audience and best engage that audience's knowledge and experiences, and that insisting upon generalizing productions to apply to all audiences necessarily devalues the specific experiences and struggles out of which the works arise. I could go on for a long time about this issue, but I feel it's not productive to express the full extent of my frustration in this blog.