Skip to content

dave cam as a cultural critic in-spite of his best efforts?

OK.. I don’t like the personal oriented heading for this post. (alternative suggestions are welcome!)

According to http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/24/prime-ministers-christmas-message-applauds-armed-forces the guardian’s heading, a focus on prime-ministerial xmass message is the outrage of reminding us that in a defunct UK democracy, when inclusiveness is being forgotten in the burning altar of periodically convenient majoritarian approach, david’s focus on Christianity and jeremys attention to self-rightehous “solidarity”* – appear perfectly normal as they seek to entertain their respective power bases.

However, beyond power and politics of the convenient, I this the guardian report serves to remind an artistic and cultural complicitness within the deplorably of jeremy and dave’s messages.
Am going to focus on dave’s example, as it is a simple one, and seems ripe for blue-printing similar readings from other similar occurrences and occasions.

The focus on cultural and artistic questions from dave’s statement comes, in my mind, from:
“…his birth represents: peace, mercy, goodwill and, above all, hope. ”
Check the term *represent*.

What is the cultural and artistic ontology of representation? In other words, how representations come about and how to Be a representation?
Linguistically?
Legally?
Speculatively?
artistic culturally? (sorta)

I think that one of the common elements that the operation of representing seems to have in various endeavours and orientations, is that of Being Not What it is a subject of.
If my cinnamon represents me, to be able Being that sign of me – it can never Be me.
The Picture is Not a tree, the Painting is not a Pipe, the lawyer is Not the defendant, etc..
In what might be some other terms, psycho-philosophically (?), I think it can be argues that a representation is an “other”. Am not sure whether Big or Small – with some Lacanian reference there – and perhaps here indeed, size does not matter. I think the interesting focus is on how representation can be conjured culturally because it seems like containing an inherent hypocrisy, or self righteousness – perhaps both?

Lets try?
In my mind, it seems that when I focus on attempting to represent some other being than me, an interval opens up between myself and that other being.
When a friend asks me to get them a drink, I become their representative at the bar. How can I get a drink for them, as if I was them – while clearly being Not them?
Sure there can be various ways to approach that interval – however it exists.
If we keep with that drink at the bar example, I might find myself representing a person at the bar, so they Do Not Have to do that. Might be worth mentioning that for being represented – at the bar or other occasions – the subject being represented supports the representation by Being something and some Other than the representation.
In other words:
To be represented, one has to be Not what ever it is that represents.
If I went to get a friend a drink while actually Being my friend?

In a sense, I think it can be argued here that to make me representing my friend at the bar possible, my Friend has to be Not me at the bar. To be Not me at the bar, my friend might possible tell themselves that they are kind of satisfied with me going to get the drink instead of them.

Now, going back to the assertion of “…his birth represents: peace, mercy, goodwill and, above all, hope. ”
What might happen when a group of people cultivates the Being of being represented as peaceful, merciful, having goodwill and hopefulness? Perhaps am missing one thing or another, however, in my mind, it seems that to cultivate that sense of Other which represents a group as having certain elements the social body rather fancies – the being of that culture has to be something Other than its representation.

In a sense, perhaps we have a case here that just like I can be representing a friend at the bar so they can do something else, the representation of certain elements in Xmass is there precisely so that the culture being represented does not have to be.
Peace? Hence in the same message of “peace”, the armed forces can be congratulated? Hence we can be at a time when only a few weeks ago the social body voted for war, yet look in the mirror, say “we are peaceful” and keep a straight face?
Mercy #1? As in helping refugees in their journeys over to a christian europe – or paying turkey to keep them and leaving people to the hands of extortionate smugglers?
Mercy #2? As in evolving NHS into a body that provides better and more inclusive Free treatments to everyone who might be in need? Or developing policies that will shrink NHS’s free provisions so that people’s economic size will determine their health and time-length on the planet, more than it is now..
Goodwill? As in helping people in social and cultural needs by eliminating austerity measures?
Hopefulness? As in offering free education for everyone at all levels and open finance for arts in any shape, form and cpacity it might be?

Or,
While reading the suggestions it turned out that its far cheaper to support the representation of such elements precisely because then we do not have to deal with the messiness of Being hopeful, merciful, etc..?

What if this is wrong? What if the idea of being represented is actually a mirage because we are not talking about representation as the Other of what ever is being represented – but of an expression?
What if, keeping with the Xmass analogy, the so called values represented by the xmass narrative are there because they express Being of a goodwill, etc.?
My 2p into that question is that, as a person, if I was practicing goodwill, any representation which is not just a simple expression of that goodwill expression – will seem superfluous. Maybe am too puritan?

Say a person showed some mercy to someone. They might kind of like-appreciate a personal, social and perhaps even cultural acknowledgement of their mercifulness. However, would that acknowledgement, a thanks!, a renumeration, a title, or a story/movie/game/app/etc. – be anything other than part of an expression of exchanges rather than representing something?

What of representing a merciful act as a play/app/etc?
Again, in my mind, the representation, is other than the expression of what the person might have done.
However, there is an argument that such representations, icons, etc., operate to remind people and indeed Inspire people into doing and maybe even Being of certain qualities. Say the merciful one.

Yes. Indeed. However, if a person is inspired to be of a given quality. Will they be inspired if they already were of such quality, or precisely the fact they can be inspired is that they were Not – at least doing – whatever that quality is?

*
Re jeremy’s don’t do unto others kind of notion. Perhaps am wrong but it seems that it absolves a person from listening to others’ own needs. What happens when the other person needs something I would Not do to myself? Or indeed, what happens when the other person needs something I utterly disapprove of?
Or is it that I am always so correct, wise and intelligent as to embody the right aspirations of everyone else??!!

One Comment

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.