organise; educate; activate
Apr. 27th, 2006 12:03 pm![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
byebyepride.livejournal.com posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png){kind=small}
poptimistsOn the other place I said:
Because books and songs are mostly made from bits of other books and songs
Someone replied:
aren't they, following this, also made up from bits of the world, though, bits of tendentiously constructed social histories?
[I had dissed historicism, basically, which is where the phrase 'tendentiously constructed social histories' comes from]
So I said:
'Yes, bits of the world, but does history give you access to bits of the world? Yes, obviously, and no, possibly equally obviously: the story 'I get angry about life so I invent a new form of rock and roll' misses out so much: like, 'what my new form of rock and roll is made from'. The 'made from' question interests me more than the 'why', but generally people are much happier to think in terms of 'why' stories (they have heroes and villains, for a start). If the 'why' stories interfere with the other stories, it seems fair to rule them out of court for a bit, in order to allow the others to surface.
And because the words / notes are bits of the world, and so are the stories we tell about them, there seems no reason to privilege the 'why' stories as giving us some handle on these particular combinations of words / notes. Especially since the particular bundle we happen to be looking at ALSO brings with it certain kinds of 'why' story. And what NO ONE has adequately done yet is examine how the stories rock / pop surrounds itself with are linked (either in terms of intellectual history OR in terms of affect / desire etc.) to the forms used to understand / interpret rock/pop in the academy. i.e. if modern historicism develops out of the same mutation that gives us modern popular music, how can one have an interpretive authority over the other. It would make us much sense to teach a course on the development of cultural studies in Britain using works by the musicians listed as the secondary reading.'
Which conclusion FEELS right, but might be just naff? Thought I'd post in case anyone wanted to continue (i.e. challenge, as much as anything else) this thought NOT on ILX?
Because books and songs are mostly made from bits of other books and songs
Someone replied:
aren't they, following this, also made up from bits of the world, though, bits of tendentiously constructed social histories?
[I had dissed historicism, basically, which is where the phrase 'tendentiously constructed social histories' comes from]
So I said:
'Yes, bits of the world, but does history give you access to bits of the world? Yes, obviously, and no, possibly equally obviously: the story 'I get angry about life so I invent a new form of rock and roll' misses out so much: like, 'what my new form of rock and roll is made from'. The 'made from' question interests me more than the 'why', but generally people are much happier to think in terms of 'why' stories (they have heroes and villains, for a start). If the 'why' stories interfere with the other stories, it seems fair to rule them out of court for a bit, in order to allow the others to surface.
And because the words / notes are bits of the world, and so are the stories we tell about them, there seems no reason to privilege the 'why' stories as giving us some handle on these particular combinations of words / notes. Especially since the particular bundle we happen to be looking at ALSO brings with it certain kinds of 'why' story. And what NO ONE has adequately done yet is examine how the stories rock / pop surrounds itself with are linked (either in terms of intellectual history OR in terms of affect / desire etc.) to the forms used to understand / interpret rock/pop in the academy. i.e. if modern historicism develops out of the same mutation that gives us modern popular music, how can one have an interpretive authority over the other. It would make us much sense to teach a course on the development of cultural studies in Britain using works by the musicians listed as the secondary reading.'
Which conclusion FEELS right, but might be just naff? Thought I'd post in case anyone wanted to continue (i.e. challenge, as much as anything else) this thought NOT on ILX?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 11:15 am (UTC)(who wz the someone?) (kogan is tryin to coax me back onto ilx but the above combined w.my six-month audit of how behind i am (http://dubdobdee.livejournal.com/28760.html) = why i dursn't)
no subject
Date: 2006-04-27 11:24 am (UTC)someone = NRQ.
And yes, I should be writing something about Derrida :-(