Marxist cultural critic Mike Davis tackles the global problem of slums, mainly exploring the subject through other books and documents, lacking a sense of his own experience and ‘the local’, that could reveal us more of the diversity of the problems in shanty towns.
He paints for us an overall idea of the situation and is good to keep us ‘informed’ and ‘alarmed’ but at the same time these statistics /censuses become superficial without the account of particular situations. This is personal view, I often feel that I do not trust statistics that make gross generalizations, like the ones generated to mass-produce. Instinctively I reject information given in such way.
If we talk about ethics we can start by analyzing the way we design words or phrases and how we use them, for example Mike Davis uses of ‘Third World’ and ‘developed’ or ‘developing’ countries. They made me feel so uncomfortable knowing the connotations that they have developed, having been born and lived in places where I think people (and life) deserve more respect. For the ones that, reading this do not understand what I am talking about, it refers at the use of language to accredit power: by saying ‘developed’ you are stating ‘that is the way to follow’, because those are developed and ‘right’ so other countries are following and ‘developing’. The same with ‘Third World’, that’s more obvious. Now imaging yourself being called ‘from the third world’, how would you feel? Empowered? I don’t think so.
So where has respect gone? The question remains as to why tutors in this country – and probably in many others- give us texts to read without questioning this kind of thing? I was surprised that everybody writing and talking about the subject still used those terms without noticing. Even in mainly agricultural countries they also sometimes use the terms, committing to an unconscious and imposed inferiority.
Marina,
ReplyDeleteThat is because Goldsmiths is in A FIRST WORLD :) and majority of people have no clue what is going on in THE THIRD WORLD. Most of people won't have a chance to feel that 'bitter taste', because they live in countries where everything is 'fixed'. That is why the only thing they can do - follow the books and 'experience' TOURISTY visits a to slums.
Amen.
I do not agree with that, many people in agricultural countries have no clue or prefer to ignore what is going on just near their doors as well. The same happens here, in a post- industrialised country, it is not just happening there or here, it is everywhere really. In some places is worse, but each situation should be considered. I learnt the same terms at uni in Buenos Aires, but tutors encourage to discuss them. There are more accurate ways of naming things, language is flexible. I suppose we all have a long heritage of learning in the 'Western world', but we should not be giving everything we learn from granted.
ReplyDeleteSo what is a purpose of learning if you not taking it for granted?
ReplyDeleteThere is no purpose! Everyone shut up!
ReplyDeleteRada dictates! hahaha ;)
ReplyDeleteFor some people or in some situations the purpose of learning will be to take things for granted because they/we need to stick to something, we feel safer that way, it makes things easier. In any learning process, usually, you start by taking that knowledge for granted, after a while, you realise that there are other ways, you question/change what you have learned. I believe it is part of the learning process and brings learning forward, we are not in living feudalism or studying alchemy because people questioned and changed. Take the latin (or romance I think they are called here) languages for example, if everybody would have taken Latin for granted as the only system possible, without alternative, people that now speaks French, Italian, Spanish, Portuguese, Romanian, Sardinian, Catalan, Occitan, Romansch should be still speaking Latin.
But I understand what you mean Vilma, it is easier to stick to the norm.