Critique of this blog

In preparing/writing a couple unpublished posts over the past week, I’ve felt increasingly frustrated with my approach – it’s significant contradictions and failings. I had planned on finishing these posts before getting into a critique of my blog, but I feel like I shouldn’t put it off any more. It’s not fair to my readers or myself; while I’m proud of some of the things I’ve created here, I have some serious problems with certain aspects of this venture. I need to address these issues before I can move to create a more constructive and engaging space.

Now, in a momentary extension of my problematic methodology, let’s classify the problems with writing this style of blog!

Classification

In my last post, I wrote that "the oppression and suffering that these binaries justify is caused as much by the privileging of one side as by the exclusionary, essentializing nature of categorizing an entity within a dualistic framework." While I try to avoid invoking binaries as much as possible, my technique for exposing ideological contradictions has relied on classifying aspects of Master Subject ideology into distinct, separate realms that can scrutinized and deconstructed (i.e. this is the Culture:Nature binary, this is human:animal, etc). This activity in itself is a huge contradiction - I claim that I want to escape the limiting worldview that classifications impose and then use a categorical methodology to explain why. 

... when this visualization better demonstrates the big picture 

My categorizations might seem like this...

My classification of the different manifestations of ideology relies on simplifying complex issues down to essential traits that can then be organized into a kind of taxonomy. When I present each binary as a distinct, definable category that we can label onto different visual and linguistic representations, I'm afraid that this disavows the unity of the Master Subject ideology. The binaries I present aren't solitary, fixed social constructs - rather, they are meant to be used as a framework for understanding how human activities and values are frequently justified with intricately interconnected dualisms. When analyzing some cultural object, you'll always find several intersecting and parallel binaries that reinforce each other. Why? Because binaries are just different semiotic manifestations of the same ideology of violence and alienation. For example, look at these shoes:

Conflating Femininity with body parts, animals, violence and death

So I'm afraid my classifications imply a more fragmented picture of ideology than I intend. But I'm also worried that I seem to be promoting universal moral categories when I generalize and use words like "violence" or even "apathy" (both words rely on arbitrary binaries after all - violence:nonviolence, apathy:activism - definitions of each serve the interests of the definer). Really, I think if we're going to place a moral judgment onto something, it should be individually contextually/historically analyzed rather than deductively weighed based on a set of rigid laws of proper behavior.


Still, I think that last sentence is itself a general moral category in its own way ("Though shall not classify universal values!"), so I'd like to contradict it while clearing up a related point. When I say we need to oppose violence and indifference, I don't mean that there is never a good reason or use for violence or apathy. Rather, I see structural violence - cruelty, suffering, domination and exploitation that is systematically perpetrated in order to perpetuate economic and social-political power - as fundamentally ethically wrong. I universally condemn the apathy towards structural violence (even as I recognize it in myself) because indifference towards reality translates into complicity with and direct economic/political support for abuse and exploitation. Apathy is absolutely necessary towards the continuation of structural violence; as such, it is itself a form of structural violence - hidden and passive - but nevertheless deeply alienating and ideologically reinforced. 

Okay, let's get back on course again. What are some other problems with this blog that I can categorize?


Language
I have two main criticisms of this blog under the language umbrella. First is my particular use of language. The vocabulary I have used and developed consists of a lot of big words with complex meanings that might only be familiar to you if have some background in social science; combined with my flavor of confusing, tangential sentence and paragraph structures, readers almost certainly feel alienated. I really dislike how I use generalizing words frequently - we like to think this, humans do that, this is reality, etc - this kind of language is really misleading and not too useful. I think contextualized specificity is preferable; however, when I'm already making complex points it can be overbearing to try to precisely define each referent. Finally, some of the words I use have become buzzwords in advertisement, news and academia alike - sustainable, exploitation, alienation, etc. I'm afraid readers' might interpret my use of such lingo as lazy or an attempt at authenticity; really, I try to be as specific as possible in my word choice (even in my generalizations), and any buzzwords I use are not presented for their social capital but for their meanings and common usage.

My second main criticism relates more to the nature of language itself, as a medium of experience and communication. My issue here is that each individual reader's interpretation of the words on this screen is going to be filtered through their past experiences and associations with specific words and formats of presentation. Each reader will read this sentence differently and take unique meaning from it; this is kind of cool but, from an author's perspective, very frustrating as well because my readers' interpretations become more important than my original intentions. For more on my frustrations with the relationship between reader, writer and word, download a short metafictional story I wrote this quarter - "THE ROOM IS REAL". (this story relies on some seriously problematic, disturbing ideas and actions - which is why I'm not totally happy with how it turned out - you should be able to critique it pretty harshly using the binary framework I've developed in past posts)

Language abstracts reality into symbols that combine to form meaning. I dislike how this locates "meaning" outside of the physical world, as though interpretation or organization of abstractions were more important than the realities they seek to understand. In terms of animals, I see this problem in my blog in particular when I use that word - "animals" - a word which violently reduces the unimaginable diversity of species, individualities, experiences and possibilities of what it claims to represent into a single audial/visual object - the word "animal".

Given the limiting nature of language and the diverse possibilities for communication, I think it can be useful to try to think without or outside of language. How can we do this? I like using music to think about this, as music can construct and communicate meaning outside of the normal strictures of language. In the song "Prisencolinensinainciusoll" by Adriano Celentano, the Italian songwriter demonstrates how hearing English might sound to someone who can't understand a word:

To move even further outside of thinking with language, I like Brian Eno's "Matta" off of the awesome Apollo (Atmospheres and Soundtracks). "Matta" moves outside the language of traditional music composition, eschewing chord progressions, rhythm and melodic phrasing in favor of a focus on timbre, tension and chance. What kind of meaning does Eno project with this song? How do animals figure into his narrative?

Not much video to see here; I recommend listening while you continue to read the next category...

Mediation and Alienation

The original purpose of this blog was to expose the omnipresent realities of violence and apathy towards nonhuman animals. I decided that I should begin by discussing the dominant ideology that encourages such destructive and exploitative relationships. My issue with this approach is that so far, I feel like I've distanced my readers further from the reality by presenting violence as abstract - as a problem with our ideas rather than our actions.

The truth is that violence is very real and looks, sounds, smells and feels far uglier than any words on a screen ever can. What's more, structural violence against nonhuman animals is so prevalent and destructive (environmentally and morally) precisely because it is made invisible through layers of economic, visual, and linguistic mediation. What do I mean by this?

Pig or pork? Which images are you more likely to see? Which body parts will you (and are you willing) to touch? Why?

I mean that we are alienated from the reality - the histories, experiences, and individualities - of the animals we use and the violence perpetrated against them. In language, this works through euphemism - muscle is called "meat"; hunted animals are "game"; in scientific research, killing animals to harvest their body parts is "tissue collection"; in the "animal husbandry" industry, selective killing of animals with unprofitable traits is "culling", and so on. Visually, this works through the idealized representations of animals we see everyday on TV, in newspapers,  Google image searches and advertisements, as well as the sanitized presentations of animals and their body parts that we see wrapped in plastic at the grocery store, and in the exhibition areas of pets stores and zoos. Economically, the structure of many animal-dependent industries relies on specialization in a certain process along an alienated chain of production. In the animal flesh industry, this means that different humans breed the animals, confine and feed them, transport them, slaughter them, dissect them, package them, transport them again, sell them, and cook and eat them. This method of production distances the consumer from the means of production, as well as the producers from their product.

I think that this blog furthers (sub)urbanites' alienation from nonhuman animals when it discusses real violence in general terms, as a problem of ideology rather than of actions. Let me try to be clear here - I could care less about ideas and ideology if they had no effect on how individuals treat each other and their environment. Unfortunately, systems of thinking which are more rooted in history rather than in rational self-interest directly cause marginalization and systematic violence towards others. Therefore, I think it's necessary to confront dominant ideology. But I'm unsure whether using symbols (language) to approach an abstract concept (ideology) on an alienating virtual platform (the internet) is the best way to change how people act in the "real world".

Moreover, should I focus on helping humans become less oppressive, or directly helping nonhuman beings escape oppression? I worry that I'm veiling my activism behind these layers of mediation in order to hide myself from the painful, difficult work that needs to be done in order to really affect change.

Above is a scene from the movie END:CIV, which argues global civilization is an unsustainable, ecological catastrophe, and that we must take direct action for environmentalist causes in order to save what remains of life on earth. The film has some seriously problematic bases(it narrativizes the future, invokes the Culture:Nature binary, and seems anti-scientific), but it also raises some intriguing questions about social movements and powers that accommodate them.

Control

My unilateral ownership of this blog has disturbed me from the beginning. It doesn't make much sense for a project that stresses the necessity of dialogue, togetherness and a radical reassessment of dominant ways of thinking to be run without collaboration on a platform that reinforces traditional norms of hierarchical control of a minority (the writer, who decides what is presented) over a majority (readers who cannot affect what they read).

I seriously feel like I'm writing a textbook sometimes. I hate that. I am not an expert - I may be trying to "teach" something,  but I have probably learned more from writing this blog about myself, activism and interacting with people in a public space than anybody else has learned about themselves or ideology. I dislike how most comments seem to be directed at me rather than the subjects I discuss, and how these discussions can turn into debates where we feel compelled to defend ourselves - this is just another way that language becomes more important than reality. The blog format seems to encourage performance; I don't think it's a great space for developing dialogues because conversations are static and oppositional. Still, I really appreciate everyone who has commented as I've learned a lot from your thoughts and reactions; please keep commenting.

A New Approach

So, where does this leave us? The current format is obviously no good - it is alienating, contradictory, oppressive education. But I don't want to give up on the social approach. Therefore, my plan is to abandon all plans, forget convention and expectation, and basically just put whatever I feel like up here. Right now, what this will look like is a media frenzy - different relevant videos, images, and information with minimal analysis from me. I want to encourage individual interpretation of what I present - I think this will stimulate more conversation in the blog and it will free me from the anxiety of having to present coherent, problematic summaries.

This will also take less time to put together, and free me up to be more productive in the real world. I think I will experiment with an imperfectly vegan lifestyle, and build a vermicultured (worm-filled) compost heap over the next week. These things sound like really fun, constructive experiments.

I'll also be developing a forum for students and other people interested in animal studies to publish their work, share links to media and news, and discuss things that interest them. This is proving a little more difficult than I initially thought it would be - hopefully I'll have it up within a week.

All right, that's enough words for now.