Drafts by Alexandra Lepine
The role of cultural production and ideology in revolution has long been a topic of debate. Frant... more The role of cultural production and ideology in revolution has long been a topic of debate. Frantz Fanon, among other theorists, questioned what this role could be in national liberation struggles and socialist movements among colonized populations. In the context of Fanon’s success and his widespread contemporary use, to say that cultural production is a necessary component of struggles for national liberation and sovereignty should not be contentious; in fact at this point it may be terribly obvious. This standpoint becomes even more evident when one considers the historical struggles of Indigenous people in Canada to maintain their cultures along with their sovereignty, which have both been systematically denied and stripped from us by the Canadian state. Like any other system of domination, settler-colonialism needs to maintain itself; often this is done through cultural and ideological mechanisms, which is precisely why it is so fundamental that these mechanisms of interpellation be broken.
This project intends to explore interpellation processes within settler-colonialism and to look at how those processes can be interrupted and broken through rejection of colonial recognition and transformative Indigenous cultural production. I will utilize Glen Coulthard’s conception of recognition and Fanon’s understanding of colonial subjects as my primary anticolonial scholarship. This is a means of framing my discussion of Louis Althusser’s concept of interpellation in an anticolonial manner which stresses Indigenous and colonized perspectives; as well as their connection with Marxism. Coulthard identifies the important connection between Fanon’s anticolonial Marxism and Althusser, stating:
Fanon anticipates at least one aspect of the well-known work of French philosopher Louis Althusser, who would later argue that the reproduction of capitalist relations of production rests on the ‘recognition function’ of ideology, namely the ability of a state’s ‘ideological apparatus’ to ‘interpolate’ individuals as subjects of class rule. For Fanon, colonialism operates in a similarly dual-structured manner: it includes ‘not only the interrelations of objective historical conditions but also human attitudes to these conditions’. Fanon argued that it was the interplay between the structural/ objective and recognitive/subjective features of colonialism that ensured its hegemony over time (32)
But this hegemony is not impervious. The history of settler-colonialism in Canada, being accompanied by resistance and political ruptures between the Canadian state and its colonial subjects, is often interrupted by opposing ideological forces. In recent years, the opposing ideological force of Indigenous thought in cultural production, though long in existence, has come into the foreground of Canadian politics. This development has occurred contemporaneously with a renewed interest in assimilating Indigenous cultures into Canadian culture as a means of eschewing questions of sovereignty, self-determination and secession. As Coulthard points out, this renewed interest in “including” Indigenous cultures in Canadian nationalism cannot be categorized as the same type of colonial rule that has been employed by the Canadian state in the past. Coulthard argues that “whereas before 1969 federal Indian policy was unapologetically assimilationist, now it is couched in the vernacular of ‘mutual recognition’” (Coulthard 3). This new form of assimilation necessitates a different type of colonial interpellation based on identification with the state, and while the threat of state violence remains, the pretense of multiculturalism makes frequent violence less defensible. This, of course, does not mean there is no longer overt violence against Indigenous people. Frequent police brutality, profiling, carding, botched investigations, and other such problems are still mainstays of the Canadian state. However, this, too, is becoming less defensible and is no longer the primary method of controlling Indigenous populations within the borders of Canada.
As these contradictions simmer underneath the surface of Canadian society, activists and artists alike have attempted to expose them. Kent Monkman’s film, Shooting Geronimo, works to illustrate the repressive nature of colonial values in relation to frontier attitudes as well as sexuality and gender in film practices. Likewise, Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers’ short film A Red Girl’s Reasoning lays bare the intentional mishandling of rape and sexual assault cases involving Indigenous women, emphasizes the victim-blaming, and underscores the profound misogyny that underpins colonial ideology. I will be examining these films alongside the theory I have already identified to elaborate on my arguments about interpellation in a specific artistic milieu. Both of these films offer distinctly anti-colonial perspectives on issues usually left out of Canadian cultural production, but, beyond that, I believe that films such as these can become methods for resisting settler-colonial ideology and interpellation in cultural production. Furthermore, it can be argued that these films produce and reproduce ideologies that disrupt the colonial narrative and the ability of the settler-colonial state to interpolate and “recognize” Indigenous subjects. They generate a new ideological framework wherein the colonial subject becomes essentially unrecognizable to its oppressors.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
It seems fitting when addressing a topic of proletarian literature that one begins by discussing ... more It seems fitting when addressing a topic of proletarian literature that one begins by discussing the machinery of the poem. Throughout the course of this paper I first explore what comprises proletarian literature, keeping in mind Livesay’s political goals of advancing the class struggle and later promoting feminism. To do so, I consider Walter Benjamin’s 'The Author as Producer' as a starting point for considering the role of literary form in achieving these political goals. This will help me account for changes in Livesay’s poetic forms, as well as content.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
This essay compares Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as ... more This essay compares Theodore Adorno and Max Horkheimer’s “The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception”, against the theorization of modernity, culture and aesthetics put forward by Jacques Rancière in “The Politics of Aesthetics”. Though not responding directly to Adorno and Horkheimer, Rancière’s opinion cut directly at the foundation of the Marxist, or more broadly Modernist, school of thought, with special attention paid to the Frankfurt School and the Avant-garde. I elaborate upon precisely what is meant by the term “culture industry” and how it functions, while at the same time explaining how it comes into conflict with Rancière’s “distribution of the sensible” and “aesthetic regime”.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
My paper explores themes of authenticity and hybridization in Drew Hayden Taylor’s novel Motorcyc... more My paper explores themes of authenticity and hybridization in Drew Hayden Taylor’s novel Motorcycles & Sweetgrass. Using Neal Mcleod’s concept of spiritual exile, and home I attempt to illuminate upon the various ideological uses of the rhetoric of authenticity within the novel, arguing that the concept and standard of authenticity is often mediated by setter-colonialism. My paper demonstrates how the characters and their relationships as well as the action of the novel mock cultural authenticity and work to expose its pitfalls. In contradistinction to the assertion that authenticity is the final measure of cultural validity, I argue that the novel works to upend the logic of authenticity while celebrating tradition and establishing a distinctly Indigenous outlook separate from settler narratives. In a mode similar to McLeod’s notions of storytelling Taylor attempts to both bring readers back to a communal sense of history and story, and stimulate thought on how culture is constantly shifting, rendering itself authentically inauthentic.
My paper posits that what is important in sorting through this cultural maze is not what is authentic, but what is healing, what is restorative, what resists assimilation while maintaining sovereignty. In order to do this, there must be a conscious effort to tear down settler narratives and standards of authenticity and culture; to combat the settlerism and white supremacy that has taken hold in the cultural milieu. Indigenous people should strive to be authentically inauthentic and instead turn to deal with those internal contradictions that hold back self-determination. Taylor invites us to return home through cultural praxis, through stories, and invites settlers to join in the story while keeping a respectful distance.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
The Farm Show was produced under unique conditions. Outside of the context of the 70’s it seems s... more The Farm Show was produced under unique conditions. Outside of the context of the 70’s it seems strange to image a group of young people from Toronto heading out to Clinton, Ontario all for the sake of communal creation, but that is what happened and that is how Canadian documentary theatre changed forever. Often The Farm Show is referred to as documentary theatre, but that label does not quite describe how the play actually functions, though it may describe parts of its creation. Alan Filewod argues that despite most of the shows at Theatre Passe Muraille fitting into two categories (sociological and historical), The Farm Show is neither. Filewod concedes that perhaps the term that Director Paul Thompson uses to characterise the play —‘Folk theatre”— is more accurate, but still not perfect. However, it should be noted that even Thompson himself does not stick to this term consistently. As such, I propose that The Farm Show be labelled ‘Mass Line Theatre’. In addition to this mischaracterisation, there are mechanisms in the text itself and aspects of its original production that point to a lack of shared vision for the play. In this sense The Farm Show is supremely experimental, but one wonders if the subsequent productions suffered in quality and spontaneity compared to the first production’s run. While Thompson and the actors certainly achieved their goal of representing a distinct Canadian experience in a collective form, the theatricality of the plays grows, as Filewod also argues, out of the mythologizing of the people of Clinton. However, unlike Filewod, I would argue that this also grows out of the preconceived notions the actors and Thompson brought to the project. Despite Thompson’s apparent interest in treating people as political subjects, this does not emerge over the course of the play. This is perhaps due to the particular consciousness that exists in Clinton which was romanticised, and thus mythologised, by Thompson and the actors making the production into something very different than purely a documentary.
Bookmarks Related papers MentionsView impact
Uploads
Drafts by Alexandra Lepine
This project intends to explore interpellation processes within settler-colonialism and to look at how those processes can be interrupted and broken through rejection of colonial recognition and transformative Indigenous cultural production. I will utilize Glen Coulthard’s conception of recognition and Fanon’s understanding of colonial subjects as my primary anticolonial scholarship. This is a means of framing my discussion of Louis Althusser’s concept of interpellation in an anticolonial manner which stresses Indigenous and colonized perspectives; as well as their connection with Marxism. Coulthard identifies the important connection between Fanon’s anticolonial Marxism and Althusser, stating:
Fanon anticipates at least one aspect of the well-known work of French philosopher Louis Althusser, who would later argue that the reproduction of capitalist relations of production rests on the ‘recognition function’ of ideology, namely the ability of a state’s ‘ideological apparatus’ to ‘interpolate’ individuals as subjects of class rule. For Fanon, colonialism operates in a similarly dual-structured manner: it includes ‘not only the interrelations of objective historical conditions but also human attitudes to these conditions’. Fanon argued that it was the interplay between the structural/ objective and recognitive/subjective features of colonialism that ensured its hegemony over time (32)
But this hegemony is not impervious. The history of settler-colonialism in Canada, being accompanied by resistance and political ruptures between the Canadian state and its colonial subjects, is often interrupted by opposing ideological forces. In recent years, the opposing ideological force of Indigenous thought in cultural production, though long in existence, has come into the foreground of Canadian politics. This development has occurred contemporaneously with a renewed interest in assimilating Indigenous cultures into Canadian culture as a means of eschewing questions of sovereignty, self-determination and secession. As Coulthard points out, this renewed interest in “including” Indigenous cultures in Canadian nationalism cannot be categorized as the same type of colonial rule that has been employed by the Canadian state in the past. Coulthard argues that “whereas before 1969 federal Indian policy was unapologetically assimilationist, now it is couched in the vernacular of ‘mutual recognition’” (Coulthard 3). This new form of assimilation necessitates a different type of colonial interpellation based on identification with the state, and while the threat of state violence remains, the pretense of multiculturalism makes frequent violence less defensible. This, of course, does not mean there is no longer overt violence against Indigenous people. Frequent police brutality, profiling, carding, botched investigations, and other such problems are still mainstays of the Canadian state. However, this, too, is becoming less defensible and is no longer the primary method of controlling Indigenous populations within the borders of Canada.
As these contradictions simmer underneath the surface of Canadian society, activists and artists alike have attempted to expose them. Kent Monkman’s film, Shooting Geronimo, works to illustrate the repressive nature of colonial values in relation to frontier attitudes as well as sexuality and gender in film practices. Likewise, Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers’ short film A Red Girl’s Reasoning lays bare the intentional mishandling of rape and sexual assault cases involving Indigenous women, emphasizes the victim-blaming, and underscores the profound misogyny that underpins colonial ideology. I will be examining these films alongside the theory I have already identified to elaborate on my arguments about interpellation in a specific artistic milieu. Both of these films offer distinctly anti-colonial perspectives on issues usually left out of Canadian cultural production, but, beyond that, I believe that films such as these can become methods for resisting settler-colonial ideology and interpellation in cultural production. Furthermore, it can be argued that these films produce and reproduce ideologies that disrupt the colonial narrative and the ability of the settler-colonial state to interpolate and “recognize” Indigenous subjects. They generate a new ideological framework wherein the colonial subject becomes essentially unrecognizable to its oppressors.
My paper posits that what is important in sorting through this cultural maze is not what is authentic, but what is healing, what is restorative, what resists assimilation while maintaining sovereignty. In order to do this, there must be a conscious effort to tear down settler narratives and standards of authenticity and culture; to combat the settlerism and white supremacy that has taken hold in the cultural milieu. Indigenous people should strive to be authentically inauthentic and instead turn to deal with those internal contradictions that hold back self-determination. Taylor invites us to return home through cultural praxis, through stories, and invites settlers to join in the story while keeping a respectful distance.
This project intends to explore interpellation processes within settler-colonialism and to look at how those processes can be interrupted and broken through rejection of colonial recognition and transformative Indigenous cultural production. I will utilize Glen Coulthard’s conception of recognition and Fanon’s understanding of colonial subjects as my primary anticolonial scholarship. This is a means of framing my discussion of Louis Althusser’s concept of interpellation in an anticolonial manner which stresses Indigenous and colonized perspectives; as well as their connection with Marxism. Coulthard identifies the important connection between Fanon’s anticolonial Marxism and Althusser, stating:
Fanon anticipates at least one aspect of the well-known work of French philosopher Louis Althusser, who would later argue that the reproduction of capitalist relations of production rests on the ‘recognition function’ of ideology, namely the ability of a state’s ‘ideological apparatus’ to ‘interpolate’ individuals as subjects of class rule. For Fanon, colonialism operates in a similarly dual-structured manner: it includes ‘not only the interrelations of objective historical conditions but also human attitudes to these conditions’. Fanon argued that it was the interplay between the structural/ objective and recognitive/subjective features of colonialism that ensured its hegemony over time (32)
But this hegemony is not impervious. The history of settler-colonialism in Canada, being accompanied by resistance and political ruptures between the Canadian state and its colonial subjects, is often interrupted by opposing ideological forces. In recent years, the opposing ideological force of Indigenous thought in cultural production, though long in existence, has come into the foreground of Canadian politics. This development has occurred contemporaneously with a renewed interest in assimilating Indigenous cultures into Canadian culture as a means of eschewing questions of sovereignty, self-determination and secession. As Coulthard points out, this renewed interest in “including” Indigenous cultures in Canadian nationalism cannot be categorized as the same type of colonial rule that has been employed by the Canadian state in the past. Coulthard argues that “whereas before 1969 federal Indian policy was unapologetically assimilationist, now it is couched in the vernacular of ‘mutual recognition’” (Coulthard 3). This new form of assimilation necessitates a different type of colonial interpellation based on identification with the state, and while the threat of state violence remains, the pretense of multiculturalism makes frequent violence less defensible. This, of course, does not mean there is no longer overt violence against Indigenous people. Frequent police brutality, profiling, carding, botched investigations, and other such problems are still mainstays of the Canadian state. However, this, too, is becoming less defensible and is no longer the primary method of controlling Indigenous populations within the borders of Canada.
As these contradictions simmer underneath the surface of Canadian society, activists and artists alike have attempted to expose them. Kent Monkman’s film, Shooting Geronimo, works to illustrate the repressive nature of colonial values in relation to frontier attitudes as well as sexuality and gender in film practices. Likewise, Elle-Máijá Tailfeathers’ short film A Red Girl’s Reasoning lays bare the intentional mishandling of rape and sexual assault cases involving Indigenous women, emphasizes the victim-blaming, and underscores the profound misogyny that underpins colonial ideology. I will be examining these films alongside the theory I have already identified to elaborate on my arguments about interpellation in a specific artistic milieu. Both of these films offer distinctly anti-colonial perspectives on issues usually left out of Canadian cultural production, but, beyond that, I believe that films such as these can become methods for resisting settler-colonial ideology and interpellation in cultural production. Furthermore, it can be argued that these films produce and reproduce ideologies that disrupt the colonial narrative and the ability of the settler-colonial state to interpolate and “recognize” Indigenous subjects. They generate a new ideological framework wherein the colonial subject becomes essentially unrecognizable to its oppressors.
My paper posits that what is important in sorting through this cultural maze is not what is authentic, but what is healing, what is restorative, what resists assimilation while maintaining sovereignty. In order to do this, there must be a conscious effort to tear down settler narratives and standards of authenticity and culture; to combat the settlerism and white supremacy that has taken hold in the cultural milieu. Indigenous people should strive to be authentically inauthentic and instead turn to deal with those internal contradictions that hold back self-determination. Taylor invites us to return home through cultural praxis, through stories, and invites settlers to join in the story while keeping a respectful distance.