|
|
"Mimicry and Otherness" doesn't sound as good in a title (Taussig)John Stevens (8859jstev@UMBSKY.CC.UMB.EDU)Sat, 8 Oct 1994 11:02:22 EDT
has interestingly enough sprouted multiple blooms about semantics, repre-l sentation, ethics, postmodernism, and criticism; these are a few of my favorite things. We've grown beyond Taussig, which to me illustrates how "good to think with," he is, not as an examplar of method (as I've said before, I don't think he's a great anthropologist), but as a point of reference and as a stimulus to reflection. When pomo criticism is done well, you *think*; you get deep reactions (like Mr. Mcreery's) and you want to investigate not only the subject under scrutiny, but your own intellecual/epistemological landscape. You enter not only the author's territory, but your own, and you're sometimes forced to adjust your maps. *That* is the value of good criticism. Ours is a culture that emphasizes "action" over reflection, which is why we're in so much trouble all the time. We don't take time; we value the reflex and the gut *over* contemplation and imagination. We want it hot, fast, and flashy. This *is* a gross generalization, but it certainly highlights a trend in AmeriWestern culture, what I consider the "overlay" cultural/social cluster under which many teeming subcultures compete. I think that Taussig is also addressing this; if not explicitly, then by the implications of his work. This conversation we've been having makes me want to pick up his other books and see what other ideas and possibilities he can inspire! As far as "mimesis" and "alterity" go, Raf Alvardo's reply is right on the nose; these are more precise terms for the phenomenon under scrutiny. But since Taussig isn't doing standard social science, we should ponder why he didn't call it something like "Mimicry and Otherness" or something as pro- vocative as his first two books. The first possibility is that he doesn't believe in "mimicry" or "otherness," since both refer to a process of representation in a very standardized way. Mimicry assumes an attempt at duplication; otherness refers to an objectification of perception by re- plicating an image or conception and bringing it into cultural discourse. Mimesis is defined in the American Heritage Dictionary as "The imitation or representation of aspects of the sensible world, especially *human actions in literature and art*" (emphasis mine), whereas to mimic is to "copy or imitate closely, especially in speech, expression, and gesture". Alterity isn't in the AHD, but the Oxford English Dictionary say that it is "[t]he state of being other or different; diversity, 'otherness'." Thus both terms" encompass and focus the "larger" categories of mimicry and otherness, directing our attention to the concepts Taussig is addressing and actually questioning. As an interesting aside, the Oxford has a quote from an 1849 *Notes on Shakespeare* with the interesting quote "Outness is but. . . alterity visually represented." Thus alterity is more closely related to" the process of making others, and I would argue is also concerned with the *experience* of making others, which is also something Taussig is trying to deal with. What's interesting too is Mr. Mcreery's latest reply, where he does this very pomo juxtaposition of various representative practices to make his point about how "otherizing" is a part of the cultural process. One crit- ique I have of this is the implication that just because things look different in each example, it all means the same thing. Chinese who dress in business suits are necessarily full participants in Western culture, just like white folks who put on feathers aren't instantly transformed into Shoshonis. Oops, error; the sentence above should be "suits are *not* necessarily. . .". But this is again part of the critique; we can't assume that what we see is everything, and just because we can come up witjh *an* explanation does not make it *the* explanation. Ok, we all know this, but I think that Taussig is saying the we cannot forget it. I would add that we have to stay alert, constantly question our perceptions and actions, and never get *too* comfortable with our answers. As for the ethics question, please see my next post, since I kinda lumped that in with another argument. Best regards, John H. Stevens University of Massachusetts at Boston 8859JSTEV@UMBSKY.cc.umb.edu ***************************************************************************
|