Critical Response #2

What stood out to me the most in the readings that were assigned for week two were the central ideas of a narrative within the scholarly and public discussions that surround social issues. This idea is encapsulated in Patti Duncan’s work, “History of Disease”. In Duncan’s writing she describes the struggle of a young mixed race girl who grew up with parents that met during the Korean War. Duncan complicates the idea of the traditional romanticism of a man going off to war and returning having found love, by utilizing the child’s narrative to display the inner-workings of the relationship. I believe that if Foucault were to read Duncan’s argument, he would say that the father was exercising his bio-power through the suppression of his wife’s culture. If the narrative that Duncan presents is a representation of a struggle of bio-power, then the mental fatigue that the narrator experiences is an indication that there is consequences for these social struggles. Using a childhood narrative as a framework for understanding a larger issue reminds me of Bell Hook’s work, “Theory of Liberatory Practice” in which she juxtaposes an anecdote from her childhood as a means of creating an emotional connection with the reader. Continuing the connection of Duncan’s work with the readings of last week, I found it interesting that Duncan also used disease as a means of understanding the issue at hand. While Morales used Disease as a way of showcasing the inconsistencies of history, Duncan uses disease as a metaphor to understanding the toll that these kinds of troubles take upon a person. “History of Disease”, however, is a more focused examination on the emotional and mental aspects of social trouble than it is with disease or using anecdotes as a means of generating pathos.

            Another aspect of the reading that I found interesting was Malea Powell’s article, “Listening to ghosts: an alternative (non)argument”. Powell argues that many times in discourse there aren’t stories from the people directly affected that are shared. Powell presents the idea that the representation of Native American Indians in scholarly discussion is at its core affected by misunderstandings and biased understandings of the historical facts. This idea is supported by the loaded terminology that discusses Native American Indians, such as the descriptions of “savagery” versus “civilized” which carry many implications and create value judgements when there isn’t much understanding of the more unknown culture. Specifically, Powell argues, “To do so [agree that Theory is more important than stories] is to participate in a project of internal colonialism whereby the colonized believe in and accede to the terms and hierarchies of the colonizers.” (16). I appreciate that Powell is questioning the root of a problem as opposed to the most visible portion of it. This style of argument reminds me of the documentary Screaming Queens. I see these two works as related because in Screaming Queens the audience is able to view a problem from the perspective of the disenfranchised group that was being oppressed by society. While Society may attempt to disregard their stories and their experiences due to them living on the fringes of what is socially acceptable; it is through their perspective and narrative that the audience is able to understand the role the importance of narratives within the larger public discourse.

            Last week the articles that were assigned dealt with both the importance of anecdotes and the importance of examining the scientific records that are kept, specifically within the medical field. This week the assigned readings delved further into these ideas and presented alternative manners of approaching and understanding the core ideas that stories are important, and societal structures can suppress or alter these stories.