First
and foremost I have to say that this post is not going to make an
argument, as it does not have a fixed point that I want to make. Instead
it is rather a reaction to my most recent (and not yet finished)
readings on Object-Oriented Ontology (OOO) and the attempt to link
this to my own point of interest. And like my reading, these thoughts
are only at an early stage at the moment and probably speculative and
somewhat experimental.
This
being said, I have begun to wonder about the potential OOO bears to
my own thinking and my own studies. With regards to my interest in
the depiction of the Other, the obvious answer would be reconsidering
objects bearing images of the Other such as manuscripts, maps or
stained glass windows and considering them as agents in their own
right. Though this consideration appears to be valid enough, I have
been more enticed to contemplate the use of an OOO perspective for
something that is abstract in its own right. The stereotype itself.
Could we we consider the different stereotypes that came to being in
the course of human history as objects? As 'invisible' objects,
manifested in imagery, in writing? And more importantly, would this
perspective on stereotypes expand our learning of the material?
Born
in the discourses of identity, religion, politics and many more,
every stereotype soon would outlive his parents. Different from its
creators, the stereotype, however, is very resilient to death, it
continues, adapts and evolves from generation to generation.
So
far the most extensively studied Other of the Middle Ages is probably
the Jew, or maybe rather, the 'hermeneutical Jew' to use Jeremy
Cohen's term. The 'hermeneutical Jew' is a Christian concept that is not related to actual medieval Jewish populaces. The Christian
image of the Jew in the early Middle Ages is primarily related to an
Augustinian reading of the Jew as an acceptable and necessary part of the Christian world. As witnesses of Christian
history, the concept of the Jew did not yet bear the aggressive stance
that developed in the beginning of the late 11th century. It was during this later
periods that the Christian concept of the Jew took on the form of the
murderer of Christ, enemies of Christendom, and associates of the
devil himself.
Now,
this is a rather rough sketch of the (or part) of the development of the portrayal of the Jew as the Other,
however, I hope it suffices as an illustration. If we consider to
ascribe agency to these stereotypes, the view we have on their
developments may show changes in comparison to the traditional
perspective. The image of the Jew stops being a concept developed by
Christian society, being reinvented, changed. It abandons passivity. The stereotype itself becomes an active force in the
discourse. The changes experienced by the image of the Jew suddenly
are not so much results of the influence of contemporary
social/theological/political and economical developments on the old
concept. Instead these changes are due to a dialogue between the
concept of the Jew and the social discourses. All of them taking part
in shaping one another. In this instance, man does not change the concepts, but the
concepts and man change each other. All active participants in a
mutual development.
However,
I do have do wonder, if there is possibly some danger in
considering the stereotype/stereotypes as objects, as agents? I
cannot help but think that this perspective also gives room for
apologetics. Suddenly the human becomes a victim of the agency of the
stereotype, A mere recipient, a locus of of manifestation for the
stereotype, seemingly freeing the human of his responsibility and
even free will. Yet
OOO itself points out the falsity such an argument would have, after
all there is no real passivity, the recipient is always an
active agent in the act of translation, therefore far from
free of responsibility. The application of OOO on the image of the
Other, it appears, is an act that demands
responsibility of the scholar in order to avoid the pit traps it
bears regarding the material.
The
stereotype as agent, therefore brings about the potential to present a new framework to consider the image of the Other, by viewing
certain stereotypes in a larger context and as manifestations of a
metaphysical agent that we can only see in its manifold physical
translations. But is there anything to gain from this perspective? Anything
new we can learn? Or is it just a new intellectual exercise for the
inhabitants of the Ivory Tower to enjoy? To be honest, I am not
entirely sure just yet, but it remains something I have to think
about during my deeper journeys into OOO.
-Fabian
images: 1/Abraham’s burial, Fulda world chronicle, Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda, Aa 88, fol. 52r 2/ wall painting in the Catherine chapel in Landau
-Fabian
images: 1/Abraham’s burial, Fulda world chronicle, Hochschul- und Landesbibliothek Fulda, Aa 88, fol. 52r 2/ wall painting in the Catherine chapel in Landau
No comments:
Post a Comment