From George Yúdice’s “Culture” article in Keywords: For American Cultural Studies it suffices to say that culture does not have a clear-cut definition. While the authors (Powell, et., all) of “Our Story Begins Here: Constellating Cultural Rhetorics” states that cultural rhetorics is rooted in ‘shared beliefs and practices.’ There’s a lot that branches off from this concept; hence, why cultural rhetorics is described as constellating due to the interconnectedness of various institutions. From Yúdice’s reading, institutions constitute political arenas, social dynamics, economics, and more. Thus, the definitions associated with culture vary and have continued to vary as society has evolved, meaning culture is a complexity.
Initially, when reading these articles I thought of the Women, Gender, and Sexuality class I took, which introduced a lot of the terms Yúdice uses such as hegemony, standpoint, epistemologies, and intersection. In that class, the purpose of understanding culture was because it acts as an additional layer to a person’s intersectionality, which includes facets a person uses to describe or label their identity (i.e. race, gender, sexuality, religion, ability, nationality, and so on). In “Our Story Begins Here: Constellating Cultural Rhetorics” it seems cultural rhetorics go further than using culture as an identifier. Here, cultural rhetorics pertains to sharing culture through means of storytelling, which I find fascinating because, with proper reflection, storytelling is how cultural customs are carried through generations. This article demonstrates this through the play structure used to explain cultural rhetorics in an entertaining tone.
Towards the end of “Our Story Begins Here: Constellating Cultural Rhetorics” some of the authors explained their reasoning for studying cultural rhetorics by telling their story. Each one was quite eye-opening as it furthered my understanding of the various definitions that can be associated with culture. For example, Andrea went over her studies she was doing as a graduate student for her dissertation, which was initially separate from her work with writing Geri’s life history as an American Indian woman. With these projects, her understanding of relationships grew from these projects. She discovered cultural relationships exist among people, places, and time. This exemplifies that relationships are constellated through innate means. Even Mari’s observations with the Crafty Beavers (I enjoyed that) and Daisy’s movement research shows relationships exist within our activities and our bodies, meaning there’s a cultural practice that can be referenced through these aspects. Culture is part of our identity; however, it embodies a constellation of interconnected relationships, not just with other people, but with various settings we interact with daily.
Yúdice’s work also describes the complexity of culture as non-linear in part because of how societal institutions have evolved; thus, culture dates back a multitude of relationships. Yúdice discusses culture based on economic structure, sexuality, political stances, and outgroup narratives. As systems change culture changes. The challenge Yúdice mentions in regards to culture is not just the complexity, nor the social and economic double bind, but the conservative front of limiting the potential for cultural growth.
Moreover, since culture goes beyond being a mere identifying marker, I wonder what that means for the discussions and projects in this course. I see how no one can simply get away with saying they have no culture because we are involved in one whether it’s by birth or because of our relationships with current societal structures centered on politics, capitalism, tourism, consumerism, and so much more. These complexities certainly require a necessary deep-dive to comprehend the constellation of potential relationships.
Comments