Esta cita es muy famosa y habla de que el pasado siempre se articula desde el presente y de si no lo hacemos nosotros lo hacen por nosotros y lo llaman objetividad aunque no es mas que doxa. La idea era compartirla en clase, pero como siempre no hubo tiempo: “To articulate what is past does not mean to recognize “how it really was.” It means to take control of a memory, as it flashes in a moment of danger. For historical materialism it is a question of holding fast to a picture of the past, just as if it had unexpectedly thrust itself, in a moment of danger, on the historical subject. The danger threatens the stock of tradition as much as its recipients. For both it is one and the same: handing itself over as the tool of the ruling classes. In every epoch, the attempt must be made to deliver tradition anew from the conformism which is on the point of overwhelming it. For the Messiah arrives not merely as the Redeemer; he also arrives as the vanquisher of the Anti-Christ. The only writer of history with the gift of setting alight the sparks of hope in the past, is the one who is convinced of this: that not even the dead will be safe from the enemy, if he is victorious. And this enemy has not ceased to be victorious.” Walter Benjamin

 

I also meant to ask, what did you think of Faber paper “Counting the dead…”? Ademas de que no llega a contestar 

todas las preguntas que plantea….

 

I came across this during my readings for another class and I wonder if it could be helpful to think about writing with/about/beyond the doxas of Hispanism.

Teresa Brennan History after Lacan, 1967

Brennan describes propositional and secondary modes of intellectual writing, contrasting the US and France. For me that also provided an interesting dialogue with the Prescott Paradigm.

“On the face of it, it seems easier to write in the propositional mode if one writes in France, while those who do not instead write secondary works elucidating, praising, or damning the propositions. We write on Lacan, Derrida, Foucault, Kristeva […].”

“The question of course is how to combine the propositional and secondary modes and thus transcend them. To combine them is to regard yet disregard the other, to regard the right to understand, and thus communicate, to disregard the desire for recognition, and thus risk going beyond the fixed points governing social approval at the time of writing. It is to balance confidence and context, the movement of ideas and fixed points. And that can only be done if one gives out more than one takes in.”

Nicole

Normal
0

false
false
false

EN-US
X-NONE
X-NONE

MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:””;
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-bidi-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}

Un par de ideas de post scriptum. Después de la clase hablamos un rato con Carly sobre una cosa que Faulkner comenta también en su artículo de que la foto con los trofeos cazados es una burla de las fotos de Franco que se fotografiaba frecuentemente de este modo después de sus habituales cazas. En este contexto, la matanza mutua de los tres amigos puede interpretarse como un anuncio de la destrucción (desde dentro) del régimen de Franco.

Otra idea que no nos dio tiempo de comentar es la obsesión en la piel que aparece en la pelíc, comenzando con la escena de quitar la piel del conejo cazado, del cordero sin piel colgado en el patio, pasando por la de la siesta donde el cuerpo humano se compara al paisaje mientras la cámara se mueve a lo largo de él como si fuera una panorámica  (y de hecho por unos momentos lo es también comparándose la piel de los dormidos a la tierra seca a sus espaldas), la escena con el maniquí que tiene una cuasi-piel pero sin brazos ni cabeza, y la del esqueleto también carente de piel. Tal vez la cámara aunque es cómplice de la violencia del rifle, de por si no daña la piel…

Algunas ideas o preguntas que se os quedaron?

In the very last paragraph on page 74 Mitchell uses the word “animal”

to characterize the phenomena on which he is commenting on. Take a

look at this comment as you are thinking about the film. How do they

relate?