Comments on: Britney's Junk! Or, Exposing the Border http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/ Just another WordPress site Thu, 15 Oct 2009 20:17:23 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: mamendi http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-73 mamendi Tue, 17 Jun 2008 16:36:37 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-73 One of the dumbest things I have ever read, what a waste of time. One of the dumbest things I have ever read, what a waste of time.

]]> By: Making Up Tammy Faye « Theory my culture http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-72 Making Up Tammy Faye « Theory my culture Sun, 22 Jul 2007 03:05:38 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-72 [...] connections between what seem to be disconnected cultural obsessions - for example, my claim that immigration border-anxiety is at work in our periodic obsession with celebrity crotch-shots over the past two years. The death of Tammy Faye Messner - a.k.a., Tammy Faye Bakker - is an [...] [...] connections between what seem to be disconnected cultural obsessions – for example, my claim that immigration border-anxiety is at work in our periodic obsession with celebrity crotch-shots over the past two years. The death of Tammy Faye Messner – a.k.a., Tammy Faye Bakker – is an [...]

]]> By: Jay http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-71 Jay Thu, 31 May 2007 02:12:11 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-71 Re: "as Derrida makes clear in Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas, borders also make all sorts of just acts possible." Vivek said something similar about Gandhi. Apparently, Gandhi addressed all his letters with "Dear Friend,". This was contrasted to liberalism where the core relationship is "brotherhood" (whether it be the brotherhood of right-wing nationalism or the Paris Commune). So he contrasted brotherhood to Gandhi's idea of friendship by saying that in family people are expected to agree - disagreements don't go over well; whereas the framework of friendship allows you to agree to disagree. Sort of the same idea: having the border (friendship, not family) makes some acts possible that otherwise would not be. I think (and I'm just sophist-izing here) that the goal, nevertheless, should be to get rid of the borders so that these actions (agreeing to disagree, having immigrants) are non-issues: the creation of a world without disagreement (ew?), without immigration across national boundaries. Analyzing what acts "the borders" allow us to commit might be a good way of seeing what the major flaws are in our society. Re: “as Derrida makes clear in Adieu to Emmanuel Levinas, borders also make all sorts of just acts possible.”

Vivek said something similar about Gandhi. Apparently, Gandhi addressed all his letters with “Dear Friend,”. This was contrasted to liberalism where the core relationship is “brotherhood” (whether it be the brotherhood of right-wing nationalism or the Paris Commune). So he contrasted brotherhood to Gandhi’s idea of friendship by saying that in family people are expected to agree – disagreements don’t go over well; whereas the framework of friendship allows you to agree to disagree. Sort of the same idea: having the border (friendship, not family) makes some acts possible that otherwise would not be.

I think (and I’m just sophist-izing here) that the goal, nevertheless, should be to get rid of the borders so that these actions (agreeing to disagree, having immigrants) are non-issues: the creation of a world without disagreement (ew?), without immigration across national boundaries. Analyzing what acts “the borders” allow us to commit might be a good way of seeing what the major flaws are in our society.

]]> By: renu http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-70 renu Wed, 30 May 2007 20:46:59 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-70 I was waiting to see how long before Anna Nicole's name came up! Surprised, in fact, that it took this long...she has become, I think, the sublime icon of bodily/national border-li-ness and the compulsion to cross borders; she not only managed the crossing-over from glamour model to porn mag model, from tabloid darling to reality tv supernova, and then she crossed from life to death (in a Seminole hotel, so on the property of a "sovereign" nation within the nation) and her body--penetrated and "crossed over" by the autopsy--refused to yield a media-satisfying narrative of cause....and then, (the audacity!) she was buried in the Bahamas...John, I think your insights into border-crossings across hemlines cum frontier-lines could be mounted entirely on Anna Nicole's capacious figure. Would that be too obvious? I was waiting to see how long before Anna Nicole’s name came up! Surprised, in fact, that it took this long…she has become, I think, the sublime icon of bodily/national border-li-ness and the compulsion to cross borders; she not only managed the crossing-over from glamour model to porn mag model, from tabloid darling to reality tv supernova, and then she crossed from life to death (in a Seminole hotel, so on the property of a “sovereign” nation within the nation) and her body–penetrated and “crossed over” by the autopsy–refused to yield a media-satisfying narrative of cause….and then, (the audacity!) she was buried in the Bahamas…John, I think your insights into border-crossings across hemlines cum frontier-lines could be mounted entirely on Anna Nicole’s capacious figure. Would that be too obvious?

]]> By: John http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-64 John Wed, 30 May 2007 16:29:46 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-64 Quickly: I perhaps should have caveated that more strongly than the parenthetical "for my analytical purposes here." Which means there is a formal structure invoked in moments of emergency, as when Pat Buchanan writes a book or Paris Hilton is photographed under her skirt. Yes, the law and practice is structured by super impasses...yet, as you note, it is clear enough when repressive measures - of which shame is one - come to bear. The ambiguity or ambivalence about borders is, I think, giving way. Anxiety about either "enforcing the laws" or crafting punitive new laws seems to me to be just that obsession with borders. Amnesty, which would de-border the discussion, is really pretty unthinkable because of our post-millennial obsession. Theorizing or thinking through the impasses is also part of that obsession. It is our post-millennial tension. It determines the whole discourse, on both sides. That would be my point. I think. Quickly: I perhaps should have caveated that more strongly than the parenthetical “for my analytical purposes here.” Which means there is a formal structure invoked in moments of emergency, as when Pat Buchanan writes a book or Paris Hilton is photographed under her skirt. Yes, the law and practice is structured by super impasses…yet, as you note, it is clear enough when repressive measures – of which shame is one – come to bear.

The ambiguity or ambivalence about borders is, I think, giving way. Anxiety about either “enforcing the laws” or crafting punitive new laws seems to me to be just that obsession with borders.

Amnesty, which would de-border the discussion, is really pretty unthinkable because of our post-millennial obsession.

Theorizing or thinking through the impasses is also part of that obsession. It is our post-millennial tension. It determines the whole discourse, on both sides. That would be my point. I think.

]]> By: Emily http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-63 Emily Wed, 30 May 2007 15:01:24 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-63 I know that Perdue, for example, routinely sends buses to areas in Central America to locate and bring to the south "illegal immigrants" to work in their factories, but there's no crackdown because it's so necessary to the local economy and to my low-cost teriyaki-ready stir fry strips. Is that what you mean, Kate? I know that Perdue, for example, routinely sends buses to areas in Central America to locate and bring to the south “illegal immigrants” to work in their factories, but there’s no crackdown because it’s so necessary to the local economy and to my low-cost teriyaki-ready stir fry strips. Is that what you mean, Kate?

]]> By: Kate http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-62 Kate Wed, 30 May 2007 14:38:46 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-62 But we *do* "authorize" "illegal immigration." The border's only plain when the state decides to bring down the repressive apparatus. It seems plain because we like to think the law's just the law. But it's not. Illegal immigration is encouraged so that we can have a low wage labor force without having to pay for the reproduction of that labor force. Sure, our stated laws at the border are clear, but what they mean to folks who are sanctioned or unsanctioned shifts in relation to state (business) priorities. And I would argue that these effects really do change the nature of the border itself in a way that means these distinctions are not nearly so plain as we imagine. But we *do* “authorize” “illegal immigration.” The border’s only plain when the state decides to bring down the repressive apparatus.

It seems plain because we like to think the law’s just the law. But it’s not. Illegal immigration is encouraged so that we can have a low wage labor force without having to pay for the reproduction of that labor force. Sure, our stated laws at the border are clear, but what they mean to folks who are sanctioned or unsanctioned shifts in relation to state (business) priorities. And I would argue that these effects really do change the nature of the border itself in a way that means these distinctions are not nearly so plain as we imagine.

]]> By: John http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-66 John Wed, 30 May 2007 14:25:52 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-66 In particular state borders, the legal-illegal distinction seems pretty plain (for my analytical purposes): those who cross, then stay under sanctioned conditions (legal) and those who cross, then stay without seeking sanction. Though rarely friendly or transparent to those crossing, then staying, the boundaries are there. In terms of a generalized border, in particular the crotch-shot economy, the legal is the one who is authorized - Anna Nicole Smith, for example, who is authorized to cross from the red carpet (no pun intended) to Playboy. Legal immigrant. Then there is the illegal immigrant, say, Lindsey Lohan. Short skirt? Fab. Penthouse? Illegal immigration. We didn’t authorize that. The crotch-shot, and we always have to pretend that it is her initiation, crosses the border without authorization as well, I think. Thus, the “outrage.” Borders within borders. Yes, the deeper sense of our obsession with borders. And I know it looks different! I just meant, you know, that Britney doesn’t have lacquered, pinstriped with flames kinda junk. I shoulda said “pretty much the same.” In particular state borders, the legal-illegal distinction seems pretty plain (for my analytical purposes): those who cross, then stay under sanctioned conditions (legal) and those who cross, then stay without seeking sanction. Though rarely friendly or transparent to those crossing, then staying, the boundaries are there.

In terms of a generalized border, in particular the crotch-shot economy, the legal is the one who is authorized – Anna Nicole Smith, for example, who is authorized to cross from the red carpet (no pun intended) to Playboy. Legal immigrant. Then there is the illegal immigrant, say, Lindsey Lohan. Short skirt? Fab. Penthouse? Illegal immigration. We didn’t authorize that. The crotch-shot, and we always have to pretend that it is her initiation, crosses the border without authorization as well, I think.

Thus, the “outrage.”

Borders within borders. Yes, the deeper sense of our obsession with borders.

And I know it looks different! I just meant, you know, that Britney doesn’t have lacquered, pinstriped with flames kinda junk. I shoulda said “pretty much the same.”

]]> By: Emily http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-65 Emily Wed, 30 May 2007 14:16:36 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-65 A great read, though I don't think girl-junk all looks the same. A great read, though I don’t think girl-junk all looks the same.

]]> By: Kate http://theoryculture.com/40/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-69 Kate Wed, 30 May 2007 14:11:50 +0000 http://theorymyculture.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/britneys-junk-or-exposing-the-border/#comment-69 One border that I find interesting that is implicit in your post is that between "illegal" and "legal." Illegal immigrants. Hmm. This is drawing a border that is not nearly as secure as it claims to be. What does it mean to call a person illegal? What does it say about the rest of us? And what does it say about the law? It seems to say that the law is, well, just the law, rather than an elastic, moving, dare I say, ambivalent border. And when it comes to immigration, this border moves. A lot. Calling it illegal immigration does more than just dehumanize the folks that move across borders. It obscures the ways in which undocumented immigration is a result of some very un-ambivalent social and economic policies that desire immigration without reproduction. I'm going to think about this a bit more; this analytic of reproduction--what should and should not come from which crotches--might be another way to think these two border issues together. One border that I find interesting that is implicit in your post is that between “illegal” and “legal.” Illegal immigrants. Hmm. This is drawing a border that is not nearly as secure as it claims to be. What does it mean to call a person illegal? What does it say about the rest of us? And what does it say about the law? It seems to say that the law is, well, just the law, rather than an elastic, moving, dare I say, ambivalent border. And when it comes to immigration, this border moves. A lot.

Calling it illegal immigration does more than just dehumanize the folks that move across borders. It obscures the ways in which undocumented immigration is a result of some very un-ambivalent social and economic policies that desire immigration without reproduction. I’m going to think about this a bit more; this analytic of reproduction–what should and should not come from which crotches–might be another way to think these two border issues together.

]]>