session 8: pleasure and politics
Beyond the pride and glory of political success and conquest, what role does pleasure play in politics? This final session invites an exploration of the aesthetic and ludic aspects of political activism, as well as their representation in various forms of media, for an appreciation of those affective elements that draw us towards collective action.
|
Reading:
Nicolas Whybrow (ed.), Performance and the Contemporary City: An Interdisciplinary Reader(London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2010), Part 4: Playing/Place. |
student reflection
© Jonathan LucasBy Joost van Mourik
BA (Hons) Japanese Studies, Leiden University
The theme of the final session was ‘Pleasure and Politics’, but looking at the examples we watched on video in class, I wondered whether these two really do blend as well as that title seems to suggest. The examples that we read about and watched made clear that ludic elements have a role to play in political activism, but I could not help but feel that in some sense, there is an inverse relationship between ‘fun’ and ‘serious political activism’ in such activities.
Consider, for example, the video of the man practicing parkour. We could analyze this as political activism in the sense that he was reclaiming urban space for his own purposes. For the man himself, however, I assume parkour is more about having fun than about politics.
The opposite could be said about the Critical Mass video that we watched. While the presence of ludic aspects in their form of activism cannot be denied, it did not seem like the cyclists had come together for ‘fun’ at all. Many of them had probably gathered with political activism as a conscious purpose. I doubt, in any case, that their clashes with the police were considered ‘fun’ or ‘pleasurable’ by any of the participants.
Another interesting example was the orchestra flash mob. Both the orchestra and the audience played a part in the reclamation of a public square for an activity it was not ordinarily meant for, but I suspect the balance of ‘pleasure’ and ‘politics’ was very different for these two parties. The audience was pleasantly surprised by what was happening, and listened to the orchestra because they enjoyed it, and probably not because they intended to make a statement about the space in which the performance took place. For the orchestra, on the other hand, there was no surprise factor at all. For them, doing something unexpected on a public square was the whole point of their performance. They may have enjoyed playing their instruments, but I doubt the reallocation of public space in itself brought them much pleasure. They probably did it because they were paid for it.
I wonder, therefore, if political activism can really be fun or pleasurable if political activism is its primary purpose. When looking at these examples it seems to me that the less aware one is of the fact that one is participating in what may be perceived as political activism, the more fun it is. While playful elements certainly continue the exist, the more ‘serious’ political activism is, the less relevant its overall playfulness and the pleasure associated with play seem to become.
BA (Hons) Japanese Studies, Leiden University
The theme of the final session was ‘Pleasure and Politics’, but looking at the examples we watched on video in class, I wondered whether these two really do blend as well as that title seems to suggest. The examples that we read about and watched made clear that ludic elements have a role to play in political activism, but I could not help but feel that in some sense, there is an inverse relationship between ‘fun’ and ‘serious political activism’ in such activities.
Consider, for example, the video of the man practicing parkour. We could analyze this as political activism in the sense that he was reclaiming urban space for his own purposes. For the man himself, however, I assume parkour is more about having fun than about politics.
The opposite could be said about the Critical Mass video that we watched. While the presence of ludic aspects in their form of activism cannot be denied, it did not seem like the cyclists had come together for ‘fun’ at all. Many of them had probably gathered with political activism as a conscious purpose. I doubt, in any case, that their clashes with the police were considered ‘fun’ or ‘pleasurable’ by any of the participants.
Another interesting example was the orchestra flash mob. Both the orchestra and the audience played a part in the reclamation of a public square for an activity it was not ordinarily meant for, but I suspect the balance of ‘pleasure’ and ‘politics’ was very different for these two parties. The audience was pleasantly surprised by what was happening, and listened to the orchestra because they enjoyed it, and probably not because they intended to make a statement about the space in which the performance took place. For the orchestra, on the other hand, there was no surprise factor at all. For them, doing something unexpected on a public square was the whole point of their performance. They may have enjoyed playing their instruments, but I doubt the reallocation of public space in itself brought them much pleasure. They probably did it because they were paid for it.
I wonder, therefore, if political activism can really be fun or pleasurable if political activism is its primary purpose. When looking at these examples it seems to me that the less aware one is of the fact that one is participating in what may be perceived as political activism, the more fun it is. While playful elements certainly continue the exist, the more ‘serious’ political activism is, the less relevant its overall playfulness and the pleasure associated with play seem to become.