Hdl Handle:
http://hdl.handle.net/10142/12596
Title:
Writing to Reach You
Authors:
Bowman, Paul
Abstract:
If I have always trembled before what I could say, it was fundamentally because of the tone, and not the substance. And what, obscurely, I seek to impart as if in spite of myself, to give or lend to others as well as myself, to myself as well as to the other, is perhaps a tone. Everything is summoned from an intonation. And even earlier still, in what gives tone to a tone, a rhythm. I think that all in all, it is upon rhythm that I stake everything. – Jacques Derrida, Monolingualism, p.48. I propose to think through – to use and abuse – the song ‘Writing to Reach You’ by Travis, to make sense of the situation of subjects like cultural studies, whose aims include ‘writing to reach’ something other. Given the problems such intentions harbour (problems of intentionality, at least), I argue that the such subjects cannot be understood outside of considerations of audibility, intelligibility and the voice. As many have put it, sense is made, iteratively; audibility in this sense is structural, intelligibility is hegemonic. ‘Sense’ is, as it were, ‘beaten into’ things, as ‘making sense’ (the hegemonic logic of articulation) is forceful performative production. I argue that John Mowitt’s (2002) emphasis on temporal and aural iteration, in Percussion: Drumming, Beating, Striking, supplements and should transform our conception of intentionality and agency, and hence of how and to what cultural studies should respond. But what difference does this make to us or our pop song? I argue that the fates of both are intertwined, and call to each other, conjure each other up. In both, it is uncertain who the ‘you’ is or should be that we are writing to reach, as is why we are doing so. I would like to drum up even more uncertainty, not only because it is too often drowned out, but because, ultimately, perhaps, the question always demanded and/yet always already answered (silenced) is that of why we bang away at what we do as we do; or, alternatively: what is it that ought to be beaten?
Issue Date:
Mar-2007
URI:
http://hdl.handle.net/10142/12596
Submitted date:
2007-07-05
Type:
Article
Language:
en
Appears in Collections:
Department of Humanities Collection

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.contributor.authorBowman, Paul-
dc.date.accessioned2007-07-05T13:19:04Z-
dc.date.available2007-07-05T13:19:04Z-
dc.date.issued2007-03-
dc.date.submitted2007-07-05-
dc.identifier.otherConference paper. CentreCATH, University of Leeds, July 2007en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10142/12596-
dc.description.abstractIf I have always trembled before what I could say, it was fundamentally because of the tone, and not the substance. And what, obscurely, I seek to impart as if in spite of myself, to give or lend to others as well as myself, to myself as well as to the other, is perhaps a tone. Everything is summoned from an intonation. And even earlier still, in what gives tone to a tone, a rhythm. I think that all in all, it is upon rhythm that I stake everything. – Jacques Derrida, Monolingualism, p.48. I propose to think through – to use and abuse – the song ‘Writing to Reach You’ by Travis, to make sense of the situation of subjects like cultural studies, whose aims include ‘writing to reach’ something other. Given the problems such intentions harbour (problems of intentionality, at least), I argue that the such subjects cannot be understood outside of considerations of audibility, intelligibility and the voice. As many have put it, sense is made, iteratively; audibility in this sense is structural, intelligibility is hegemonic. ‘Sense’ is, as it were, ‘beaten into’ things, as ‘making sense’ (the hegemonic logic of articulation) is forceful performative production. I argue that John Mowitt’s (2002) emphasis on temporal and aural iteration, in Percussion: Drumming, Beating, Striking, supplements and should transform our conception of intentionality and agency, and hence of how and to what cultural studies should respond. But what difference does this make to us or our pop song? I argue that the fates of both are intertwined, and call to each other, conjure each other up. In both, it is uncertain who the ‘you’ is or should be that we are writing to reach, as is why we are doing so. I would like to drum up even more uncertainty, not only because it is too often drowned out, but because, ultimately, perhaps, the question always demanded and/yet always already answered (silenced) is that of why we bang away at what we do as we do; or, alternatively: what is it that ought to be beaten?en
dc.description.provenanceSubmitted by Pat Simons (p.simons@roehampton.ac.uk) on 2007-07-05T13:19:04Z No. of bitstreams: 1 bowman writing.pdf: 186417 bytes, checksum: cd2a51f6e9070b671062b6f4f670ef40 (MD5)en
dc.description.provenanceMade available in DSpace on 2007-07-05T13:19:04Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 bowman writing.pdf: 186417 bytes, checksum: cd2a51f6e9070b671062b6f4f670ef40 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2007-03en
dc.format.extent186417 bytes-
dc.format.mimetypeapplication/pdf-
dc.language.isoenen
dc.subjectcultural studiesen
dc.titleWriting to Reach Youen
dc.typeArticleen
All Items in RURR are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.