Don't get triggered by the cartoon. It speaks to something far more productive.
I'm Canadian. As someone who's placed socially informed identities in a space for deconstruction (and destruction, tbh), it's still hard for me to understand why I feel this way, but I do. What I've seen a lot of times as a sociology and anthropology student is that a lot of people, both in and outside of the sociology/anthropology community, believe that something socially based is open to wilful manipulation. I'll admit that for the majority of my time as a student, I had hoped that by understanding something as a social construct would mean that it could be manipulated to the wills of a collective. I no longer believe this, but I do think that it's still an idea worth considering in how it works to give meaning to our institutions. I no longer believe that an institution like the economy, race or gender can be changed. Instead, I've come to understand and appreciate the fact that the belief that these institutions can do such a thing as bring about something meaningful is simultaneously a belief in these institutions continuing ability to adjust themselves to the whims of human emotion, expectations and changing needs. I no longer believe in the institution's ability to change to our wills, but I believe in the institution as a space for constant social action and potential. The goal fades into the horizon, and the work becomes the focus.
That was a bit of a tangent, but it nevertheless gives you an idea about the ethics informing my methods of research. What I specifically wish to research is counter-terrorism policy and how these policies establish a space for meaningful considerations and changes in our collective understanding as people of a nation, particularly Canada.
I draw heavily on the methods of Niklas Luhmann. This has helped me considerably in orienting myself in such a politically charged field. Personally, there will always be a lot to be desired when it comes to my nation's dealing with terrorism (though, comparatively, I guess I could give a hesitant thumbs up). However, what I want to tap into is exactly how this very feeling, or opinion, is precisely the nation, as a social system, produces within anyone participating, the sense of right to take part. By me having an opinion on the issue of counter-terrorism in Canada, we can see that I am taking part in a system of meaning that surrounds our ideas of 'nation', and idea informed by histories, theories and the quotidian.
I think I'll leave it there for now. It's an exhausting topic, especially since it was the project I proposed to Waterloo, who, if you didn't read my previous post, denied me admission (though two at the department had very kind words to say after the decision had been made). I'll probably be delving more into the minutia of these ideas later on and in case you were ever left wondering why I'm constantly talking about Luhmann, Gellner or the latest counter-terrorism news, than there will already be a post explaining.
Comentários