Michael Gilroy & Stoler

            Traditionally, scholars have used distinct, bounded notions of space (such as the nation-state, empire, and city) to frame their analyses. I was particularly struck by Stoler’s use of “imperial formations”. Imperial formations are “marcopolities whose technologies of rule thrive on the production of exceptions and their uneven and changing proliferation” (2006:128). She continues, “imperial formations are not now and rarely have been clearly bordered and bounded polities” (ibid.). Conceiving of US empire as something bounded only allows us to view projects on the borderlands as imperial processes. Can viewing US empire as a macropolity “in constant formation” allows us to understand processes within the US as just as much a part of US imperial formation as projects in other countries. Is the silencing, exploitation, and marginalization of Latina artists (the enemy within) just as much a part of US imperial formation as military interventions in other countries? Stoler’s question, “What if we begin not with a model of empire based on fixed, imperial cartographies but with one dependent on shifting categories and moving parts who designated borders at any one time were no necessarily the force fields in which they operated or the limits of them?” may allow us to understand resistance within the empire as creating fissures which are just as threatening to the empire as resistance to imperial expansion (2006:138). In what ways is US empire less of a physical entity than a force that must constantly be contended with by peoples around the world?

            Paul Gilroy attempts to move us beyond the lure of cultural nationalism and all of its pitfalls. He claims there are two reasons why this is necessary. “The first arises from the urgent obligation to reevaluate the significance of the modern nation-state as a political, economic, and cultural unit,” because “neither political nor economic structures of domination are still simply coextensive with national borders” (54). “The second reason relates to the tragic popularity of ideas about the integrity and purity of cultures” (55). Are Latina artists part of something like Gilroy’s “Black Atlantic”? What is their cultural contact zone? Latinas may have European, African, and Native American ancestry all at once. I like Gilroy in conjunction with Stoler, because it challenges how I conceive of “Latinas,” US empire, and space. I have to constantly reflect on the processes at work and in what forms do they operate. I don’t want to fall back on common understandings of the ontology of categories and space. Like Gilroy, I want to think about Latina artists as engaging in a “philosophical discourse which refuses the modern, occidental separation of ethics and aesthetics, culture and politics” (74).

Questions for class:

Is what Ferguson sees as an appropriation of neoliberal logic for progressive causes problematic?

Is what Ferguson is saying similar to the arguments about the US being a benevolent empire?