A diffractive analysis of documentary film No existimosMaking visible the invisible with an eccentric technology of gender

  1. Calderón-Sandoval, Orianna 1
  2. Sánchez Espinosa, Adelina 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Granada
    info
    Universidad de Granada

    Granada, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04njjy449

    Geographic location of the organization Universidad de Granada
Journal:
Sociología y tecnociencia: Revista digital de sociología del sistema tecnocientífico

ISSN: 1989-8487

Year of publication: 2021

Issue Title: Seeking Eccentricity

Volume: 11

Issue: 1

Type: Article

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openDialnet editor

More publications in: Sociología y tecnociencia: Revista digital de sociología del sistema tecnocientífico

Abstract

Reading through one another insights raised by Teresa de Lauretis (1987; 1990), Donna Haraway (1988; 1992), Annette Kuhn (1994) and Karen Barad (2007), this article approaches feminist documentary cinema as diffraction apparatus and eccentric technology of gender. The article is divided into four sections. The first section follows Kuhn’s and de Lauretis’s definitions of cinema as technology of gender and of the subject of feminism as eccentric. We bring these ideas together with Barad’s and Haraway’s proposal of diffraction as an optical metaphor for the production of knowledges. In the second section we elaborate on what the application of a diffractive methodology to the analysis of documentary cinema would entail. We do so by putting forward three methodological tools: emotionality (Ahmed 2014), materiality (Olivieri, 2012), and performativity (Bruzzi, 2000; Butler, 1990, 1993, 2015; Barad, 2007). In the third section we apply this to the discussion of Spanish documentary No Existimos (Solano, 2014). We conclude by summarising how the diffractive and eccentric paradigms can contribute to a better understanding of the possibilities of feminist documentary cinema for co-creating and re-making the world.

Bibliographic References

  • Ahmed, S. (2014). The Cultural Politics of Emotion. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • Anzaldúa, G. (1987 [2007]). Borderlands. La frontera. The new mestiza. 3rd ed. San Francisco: Aunt Lute Books.
  • Austin, J. L. (1962 [1975]). How to Do Things with Words. 2nd ed. J.O. Urmson, & M. Sbisà (Eds.). Cambridge and Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.
  • Barad, K. (2007). Meeting the Universe Halfway: Quantum Physics and the Entanglement of Matter and Meaning. Durham and London: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822388128
  • Belia, V. (2015). “You can read your way out of this”. A diffractive reading of Alison Bechdel’s Are You My Mother? with Virginia Woolf and Adrienne Rich. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. Master Thesis.
  • Bruzzi, S. (2000). New Documentary: A Critical Introduction. London and New York: Routledge.
  • Butler, J. (1990). Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Butler, J. (1993). Gender is Burning: Questions of Appropriation and Subversion. In Bodies that Matter: On the Discursive Limits of “Sex” (pp. 121-140). London and New York: Routledge.
  • Butler, J. (2015). Notes Toward a Performative Theory of Assembly. Cambridge, Massachusetts and London: Harvard University Press. https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674495548
  • de Lauretis, T. (1987a). The Technology of Gender. In T. de Lauretis (Ed.), Technologies of Gender. Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction (pp. 1-30). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19737-8
  • de Lauretis, T. (1987b). Rethinking Women’s Cinema. Aesthetics and Feminist Theory. In T. de Lauretis (Ed.), Technologies of Gender. Essays on Theory, Film, and Fiction (pp. 127-148). Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-19737-8_8
  • de Lauretis, T. (1990). Eccentric Subjects: Feminist Theory and Historical Consciousness. Feminist Studies, 16(1), 115-150. https://doi.org/10.2307/3177959
  • Fox, N. J., & Alldred P. (2015). New Materialist Social Inquiry: Designs, Methods and the Research-Assemblage. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 18(4), 399-414. https://doi.org/10.1080/13645579.2014.921458
  • Haraway, D. (1988). Situated Knowledges: The Science Question in Feminism and the Privilege of Partial Perspective. Feminist Studies, 14(3), 575-599. https://doi.org/10.2307/3178066
  • Haraway, D. (1992 [2004]). The Promises of Monsters: A Regenerative Politics for Inappropriate/d Others. In D. Haraway (Ed.), The Haraway Reader (pp. 63-124). New York and London: Routledge.
  • Haraway, D. (1997). Modest_Witness@Second_Millenium. FemaleMan©_ Meets_OncoMouseTM Feminism and Technoscience. New York and London: Routledge.
  • Hemmings, C. (2011). Why Stories Matter. The Political Grammar of Feminist Theory. Durham and London: Duke University Press. https://doi.org/10.1215/9780822393702
  • Hongisto, I. (2015). Soul of the Documentary. Framing, Expression, Ethics. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. https://doi.org/10.1515/9789048525294
  • Kuhn, A. (1994). Women’s Pictures. Feminism and Cinema. 2nd ed. London: Verso.
  • Livingston, J. (1991). Paris is Burning. USA.
  • Lukic, J., & Sánchez Espinosa A. (2011). Feminist Approaches to Close Reading. In R. Buikema et al. (Eds.), Theories and Methodologies in Postgraduate Feminist Research. Researching Differently (pp. 85-160). London: Routledge.
  • Minh-ha, T. T. (1986). Introduction. She, the Inappropriate/d Other. Discourse. Journal for Theoretical Studies in Media and Culture, 8(4), 3-9.
  • Minh-ha, T. T. (1997). Not You/Like You: Post-Colonial Women and the Interlocking Questions of Identity and Difference. In A. McClintok, A. Mufti & E. Shohat (Eds.), Dangerous Liaisons. Gender, Nation and Postcolonial Perspectives (415-419). Minneapolis and London: University of Minnesota Press.
  • Minh-ha, T. T. (2005). The Digital Film Event. New York: Routledge.
  • Olivieri, D. (2012). Haunted by Reality. Toward a Feminist Study of Documentary Film: Indexicality, Vision and the Artifice. Utrecht: Universiteit Utrecht. PhD Thesis.
  • Smelik, A. (2010). Mediating Memories. The Ethics of Post-9/11 Spectatorship. Arcadia Band, 45, 307-325. https://doi.org/10.1515/arca.2010.018
  • Solano, A. (Director) and Herrera, B. (Producer) (2014). No existimos [Documentary film]. Spain: Movies for Festivals.
  • Waugh, T. (1984; 2011): Why Documentary Filmmakers Keep Trying to Change the World, or Why People Changing the World Keep Making Documentaries. In T. Waugh (Ed.), The Right to Play Oneself: Looking Back on Documentary Film (pp. 1-18). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. https://doi.org/10.5749/minnesota/9780816645862.003.0001
Data source: Dialnet