Entangled Discursivity: Women's Social Relations in a Collaborative Filmmaking Process
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This paper raises questions about and difference as spheres of struggle. Focussing on a filmmaking of two women, I investigate difference as a matter of gendered and racialized discursive practices that shape how relations are sustained and constrained. I work with a feminist poststructuralist approach to analyze interviews with the filmmakers and to discuss the discursive repertoires that the women engage. Linking discourses of family, locality, and labour, I argue that this entanglement shapes the social relations of the filmmakers.Significances and DirectionsFor many years in Toronto, I have produced feminist work as a writer, choreographer, and performer in theatre, performance art, video, and film. Much of this work was jointly conceived and developed with other women. My recollections of numerous collaborative projects are framed in pleasures and difficulties, upsets and exhilarations. I recall a great deal of time spent on ideas and on practicalities of production with little energy available for addressing the complex social relations of cultural production. There was so much struggle and so little attention to the hows and whys of struggle and to conflict in practices. And this was often where I would long to go. To ask: How are doing this? What is at stake for you/me/us in our practices? Why/how are struggling? What does collaborative artwork mean to you? How are social differences operative in what feels possible and impossible in our work together?Following from these urgencies, I decided to engage in a research project to investigate collaborative cultural production across difference and the ways in which contradictory, uncertain, and disputatious social relations are negotiated. In this article, I draw from the larger research project focussing on collaborations in film and theatre to discuss one particular of two women filmmakers, Shelley Niro and Anna Gronau. Difference is investigated as a matter of gendered and racialized discursive practices that organize advantages and disadvantages for differently positioned subjects.My focus on conflictual social relations is produced within the context of emphases on conflicts in feminism and on practising conflicts in feminism in a number of edited collections.(1) These works address conflicts in theory and politics, critical response, alliance-building, affiliations, and women's relations across differences. What is missing for me, however, in these texts, are the gritty and messy details of how conflict is lived, worked, resisted, embraced, and negotiated in specific relations of power and in particular arrangements at particular times. Such details are significant since we are at a socio-historic moment when contestations about what and who constitute we and about the limits of homogenizing discourses for transformative theories/politics are particularly keen.Where theories of collaboration are particularly central is in the literature about collaborative approaches to qualitative inquiry. Such approaches include critical action research, participatory research, feminist collaborative research, activist research and empowerment and emancipatory research.(2) Discourses of in such research approaches most often emphasize the unity in community, notions of giving voice and empowerment, a normalization of harmony, and regulative ideals of collaborative interaction.(3) My reading of this body of literature compelled me to interrogate understandings of, and desires for, harmony as the goal and outcome of collaboration.Literature about artwork tends to emphasize the study of representation, reception and consumption, art histories, art biographies, description of methods, and various intersections with cultural theory. Eager to find work that examines everyday processes and practices in collaborative art production and which troubles harmony and heterogeneity in discourses of collaboration, I discovered Linda Griffiths and Maria Campbell's The Book of Jessica: A Theatrical Transformation (1989). …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».