Viewing page 4 of 22

This transcription has been completed. Contact us with corrections.

- 14 Mapping

[[strikethrough across entire page]]

"deconstructionists" as it is in the less rigorous rhetoric of conventionally liberal art historians. (FN to Buchloh, Martin dialogue) Postmodern analysis has raised important questions about the cross-cultural exchange, although there are times when it seems to analyze everything to shreds, wallowing in textual paranoia to the point of absurdity and even cynicism. Once the crucial porousness of such encounters is recognized, the monolith opens up and we see the ways in which the Third World can disrupt the esthetic complacency of the First World as it rides precariously on the Western crisis of cultural superiority. And on the other hand, as Hal Foster has remarked, "We can't be simply the ideological benefactors of this work." (Min Joong panel)

Still, we have to welcome any approach that destabilizes, sometimes dismantles, and looks to the reconstruction or invention of an identity that is both new and ancient, that elbows its way into the future while remaining conscious and caring of its past. Third-World intellectuals (those living in the Third, the First, and the Second and Fourth worlds) are showing the way toward the polyphonous "ability to read and write culture on multiple levels," as Chela Sandoval put it; or to "look from the outside in and from the inside out," as Bell Hooks put it. Maxine Hong Kingston says in [[underline]] The Woman Warrior, [[/underline]] "I learned to make my mind large, as the universe is large, so that there is room for paradoxes." [[underline]] (quotes from Kim?) [[/underline]]