From the outset, this Essay1 positions itself as an extreme/polemic viewpoint. Perhaps it’s the Chicago punk background of its propagator, it’s clawing at easy targets (I.e. Starbucks) or it’s use of phrases like blood of their vanquished foe2, and gnawing the jugular of an Anarcho-syndicalist3, but this essay doesn’t feel like it wants to be taken completely seriously or without a grain of salt.
The Bloody Latte introduces us to the idea that the consumption of certain beverages can serve as a cannibalistic act. Drink is transubstantiation a la the Catholic cannibalism of Christ’s blood and body4. This cannibalism that Svenonius talks of is, by proxy, a symbolic cannibalism. Although in this essay it is never spoken of as symbolic. Rather, the language used encourages a more direct relationship with the signifier and the signified: a splash of “Habana
Club,” the Cuban national brand, is the bloody froth from the surf at the Bay of Pigs… tequila’s worm is
the dead yankee at the Alamo…5
His argument, in some regards, makes a lot of sense. And since reading it, I’ve found myself thinking about the ways in which other beverages could be implicated in the system it speaks of.
However I do have problems with some of the very direct relationships (in this text), like the one mentioned above; In which the signifier is the signified. Svenonius’s argument seems sound in relation to the sort of framework I highlighted in my seminar: When somebody regards an object, or if it influences their thinking in some way, then it is almost the same as owning an object. By bringing an object into their world, they have by proxy, incorporated the object into their view of themselves or taken it under their umbrella6. The discussion around estrangement in my blog entry called Social Practice might also serve as a useful reference point.
This sort of appropriation, in relation to one group of people taking resources from a group which they defeated, could be seen as a cannibalistic act: On par with with the post-battle cannibalism practiced by, just as a local example, the Maori of the early 1800s7. However, I remain unconvinced that the meanings Svenonius attributed the signifiers he mentioned have such an enduring singularity. It seems to be at odds with my understanding of meaning: as something that has a fluid potential to it.
____________________
1 Svenonius, Ian. “The Bloody Latte: Vampirism as Mass Movement.” The Psychic Soviet. Chicago: Drag City Inc. 2006. 35-43.
5 Svenonius, 41.
6 Ninow,
Charles. Let's talk about economics and my fluttering heartbeat.
Critical Studies Research Seminars MFA. Elam Lecture Theatre, Elam
School of Fine Arts, Auckland, IN. 28 May 2009.
7 Masters, Catherine. “'Battle rage' fed Maori Cannibalism.” The
New Zealand Herald.
8 September 2007. 11 June 2009
<http://www.nzherald.co.nz/maori/news/article.cfm?c_id=252&objectid=10462390>
You've drawn parallels between ingesting a purchased drink (imbedded with, in your account 'symbolic', subjugated foe)
ReplyDeleteand almost owning something...
This is a relationship with another object.
In 'Social Practise' you stated that even the relationship can be considered an object to relate to.
What then is the relationship of the umbrella under which 'someone' may gather incorporation's to themselves? Are they holding the umbrella up?
Can they fold it away? Is it's function to ward off invasive 'rain'?
What is the function of this umbrella
if not to deflect undesired liquids whilst one casually absorbs the desired ones, sounds comfortable.. so here desire is played out in linguistic, 'symbolic' relations. OK