Realism has nothing to do with the Real. On the contrary, the Real is what realism has continually to suppress.[1]
Mark Fisher suggests capitalist realism is about naturalising a set of political determinations. Today, artistic production plays a central role in the process of capital valorisation. Therefore, it can be claimed that it is not possible for art to play a critical role, because ‘critical art’, or ‘the Real’, is always recuperated and neutralised within industry.[2]
Luc Boltanski and Eve Chiapello evidence how demands for autonomy, individualism, and the networked economy have transformed into new forms of control.[3] These forms of control can discriminate multi-laterally against individuals with intersectional identities. For example, political requirements of secularism present an exclusion that can reinforce negative stereotypes and a lack of cultural understanding[4] — such as the assumed stereotype that Muslim women lack autonomy[5] — and therefore religious critical value may easily be undermined by society. In Jaclyn Rekis’s essay, Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice, Rekis suggests the University is a largely secular space which re-affirms these signifiers for value:
We can see how someone whose religion is racialized in society at large will not want to offer a distinctly religious testimony in an academic environment […] For instance, stereotypes that one is less than fully rational because of one’s race may influence how one’s interlocutor perceives one’s religious testimony too, leading this testimony also to seem less than fully rational, less credible, and thus taken less seriously than it otherwise would have been. […] [This] may reaffirm the false idea that such beliefs held by the racialized religious subject are […] not suited for academic discussion.[6]
Here, to be guided by religious belief suggests a dependence that is not compatible with notions of autonomy as power, or autonomy as cultural worth, dominant within industry.
However, as the art school is a collective space that sits outside of industry, surely it can be understood as a public space in which to be guided by practice[s] of freedom,[7] outside of the dominance of power in individual life. Chantal Mouffe defines public space as a space for ‘agnostic[8] intervention’, i.e., a battleground on which different hegemonic projects are confronted, without any possibility of final reconciliation.[9] We might understand thisin the art school as a space for safe criticality, and religious freedom.
Ghislane Leung writes —
Freedom is often conflated with autonomy, but dependence is perhaps less the incarcerator than the liberator. I am free with support, not without. […] I am as dependent as you are and this is not an issue because care exists socially, is required and reciprocated a thousand times over in a moment. That I fail to acknowledge this is the price I pay when I misattribute agency to individual life, as identity in a monological sense, in my vivid financialised disincorporated life.[10]
UAL’s limited[11] statistical data on students who align themselves with religion or faith suggests a distinct loss — in Rekis’ critical position, lack of clear data might represent a gap in knowledge that perpetuates epistemic injustice, or in Leung’s critical position, it suggests a failure of acknowledgement of education outside of capital or individual gain — if we are to come back to Fisher’s critical position, this lack of data suggests direct suppression. The University has nothing to do with the Real…
[1] Fisher, Mark (2005) October 6, 1979: Capitalism and Bipolar Disorder, K-Punk, Repeater Books, p. 433
[2] Mouffe, Chantal (2008) Art and Democracy: Art as an Agnostic Intervention in Public Space, Open 2008 / No.14 / Art as a Public Issue, p.7. Available at: https://readingpublicimage.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/mouffe_open14_p6-151.pdf (Accessed: 24 July 2024)
[3] Boltanski, Luc and Chiapello, Eve (2005) The New Spirit of Capitalism, Verso books
[4] ‘The degree of contention surrounding Islam […] and the West, are often based on lack of knowledge and understanding about each other’s lives.’ Jawad, H. (2022) Islam, Women and Sport: The Case of Visible Muslim Women. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/09/islam-women-and-sport-the-case-of-visible-muslim-women/ (Accessed: 23 July 2024)
[5] Jawad, H. (2022) Islam, Women and Sport: The Case of Visible Muslim Women. [Online]. Available at: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/religionglobalsociety/2022/09/islam-women-and-sport-the-case-of-visible-muslim-women/
[6] Rekis, Jaclyn (2023) Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account. Hypatia 38, p.786
[7] hooks, bell (1994) Teaching to Transgress: Education as the Practice of Freedom, Routledge
[8] The use of the word ‘agnostic’ here is in direct comparison to ‘agonistic’ or ‘antagonistic’ public space, that which favours dominant hegemonic communication — it is not to suggest the absence of faith or religious belief, it is to suggest the absence of a conclusion.
This understanding in the use of the word is adapted from Mouffe’s essay: Mouffe, Chantal (2008) Art and Democracy: Art as an Agnostic Intervention in Public Space, Open 2008 / No.14 / Art as a Public Issue, p.1. Available at: https://readingpublicimage.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/mouffe_open14_p6-151.pdf
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ghislaine Leung, Bosses, London/ Brussels: Divided Publishing (2023), p.1
[11] 2023/24 UAL data states that 71% of students have ‘no religion or belief’ or ‘prefer not to say’, whilst 29% of students shared that they do have ‘religion or belief’’. As Rekis notes, within the University there can be stigma in being openly religious. This pressure can be heightened even further for someone whose religion has been racialised in society, and so speaking about their religion can be uncomfortable due to the possibility it could feed existing racialized stereotypes about them.
Rekis, Jaclyn (2023) Religious Identity and Epistemic Injustice: An Intersectional Account. Hypatia 38, p.786
Comment from Andrea Marfo:
Hi Eilis,
Thank you for your reflection on faith and religion. You did a great overview of breaking down the key points in the resources and addressing topics such as capitalist realism, political choices, societal structures, Intersectional Identities, cultural diversity, marginalization, and stereotyping.
I agree with you that the lack of cultural understanding of individual intersectionality leads to stereotypes, contributing to negative ideas in our society. In educational spaces, we need to create open environments where faith can be discussed, fostering respect and value for all aspects of students and staff’s identities.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts.
Andrea
Thank you so much, Andrea. And thank you for your inclusion of the importance of staff’s identities in relation to these ideas — fostering togetherness across hierarchies will be essential in supporting inclusive pedagogical practices.
Hi Eilis,
This was a really thought-provoking blog post – I found it really interesting as a partner piece to your Intervention Report.
I would be interested in your view on whether it is indeed possible (in either the short or long term) to make universities more truly a space for “for safe criticality, and religious freedom”.
As you note, the UAL data on faith (and other anecdotal evidence from individuals speaking out about their experiences in our PGCert workshops) suggests that there’s still a lot of stigma about religious identities within the university.
Obviously that is a huge question that cannot be truly answered by any of us easily! But do you think it’s something that can be helped most by individual action from staff or even students?
Or do you think one of the most important actions would be to build further separation between the institution of the university and ‘industry’? I’m thinking of your point about the “notions of autonomy as power, or autonomy as cultural worth dominant within industry”. Is individual action unable to make a noticeable change to existing stigmas if the underlying values of the institution inherently do not align with safe criticality and religious freedoms?
I hope that question makes sense!
Peony
Hi Peony,
Thank you so much for your thought-provoking comment. When you have asked ‘do you think [stigma about religious identities within the university is] something that can be helped most by individual action from staff or even students?’ I was prompted to reflect that before this Unit, my own individual action in relation to inclusive practices towards faith consideration has been extremely limited. I think my first individual action will be to continue to address faith inclusion more directly in my research and practice — and I am hopeful that this will make a difference to the level of support I can offer against this stigma in my classroom environments. Knowing and recognising difference will hopefully be conducive to diversifying optionality in postgraduate success — in industry, or in intellectual emancipation.
Thank you so much again Peony — I would love to have a chat with you soon, to hear about your own opinion on the relationship between individual action and the institution.
Faith
Dear Elisie,
You start your faith blog with a statement on Realism:
Realism has nothing to do with the Real. On the contrary, the Real is what realism has continually to suppress.
The Faith Blog, for me, was very difficult to write. Our blog group had many points of view some of from a personal perspective. From your opening statement you challenge the existence of what is ‘real’ in relation to faith. Am I correct on this?
You have mentioned in your intervention blog under the paragraph of positionality that you are an agnostic; and I am wondering if this has resounded in your response to the reading material offered?
I thought it would be interesting to list the different meaning of ‘real’ and ‘realism’ below as possible references in relation to my response to your blog.
Meanings of Realism below-
1 The tendency to view or represent things as they really are.
2 Treatments of forms, colours, space, etc in such a manner as to emphasise their correspondence to actuality. Ordinary visual experience.
3 A matter of treating subject matter that presents are careful description of everyday life, usually of the lower and middle classes.
4 A Theory of writing in which the ordinary, familiar, or mundane aspects of life are represented in a straightforward or matter of fact manner that is presumed to reflect life as it actually is.
6 The doctrine that universals have a real, objective existence.
7 The doctrine that objects of sense perception have an existence independent of the active perception.
Meanings of Real below-
1 Real is what realism has continually to suppress.
2 As an adjective, real is usually defined as true, not merely a sensible, nominal, or apparent.
3 As an adverb, real is usually defined as very or extremely.
4 As a noun, real is usually defined as real number, a rational number, or the limit of a sequence of rational numbers, as opposed to a complex number.
Tell me the meaning of the word agnostic.
As a noun, agnostic is usually defined as a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause as God, any essential nature of things, are unknown and unknowable for that human knowledge is limited to experience.
As an adjective, agnostic is usually defined as of or relating to agnostics or their doctrines, attitudes, or beliefs.
The concept of ‘realism’ and ‘real’. Are you challenging the idea of faith, religion intersecting with education? To believe in something greater than us that is out of reach, out of touch; that is ephemeral. As an idea, should we dismiss as it is an illusion?
The freedom of the individual to create their own economies. To network and transform their world and have control over it. You point out that in some cases these controls can discriminate individuals. With intersectional identities this can reinforce negative stereotypes. And a lack of cultural understanding.’ Hence the example of the Muslim woman, lacking freedom due to religious restrictions which can undermine her engagement in society; ‘unseen’ difficulties that students of faith encounter that is not always supported in a university environment.
To have no restrictions in the learning space, to have safe critical thinking. Religious freedom of speech and action. But is this not what colleges and universities do offer and tries to allow the student to explore all avenues of creativity, to engage in a critical practise. Without hindrance and anxieties with the full knowledge that the college or university will support them.
Is the term ‘inclusivity for all’ too high a goal to achieve?
Really enjoyed reading your Blog
MSC