“…we forget to look sideways…”
The Concept:
Minor Transnationalism, an anthology edited by Françoise Lionnette and Shu-mei Shih, both initiates and advocates the concept its title names—“minor transnationalism.” In the introduction, Lionnette and Shih observe a common fixity among approaches to the transnational, that being, to operate within a minor/major vertical, binary system. They address four limitations of the minor/major dynamic: It neglects potential lateral connections; It reinforces oppositional identity politics; It denies the complexity and multiplicity of minorities; It obscures what has always been hybrid and relational.
I get the sense, however, that rather than spend too much time identifying limitations, Lionnette and Shih want to see the product of opening the dynamic to new, generative possibilities. They have started a conversation about an alternative vision, wherein “subjects act and interact in fruitful, lateral ways” (2). In this vision, “the transnational…can be conceived as a space of exchange and participation wherever processes of hybridization occur and where it is still possible for cultures to be produced and performed without necessary mediation by the center” (5). What this project achieved is, to me, exciting; it serves as an example of the lateral hybridity it promotes.
My Encounter:
I’ll admit, I’ve had moments—yes, especially while writing this post—wherein “minor transnationalism” seems, though well-intentioned and motivational, chimerical. Then I think, so what if it is? Does not a major gesture, sometimes, in causing the slightest shift, propel something or someone in a new direction, however slight? And regardless of what quantifies a valid “change,” a shift has occurred. My particular shift experience was brought on by a very a simple, casual statement on the opening page: “…our battles are always framed vertically, and we forget to look sideways to lateral networks that are not readily apparent” (1 emphasis added). It is a simple reflection, perhaps, but it carries immense implications. Once we start looking sideways, who will be there? Who won’t be there that we were expecting? Who will there that we weren’t expecting? Who will start showing up? Who will disappear?
Beyond my agreement that shifting from minor/major to minor–minor would open up connections in active and productive ways–that work against the homogenization of globalization–I wonder how this shift might accelerate the erosion of long-standing structures. If the minor becomes more full, does the major become more empty? Who comprises the dominant group? If closely inspected, does it become an amalgamate in itself? If the more minor categories open up, connect, form new bodies and amalgamates of bodies, will more bodies flood out of the major to populate those? Will more bodies flood into the major? Will both the major and the minor change? Could the minor networks spread not only around or between dominant vertical structures, but also may make room for the vertical to flatten and spread as well? History says they have every reason not to, but what if they did?
As you can see, the idea of “looking sideways” has me asking a lot of questions; I’m not sure how they will manifest in my future work. So far, they’ve only made me into a nuisance in my English Literature class by starting every comment with, “well, in the Transnational Theory course I’m taking….” But, I can see how the concept (among many others addressed in this course) has begun to seep into my approach, informing the way that I read. What is more, it has altered my sense of from where I am reading. I have been forced to face my own position in the world, which I have long ignored. And I’m beginning to realize that the discomfort of its complexity and instability may be used in productive ways. At least I sincerely hope so.