User:₳(ɤ)ɠɭaḯa/T H E S I S O U T L I N E

From XPUB & Lens-Based wiki

* To be added references within the text *

Introduction

In the introduction I should address explicitly the topic and the question and start drawing the connections between the key terms that I will incorporate in the thesis (as well as in the project) like bureaucracy, border, immaterial (border), document, educational bureaucratic apparatus. I would also provide the reader with my motivation for researching this. It would be fruitful to talk about my positioning and why did I chose to do a situated research, why is it important to my practice? Also the introduction is the place and the time to talk about the relation of the thesis with the project since they are weaved together in a inseparable way with each other.

A key question and a starting point. I could What it means to be documented and what inefficiently documented? (maybe I can refer at this point to the recording of this woman’s speech at the demonstration in Amsterdam maybe I can use this as an entry or a starting point structuring my interest/argument in relation to my previous practice)

My voice has not be heard. Today I want to emphasize. We will keep fighting for refugees rights, for migrants rights. I always say, nobody leaves home unless home is dangerous. Nobody leaves home unless home … How many Palestinians do we have in the building? We may not be in Palestine. We are very angry with what happens to Palestine. We are very angry by the wall created by the Western world. We are very sad that the? and the tear guns they are applied to our country (...) I am here of the rights of the children which haven't be in the (?) education since they have undocumented mothers and they are more than ? years. I am here to represent mothers who are looking for a place to have a sense of belonging or how long are you trying to continue humiliating them and the female gender. I am here to express my frustration with IND. So frustrated. And I will not stop about democracy. Democracy in the rule of law where everybody feels included. Democracy is a rule of law where everybody feels ... That has undocumented people we don't feel a sense of belonging from the system (...i should transcribe the rest...) Dam Square Amsterdam 18th of June 2023 , 15:05

Body of text

Chapter 1

BUREAUCRATIC APPARATUS AS IMMATERIAL BORDER

I think that this chapter is going to be a bit more theoretical and will attempt to shape the territory for a future discussion and surround my initial assumption. I will try to understand, unfold these notions and questions listed underneath and find some (inter)connections.

- What is my interest in the notion of border and what is actually a border?

- What is bureaucracy and how bureaucracy can constitute an immaterial border?

- Does bureaucracy constitute an infrastructure within an institution?

- The tyranny of transparency and the supposed neutrality of the form

- How even an educational institution/a fine art school can reflect a government’s /state’s rules on migration policies, control, security etc

- Corporization of education and new established bureaucratic rituals (At some point I think is important to clarify the use of ritual. Why the word ritual? It could be this repetitive practice through which a infra-structure is established and naturalized )

keywords of this chapter: border (materiality/immateriality), bureaucracy (as an immaterial border), educational bureaucracy, infrastructure, reflect, documented

Chapter 2

What does it mean to create a counter archive about higher education within an educational institution?

- What is an archive and how you can create publics by creating an archive? What is the desirable relation with the receivers/witnesses?

- How did I conducted my situated research?

In the first sub-chapter I would like to describe the research process. Maybe I could bridge or give a theoretical context regarding the archive and the counter-archive. How public archive can function as a space of appearance and create a testimony? In order to justify my choice of making an archive.

A detailed explanation of the steps I have been through this procedure. The public forms that I searched, scanned, put together in a folder, classified. What do I keep and what do I discard? What do I want to highlight having in the back of my head the questions framing the process? How the way I choose to classify/organize/categorize can produce a different knowledge or an insight and underline my positioning?

This part of the chapter is considered to be the documentation of my research process.

- What are my observations/comments from the process in relation to the my initial questions (chapter 1)?

In the second sub-chapter I will look deeper in the material that I gathered/created. How this material is capable of drawing inferences or just hints relatable to my initial assumption about the bordering nature of bureaucracy and to the transformation of the institution and the migration policies? Is this question answered or even approached during investigation and in what way? How do I structure an argument using a variety of input? How this material is combined with the information I gained from the interviews with COIA administrator, the course coordinator, the IND or government legislation can construct a testimony or a small window to answer or just to open a conversation about the invisible – visible apparatus of educational bureaucracy. A this point I will present and collage the different material to structure my argument.

keywords of this chapter: public archive, open archive, research process,documentation of the process, material, results, inferences of research, argument

Chapter 3

BUREAUCRATIC FORM/DOCUMENT AS AN INTERFACE OF VIOLENCE AND VULNERABILITY AND THE INTIMATE STORY BEHIND IT.

In the first sub-chapter I would like at the beginning to frame the second part of the project and analyze the bureaucratic aesthetic in relation to potential behaviors and readings that forces. I would like to focus on the structure of the document as an object/artifact within the bureaucratic apparatus, to talk about the language/graphic design and deconstruct the idea of the supposed neutrality/universality of the document.

*Caps Lock – the designer as engineer

*Writing Machines – Materializing the metaphor

The question of the second sub-chapter might be in relation to the the vulnerability of the individual behind bureaucracy. The bureaucratic form/document as an interface of conflict/discourse. I perceive the personal intimate story as the moment of disturbing the form's continuity and the moment that "reveals" the violence. Returning to the assumption made in the first chapter on how bureaucracy constitutes an immaterial border, I would like to extract the intimate stories of vulnerability and the struggles of people. Also in this case I will combine bibliography as well as the material that I gained from my peers and structure the aforementioned argument.

{ the potential material that will be analysed(project) :

I would like to collect some personal small stories/experiences of my peers regarding the bureaucratic obstacle. The bureaucratic language/text in relation to the personal gaze over this text. The personal story or experience that disrupts the continuity of the form. How a structured form can become a (plain) text and an entry for an ongoing discourse. Interviews or annotations or stories or filled misfunctional forms and how people (piet zwart community or basically students) correspond/manoeuvre/hack/mis-read/destroy/misuse/mess with a (given) form/a document }

other possible questions that may come in this chapter:

- What it means to put a document in a different context, or to annotate it or to place it next to a small personal story? What friction or dissonance/paraphony is created there?

- How a document literature /language constructs an identity, classifies, categories, dehumanizes or fragments the person.


key-words of this chapter: bureaucratic aesthetic, vulnerability, personal gaze over the bureaucratic text, story, disrupts continuity, interface of conflict, document, de-humanise

CONCLUSION

I can talk about my research experience and how somebody can contribute to this archive. How this can be become an ongoing project? A future deposit of marginalized knowledge about education bureaucracy.


References

The project and the thesis are sharing the same references at the moment

Books:

  • Bourdieu, P. (1984). *Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste*. Harvard University Press.
  • Graeber, D. (2015). The Utopia of Rules: On Technology, Stupidity, and the Secret Joys of Bureaucracy. Melville House Publishing.
  • Katherine Hayles, Lunenfeld, P., Burdick, A., and MIT Press (2005). *Writing Machines*. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.
  • Khosravi, S. (2021). *Waiting - A Project in Conversation*. Bielefeld Transcript.
  • Le Guin, U.K. (1999). The Dispossessed. Turtleback Books.
  • Samellas, A. (2020). "(Forced) Movement". kyklada.press


Journals


Videos


Websites

Retrieved from "https://pzwiki.wdka.nl/mw-mediadesign/index.php?title=User:₳(ɤ)ɠɭaḯa/T_H_E_S_I_S_O_U_T_L_I_N_E&oldid=253454"