Black Bucket Essays
Volume 1, Issue 2
Normalize difference until there is no space between self and other.
Eileen Wold
To normalize difference in statistical terms makes differences more palatable. It is a standardization process that makes differences consistent and easier to compare and digest. In that way perhaps we can use these strategies to understand our differences until they no longer create space between self and other. But this can not eliminate difference. Normalizing difference can help define it, which can make it less paramount, but it does not erase it.
What is difference? How do we experience difference? I would break it down into two steps. First, through our initial observations. Where we categorize and classify. We compare and contrast. A basic instinct for survival.
Second, our ideas are situated against a third party lens. A perspective of the same original sequence through a whole different set of criteria. And through this removed viewpoint, those initial observations, conclusions, and first hand account parameters are exposed. And that first strategy for classification is revealed as a series of assumptions of similarity and difference.
We might think the idea of coming to a situation with complete neutrality would be ideal. That it would be possible to assess or experience without any prejudices. But I think we know this is not possible. We are always one, looking at the other.
The term “other” in this statement implies the self being dominant and the other being observed. This idea could have been stated in a more neutral way without suggestions of a dominant ideology. The “self” in this statement sees difference in a certain way but perhaps the “other” does not. And so the differences are defined by only one side.
Once the difference has been defined, does it still exist in the same way? Perhaps the difference is dismantled the moment it is observed and made available as something to dissect. Can self remain dominant when either party can say the same sentence and put themselves in the dominant position of self? Then both participants are self and other simultaneously.
Each example I attempt to write for this is littered with problems. Theoretical discourse can only really be understood through the theoretical. Because in every example, anything that can replace “self” (x) can also replace “other” (y). It is difficult to expound an equation that only involves two variables that are constantly interchangeable. Which in turn makes them equal.
After all, the external gaze and the very idea of self and other, implies that we will never fully understand either viewpoint because our own initial observations can not be complete without the juxtaposition of that third party reveal. And yet we can logically conclude they are equal anyway.
Volume 1, Issue 2
Normalize difference until there is no space between self and other.
Eileen Wold
To normalize difference in statistical terms makes differences more palatable. It is a standardization process that makes differences consistent and easier to compare and digest. In that way perhaps we can use these strategies to understand our differences until they no longer create space between self and other. But this can not eliminate difference. Normalizing difference can help define it, which can make it less paramount, but it does not erase it.
What is difference? How do we experience difference? I would break it down into two steps. First, through our initial observations. Where we categorize and classify. We compare and contrast. A basic instinct for survival.
Second, our ideas are situated against a third party lens. A perspective of the same original sequence through a whole different set of criteria. And through this removed viewpoint, those initial observations, conclusions, and first hand account parameters are exposed. And that first strategy for classification is revealed as a series of assumptions of similarity and difference.
We might think the idea of coming to a situation with complete neutrality would be ideal. That it would be possible to assess or experience without any prejudices. But I think we know this is not possible. We are always one, looking at the other.
The term “other” in this statement implies the self being dominant and the other being observed. This idea could have been stated in a more neutral way without suggestions of a dominant ideology. The “self” in this statement sees difference in a certain way but perhaps the “other” does not. And so the differences are defined by only one side.
Once the difference has been defined, does it still exist in the same way? Perhaps the difference is dismantled the moment it is observed and made available as something to dissect. Can self remain dominant when either party can say the same sentence and put themselves in the dominant position of self? Then both participants are self and other simultaneously.
Each example I attempt to write for this is littered with problems. Theoretical discourse can only really be understood through the theoretical. Because in every example, anything that can replace “self” (x) can also replace “other” (y). It is difficult to expound an equation that only involves two variables that are constantly interchangeable. Which in turn makes them equal.
After all, the external gaze and the very idea of self and other, implies that we will never fully understand either viewpoint because our own initial observations can not be complete without the juxtaposition of that third party reveal. And yet we can logically conclude they are equal anyway.
