Blog: Film festivals

The end of ideologies has left two words, social and capital, as a pair of twin archetypes, social/kapital, which is strangely guiding our time now. That strangeness (in fact is a mere fairness because of accumulation of those two words’ ideological histories) is located on the interpretation position of both which inevitably are inseparable anymore since have turned into mutational forms of knowledge of how we appropriate all activities and cultural production in that context. This mutated knowledge is the meaning of both words in its similar proportion namely, social / capital.

The context plays its role in the transitional period now, which is on the pragmatic pressures rather than symbolic desires. Only seems both words repel each other although they actually equally inherent in mutual dependence and to their implications on our reality these days.

As a manifest of the archetypal fall, both concepts are merely placed into grand discourse throughout the centuries of cultural production on the top of ivory tower, a place where comprehensions of cultural production is likely to be seen and interpreted centrally–monoconsentric—through intricacy and sophistication of powers (political) and technologies (aesthetic). In other words, the language that articulates practices to imagine social and capital at that time and became our legacy of thinking, only allowing a value obtained from contemplation, while a variety of performativity which is celebrated in it sublimated as myths about World View. However, as the withdrawal of modernism, a shift in the understanding and meaning occurs when the concepts of geography and anthropology transformed most phenomenally by massive presence of new life habituation through the media that we are using now. social/kapital reduces those myths and coexist or along together with our performativity celebrations today.

Reduction of those myths seems in this circumstance: A productional milieu from vertical experience symbolically into horizontal experience pragmatically. In other words, the quest for suprasensory concept shifted to the quest for visible interpretation alias everyday.

A new literacy was stretched in front of the most present opportunities of cultural productions. Thus, the end of ideologies, which can be read as globalism nowadays has directed the production structure into contemporary guilds through the most advanced concept of the meaning existence of social and capital. This latter reality results in social reproduction produced by capital markets certainly everywhere either in the economic context or anthropological. Avoiding the strongest possibility of sloganistic assumptions to emerge about the revolutions of ideologies when writing this term, SOCIAL/CAPITAL are arranged in inductive letters, social/kapital is about to put perspective on peripheral domains.

Practices imagine anthropocentric into the concepts of citizenship or citizens as units of community—either as a representation of what would be ideal, either as a sheer performativity celebration, now it is common that the behaviors in a new world (global) when socialism and capitalism become mere of ‘world view’ concepts from the past and no longer sturdy as the two dominant poles which were constructed and applied throughout history by various powers to codify its inhabitants.

Idea and concept about social/kapital citizens have been merging various cultural activities of their existence in a new world (global) without—or only vaguely— memories of the state except local identity as a nation and their differential statuses. Individualism in the body of citizens is imagined almost as closely as shadow of something collective (collectivity). Is there a so-called global citizen complete with attributes and identity really exist apart from geographical and societal changes in which the capital motive is its creator?