My earlier musings led me to browse back to my thesis notes on Derrick Jensen. He uses the expression "decent White men" and arguest that this group of people commit the most horrific destruction on the planet.
This also reminded me of Howard's comments soon after being elected, that the era of PC was over, now people could "reasonably and moderately and decently" talk about subjects that were formerly taboo. In other words, so long as one adopts middle-class manners, it's ok to be mean-spirited, oppressive, prejudiced ... you name it.
And to go a further step in my train of thought, it brings me to Eli Clare's comments about "rednecks", about how middle-class progressives believe that social prejudice is most concentrated amongst the (white) rural, working class. I've read other accounts by working class women who point this out.
To me, this is symptomatic of the desire to locate social problems in others, rather than exploring lines of power, lines of complicity, lines of symmetry.
Thursday, April 19, 2007
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
Cho Seung-Hui (Virginia Tech massacre)
So, I've been browsing information about Cho Seung-Hui, the guy who killed 33 people at Virginia Tech a few days ago.
A black woman blogger ("Jersey Goddess") wrote that she prayed he wouldn't turn out to be an illegal immigrant. Luckily, he wasn't, so illegal immigrants can't be demonised. At first, he was described as "an Asian male" and the flurry of Islamophobic crap that I found was incredible - it was assumed by some that he must have been Muslim, that this was a "jihad." Thank goodness there aren't cultural stereotypes of "violent Koreans" to draw on.
Now, of course, it's stressed that he had a mental illness, as if this explains the violence. Us crazy people, you gotta watch out for us. Although, as a press release from the American National Alliance on Mental Illness stresses, people with mental illnesses are more likely to be the victim of violence, and are less likely to perpetrate it.
It led me to think. Ethnicity seems to be more often mentioned when it's someone from a stigmatised group commiting a crime (particularly black people in the US/UK, and these days Middle-Eastern people or Muslims), which creates/draws on the image of black and brown men as dangerous, innately violent. Whiteness is rarely named. Which is, of course ironic since there are some murderous white men running the world at the moment. Their killing is state-sanctioned so somehow "legitimate".
There is an implicit link between violence and mental illness, as if sensible, people of sound mind wouldn't kill or mistreat people (although survivors of the Holocaust constantly remark upon how ordinary their persecutors were).
I haven't been able to write about this for a few days because one morning I woke up and the ABC report speculated that Cho may have had the same diagnosis that I have been given. The psychiatrist who suggested this worked at Melbourne Uni and was making this "diagnosis" having never met the guy. It brought up some past shit for me. It also reiterated my suspicions that this "diagnosis" has no basis in subjective human experiences, except the "objective experience" of the psychiatrist (ie. the objectifying experience).
A black woman blogger ("Jersey Goddess") wrote that she prayed he wouldn't turn out to be an illegal immigrant. Luckily, he wasn't, so illegal immigrants can't be demonised. At first, he was described as "an Asian male" and the flurry of Islamophobic crap that I found was incredible - it was assumed by some that he must have been Muslim, that this was a "jihad." Thank goodness there aren't cultural stereotypes of "violent Koreans" to draw on.
Now, of course, it's stressed that he had a mental illness, as if this explains the violence. Us crazy people, you gotta watch out for us. Although, as a press release from the American National Alliance on Mental Illness stresses, people with mental illnesses are more likely to be the victim of violence, and are less likely to perpetrate it.
It led me to think. Ethnicity seems to be more often mentioned when it's someone from a stigmatised group commiting a crime (particularly black people in the US/UK, and these days Middle-Eastern people or Muslims), which creates/draws on the image of black and brown men as dangerous, innately violent. Whiteness is rarely named. Which is, of course ironic since there are some murderous white men running the world at the moment. Their killing is state-sanctioned so somehow "legitimate".
There is an implicit link between violence and mental illness, as if sensible, people of sound mind wouldn't kill or mistreat people (although survivors of the Holocaust constantly remark upon how ordinary their persecutors were).
I haven't been able to write about this for a few days because one morning I woke up and the ABC report speculated that Cho may have had the same diagnosis that I have been given. The psychiatrist who suggested this worked at Melbourne Uni and was making this "diagnosis" having never met the guy. It brought up some past shit for me. It also reiterated my suspicions that this "diagnosis" has no basis in subjective human experiences, except the "objective experience" of the psychiatrist (ie. the objectifying experience).
Dream Large (Melbourne Model)
So, as a staff member of the University of Melbourne, I got emailed a copy of "Dream Large" - Melbourne Uni's advertising campaign to sell its renewed focus on elitism.
It's kinda hilarious - part of me wishes I was a film student, cos it's just begging to be spoofed. My favourite one is the "Can you see?" movie, where it shows images of all these "problems" (like poverty, disease, Aboriginal children (it's not entirely clear what the "problem" is) ...) and basically suggests that Melbourne graduates will solve them. The arrogance is astounding.
It was useful in illustrating for me, one of the problems of the progressive vision that I am critiquing, the assumption that privileged people can and should "solve" all the world's problems, which overlooks our participation in the very problems.
I am reminded of a quote from Derrick Jensen's brilliant analysis of hatred in The Culture of Make Believe, he quotes Dina Chan, a Cambodian sex-worker sho says, "I want you to remember, we are not 'problems', ... we do not want you to tell us what is better for us. ... you do not understand because you do not listen."
Derrick Jensen's thesis is that the cultural imperative of White culture (this is his terminology) it to "rob the world of its subjectivity ... to turn everyone and everything into objects." For example, he applies this to the KKK, who turns black people into "niggers", the judicial system which turns them into "inmates", corporations who turn them into "workers" and "consumers." I would add - and this is one of the central ideas I want to explore in my thesis - is that progressives (in the broadest sense) turn black people into a "cause" - much as the Melbourne Model video does. Like all the powerful institutions in White, western culture that we progressives scorn and despise, we too rob the world of its subjectivity. We may do so with benevolence, but everyone sees themselves as good, don't they? I mean, even the KKK calls itself a "love group" these days.
It's kinda hilarious - part of me wishes I was a film student, cos it's just begging to be spoofed. My favourite one is the "Can you see?" movie, where it shows images of all these "problems" (like poverty, disease, Aboriginal children (it's not entirely clear what the "problem" is) ...) and basically suggests that Melbourne graduates will solve them. The arrogance is astounding.
It was useful in illustrating for me, one of the problems of the progressive vision that I am critiquing, the assumption that privileged people can and should "solve" all the world's problems, which overlooks our participation in the very problems.
I am reminded of a quote from Derrick Jensen's brilliant analysis of hatred in The Culture of Make Believe, he quotes Dina Chan, a Cambodian sex-worker sho says, "I want you to remember, we are not 'problems', ... we do not want you to tell us what is better for us. ... you do not understand because you do not listen."
Derrick Jensen's thesis is that the cultural imperative of White culture (this is his terminology) it to "rob the world of its subjectivity ... to turn everyone and everything into objects." For example, he applies this to the KKK, who turns black people into "niggers", the judicial system which turns them into "inmates", corporations who turn them into "workers" and "consumers." I would add - and this is one of the central ideas I want to explore in my thesis - is that progressives (in the broadest sense) turn black people into a "cause" - much as the Melbourne Model video does. Like all the powerful institutions in White, western culture that we progressives scorn and despise, we too rob the world of its subjectivity. We may do so with benevolence, but everyone sees themselves as good, don't they? I mean, even the KKK calls itself a "love group" these days.
Tuesday, April 17, 2007
basis of my thesis
I think the core of my thesis is this: how do you defend someone whose identity is stigmatised?
My central idea is that this is usually done very badly, e.g. stigma is often deflected (like the Lebanese vying to be included in the category of "White" in early twentieth century Australia, or asylum seekers described as "not criminals"), and often reasserts the dominance of what I call (following Goffman) the normals .
Something I've been exploring is how stigmatised groups can be appreciated for their strengths, rather than trying to hide their difference. I think this is best done in artistic forms. For example, Merinda Epstein has drawn a gorgeous cartoon about a woman with a mental illness going to a job interview and talking about her qualities; she states that she has "exquisite sensitivity" and "deep insight into human suffering." Lest this representation become too sentimental, Merinda undercuts this with several less desirable qualities, the last of which is that "sometimes my medication makes me fart."
I read a theory that the internet was created by people with aspergers syndrome, as a tool to be able to communicate in more comfortable ways. Ever since, this image has stuck in my mind. Why have I never before realised that there are other relationships to have with people who have a diagnosis of a mental illness, besides pity.
This Margaret Cho quote celebrating gay men I have to include in full:
"What I love most about gay men is the way that they are about sex. ... There is a kind of fun and frivolity that surrounds gay men and their sexuality that is not there for straight men and sex. I think if you are oppressed over who you wanna sleep with, when you actually go and do it, you're going to have a really good time. If you are hated for who you like to fuck, you are gunna kick up your heels and fuck. And it is such an inspiration to watch."
I love that she talks about fucking. Because too many (defensive) representations of queer life talk about us as if we don't fuck. They sanitise our lives, as if that will make us more acceptable, as if by not drawing attention to the central aspect that we are hated for, maybe we'll be accepted, maybe the bigots will overlook the fact that we desire to fuck each other. I love that Cho values this as a strength of queer culture, not some embarrassing aspect that is better hidden.
In my own experience, I've realised that my queer experiences of negotiating being/not being "out" has given me a genuine insight into privacy and disclosure, in the context of negotiating stigma. Last week I was chatting with a colleague about whether or not I could tell a mutual friend that this colleague and I work together. Our job has a certain level of taboo to it, and I knew instinctively to pause to consider whether the information was disclosable, or whether I should ascertain how "out" this colleague was about her job, before telling anyone what she does. I have a similar instinct with the other information people have disclosed to me. I'm not claiming some high moral ground for queers, but rather, I'm arguing that there is a certain empathy that comes from having a "discreditable" (to use another of Goffman's terms) aspect to one's life.
Finally, I've also heard young Muslim women talk about their relationships with each other, about how Islam-influenced gender relations have brought them closer to each other, to a level of intimacy with other women that was absent in my teenage years, despite being in an all-women's environment.
***
I've also been thinking a lot lately about how ahistorical much progressive thinking is. I mean, it really wasn't that long ago that queers were forcibly institutionalised and given shock treatment to "cure" our homosexuality. And of course, the Nazis were gassing us (well, gay men predominantly) along with the Jews, the Communists, the Gypsies and the "mentally feeble." I read somewhere that the Nazis first tested their gas chambers on inmates of mental asylums - people were already locked up and whom no one cared much about anyway - they were incredibly expendable. So, I feel like to act as if being queer is very ordinary is to forget this past. I'm not sure how one does draw on this past, but I like how Margaret Cho deals with it - to acknowledge that this past has consequences for today, that it influences how we exist in the world.
Conversely, I think a lot of people act as if Islamophobia is a relatively new phenomenon, especially since the word "Islamophobia" is such a recent coinage. Apparently, according to the Oxford dictionary, it was first used in 1976, but became more popular in the 1990s. That's a pretty short history. But the more I read about the historical relations between Muslim-majority nations and Christian-majority nations, the more I realise how deeply embedded Christian fear of Muslims is, going right back to the Crusades, maintained throughout the Ottoman empire, many wars, historic events, etc. Always ready to thrive in a new context.
As for mental illness, well Beyond Blue really is incredible in its work to make depression more acceptable. But I don't think schizophrenia or personality disorders have become at all "acceptable." I think that depression is somehow easier to dissociate from the person's identity - depression is represented as something that is transitory, unlike something like schizophrenia or a personality disorder, which are understood as part of the perso - even if they are "in remission" or their condition "under control," there is still a shadow of potential "craziness."
Maybe it's because there are frameworks for "good people" to relate to the "good, pitiable Other": pity is certainly a relationship that has a long and respectable history - pity for the orphans, pity for the handicapped, pity for the half-caste, pity for the starving Ethiopians. But the one who is pitied must be well-behaved. Of all the mental illnesses, depression is one of the "better behaved" varieties.
Pity extends to the poor oppressed Afghani women, who need to be liberated by the heroic US. We don't have many cultural templates for pitying adult men - the prototypical pitiable creature is a child.
And i've been thinking about how queers aren't typically pitied. We're reviled.
I'm trying to trace some of the ways that we deal with the Other, in the sense of pity or denying their difference, or normalising them ...
My central idea is that this is usually done very badly, e.g. stigma is often deflected (like the Lebanese vying to be included in the category of "White" in early twentieth century Australia, or asylum seekers described as "not criminals"), and often reasserts the dominance of what I call (following Goffman) the normals .
Something I've been exploring is how stigmatised groups can be appreciated for their strengths, rather than trying to hide their difference. I think this is best done in artistic forms. For example, Merinda Epstein has drawn a gorgeous cartoon about a woman with a mental illness going to a job interview and talking about her qualities; she states that she has "exquisite sensitivity" and "deep insight into human suffering." Lest this representation become too sentimental, Merinda undercuts this with several less desirable qualities, the last of which is that "sometimes my medication makes me fart."
I read a theory that the internet was created by people with aspergers syndrome, as a tool to be able to communicate in more comfortable ways. Ever since, this image has stuck in my mind. Why have I never before realised that there are other relationships to have with people who have a diagnosis of a mental illness, besides pity.
This Margaret Cho quote celebrating gay men I have to include in full:
"What I love most about gay men is the way that they are about sex. ... There is a kind of fun and frivolity that surrounds gay men and their sexuality that is not there for straight men and sex. I think if you are oppressed over who you wanna sleep with, when you actually go and do it, you're going to have a really good time. If you are hated for who you like to fuck, you are gunna kick up your heels and fuck. And it is such an inspiration to watch."
I love that she talks about fucking. Because too many (defensive) representations of queer life talk about us as if we don't fuck. They sanitise our lives, as if that will make us more acceptable, as if by not drawing attention to the central aspect that we are hated for, maybe we'll be accepted, maybe the bigots will overlook the fact that we desire to fuck each other. I love that Cho values this as a strength of queer culture, not some embarrassing aspect that is better hidden.
In my own experience, I've realised that my queer experiences of negotiating being/not being "out" has given me a genuine insight into privacy and disclosure, in the context of negotiating stigma. Last week I was chatting with a colleague about whether or not I could tell a mutual friend that this colleague and I work together. Our job has a certain level of taboo to it, and I knew instinctively to pause to consider whether the information was disclosable, or whether I should ascertain how "out" this colleague was about her job, before telling anyone what she does. I have a similar instinct with the other information people have disclosed to me. I'm not claiming some high moral ground for queers, but rather, I'm arguing that there is a certain empathy that comes from having a "discreditable" (to use another of Goffman's terms) aspect to one's life.
Finally, I've also heard young Muslim women talk about their relationships with each other, about how Islam-influenced gender relations have brought them closer to each other, to a level of intimacy with other women that was absent in my teenage years, despite being in an all-women's environment.
***
I've also been thinking a lot lately about how ahistorical much progressive thinking is. I mean, it really wasn't that long ago that queers were forcibly institutionalised and given shock treatment to "cure" our homosexuality. And of course, the Nazis were gassing us (well, gay men predominantly) along with the Jews, the Communists, the Gypsies and the "mentally feeble." I read somewhere that the Nazis first tested their gas chambers on inmates of mental asylums - people were already locked up and whom no one cared much about anyway - they were incredibly expendable. So, I feel like to act as if being queer is very ordinary is to forget this past. I'm not sure how one does draw on this past, but I like how Margaret Cho deals with it - to acknowledge that this past has consequences for today, that it influences how we exist in the world.
Conversely, I think a lot of people act as if Islamophobia is a relatively new phenomenon, especially since the word "Islamophobia" is such a recent coinage. Apparently, according to the Oxford dictionary, it was first used in 1976, but became more popular in the 1990s. That's a pretty short history. But the more I read about the historical relations between Muslim-majority nations and Christian-majority nations, the more I realise how deeply embedded Christian fear of Muslims is, going right back to the Crusades, maintained throughout the Ottoman empire, many wars, historic events, etc. Always ready to thrive in a new context.
As for mental illness, well Beyond Blue really is incredible in its work to make depression more acceptable. But I don't think schizophrenia or personality disorders have become at all "acceptable." I think that depression is somehow easier to dissociate from the person's identity - depression is represented as something that is transitory, unlike something like schizophrenia or a personality disorder, which are understood as part of the perso - even if they are "in remission" or their condition "under control," there is still a shadow of potential "craziness."
Maybe it's because there are frameworks for "good people" to relate to the "good, pitiable Other": pity is certainly a relationship that has a long and respectable history - pity for the orphans, pity for the handicapped, pity for the half-caste, pity for the starving Ethiopians. But the one who is pitied must be well-behaved. Of all the mental illnesses, depression is one of the "better behaved" varieties.
Pity extends to the poor oppressed Afghani women, who need to be liberated by the heroic US. We don't have many cultural templates for pitying adult men - the prototypical pitiable creature is a child.
And i've been thinking about how queers aren't typically pitied. We're reviled.
I'm trying to trace some of the ways that we deal with the Other, in the sense of pity or denying their difference, or normalising them ...
Monday, April 16, 2007
aerials?
tonight i did a conditioning class and then aerials. at the moment, my body is still reeling from doing web - where you climb a rope, put your hand into a loop then get spun around. i still feel nauseous and it's about 3 hours later. so, i'm a bit down on aerials for that!
but more seriously, i don't think i felt at all supported in the class, and i think i need to be. i'm quite self-conscious and feel discouraged easily. i have very few skills in aerials and have never found it easy. that would be fine if the environment were more supportive, but it feels like everyone is really just waiting to use the apparatus themselves.
jan asked me how it went and it was striking how negative i felt - and i was really trying to sound positive!
am not making a decision tonight, but i do feel like it's unlikely i'll continue with it. in terms of signs from the universe, i ended up paying only part of my fees for this term - strangely enough, i paid exactly the right amount for just my acro class (ie if i did drop the classes i went to today, it would work out with the money). AND then i could actually join the gym like i have been saying i'll do for ages! if i keep doing these classes, it doesn't leave much time for the gym ...
i'll keep y'all posted :>
but more seriously, i don't think i felt at all supported in the class, and i think i need to be. i'm quite self-conscious and feel discouraged easily. i have very few skills in aerials and have never found it easy. that would be fine if the environment were more supportive, but it feels like everyone is really just waiting to use the apparatus themselves.
jan asked me how it went and it was striking how negative i felt - and i was really trying to sound positive!
am not making a decision tonight, but i do feel like it's unlikely i'll continue with it. in terms of signs from the universe, i ended up paying only part of my fees for this term - strangely enough, i paid exactly the right amount for just my acro class (ie if i did drop the classes i went to today, it would work out with the money). AND then i could actually join the gym like i have been saying i'll do for ages! if i keep doing these classes, it doesn't leave much time for the gym ...
i'll keep y'all posted :>
Sunday, April 15, 2007
counter spaces, liberals and defensiveness
one of the books i'm reading at the moment is about how Muslims are (mis)represented in the media. it traces hegemonic, dominant discourses, but seems to assume that "counter spaces" are somehow unproblematically great. i'm not meaning to be harsh to this particular book, it just got me thinking about the nature of my project.
i want my research to challenge the binary of good representations and bad representations. i think that the whole "goodness" that liberals attribute to ourselves is immensely problematic in the context of representing Others. benevolence is not necessarily a good foundation for dealing with a marginalised, despised Other.
People hate queers. They bash us to death, rape us, stare at us, administer shock therapy, kick us out of home, pray for us, harrass us in public spaces, create porn eroticising us, use the word "gay"to put each other down in the playground, pass laws that discriminate against us, police their own gender so as not to mistaken as one of us. Sometimes they "accept" us. they rarely see our queerness as reason for celebration.
anyone who tries to argue that we're all just people is ignoring central facts of our lives. There are places i will not travel with my girlfriend. there are moments when we suddenly drop hands in public, censoring ourselves, understanding that our safety may depend on it. i love an expression that margaret cho uses in relation to people of colour - she says "we hesitate". i'm appropriating that to describe my queer experience. i hesitate to tell people about my lover who died, i hesitate to hold my lover's hand in public, i hesitate to read lesbian books in public, i hesitate ...
and anyone who argues that "we pay our taxes too" doesn't speak for me - i don't want to give money to this government to spend furthering its abhorrent agenda; anyone who says "queers shouldn't marry" doesn't represent me - i think life's choices are complex, and sometimes when you weigh things up, the apparently conservative path works best. anyone who is cruel to trannies doesn't represent me ...
in the context of mental health, fear is a presence in my life. i fear relapses. i fear being seen as crazy. i fear having personality quirks attributed to my mental illness. i fear being mentally unwell for too long, and my lover tiring of me. i fear embarassing myself in public. i fear being found out by people who will use the information to discredit me. i fear getting so sick that i'll be institutionalised. i fear taking on too much responsibility because the stress may break me. i fear running out of medication. i fear being honest with my psychiatrist, in case i no longer get access to my drugs. i fear having children in case i can't handle the stress and they are negatively impacted by "mommy's craziness", i fear being pitied, i fear people misunderstanding what a disability is and believing that i am simply "unable", underestimating my abilities. i fear dying young.
i don't want misplaced pity. i HATE it when people make decisions for me because they don't trust my abilities. that's worse than being mentally unwell.
my experience is not an unproblematic "yay for those wonderfully benevolent people, taking my side." the reality is that "my side" is infinitely more complex than benevolence can get its head around. i don't desire to be tamed and domesticated, or judged, or radicalised. progressives sometimes give me the shits as much as conservatives.
i want my research to challenge the binary of good representations and bad representations. i think that the whole "goodness" that liberals attribute to ourselves is immensely problematic in the context of representing Others. benevolence is not necessarily a good foundation for dealing with a marginalised, despised Other.
People hate queers. They bash us to death, rape us, stare at us, administer shock therapy, kick us out of home, pray for us, harrass us in public spaces, create porn eroticising us, use the word "gay"to put each other down in the playground, pass laws that discriminate against us, police their own gender so as not to mistaken as one of us. Sometimes they "accept" us. they rarely see our queerness as reason for celebration.
anyone who tries to argue that we're all just people is ignoring central facts of our lives. There are places i will not travel with my girlfriend. there are moments when we suddenly drop hands in public, censoring ourselves, understanding that our safety may depend on it. i love an expression that margaret cho uses in relation to people of colour - she says "we hesitate". i'm appropriating that to describe my queer experience. i hesitate to tell people about my lover who died, i hesitate to hold my lover's hand in public, i hesitate to read lesbian books in public, i hesitate ...
and anyone who argues that "we pay our taxes too" doesn't speak for me - i don't want to give money to this government to spend furthering its abhorrent agenda; anyone who says "queers shouldn't marry" doesn't represent me - i think life's choices are complex, and sometimes when you weigh things up, the apparently conservative path works best. anyone who is cruel to trannies doesn't represent me ...
in the context of mental health, fear is a presence in my life. i fear relapses. i fear being seen as crazy. i fear having personality quirks attributed to my mental illness. i fear being mentally unwell for too long, and my lover tiring of me. i fear embarassing myself in public. i fear being found out by people who will use the information to discredit me. i fear getting so sick that i'll be institutionalised. i fear taking on too much responsibility because the stress may break me. i fear running out of medication. i fear being honest with my psychiatrist, in case i no longer get access to my drugs. i fear having children in case i can't handle the stress and they are negatively impacted by "mommy's craziness", i fear being pitied, i fear people misunderstanding what a disability is and believing that i am simply "unable", underestimating my abilities. i fear dying young.
i don't want misplaced pity. i HATE it when people make decisions for me because they don't trust my abilities. that's worse than being mentally unwell.
my experience is not an unproblematic "yay for those wonderfully benevolent people, taking my side." the reality is that "my side" is infinitely more complex than benevolence can get its head around. i don't desire to be tamed and domesticated, or judged, or radicalised. progressives sometimes give me the shits as much as conservatives.
circus term 2
so today i made a snap decision. well i kinda had to because circus term 2 starts back today. oops that was a bit late (unlike me to be late, hey? actually, as i write, i'm trying to finish with a book that's nearly two weeks overdue from the library, but anyway ...) this term i am going to do aerials as well as acro. there's a conditioning class before aerials, so that means i'll get a good workout on mondays. then i'll try to do my pilates class on wednesday and then acro on fridays. i think that's quite nice, actually!
as for the show, jan tells me she's disappointed i've said i'm not going to do it. i'll see. i'd considered doing the performance class - i love performing best of all - but it seems that that has been replaced with a comedy/performance class or anni's "performance lab" which sounds horrific if you ask me (which of course, you didn't but this is a blog, so i get to rant!). the performance lab is where you go with your ideas and she helps develop them. not really my style.
am a bit worried about going back to aerials - i'm not a natural at it, and i always struggled last year to remember stuff. but i did love being in the air!!
as for the show, jan tells me she's disappointed i've said i'm not going to do it. i'll see. i'd considered doing the performance class - i love performing best of all - but it seems that that has been replaced with a comedy/performance class or anni's "performance lab" which sounds horrific if you ask me (which of course, you didn't but this is a blog, so i get to rant!). the performance lab is where you go with your ideas and she helps develop them. not really my style.
am a bit worried about going back to aerials - i'm not a natural at it, and i always struggled last year to remember stuff. but i did love being in the air!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)