NEWS: RADICAL VENTRILOQUISM PROGRAMME UNLEASHED

RADICAL VENTRILOQUISM: ACTS OF SPEAKING THROUGH AND SPEAKING FOR
Organisers: LEE CAMPBELL and CHRISTABEL HARLEY


REGISTER HERE: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/london-conference-in-critical-thought-tickets-63331455087?fbclid=IwAR3qqje_b0dZXy2V1cVsl4FrHyw_oF_od_8XjtMkDqP1BR6CbJCXkk8uK-Iand

Ventriloquism, in its most common usage, refers to a form of popular entertainment consisting of performers giving voice to #inanimate objects through a careful interplay between what is heard and what is seen. The beginnings of ventriloquism can be cited in the jester’s scepter. The jester gained power by not using his own voice. He spoke through the voice of his scepter—a miniature representation of his own face. Similarly, ventriloquists speak through their puppets as a way of “distancing” themselves from criticism.

What may constitute a radical ventriloquism as useful and applicable to enabling important discussions about what it may mean to ‘speak through’ and ‘speak for’ others/objects/things across a range of artistic/creative disciplines? Whilst recognising that ‘in Nietzsche’, as suggests David Goldblatt, ‘the artist allows certain forces which he designates at will, to move and speak through him.’, this stream includes presentations from individuals and groups from beyond arts and humanities to explore how, for example, a scientist would conceptualise ‘radical ventriloquism’?


Goldblatt in 'Art and ventriloquism' reminds us that, ‘in Foucault, while certain persons speak for things (art and nature), persons also speak for other persons, those muted in the social Diaspora such as the mad, the poor, the sick, and the imprisoned. Disability is often presented and represented by abled-bodied medics and others. This aligns with Linda Alcoff’s assertion in The Problem of Speaking for Others (1992) that ‘privileged authors who speak on behalf of the oppressed is becoming increasingly criticized by members of those oppressed groups themselves’. We will theorise, articulate and demonstrate how radical ventriloquism nudges at these crucial debates: ethics/politics of representation / giving voice to those ‘marginalised’.

We shall question who gets to (and who should) speak for whom. We shall reflect upon how radical ventriloquism may be understood in critical pedagogy terms in relation to, for example, decolonizing the curriculum. What does it mean for a white person to be lecturing on postcolonial theory, a white man teaching feminism, or a straight man lecturing on queer theory?