In regard to the articles read for this class, I was captivated by their underlying (and overt) argument for considering graffiti as a primary source document. This aligns with theoretical approaches of subaltern studies, cultural studies and word and image studies. But of course, as we know, “History” (with a capital H for emphasis) is written by those in power. “Official” documents are controlled by those in positions of power over others, and, considering Foucault and Mbembe’s writings on biopolitics and necropolitics, those in power retain sovereignty by exercising power over “Other” and others’ bodies. Thus, when a marginalized or subordinated group of people are physically vulnerable, the recording of historical events by the powerful is perpetuated through politics of death. Thus, by looking at, decoding, and analyzing graffiti and its contexts, we might come closer to an integral history that values the experiences and histories of those not in power. We might move closer to understanding graffiti as the intimate, the local, or the community collective––that which helps us connect with and understand the conditions of the quotidian.
A Colby Community Web Site