Before beginning Project 1, we read many essays from various critical regionalist authors to familiarize ourselves with the scholarly discourse. Below are three reading responses that I wrote regarding some of the readings. 

Reading Response 1

In the article “Introduction: There’s Something about Mary”, Powell argues that critical regionalism is the deliberate construction of a region that critiques, envisions and self-consciously shapes the relationships of people amongst a broader network of cultural conflicts, historical backdrops and social movements. The aim of Powell’s work is to move the study of a region beyond its theoretical and geographical borders into a “larger whole”. Powell persistently reminds us that region is not to be noted as an isolated, bounded figure. Rather, it is through these “permanent stable markers” that we begin to witness the “dynamic, evolving and rhetorical qualities” that sustain and envision change within a region (14). The author’s idea of critical regionalism parallels the idea that through a variety of local interpretations, a group of people may self consciously shape an understanding necessary to promote change.

Powell cites the example of “Murderous Mary” in order to examine the different perspectives in which this story signifies to those central and peripheral to a region. Between the “localist-versus-cosmopolitan” controversy of regionalism  (20), critical regionalism stands its middle ground between these two poles in order to avoid an excess of either. Each perspective, no matter how grand however, ironically is viewed as individual moments of a cultural struggle. These numerous personal accounts provide the social construct upon which a region is built. In connection to his core message, however, Powell contends that although listening a story in many different manners helps sustain the identity of a region, it permits disconnections from “larger patterns of history, politics and culture” (13). Regionalism and its novel backgrounds must be regarded as a “growing, changing, conflicted cultural artifact” that provides a “crucial starting point” for understanding how the identity of a region is paradoxically “rooted in conflict and change” as much as stability (14).

Reading Response 2

In both Eggener and Powell’s pieces, the two authors persist to remind us that a region should not be viewed through a single, permanent lens, but rather, is defined by its “dynamic, evolving and rhetorical qualities” (Powell 14). Powell, in particular, remarks on our inaccurate view of a region as being statically bound. He aims to demonstrate that a region is synonymous to its cultural history, a “cumulative generative effect” of a variety of competing, local interpretations through time (Powell 5). Through the example of Murderous Mary, Powell highlights the conflict that arises between regional rural nostalgia and the critical regionalist perspective that defines a region solely by its past history. This mention of tension is used to bolster his theory rather than dissuade it, for the numerous conflicting perspectives demonstrate the different ways in which a region can be constructed. Indeed, even through the cynical critique of the controversial implementation of critical regionalism, Eggener also concludes that we must pay more attention to voices that advocate local flavor rather than “imposing formulas upon them” in order to better understand the “richness of internal, local discourses in their full range and complexity” (235). He criticizes Barragan’s work as an example of a permanent representation of the Mexican culture, a standardization imposed ironically by central outsiders. Eggener finishes by encouraging readers to be wary and more conscientious about local representation; in particular, by “heeding the voices of those responsible for building particular cultures” (235).

Despite their similar encouragement for a variety of local opinions, the difference between the two pieces lies in Powell’s ability to recognize conflict as an engine for change. While Eggener questions the resistant quality of critical regionalism as having “done more harm than good” and cites the theory to be a “victim” of its own tendencies, Powell remains more optimistic of critical regionalism as a social invention (8). He recognizes that conflict is essential for change and deems critical regionalism as the tool that “self-consciously shapes an understanding” of cultural, political and social history in order to “support projects of change” (8). Instead of critiquing critical regionalism as a set of rules for imposing culture, Powell views it as a set of rules for interpreting culture. He suggests that the ultimate goal of critical regionalism is pedagogy, teaching students to connect their own experiences in order to draw a personal regional map. His analysis offers a means of interpreting a region, while Eggener’s analysis concludes with skeptical questioning.

Reading Response 3

In the essay “Placing Resistance: A Critique of Critical Regionalism”, Eggener analyzes critical regionalism and local culture by its emphasis on themes of defiant resistance and binary opposition against another entity. In particular, he cites Ricoeur’s interpretation of critical regionalism to demonstrate the main paradox: “how to become modern and to return to sources; how to revive an old dormant civilization and take part in universal civilization” (Eggener 234). Eggener recognizes the struggle to resolve the underlying tension between local and universal civilizations more so than its eventual resolution as the cause of unnecessary strife. In the process of accentuating local culture, identity and the means of resistance to achieve these native states, critical regionalism oftentimes over exemplifies nostalgic themes and purposes. By illuminating romantic and almost primitive qualities of a place, critical regionalism overlooks current social, economic and cultural structures of the region it is advocating. It creates unnecessary conflict between people’s views of the region, in particular, producing a “totalizing view…which is likely to be at odds with the meanings which the inhabitants” place on the region themselves (235). Eggener concludes his critique with a call for action- to pay more attention to a “state of mind” (235). By heeding the particular voices of those who helped build a culture, Eggener hopes we may use critical regionalism in a way to better understand the richness and complexity of local discourse.

In a close read of the 2011 Chrysler Super Bowl advertisement “Born of Fire”, the paradoxical loopholes that Eggener warns us about are already underway. Through patriotic images and icons that are so uniquely Detroit, the advertisement without a doubt advocates its interest in preserving local regionalism. However, in its quest to prove that Detroit and the automobile industry still have a unique place in the world without conforming to universal stereotypes, Chrysler overemphasizes and romanticizes certain themes and elements to a degree that breeds defiant regionalism. For example, the narrator aggressively questions the audience’s knowledge of Detroit and fiercely stands by the city’s underdog story of rebirth. The sheer defiance against the rest of the world serves to reclaim the idea that Detroit has made it to hell and back with better, more resilient ideas and challenges those who question otherwise. This underlying aggression in a way bolsters support from local regions, but is alienating to outside audiences. In addition, the narrator adopts a critical regionalist attitude in asserting “this isn’t New York City. Or the Windy City. Or Sin City”, again alienating Detroit from the country by criticizing those who categorize the city ignorantly. The underlying motive to display Detroit as strong and unique while still universally accessible to the rest of the world serves as an example as to how the critical regionalist theory may devalue its own significance. By seeking to be both general and particular, the advertisement is unable to choose one as an ultimate motive, and thus, cannot engender change effectively. This can be seen from research that shows that although subjectively, the advertisement resonated with its audience, Chrysler’s sales did not objectively increase by much immediately after the ad was shown. The next line “And we’re certainly no one’s Emerald City” goes further to suggest that Detroit is not owned by anyone or anything- it is an entity separate from modern uniform qualities, a prideful “state of mind” that utilizes slightly idyllic and magical icons to qualify its regionalism. The nostalgic images of automobile factories, the Diego Rivera industrial mural and the iron fist of Joe Louis, just to name a few, all serve to exhibit Detroit’s idealistic sentiment to rebuild and rewrite its history. However, although these icons highlight Detroit at its finest, they walk a thin line between just enough representation of a region to irrational nostalgia that points to an ideal future without considering social, political and economic consequences. Built long on a conflict between race, class and cultures, Detroit’s regional comeback cannot be manifested as easily with just sheer willpower. Rather, initiative must be taken by locals to overcome racial tensions and blue-collar culture in order to generate change that embraces the richness and complexity of the city.