Abstract
Figuring Out In Policy Sin Bin Worldly Justice Another Mother Earth Girt By Sea Wide Brown Land Handed Twixt Colonial Sands Of Time Binary Dichotomies Upshotomies Fire Rights In Ratios Too Tutu To Slavery But Bravery Of Interlocutors Post Human And More Dirt Floor Dirty Deeds Starving Seeds Of In E Quality For No Pay Rise Dis Guys Qualia Malia TransMoggery TransForm ReBorn Social Scorn Torn By Difference In Belonging Sing Songing Thronging Power And Pride And Prejudice Goneing Gender Bender Send Her Friend Her Two And Frow Glow Mo Woof Haraway Spoof Assemblage ReMemeblage Political Haemorrhage White Paper Sapier Rapier AnotherWorldly Places Faces Spaces Embraces Thyne Thyme Cat Oh Nine Hope Scope Mope Dope Women’s Work Nope Okie Dokie Music Tutu My Eyes Skirt Showing My Thighs Raising Me Up To Size Lettuce Behind My Name No Shame And In Front DD U C Class One PhD Child Care Educational Quality Forever Weather Whether FauXr FeatheRr ProFlamingo Composer No Dozer Ruby Smarty PhArty Two Tutu Too ©Del Done Well Rating Skating Recalibrating Figurations Of Every Day Touché New Way Allay Mighty Human Centric Mentric Exclusion Delusion Fusion Together Entangled Not Mangled Star Spangled Criss Cross Who Da Boss Da Man Same Plan Plain Two See Newby Scooby Do Oi You ReConFigure Bigger AnotherWorldly Rigor Trigger UnJust Shit That’s It
FootnOde: Political problematic poetics
This Ode was submitted and reviewed as if it were an academic text. It is and it isn’t. It is art. But it is academic art. And it is activist art. I am both an artist and an academic, as well as an activist. And if I am and I am a generative post-humanly performative subject, perhaps these Odes that sonar their way from cochlear to fingertips to touch screen are all three two? Both reviews of this Ode were brilliant because they were uncertain. They both engaged with joyful complex criticality with the factual matters of whether this Ode counts as academic knowledge in the context of the journal – that the Ode does not meet the word-count requirements. Additionally, both reviews questioned whether the Ode counted as art, and whether that belongs in the journal as an academic piece of work or as an arts contribution. I was delighted to find recommendations to explicate, explain and provide analysis because they came with language such as ‘rather reluctantly’ and ‘translation (or torture)’, and engaged commentary that affectionately called the Ode ‘a great interrupter’. Both recommended that it be included in this issue with possibilities of how that may manifest. The Ode had successfully ‘done something’ – many things. When I considered taking all of this advice, I began to explain. And essentially I decOded and provided all kinds of ‘answers’ and cognitive comfort that was quite contrary to the Ode as ‘a great interrupter’. Additionally, this Ode was deemed ‘difficult to review’ – this was music to my eyes, as it entwingled the interstices of the emplacement of this Ode in academic discourse, arts practice and activism. It also happened in the context of a special issue about ‘quality’. Elsewhere, I have Odelled to the ‘Qualia of Quality’, and this was to set sail on a sonorous scape that was not about what the Ode is, or solely what the Ode does, but to engage with what we do with what it does. This is our contribution (our = Ode and me) to quality. What do we do with what quality does in early childhood? This is a Qualiac Question. It is a ‘double doubling doing’, contributing to the imbroglio we call quality in early childhood. The Ode is a sonorous question mark that generates affectual onto-epistemological grappalisations, and so it sustains the multifariety of transmogrific becominglings and can actively contribute to this creatively in academic work, arts practice and activism.