Triple Unconsciousness

March 23, 2019

1 Leave a comment on paragraph 1 0 The article is about Youtube creators Fung Brothers. It is regarding how the Asian American hipster rhetoric is perceived in the mainstream discourse and how the authors think that the Fung Brothers are doing more work to change that rhetoric than meets the eye and how that can work to overall change the whole rhetoric of Asian Americans in whole in the American discourse.

2 Leave a comment on paragraph 2 0 Well, in the most basic sense of the word, rhetoric would mean the way we talk about specific things in the general discourse among other things. Which I think is an ‘idea’ that works only for the mainstream media and discourse. For example, when we go into the postmodern critique of let’s say Marcel Proust; there really is no specific rhetoric that is followed. Different authors go different ways and these ways interchange and the values of Proust’s works are taken out and deconstructed.

3 Leave a comment on paragraph 3 0 But the mainstream narrative of things do use rhetoric. That is why there is a presence of ‘narrative’ and somethings need proper(or improper) rhetoric to be adopted and narrated in the mainstream. And this article challenges that that Asian Americans too can be a part of the hipster rhetoric and bring in something unique that can be enjoyed and consumed by communities of different backgrounds. So, my guess would be that the authors are challenging the ‘white’ hipster rhetoric?

4 Leave a comment on paragraph 4 0 I do think that the rhetoric of who can be the hipster and how that needs to change is important. This article however brings up an angle on how to view the content of the Fung Brothers that was personally not interesting to me.

5 Leave a comment on paragraph 5 0 For example: the idea that you can reduce a white jazz musician to just a hipster posing as black jazz musicians is absurdly funny to me. This I think can only be said by someone that really hasn’t done anything in life than to live and write boring essays. I am not going to put making music or other forms of art as something supreme but to think that white musicians are just playing jazz and blues(and other African/African-American forms of music) for being a hipster and appropriating culture is propably one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard. I wonder what Miles Davis would say to this

6 Leave a comment on paragraph 6 0 Another thing, about the three different kinds of viewers that can gain something from the Fung brothers; Who in the planet is not included in the list? As far as I’m concerned everyone that exists can be literally put into those categories. Then why categorize? How is that anything unique(called triple consciousness)? Double consciousness was an unique perspective because it was specific. Black and non-Black consumers. I think bringing up triple consciousness to analyze the Fung brothers is something that I don’t even find something that should be said. It sounds that vague to me.

7 Leave a comment on paragraph 7 0 The food and cultural topics are interesting(in a simple way) contributions to the realm of YouTube. But(even as a deconstructionist) I really think the Fung brothers have more to do with content creation and internet fame through high-school humor than to do with raising anything that challenges the hipster rhetoric and brings forward a different Asian American(or any other) hipster rhetoric at all.

8 Leave a comment on paragraph 8 0

9 Leave a comment on paragraph 9 0

10 Leave a comment on paragraph 10 0

11 Leave a comment on paragraph 11 0

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One Response to “Triple Unconsciousness”

  1.   Eunjeong Lee said:

    What an interesting perspective. As a fellow Asian/Asian American/or whatever racialized way I’m categorized in this country, I hoped somebody would pick a point about identity of the rhetor and how that impacts the rhetoric. I do want you to engage with these two points of critique further though. About the latter point on the validity of triple consciousness, why is it important for Fung brothers to be able to differentiate (or target) these audiences the way they do (as the authors argue)? What does the fact that they do that tell you about the way rhetoric works? Your points are a great discussion point, which I def want you to bring up in class tomorrow.

Leave a Reply