Analysis of Russon, John, Sites of Exposure: Art, Politics and The Nature of Experience
Question 1
Two different levels of homemaking activity
According to John Russon, there two different levels of homemaking: One is the immediate embodiment in the body through a process of effort and experimentation, and the second level is through external interactions with the physical environment surrounding a person. The first level is at a personal level, where one is deeply conscious of what they practice and are deeply absorbed in it. It involves what goes inside a person’s mind and all the things they are aware of as they carry out their daily activities. These routine perceptions are engaged with well-known projects in people’s minds and are well articulated through the specific things that people deem to be important. This level enables a person to feel at home in their immediate organic bodies
The other level dwells more on the natural setting that serves to accommodate a person’s action. The two practices of being at home in the biological body, as well as the surrounding physical environment, can form an excellent way through which a person gains experience. These two are often complementary as far as a person’s development is concerned. For example, while growing, a child’s limbs and the physical setting are predisposed to environmental interactions, which initially the child doesn’t have exposure to. Therefore, the process of homemaking involves throwing oneself into new challenges in the context of coupling of the body and world where a person is forced to give up the comforts and reliability that come with growth and development.
Levels of homemaking can be at odds
The two levels become odd when a charged sense of risk where a person encounters a new form that he or she must practice until they can familiarize and fit accordingly into the unique home setting. The bone of contention emanates from the fact that human beings live from their sense of being at home, which happens to be inseparable from that of their inner self. It is at this point that one is required to balance between the two levels rather than continue with the initial familial setup. The two levels come at loggerheads when they have different desires and interests as far as their demands go. At this point, a person is always forced to let go of the previously secured relations and allow one to thrive under these new circumstances.
Russon’s claims that all homemaking is a matter of things and always involves both transforming the world and enacting oneself.
Russon, in his argument, insists that homemaking involves incorporating a number of things into synchrony. This he claims involves a person adjusting not only oneself but also the environmental setting in the part of the world they find themselves inform this analogy, Russon means that homemaking is guided by the different daily practices that determine a person’s living experience as far as the connection between one inner self and the world goes. The process of homemaking and being committed at home requires efforts and commitment, all channeled towards encouraging the practices that serve to support this mission. Russon claims that a transformative expression and attitude is critical in enabling one to adapt to the urgency that comes with a particularly new situation. Here, transformation is critical because it enables a person to embrace new situations. Taking risks is vital by going outside the comfort zone of the known to new, unfamiliar places is the only way that people grow and start occupying a more stable and admirable home. Homemaking, therefore, requires this artistic and bold act of exploring new world through a transformational process. He says that this will also be key in aiding towards recognizing the analogous parameters to other practices that are also deemed to be important.