National Museum of History – The Five Stages to World Mastery
This essay is an edited excerpt from Hà Ninh Pham’s work-in-progress PhD dissertation titled Metaphysical Cartography for the Future. In this dissertation, he explores an imagined country called Country X, a place where “I feel a deep sense of belonging. The people of Country X come from different physical places and times, but we are all united by the country’s identity and our shared antagonism toward common enemies.”
The history of Country X transcends the conventional physical timeline, connecting different times and places within its unfolding dimension. This imaginative historiography should not be viewed as mere aesthetic escapism. Just as Country X provides me with an identity, I firmly believe that so-called fiction serves as the most effective lens to examine reality.
Design problems
I first encountered problems with History, with a capital H, during my middle school years. We started learning History as an independent subject in Grade 6, and the studies continued until Grade 12. In Vietnamese public education, History is commonly seen by students as a very dry subject due to its obvious nationalist bias. To help the kids understand the world, the complex reality was reduced to red being our side and black being the enemy.[1] All historical events mentioned in the national textbooks could always be roughly categorized into either ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ and students knew it by looking at the emotional adjectives that went with them. Such a propagandist approach was effective in convincing us that we did have a national identity, but it rendered History illogical and irrelevant, making the country an object so distant from any of us. Most of us could not remember anything after having passed the exam. So here comes the first problem: how can History help me build up my love for my country without making me fall into the trap of manipulative propaganda?
The second problem with History came to me during my time in the US when I became much more interested in global politics. Coming from Vietnam, where politics was irrelevant to day-to-day concerns, the political climate in the US in 2016 was mind-blowing to me. I became more aware of the fact that history is political because it could be written in so many equally valid ways. It was the winning side that determined which valid way would be prominent. Nowadays, the winning side seems to be pragmatic. On the one hand, in Vietnam, I could see that historians tend to interpret the country’s history in a way that gives the state the best interests within global politics, notably its relationship with China and the West. On the other hand, in the West, Vietnamese history was seen as a means to reconfirm the idealist frameworks that are heavily based on European legacies such as postmodernism, post-socialism, and post-colonialism. I saw both ways of dealing with history to be convenient in a bad way: they have no radical vitality. These frameworks exist for a paradoxical reason: to attempt to make changes so that things can remain the same. So the second problem turned out to be how History could be written in a way that promoted radical changes for my country to be better without falling into the trap of being contradictory or even hypocritical.
Mood board
To address these two questions, I need to look at how other civilizations frame the future. I have found some inspirations. In the US, Francis Fukuyama believes that history is a train that has arrived at the terminal, which is the Western liberal democracy model—the final form of human government that effectively ends the historical progression of competing ideologies.[2] In Europe, Hegel believed that history has a purpose, which is the unfolding of a spiritual consciousness of freedom. Influenced by him, Slavoj Žižek infuses a complicated analysis that has a pessimistic vibe with his motto “Don’t act. Just think”.[3] In China, The Chinese Dream interprets the future as the antidote for the country’s humiliation and inferiority to the West, while at the same time reinventing universal values. Southeast Asian countries seem to have a different take, trusting the idea of diplomatic diversity while being hesitant to initiate transformative actions. These philosophies provoked me, but I don’t find any single one of them fully adequate for my country’s future.
Development
Having done my homework, now I can start building my historiography. Let’s start with progression. Hegel’s idea about the destiny of history is interesting. It carries a sense of progress, but it is based too much on freedom, which is an exotic concept for me. Therefore, this core motor of history has to be changed into another concept that is more relevant to the experience of my country: the idea of independence. I find Fukuyama’s theory to be quite plain. The idea of global liberal democracy as the destiny has to be overcome because democracy can never really make all countries better.[4] In modern contexts, it seems to be the other way around. When a country becomes relatively developed, the need for democracy will emerge. Democracy is only a cherry on the cake for some countries. Furthermore, the essence of democracy can come in different forms in different packages. Next, I learn from The Chinese Dream by identifying my clear enemy. This is good because it creates a strong sense of belonging and a will to overcome challenges. However, I reject the problematic notion that the Dream has to go with a physical entity such as China because it already implies its failures at a universal level. Lastly, based on my experience in Southeast Asia, the approach here of being attached to a location or a region, both navigating and rejecting the grand narratives of big powers, should be taken into the mix to form a radical way to think about history and the future. The key here is being patient but persistent. History can be rewritten in an inventive way that allows unspoken voices to be heard. Everything can be built up from scratch if there is a will. Just like the Chinese writer Lu Xun (1881-1936) wrote: “Hope is like a path in the countryside. Originally there is nothing – but as people walk this way, again and again, a path appears.”
Design outcome
The history of my country is the History of Country X – The Country X of The Ideologically Independent People. This history does not attach to a physical location, but it gives the Country’s people a sense of belonging to a shared ideology of independence. The Country is in a perpetual state of war with its antagonistic forces such as the post-colonialists, the pragmatists, the academic elitists, and so on. These enemies have given Country X a consciousness of identity that evolves.
The motor for the History of Country X is the unfolding consciousness of the idea of independence. As an identity, Country X goes through five stages to arrive at the end of history where it becomes The World Master. Below are the descriptions of the five stages. I am using the term ‘subject’ to describe an entity that takes part in this history, but a subject is neither a person nor a people. It is one believer unit. For example, one physical person may have more than one subject depending on what they believe in.
The Five Stages:
- Primitive: In this stage, the subject has no ideological awareness. To its perceptions, it lives out of the frequencies of ideology without any hope or wish. The subject does not have any intention to make an impact on the world. Examples of this primitive subject can be found in Johannes Vermeer’s paintings.
- Slavery: In this stage, the subject starts to recognize ideology but tries to lower its presence by conforming to it or denying its existence. The attempt’s action is usually directed toward the subject due to its powerlessness in impacting the world. We can see examples of this slavish subject in some religious traditions and self-help books.
- Orphanage: In this stage, the subject fully recognizes ideology and ceases to deny its significance. However, it is unable to find any methodology to deal with it. The subject then utilizes any possible means at hand to break through the ideological constraints, sometimes using vague language, shady reasoning, or other unethical means. The subject does not have true hope or vision. It is just not satisfied with its current ideological dependence but cannot form any consistent antithesis to it. Also, it is not bold enough to break free from ideology because of the tremendous cost of the act. In this stage, the subject is characterized by its lack of consistency and conviction. More importantly, it submits to the current institutions while moaning about the past and laughing about the future. We can find this subject implied in current Western philosophy such as Postmodernism and Postcolonialism.
- Revolution: In this stage, the subject has paid the painful cost to break free from the oppressing ideology. It has become a pioneer because, for the first time, it can start to form a compelling thesis for its independence. This thesis is to be looked up to by its fellow subjects. However, the most expensive cost of breaking through is to be left with nothing after the fight against the now-overcome ideology. The fight has characterized the subject as a fighter or, more specifically, a successful one. The subject relies on this institution to feel fully independent. The sign for this subject is that although it is successful, hopeful, and has a sense of mission, it cannot independently define its success. The subject must base its existence on the current ideologies created by others. Painting masters like Pablo Picasso belong to this stage.
- Master: In this stage, the subject not only completes a comprehensive thesis of its independence but also translates it into the world and remakes it. In this state, the subject practices its ideology, projecting its ideology with its full aura and influencing the world. It now can be seen as a World Master that determines how History has been and will move forward. Its work is universal, and this is not the same universal as we have known it before. It is something we have not had before. The ultimate example of this subject is the outsider artists.
Conclusion
The History of Country X is a potential solution for the situation regarding History. It allows anyone to reinvent history in a way that one sees oneself in it. When we see ourselves in something, we own it, and we will take care of it. This is very fundamental for any history to be The History. So, where am I in this history? As an artist and academic, I see my long-term art project, My Land, currently belongs to Stage Four. There is one more stage to advance myself into. Unfortunately, I currently don’t know if I can arrive at my end of history. Someone has told me that perhaps the best way to be a World Master is to give up on exchanges like this, settle down somewhere isolated, build a good art studio, and start efficiently practicing my ideology and dying with it.
About the author:
Hà Ninh Pham (b. 1991) is an artist from Hanoi, Vietnam. His work explores how we build up our understanding of territories from afar. Hà Ninh Pham earned his MFA from the Pennsylvania Academy of the Fine Arts in 2018 and his BFA from the Vietnam University of Fine Arts in 2014. Solo shows include Cheat Codes, curated by Passenger Pigeon Press at FRONT Art Space, New York (2019), Institute of Distance, curated by Michael Lee at S.E.A Focus, Singapore (2021), and Recursive Fables, curated by Vân Đỗ at A+ Works of Art in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia (2022). Hà Ninh Pham is represented by A+ Works of Art. He is currently an Associate Lecturer in Design Studies at RMIT University Vietnam.
[1] Voice of America. (2017). Tranh luận chung quanh từ ‘ngụy quân’, ‘ngụy quyền’. [online] Available at: https://www.voatiengviet.com/a/tranh-luan-chung-quanh-tu-nguy-quan-nguy-quyen/3995968.html [Accessed 26 May 2024].
[2] Mueller, J. (2014). Did History End? Assessing the Fukuyama Thesis. Political Science Quarterly, 129(1), pp.35–54. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/polq.12147.
[3] Big Think. (n.d.). Don’t Act. Just Think. [online] Available at: https://bigthink.com/videos/dont-act-just-think/.
[4] Guha, R. (2008). India after Gandhi : the history of the world’s largest democracy. New York, N.Y.: Ecco.
답글 남기기