I repeat here words from the middle of chapter 4, at which point all these ele-
ments of reenactment will have been networked over the nineties among layers
of transnational infrastructure and systems described in the preceding chapters.
But for those longing to hear that their intensive definitions of reenactment are
honored in this book, even as they are also extensively positioned promiscuously
with other ways of thinking about reenactment, I offer these words in both places:
both here at the very beginning of this exploration, then later, nearer to my
conclusions, just after I recall the realisms of Cold War military gaming, and just
before I reflect on the emergent academic study of reenactment. Consider this a
kind of hyperlink that allows these words to exist simultaneously at two differing
points in these arguments, first to invite engagement and later to demonstrate an
accumulation of accretions and associations.
Why does this book not pivot around what many would consider this properly
pure type of reenactment? Because it is my argument that reenactors mean both
what they mean to themselves and also mean things beyond and differently from
that to many others. And that understanding this and other doubled workings of
reenaction has wide implications for a whole range of kinds of knowledge work
today. This book is all about these implications.
understandably differing communities of practice work to center
their own fabrication, conventions, and explanations of reenactment, and
there are more and more such communities and practices. Each in itself
properly understands its version of reenactment as the most significant,
Previous Page Next Page