Intellectuals

First off, Eagleton is awesome. There were several points in his piece that he brought up great theorists and I half expected him to put himself into the mix as his style almost certainly requires. The reading makes the difficult simple, and makes fun of those who make the difficult difficult.
One part of the book that piqued my interest was the shift in what is an intellectual. I guess I had seen it throughout the semester changing from theology to philosophy, philosophy to science then become more specialized as summarized from Eagleton, but it hadn't hit as to how specialized our intellectual realms have become (80-1). Where at one point all wrote and thought about one subject, now there are schools of thought in different fields.
Is this a loss in theory as Eagleton has mentioned? Well, it certainly creates more jargon to sift through, but we do have dictionaries to help us with that. It also shows a decline in scholarship on specific subjects. But, overall it creates a wider range of studies that are focused on our culture - the one unifying concept to all specialized theories.
Because of this shift, we are able to allow ourselves to think and allow our thoughts to be, as Brecht says, "'a real sensuous pleasure"' (87). Theory, according to Eagleton, is meant to "illuminate" as well as "be illuminating;" therefore let us be specialized and illumine our culture (87).

Centers are for Sissies

The post-structuralism of gay/lesbian theory had never crossed my mind until I read the Barry this week and the attempt of these theorists to "desexualize" and show that opposites don't necessarially attract (137).
This movement does need to be asexual for it to have any weight. This is why the news showing hand holding, flamboyant homosexuals are not helping this movement at all. I mean, as we all know, the media is corrupted by right wingers who want nothing to do with queer theory or the sub-culture at all so the pictures are there for that purpose only. This school of theory (which this is my first introduction to) will not have much success at all until the movement is truly desexualized and reverted back to the original form of analyzing female relationships with females and male relationships with males.
Will we be able to stay scholarly this week in our class discussion with such a hot topic of theory?

...dum dum dummmmmm.

I Read Dead People

Ok, my brain is so far overloaded with theory and book reviews that I have no clue which way is up. This will be my frazzled brain’s attempt at intelligently discussing a concept from this week’s reading.
Greenblatt’s piece begins with possibly the best line yet this semester. He goes further to discuss in brief modes of exchange in dealing with language. He discusses appropriation, purchase, and symbolic acquisition. I am going to discuss appropriation in this blog as his example is amazing.
Greenblatt describes appropriation as having “little or no payment” in acquiring, and gives the example of language. We all appropriate a language and some continue to appropriate, while others seemingly stop. Our words and rhetoric are free and “there for the taking” as Greenblatt describes.
I don’t see language as an appropriation because one does give back to the language community. Whether we realize it or not, our language that we have acquired will be given back in the long run. So, though the price is not material, our language is not merely there for the taking – it comes with a great price – the furthering, bettering, and teaching of the words in your power.

Chuck and Bourdieu

Having had some experience with Bourdieu last semester, I was very confused when, in his essay "Rites of Institution" he made a reference to Charlie Brown's lovable pooch Snoopy.
Bourdieu leferences when Snoopy sits on his kennel and says "How can one be modest when one is the best?"
This put the concept of the piece into perspective for me. Bourdieu's response to Snoopy is "When it is common knowledge...that one is the best." The institution and symbolism of several rituals in our society impose rules and take rules away from those who are affected. Therefore, when the world knows you are the best, you conform to the rules of the best, and you can judge like the best, then you, my friend Snoopy, are the best.

Benjamin's piece for this week discussed politicizing art and how that can "culminate in one thing: war" (1248).
This is explained throughout but truly hammered home in the opening quotation by Valery when he capitalizes "Beautiful" (1233). I know this is not the adjective, but the proper noun however this the first time I have seen that term used and capitalized in this context. By making the aesthetic proper, Valery is recognizing that the Beautiful is now something that needs to be recognized and does so by making it stand out.
Another aspect I found interesting from Benjamin was Gance's view on film and comparing it with heiroglyphics. The work continues by making actors into subjects that are presented by the camera whose "body loses its corporeality...deprived of reality, life vocie and the noises caused by moving about..." (1240). Other aspects such as props are discussed as functions. The example given is that of a clock from Arnheim. He effectively turns time itself into an object.
Benjamin concludes that war is a "rebellion of technology" and turns war into an artform itself. A little risky, but in the grand scheme, it makes sense as war gives us something to write, speak, draw, film, and create.

The language piece was also one that I was interested in as far as Feminist theory is concerned. But why?
As Barry and Hooks examine, language is one of the "most conscientious areas of feminine criticism" (Barry 124). Language is, by far, the most difficult aspect of our culture to change. Look at how many influences it has had over the 1000s of years of use. How, then, do theorists expect to change it in the speed in which they desire? The "creation" of "ecriture feminine" appears to me the same words we currently use, only in a celebration of the matriarchal (i.e. "impregnable, surrogate umbilical cord" (Barry 122)).
Let's think about this for a moment. What can we say through either writing or speaking that CAN'T be construed as patriarchal? Nothing -- look at the first letter in every sentence. It's capitalized -- obviously a phallus. Homecoming (which my school is going through this week...I hate my life) is an obvious celebration of when the father figure came home after he was away for significant periods of time working. The use of the male pronoun when addressing groups: "Whats up guys."
Some of this can be changed through a slow, laborious process. Which I have a hard time with, but, hey let's go for it. I like having language accessible to more people, and if we can get the feminists on board, lets make them happy. Others I think are taking it a bit too far: Manhole for instance. Personhole? I think not. Or, according to the ecriture feminine, "the opening in the street where humans enter to work under the ground." Try filling out an order for 1000 "Manhole covers." Oh boy.

Those Tricky Marxists!

One of the tenets of Marxism that Barry discussed was the mindlessness of the human worker as he or she goes through reification and is “…bereft of their full humanity and are thought of as ‘hands’ or ‘the labour force’…” (151). This tenet is common in the community that I live and work in.
Las Animas is a ranching community. Despite the prisons within the city limits, the dominant economy in the area is on the farm. Terms that Barry discusses through Marx, Engels, and Lenin are near and dear to the hearts of the people in my area. The “helping hands” on the ranches are typically Hispanics who come to work in season, perform mindless tasks, and are there only to increase the economic value of the ranch.
Very few of these ranchers understand their Marxist views. They view the world through their looking class which is the same glass their parents used, and their parents before them. The way of the working class is “the way it’s always been” and their actions are based on “the way we’ve always done it.” Through reification, the ranchers have become the helping hands.
I thought Althusser’s theory of the “trick” was a key point. Giving a choice that truly isn’t a choice to make the people feel they are truly “free agents” is used all of the time by parents (158). “Why don’t you choose that one…” or “Green is a REALLY NICE COLOR…” – these phrases, to cite a few, utilize this trick so parents can help their children to make better choices later on. They hammer these decisions home by using this rhetorical strategy.
Marxism did it on a grander scale. In an attempt to eliminate class, choices were “given” but it was a narrow selection. This, I believe, is necessary to achieve the ultimate Marxist goal.

Take it Away, Take it Away, Take it Away Now!

When we left our last class the question up for discussion was about what will happen next with theory with our center no longer being the center. Having an hour and a half drive on my hands, I had some time to think about this.
I thought about this in terms of classroom management (go figure). What happens when the students misbehave, or perform acts that are against the rules? We enforce those rules, and, if necessary, take things away -- hall privileges, time from passing period, etc. If the behavior continues, then we continue to take.
Much like theory as we read this week. If Post-Structuralists can take away the center, other theorists will feel the need to take away another of the most central conventions of other beliefs. In our reading, the idea of geneaology came into play with Foucault. The basic premesis of geneaology is to use it as an "attempt to emancipate historical knowledges from that subjection, to render them capable of opposition..." (132). Take away history from the Marxists -- might as well take away recess from a third grader.
So in an answer to the question we had in class -- the result of the presenting a theory without a center will allow other theorists to take away the NEW centers that will be presented throughout contemporary theory.

S vs. PS -- OOPS

Make that S vs. PS

P vs. PS

One phrase that really stood out in the reading from Barry was the line that made the distinction of Linguistic Anxiety being a "keynote of the post-structuralist outlook" (62). This is mentioned within the distinctions of structuralism and post-structuralism, but is alluded to throughout the reading.
In the distinctions, Barry notes major differences in origins, tone, style, attitude, and project within the two movements. In origins, he quotes Nietzche as saying that in philosophy there are "No facts, only interpretations" (61). This leads into the anxiety of language as we see on a weekly basis. In class we are always focused on interpretation of text and, as professionals, are expected to have our interpretations in line and at an acceptable level. This makes us anxious about what words we construct in our analysis of the text we read, and in class cautious of how we present our findings.
The next distinction is that of tone and style. Barry notes that post-structuralists are "urgent and euphoric" in their tone, and that they are "flamboyant and showy" with their style (61). This differs from the structuralists as they were very abstract with their style and aimed for a "scientific coolness" in tone (61). Can one be too flamboyant? Showy? Sports fans, I am pretty sure the answer here is yes. A few names come to mind: Terrell Owens, Kobe Bryant, Shaq, Dennis Rodman -- too showy for their own good. Authors want to find that happy medium of showy, flamboyant style. This search for middle ground will lead to that anxiety of presentation within our post-structuralists.
Attitude to language comes back to signs and this is where the realization of "Linguistic Anxiety comes into play. The basis here is that we do not have full control of language. Any time humans don't have full control of something we get anxious. An example: substitutes. If we are not in our classrooms, don't we attempt to make fool-proof plans to a.) keep students busy, b.) keep the subs from messing them up or altering them, c.) be as worry-free at our conference/day off as we can be? We like control...need I say more?
Finally the idea of project. The post-structuralist critic distrusts reason and believes that individuals are molded by social and linguistic forces. Nurture/nature? Interesting discussion potential here. Are we molded by society's rules or those we are taught from our parents/guardians. Not really a theory question, but something to ponder at night when the power goes out.
One last distinction between the structuralists and the post-structuralists is the apocalyptic outlook held by the posts against the edenistic outlook held by the structuralists. Without an "authoritative center" we are focused now out interpretation and it could be either positive or negative. Whose train is moving now?

Stacks

As I sit here contemplating the content of this post, I have a stack of freshly read articles and a stack of moldy, week old essays that need to be graded. Now, in my response to these stacks, if I am a Formalist, I need to refrain from attention to how my students were feeling that day as this school rejects the notion of "the author's feelings as he (or she) composed it" (Brooks). On the other hand, should I decide to view these stacks from the school of Structuralists, I need to not only examine the emotions of the author, but all of the factors, or structures that tie in to each piece.
These two schools provided a great contrast to show how theory changes, and how the theories may, in turn, revolt against one another. When we also throw in the rules of Semiotics and the Liberal Humanists it seems we can almost categorize every critic thus far. We, however, are not even halfway through the semester yet so this is not possible.
I don't know if there is a term for the compulsive need to categorize everything or everyone, but the reading from Barry did make me chuckle when he wrote "...if you practice lit. crit. and you don't call yourself a Marxist critic, or a structuralist...then you are probably a liberal humanist" (3). Is it necessary to make sure everyone is labeled? Is this another convention of theory?
The introduction/first chapter of Barry was extremely helpful in laying a foundation for reading about these theories. Doug did discuss, last semester, how to read these scholarly works, but reading it again helped. The five points of theory on page 35 will also be great to refer back to throughout the semester.

The Muse FINALLY was upon me

Oftentimes we define the term Renaissance as "a rebirth" of classical ideals, texts, and beliefs. For this reason, I was not at all surprised of the influence that Cicero and Quintilian had on this time period. I was, however, interested in how important the argument to emotion became.
As many of us teach high school students, we all know that there is nothing more fierce, or kind, or crazy, or lost than a high school (usually sophomore) girl. These girls' emotions and horomones are running wild and sometimes, usually in a moment of whatever the opposite of epiphany is, do something really dumb for the sake of their emotions. But it's not over yet. Two minutes later, after their blow up, walk out, tantrum, or giggle fit they are in a completely different emotional state. This boggles many, and is a great representation of how emotion changes continuously.
Even though we, educated professionals, are far from this high school phase (as HS boys aren't much better), our emotions do change on a regular basis. The line from Rhetorica ad Herennium that says "The Appeal to Pity must be brief, for nothing dries faster than a tear" is a warning (Matsen 167). Pity is one of many emotions, but it too changes and leaves the mind quickly.
So, if Renaissance rhetoricials and philosophers were trying to "[move] the heart" they were moving the heart to something that would be lost quickly.
So, did those of the Renaissance have longer emotional spans than we do now? Is it because of MTV, Marilyn Manson, cell phones and Game Boy that we are not only more suicidal, dumb, and illiterate, but also more emotionally unstable? Were these appeals to emotion why philosophy became popular? Or am I off my own rocker? We'll find out.

Trebizond was also interesting. He was the first to say deliberately that rhetoric was "indifferent to morality" (Conley 115). This will make for interesting discussion as we have spent so much time debating the topic of whether or not it is necessary for an orator and rhetorician to be a good man.

What is...

As our worlds change, often our perceptions of terms and ideals that we often view as concrete must change as well.
Quintilian has difficulty, as many have before him, in truly defining rhetoric; though he can agree that it is an art. Tacitus is troubled with the "eloquence of those days (past) stood higher than (theirs)" (Matsen 238).
It seems as the world grows, more and more needs to be included in a definition to encompass all involved with the changes taking place. Examining Matsen, Quintilian examines Cicero who defines rhetoric as "artistic eloquence," Antonius who claims rhetoric is a natural gift; a "knack derived from experience," (215), and of course, has Aristotle in mind with his famous definition "the power to perceive available persuasive features of a subject." Within these definitions, Antonius is the only one who claims that rhetoric is not an art. Art does change and does model the conventions of the time period in which it is popular.
Art changes, as do the necessities of speakers. This, the art of speech, is continuously in question throughout our readings. "Rhetorica ad Herennium" was a concise guide for an orator that is continuously built on by Cicero and Quintilian. One line I found interesting concerning truth was on page 163 when the piece says, "Invention is the devising of matter, true or PLAUSIBLE..." (Matsen). Meaning the piece didn't have to be completely true, but it had to be credible to the audience and accepted. The piece goes on to treat oration as an athletic event discussing the use of voice and the importance of speaking softly in the introduction to essentially "warm-up" before the meat of the speech.
The analogy of the athletic event is interesting to me as I recently demonstrated tone to my students while reading Edwards' "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." This piece was true to Rhetorica form as, when I was reading, I found myself (previous to reading the Rhetorica Piece) slowing, lowering and strengthening my voice throughout the piece. Those of you, who teach American Lit, may now see some of this theory at work in a major way through this reading.

Be nice! This is my first blog attempt!

Having never read the works in Matsen for rhetorical purposes, they were eye openers.
The general acceptance of rhetoric being so strong in Homer's work that even the Athena tells Achilles that "with words you may abuse (Agamemnon)" is simple, yet elegant(Matsen 8). These epic stories are to hold the same values of their culture, and this shows how important the use of words were during the Trojan War.
Plato later warns against attacking a person, and suggests attacking their ideas as Socrates is quick to question Gorgias' thoughts on rhetoric when he says "I am afraid to cross-examine you for fear you might think my pertinacity is directed against you, and not to the clarification to the matter in question" (Matsen 68).
Rhetoric's play in the ancient texts is simple, as is its impact on Obama and Dobsen as we read in class. Again, reading these texts from another point of view makes for an interesting weekend.
I will be interested to discuss truth (big T vs. little t) in class on Tuesday as several of our authors discussed both ends of the spectrum from a secular and a religious standpoint.