As teachers narcissism is almost required. We have to enjoy listening to ourselves, looking at our same creation (be it seating charts, room decorations, etc) day in and out, but what about in our pedagogy?
Our students come from various backgrounds as we all know, and as Schneider addresses in her essay, so how do we teach in a way that doesn't exclude a group? She says, "Teaching students that writing is an act of hope, a determination to go on rather than be done, a decision to make a difference for the better, seems a more productive use of time than teaching them to feel OK about themselves by encouraging them to see only themselves everywhere they look" (931).
Some of our theory attempts to take away the differences we have in order to make us all one, equal. This is NOT a bad thing, but we do need to celebrate our differences through writing. By exalting their differences they will give themselves hope, and hopefully disintegrate the unknown segregation they have in the class as Schneider pointed out.
This essay makes me wonder if I make exceptions or act differently with students of a different race. As mentioned, we have loads of different backgrounds, so will I unknowingly give preference to students who come from a similar background to myself? This is something I will be monitoring though my pedagogy in time to come. It also makes me want to sway more toward the writing side of the pendulum so I can maybe treat the study more fairly...that is...if I am bias...
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Wednesday, March 31, 2010
We - are- fam-i-ly!
Let's be honest, the initial thought of a Rhetorical Family Tree was my first impression of Dr. Souder, and after listening to her talk about her multiple job experiences I thought she was stuck in the fourth grade teacher mode.
But, being the sport that I am, I grumbled under my breath and started digging. What this project has ended up being is an opportunity to correspond with colleagues, influences, and scholars nation(and for some world)-wide. What an experience! Digging to find influences, making connections with scholars such as Faigley, Fish, and Elbow is more than I could have imagined.
The biggest impact this project has had is bringing these rhetors down to earth for me. Everyone is human (even Socrates), and humans interact. The e-mails that I have sent and received this semester reminded me that teachers like to talk about their job. I love working with other colleagues to see what they are doing, how they learned to do it, and modifying it to work for me. This has been the experience from our readings, from our discussion both before and during class, and from these projects/papers. The rhetors we discuss are no different, only some of them would rather talk about themselves and what they can do to help you than listen :-).
The Tree: I am a simple man. I think a real tree would be awesome with ourselves as the dirt, our professors as the roots, their teachers as the trunk, and expand further. If we trace it back to Aristotle, he can be the sun or something -- photosynthesis gets its energy from the sun...makes sense in my head :-)
But, being the sport that I am, I grumbled under my breath and started digging. What this project has ended up being is an opportunity to correspond with colleagues, influences, and scholars nation(and for some world)-wide. What an experience! Digging to find influences, making connections with scholars such as Faigley, Fish, and Elbow is more than I could have imagined.
The biggest impact this project has had is bringing these rhetors down to earth for me. Everyone is human (even Socrates), and humans interact. The e-mails that I have sent and received this semester reminded me that teachers like to talk about their job. I love working with other colleagues to see what they are doing, how they learned to do it, and modifying it to work for me. This has been the experience from our readings, from our discussion both before and during class, and from these projects/papers. The rhetors we discuss are no different, only some of them would rather talk about themselves and what they can do to help you than listen :-).
The Tree: I am a simple man. I think a real tree would be awesome with ourselves as the dirt, our professors as the roots, their teachers as the trunk, and expand further. If we trace it back to Aristotle, he can be the sun or something -- photosynthesis gets its energy from the sun...makes sense in my head :-)
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Cooperative Theory
Faigley's piece from this week's assignment discusses the expressive, cognitive, and social views of writing disciplines.
The expressive view allows a "person the integrity to dominate his subject with a pattern both fresh and original" (654). This movement was one that prominent rhetor Peter Elbow follows and often deals with experiments in composing. Cognitive viewing had to do with heurisitcs and analysis, but very little to do with actual composition. Lastly, the social view pulls together a number of disciplines and holds that "human language can be understood only from the perspective of a society rather than a single individual" (659).
The social view is much like the cooperative learning that was in the reading last week -- pulling minds together to find a truth (little t) that all can benefit from.
What vexes me in the article is that none of the three views discusses the actual act of composing. They discuss the what should be in pre-writing, but little with the composition process. Why leave out he most important part?
The expressive view allows a "person the integrity to dominate his subject with a pattern both fresh and original" (654). This movement was one that prominent rhetor Peter Elbow follows and often deals with experiments in composing. Cognitive viewing had to do with heurisitcs and analysis, but very little to do with actual composition. Lastly, the social view pulls together a number of disciplines and holds that "human language can be understood only from the perspective of a society rather than a single individual" (659).
The social view is much like the cooperative learning that was in the reading last week -- pulling minds together to find a truth (little t) that all can benefit from.
What vexes me in the article is that none of the three views discusses the actual act of composing. They discuss the what should be in pre-writing, but little with the composition process. Why leave out he most important part?
Wednesday, March 10, 2010
SUPER RHETOR!!
One thought that stood out to me specifically after class was when Dr. Souder was reminded of who Howard Gardner was and was almost baffled at herself for the mistake. As educators and those totally engrossed in the academy, we need to, at times take a post-modernist approach to our lives and detatch ourselves from the "center" and remember our roots in pedagogy.
As we decenter ourselves, we look at the world of pedagogy in a new light; approach classroom management, literature, and composition in a different way. Just as Kenneth Bruffee proposes in his essay on collaborative learning. According to the presentation on Neitzche, the meaning of literature is open to interpretation and that so-called Superman is the altering factor and changes as knowledge changes.
Knowledge, however, changes for people at different paces. All a person needs to do is observe any classroom and notice the different abilities that students have. This is why Bruffee's recommendation to have students and teachers learn collaboratively, and go against the Cartesian model of "to know is to see" is beneficial. Bruffee suggests that we "accept the premise that knowledge is an artifact created by a community of knowledgeable peers constituted by the language of that community and that learning is a social not an individual process" (555). Allowing the community of learners to work together can benefit students more in literary interpretation and in language learning as Neitzche also stated that Language was not essential or inherent.
De-centering ourselves and allowing for a new look at pedagogy can lead to great inclusions such as collaborative learning to take hold and enhance student learning. We can't always be the Superman in our classrooms -- sometimes we have to let the student be the Superman and come in to save us.
As we decenter ourselves, we look at the world of pedagogy in a new light; approach classroom management, literature, and composition in a different way. Just as Kenneth Bruffee proposes in his essay on collaborative learning. According to the presentation on Neitzche, the meaning of literature is open to interpretation and that so-called Superman is the altering factor and changes as knowledge changes.
Knowledge, however, changes for people at different paces. All a person needs to do is observe any classroom and notice the different abilities that students have. This is why Bruffee's recommendation to have students and teachers learn collaboratively, and go against the Cartesian model of "to know is to see" is beneficial. Bruffee suggests that we "accept the premise that knowledge is an artifact created by a community of knowledgeable peers constituted by the language of that community and that learning is a social not an individual process" (555). Allowing the community of learners to work together can benefit students more in literary interpretation and in language learning as Neitzche also stated that Language was not essential or inherent.
De-centering ourselves and allowing for a new look at pedagogy can lead to great inclusions such as collaborative learning to take hold and enhance student learning. We can't always be the Superman in our classrooms -- sometimes we have to let the student be the Superman and come in to save us.
Thursday, March 4, 2010
If a butterfly flaps its wings in China, does it cause a hurricane in Florida?
Hairston's essay was particularly intriguing to me, as apparently it has been to many others. I took note to the "paradigm shift" noted and it was a revelation that each of our major theorists were the ones to shift the paradigm of their time (439).
Astell, of course, brought about this movement of feminism. It began with one book, gained momentum hundreds of years later, and is now a hot topic in many literature classes and circles. Blair's emphasis on taste, according to Agnew's essay, "illustrate his focus on teachings students the processes through which discourse is received as well as produced" (25). Lastly, Campbell brings the passions to the forefront of rhetoric by using Aristotle and his theories of Pathe and Hexis.
These theorists all shifted the paradigm of rhetoric in their own unique way and helped us to look at composition through a new glass.
This brings me to my next point. How are we going to shift the paradigm of composition? The point of these research papers is to dig deeper, the find that one area that hasn't been examined in composition theory and put in our oar. Will our mini butterfly flap begin a paradigm shift that our texts believe comp theory so desperately needs? This is what is driving my research, and we'll see if CSU-Pueblo's butterfly can create a hurricane in theory.
Astell, of course, brought about this movement of feminism. It began with one book, gained momentum hundreds of years later, and is now a hot topic in many literature classes and circles. Blair's emphasis on taste, according to Agnew's essay, "illustrate his focus on teachings students the processes through which discourse is received as well as produced" (25). Lastly, Campbell brings the passions to the forefront of rhetoric by using Aristotle and his theories of Pathe and Hexis.
These theorists all shifted the paradigm of rhetoric in their own unique way and helped us to look at composition through a new glass.
This brings me to my next point. How are we going to shift the paradigm of composition? The point of these research papers is to dig deeper, the find that one area that hasn't been examined in composition theory and put in our oar. Will our mini butterfly flap begin a paradigm shift that our texts believe comp theory so desperately needs? This is what is driving my research, and we'll see if CSU-Pueblo's butterfly can create a hurricane in theory.
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Reticent Writing, Reading, and Speaking
It was truly a pleasure having Dr. Burns sit in on class this week and, if only for a brief moment, answer some of our blogging questions.
Another pleasure was hearing from other groups on their speech topics, and taking notes to further my own pedagogy statement. One element of the reticent writer section that I hadn't thought much about was the rules of cultures and abilities. Pierre Bourdieu makes the claim that there are certain rules and there have to be initiations to be able to speak certain ways. Is this the same for writing?
In reading the Blair article by Lois Agnew (I couldn't speak in class so I read while my students worked), Agnew makes the claim from Horner that "Written and oral skills were taught together throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in British Universities. 'instruction in one reinforcing instruction in the other" (28). We have strayed from this. Reticent writers, if I had to guess, are probably reticent speakers and readers. To fix this, educators will need to begin having students compose for oral presentation.
Something to think about in pedagogy: how often do we make students read aloud, or are we worried we will embarrass students? What is more important: teaching or building self esteem? I'm going with teaching, but I may be wrong.
Another pleasure was hearing from other groups on their speech topics, and taking notes to further my own pedagogy statement. One element of the reticent writer section that I hadn't thought much about was the rules of cultures and abilities. Pierre Bourdieu makes the claim that there are certain rules and there have to be initiations to be able to speak certain ways. Is this the same for writing?
In reading the Blair article by Lois Agnew (I couldn't speak in class so I read while my students worked), Agnew makes the claim from Horner that "Written and oral skills were taught together throughout the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in British Universities. 'instruction in one reinforcing instruction in the other" (28). We have strayed from this. Reticent writers, if I had to guess, are probably reticent speakers and readers. To fix this, educators will need to begin having students compose for oral presentation.
Something to think about in pedagogy: how often do we make students read aloud, or are we worried we will embarrass students? What is more important: teaching or building self esteem? I'm going with teaching, but I may be wrong.
Wednesday, February 17, 2010
Lockeing it down!
The presentations this week were very efficient and great for the purpose of covering a great deal of rhetoric in a small period of time. The presentation that Johanna gave on Vico was especially good as I wanted to understand more about his three stages of "nature, manners, law and the government: the ages of Gods, Heroes, and Man" (Maiullari 2). I do, however, see how another one of our rhetoricians, Locke, and Vico would have absolutely gone to battle over the ideas of human knowledge according to the ages, and Locke's "blank slate" ideal.
According to Vico, humans are predisposed to a particular knowledge and we can only rarely access the knowledge of the heroes. How then, do heroes become heroes? Are they predisposed to a different realm of understanding? Did Odysseus know more than the average human, and can he then access the knowledge of the Gods on rare occasion? We are privy to certain information just because of our birth. Knowledge such as survival, reproduction, and defense is in my mind, bred into our brains, and it is built upon through experience.
Locke believed that humans were born with a blank slate and everything we learned was through experience. If this is the case, then how do people who have never been stuck in the snow come out alive? There has to be some predisposed knowledge on survival. What about someone who has never fought. I, for one, have not been in a fight, but my first human instinct is to cover my pretty face and protect my vital organs from hits. Is there an experience that teaches us this? According to Locke, we would use our senses to determine these reactions. I, personally, would prefer to avoid getting punched before deciding whether or not to experience it again.
We are privy to certain information because of our nature, and we are then supposed to build on this base as we go -- through reflection? Through the senses? I'm not sure how we all grow in our knowledge base, but we surely do. We do, however need to be wise in our learning because, according to both, wisdom is key in obtaining knowledge.
Unless of course you use a syllogism...
Wednesday, February 10, 2010
Hey kids, this school thing is TOUGH! Get used to it!
In class we spent a good deal of time discussing rhetoric in research and reasoning behind the essential lack of primary sources. After coupling the Enos article with the Moss article, I have more than realized that our students (and ourselves as students) are relying on computers and their "magic" too much. And I truthfully believe computers are magic -- I have NO idea how they work, all I know is they are amazing.
Corbett is convinced that composition teachers are "much more sophisticated that teachers of composition were even fifteen years ago" (45). The term "sophisticated" makes me wonder -- what is sophistication exactly? Intellectually appealing is one definition, but I highly doubt we are being judged on how intellectually appealing we are. The most likely definition he is refering to is to be ahead in development. But, he continues to examine how far we've come in sophistication...whatever that is.
He touches on computers and their lack of logic and inability to utilize topoi. By spending time analyzing this sophistication that we have as composition teachers and allowing more of our time to be used teaching and acting on different topoi through logical formats, we can turn the talk of rhetoric into action. Take away the computer for an assginment -- see what happens. It's kind of fun!
In this article he also makes the observation that computers cannot analyze the written letter B and recognize that it is a part of the alphabet. This is out of date.
So, in order to better teach our students, they need to analyze more primary sources and find a place to rhetorize, or, as Dr. Eskew and Kenneth Burke would say, find a place to "put in their oar."
Corbett is convinced that composition teachers are "much more sophisticated that teachers of composition were even fifteen years ago" (45). The term "sophisticated" makes me wonder -- what is sophistication exactly? Intellectually appealing is one definition, but I highly doubt we are being judged on how intellectually appealing we are. The most likely definition he is refering to is to be ahead in development. But, he continues to examine how far we've come in sophistication...whatever that is.
He touches on computers and their lack of logic and inability to utilize topoi. By spending time analyzing this sophistication that we have as composition teachers and allowing more of our time to be used teaching and acting on different topoi through logical formats, we can turn the talk of rhetoric into action. Take away the computer for an assginment -- see what happens. It's kind of fun!
In this article he also makes the observation that computers cannot analyze the written letter B and recognize that it is a part of the alphabet. This is out of date.
So, in order to better teach our students, they need to analyze more primary sources and find a place to rhetorize, or, as Dr. Eskew and Kenneth Burke would say, find a place to "put in their oar."
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Easy reading is damn hard writing. ~Nathaniel Hawthorne
The essay by Rohman and Wlecke begins wonderfully with what is perceived as the "problem" with educating English composition. The problem boils down to one word for these two scholars and that is "Quality" (216).
The quality in educating students in composition has been waning since the beginning of composition studies, and will continue to be a topic of discussion as long as it exists (ideally forever). With this in mind, on page 217 Rohman and Wlecke begin to provide solutions by first of all pointing out that there are two types of teaching -- one of which I will address: Expositional mode. This mode of teaching is teacher based which I believe is the best as the one person who truly understands what is occurring in the classroom is the one standing, giving direction, lectures, and organizing activities for the students be it elementary or graduate school. The article, however, recognizes that we all have weakness that is inherited as opposed to formed. These weaknesses, according to Rohman and Wlecke are unfixable, but I disagree.
Using the "Archetype of the Plant" on page 222, and the first metaphor of, "planting a seed" I address grammar as the seed -- the most basic piece of composition needed, as we discussed, to confer a basic thought and hold basic communication. If composition begins at grammar and builds to argument which will "unveil a perspective as best we can that has not become ordered on a public map," then we can discuss those developmental/reticent writers.
These writers need repetition and experience that "discovery" as discussed on 225 in order to see success with the basics in order to move to the argument.
Assessment will be based on the argument and grammar, and technology has its place, but as the article did not address technology in pedagogy, I stand by what I said in class and reaffirmed as I was working on my blog -- I'm a pencil to paper guy!
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
To continue the discussion we had in class, I would like to bring in the piece by Kitzhaber (257). In this piece, it assesses the "present" (it was published in 1963) state of freshman comp. As we started discussing with the Brereton piece, when English was first being introduced, there are still many flaws in the program. Kitzhaber cites many reasons such as syllabuses going out of date rapidly, "confusion in purpose, content, and organization; inexpert teaching; poor textbooks" as explanation as to the unrest in freshman comp (258). He also makes the note, almost obviously, that these reasons are the same the professors themselves are blaming high school composition teachers for the unpreparedness of college freshmen.
Brereton's subjects knew that the programs they were developing were sub-par, but they were merely getting started, so why, after almost 70 years (the programs he examined began in 1895) are there still these problems? Is it the constant change of the language as we discussed? Is it truly inexperience of professors and teachers? If so, how do we assess these changes and "fix" this problem. Are these issues that are seen at CSU-Pueblo? How are they being addressed?
Brereton's subjects knew that the programs they were developing were sub-par, but they were merely getting started, so why, after almost 70 years (the programs he examined began in 1895) are there still these problems? Is it the constant change of the language as we discussed? Is it truly inexperience of professors and teachers? If so, how do we assess these changes and "fix" this problem. Are these issues that are seen at CSU-Pueblo? How are they being addressed?
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
FIRE!!
I guess it had been a while since I had had a history class, but I had forgotten that the London fire of 1666 had been the possible beginning of the Victorian age. The near destruction of the largest city in The Empire would be a devastation and would have to initiate a change an age of history.
Starting the Industrial Revolution was an inevitable response to this tragedy as the technology was available to make everything from weapons to textiles more efficient and automated. Unfortunately the nearly immediate effects of the Victorian Age are sometimes overlooked. The institution of child labor, poor wages for difficult work, and the rise of middle management are often frowned upon, but the age demanded these difficult effects. Had it not been for child labor and the poor conditions, many of the labor laws we have today would not be in place. The same is true for wages and the institution of unions and competition for wages and placement in companies in general.
The Victorian Age gave us much more than great literature and rhetoric. It began the proverbial snowball that has escalated to many of today's largest debates about wages, age, and appropriate placement for employees within a structure.
Starting the Industrial Revolution was an inevitable response to this tragedy as the technology was available to make everything from weapons to textiles more efficient and automated. Unfortunately the nearly immediate effects of the Victorian Age are sometimes overlooked. The institution of child labor, poor wages for difficult work, and the rise of middle management are often frowned upon, but the age demanded these difficult effects. Had it not been for child labor and the poor conditions, many of the labor laws we have today would not be in place. The same is true for wages and the institution of unions and competition for wages and placement in companies in general.
The Victorian Age gave us much more than great literature and rhetoric. It began the proverbial snowball that has escalated to many of today's largest debates about wages, age, and appropriate placement for employees within a structure.
Saturday, November 28, 2009
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).
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).
Sunday, November 15, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, November 7, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 24, 2009
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.
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.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
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.
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.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
