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.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
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.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
