501 Writings

START 501 BLOGS HERE!!!!!

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.