It's that time of year where we all start to reflect on the past year - the good, the bad, and the ugly. However, I'm not sure if this post can really fit into any one of those categories.
It was in our last class that I finally realized just how much critical theory comes into play into our lives. We were given a definition or idea of critical theory from Judith Butler, and in my opinion, its dead on. She says critical theory is a "critical interrogation about what we already believe and why we believe it." If you really think about it, I feel as though we could apply this defintion to all of the theories we have learned throughout the semester.
Liberal humanism is the foundatio for criticial theory because it states that we only read books or literature because it reflects human nature. Well what is human nature? When you really boil it down, human nature is our thoughts, beliefs, and values.
Marxism challenges our beliefs on capitalism and the value of money that we have placed in society, stating that there are no class systems and everyone should be equal in terms of power and wealth. This theory also questions our idea of reality being materialistic. Yet, if we went by the Marxist theory, then would we ever have a sense of what reality could be? How is this reality even considered "reality?"
Structuralism and psychoanalysis attempt to question our idea of thought and language. Why do we give meaning to certain objects and how is that meaning created? Yet, theory expects/asks us to change that idea of meaning- essentially that it doesn't exist. If it does, then it is only in relation to other objects/text.
Post-structuralism/deconstruction is in my opinion so closely related to Butler's idea of theory becuase it already chooses to deconstruct and question the meaning of any object. Why doesn't the meaning exist within texts? If i have read the text, and can clearly get a definition or theme as to what the text is trying to say- then why can you still say that there is no meaning within a text? When getting an understanding of post-structuralism, I felt as thought I was experiencing Derrida's concept of "differance" - never quite reaching that meaning or in this case understanding. It was very similar to the example we used in class while trying to explain diffeance. The fact that when you're driving in the car, road sign always pop up telling you the distance till your destination. However, differance is always reaching those signs. but never making it to the exit.
If at certain points, the meaning of a text is created by our beliefs, then the theory once again, is deconstructing our thoughts and ideas - leaving one unsure as to what exactly to think. We are left feeling unstable - much like what deconstruction theory's intention is for any text.
I think to end the class with post-colonialism, left me with a new way to think about cultural texts that I would never have even considered in August. This theory left me with a new outlook on just how much people lose or have lost their sense of identity all because they never really knew what it was in the beginning after being taken over.
It just shows how one idea in theory can overlap well into other various aspects of one's life. Do other countries feel as opressed about having our ideals and culture brought into theirs? Or do they accept it because they know that it could lead to the prospering of their country? I guess I look at it this way. Thanks to America, fast food has globalized. Other countries have created their own version of McDonalds, all over the world, because of how popular it is here in the US. Are we ever going to get to the point where the tables will turn - where their cultures will start to globalize in the US? Who knows, we will just have to wait it out and see.
So, critical theory is not just strictly decosntructing literary works and language, it deconstructs the beliefs we have learned from human nature. Take that for what it is worth - the good, the bad, or the ugly.
You make think that, with this post, comes the end of theory. But that is where you're wrong. It's only just the beginning....
Until next time....
pelipuf
Sunday, December 14, 2008
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
A League of Their Own...
First of all, a big thank you to Tonya Krouse for her guest post on feminism. Just like in all of the other guest speakers, her clear and concise thoughts helped clear up many misconceptions about the feminist theory.
In class the other day, when Prof. McGuire asked the class how many of us were feminists, I’m not going to lie, I was a little timid to raise my hand at first. Partially because of the many negative stereotypes and perceptions people have towards feminists and the theory in general – man-hating, hairy, lesbians who are constantly yelling and loudly voicing their opinions about equal rights – or that famous women’s rightsp poster. However, this is not the case.
Feminist women are just standing up for equality. For their chance to even the playing field between men and women. It is sort of like a bittersweet experience though. For the amount of time women have been working to create this equality, there are still many women who fall into the stereotypical category that almost sets back the work that these historic women have been working so hard for.
Krouse talks about the idea of "postfeminist" - which can easily be summed up by the popular television show, "Sex and the City." The always fashionable four New York women parade around the city, flaunting their sense of independence. Personally, just from watching the show, I feel that, sure these women can be considered to be feminists. Yet, can they still be considered feminists if they always appear to be chasing after that desire to be tied down to a man? What does that say about their supposed "independence?"
With the topic of male dependency on my brain, I immediately became curious as to all those romantic comedies you know you ever women crave. Many of these movies depict that sense of male companionship that all these women desire – despite having no problem showing off their independence. Women are consistently under the watchful eye of men – becoming objects and possessions rather than a person. Essentially, they are consistently being used as competition between males. Yet, while some women may realize this, how quickly do we start to swoon as soon as a "cute" or "handsome" guy pays us one second of attention? Probably before you can say, "supercalifragilisticexpealodocious."
I may be completely off, but it was just something I thought about while reading Krouse’s post.
Until next time….
pelipuff
In class the other day, when Prof. McGuire asked the class how many of us were feminists, I’m not going to lie, I was a little timid to raise my hand at first. Partially because of the many negative stereotypes and perceptions people have towards feminists and the theory in general – man-hating, hairy, lesbians who are constantly yelling and loudly voicing their opinions about equal rights – or that famous women’s rightsp poster. However, this is not the case.
Feminist women are just standing up for equality. For their chance to even the playing field between men and women. It is sort of like a bittersweet experience though. For the amount of time women have been working to create this equality, there are still many women who fall into the stereotypical category that almost sets back the work that these historic women have been working so hard for.
Krouse talks about the idea of "postfeminist" - which can easily be summed up by the popular television show, "Sex and the City." The always fashionable four New York women parade around the city, flaunting their sense of independence. Personally, just from watching the show, I feel that, sure these women can be considered to be feminists. Yet, can they still be considered feminists if they always appear to be chasing after that desire to be tied down to a man? What does that say about their supposed "independence?"
With the topic of male dependency on my brain, I immediately became curious as to all those romantic comedies you know you ever women crave. Many of these movies depict that sense of male companionship that all these women desire – despite having no problem showing off their independence. Women are consistently under the watchful eye of men – becoming objects and possessions rather than a person. Essentially, they are consistently being used as competition between males. Yet, while some women may realize this, how quickly do we start to swoon as soon as a "cute" or "handsome" guy pays us one second of attention? Probably before you can say, "supercalifragilisticexpealodocious."
I may be completely off, but it was just something I thought about while reading Krouse’s post.
Until next time….
pelipuff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
