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
Friday, November 14, 2008
"Wow.. I can be sexual too..."
First off, thank you Ms. Shelden for your interesting post regarding Lacan's ideas. Your examples helped clarify the difficult concepts Lacan discusses in his "mirror stage."
After reading this post, I feel as though I now have a better understanding of certain ideas like jouissance and how often through our enjoyment we can lose our identity by getting caught up in this pleasure.
Personally. I feel that is what happens with Miles Green in Mantissa. In the first section of Mantissa, Green shares with the readers how he feels as he enters the mirror stage - the idea that he no longer knows who he is, or what certain objects are. For the first time, he can identify himself through the concept of other.
While Lacan believes that sexual satisfaction and identity are contradictory, I personally feel that Fowles thinks otherwise. For example, through his illicit affair with Dr. Delfie and Nurse Cory, Miles Green was able to understand and come to terms with more and more of his identity. The idea of the "death drive" according to Lacan is found mainly within the concept of orgasms because technically you lose the sense of yourself within this release. While you're not supposed to think about who you are or where you are, but rather experience "jouissance" - a blind sense of enjoyment. When Green releases he does not lose his concept of self, but rather he gains more about his identity because his release creates something. A book. A book which helps spawn Green's true sense of identity.
I'm hoping I'm on the right path with this post, but the thing about theory, is that one idea can be completely different than an idea that someone else has. It just proves the idea that there is not one specific meaning for something. In fact, there is often more than one meaning.
After reading this post, I feel as though I now have a better understanding of certain ideas like jouissance and how often through our enjoyment we can lose our identity by getting caught up in this pleasure.
Personally. I feel that is what happens with Miles Green in Mantissa. In the first section of Mantissa, Green shares with the readers how he feels as he enters the mirror stage - the idea that he no longer knows who he is, or what certain objects are. For the first time, he can identify himself through the concept of other.
While Lacan believes that sexual satisfaction and identity are contradictory, I personally feel that Fowles thinks otherwise. For example, through his illicit affair with Dr. Delfie and Nurse Cory, Miles Green was able to understand and come to terms with more and more of his identity. The idea of the "death drive" according to Lacan is found mainly within the concept of orgasms because technically you lose the sense of yourself within this release. While you're not supposed to think about who you are or where you are, but rather experience "jouissance" - a blind sense of enjoyment. When Green releases he does not lose his concept of self, but rather he gains more about his identity because his release creates something. A book. A book which helps spawn Green's true sense of identity.
I'm hoping I'm on the right path with this post, but the thing about theory, is that one idea can be completely different than an idea that someone else has. It just proves the idea that there is not one specific meaning for something. In fact, there is often more than one meaning.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Mirror Mirror on the Wall....
So my thoughts on Mantissa ….
First off let me start by saying that it wasn’t quite what I expected. I can say that I was genuinely surprised to say the least, but intrigued as I get more and more into the novel.
But onto theory….
While I thought there many different aspects about theory in the novel – actually within the fist chapter alone – the one that I immediately realized was within the first sentence, “conscious of a luminous and infinite haze” – the mirror stage according to Lacan.
For those that don’t know, Lacan’s idea of the mirror stage, a stage at which someone – usually a baby – first realizes “itself,” that it is an “I.” After realization, the baby has a moment of jouissance or enjoyment and looks to in this case, the mother for confirmation. For this person or self in the story, “nothing seemed familiar.” Everything he once knew was now forgotten – “not language, not location, not cast.” I guess the best way to image this is when you wake up from a nap in which your dream throws your mind out of sorts. Where you wake up and you have to sit there and remember what exactly you were doing, but more importantly where you are. Except with that, imagine that you have no idea what anything is – everything that you thought you once knew, now makes no absolute sense. Welcome to his life.
First off let me start by saying that it wasn’t quite what I expected. I can say that I was genuinely surprised to say the least, but intrigued as I get more and more into the novel.
But onto theory….
While I thought there many different aspects about theory in the novel – actually within the fist chapter alone – the one that I immediately realized was within the first sentence, “conscious of a luminous and infinite haze” – the mirror stage according to Lacan.
For those that don’t know, Lacan’s idea of the mirror stage, a stage at which someone – usually a baby – first realizes “itself,” that it is an “I.” After realization, the baby has a moment of jouissance or enjoyment and looks to in this case, the mother for confirmation. For this person or self in the story, “nothing seemed familiar.” Everything he once knew was now forgotten – “not language, not location, not cast.” I guess the best way to image this is when you wake up from a nap in which your dream throws your mind out of sorts. Where you wake up and you have to sit there and remember what exactly you were doing, but more importantly where you are. Except with that, imagine that you have no idea what anything is – everything that you thought you once knew, now makes no absolute sense. Welcome to his life.
The scene that Fowles paints for us is the first stage in the mirror stage – the imaginary. In this stage, the self relates in terms of images. This is why when we reading the first few pages, all we are greeted with is descriptive language setting this image for us about a person who is trying to distinguish its own self.
As the man appears to awaken, he seems to move into the symbolic stage through which the self and the other attempt to identify through the idea of language. When this man hears his supposed wife “announce names, people’s names, street names, disjointed phrases,” he believes that he has heard him before but yet they have meaning to him. These words or phrases made by his wife are attempts for him to create an identity using this language. Creating a self symbolically through language.
I also thought that maybe this passage in the book could briefly touch on the idea that language has no meaning because of the fact that he feels as though he had heard the language mentioned to him before, but yet they have no meeting. I could be completely wrong on that idea, but I just thought I would throw it out there to see how everyone else felt about it.
Until next time…..
Friday, October 31, 2008
... Making all your dreams come true.... or not?
First off, I would just like to say thank you to Ken Rufo for such an interesting post about Baudrillard.
I must say that I truly enjoyed this post explaining the various ideas expressed by Baudrillard. His real life examples and experiences, helped me get a better understanding of the concepts of simulation. simulacra, and the idea of the hyper-real.... or so I hope.
As I sat reading Rufo's example of Disney, it never really occurred to me that all of the countries or nations Disney puts on display in Epcot are actually this idea of simulacrum. Vacationers of Disney are supposedly "transported" into a place where they can travel around - country to country - and not have to leave the United States. Yet, according to Rufo, these nations are "so fake that they aren't actually copying anything, in fact they are making stuff up." For those of us who haven't been able to venture outside the US to experience these places first hand, what we see in Disney is what many of us may take as what the country actually looks like or what goes on within it.
How many times have we watched a movie or seen an image and thought, "Let's recreate that picture?" - Take for example, the image of the sailors kiss in Times Square. Many people have attempted for years to go to that same spot in NewYork and simulate that famous kiss. This simulation is what Baudrillard calls the hyper-real - "a simulation in which we filter our experiences though the simulation of that reality." Sure, its cliche, but we do it anyway because we assume it to be real.
The one point by Rufo/Baudrillard that I thought was interesting was the aspect of the
"integral reality" - which as Rufo explains that its a a state where the simulation never goes away - its everywhere. Rufo's example of a credit card, I could totally agree/understand because how often do we, as college students, resort to our credit card as a means of "having money." We never know how much we are spending, or paying for that matter for the desired object. This money that we believe to have doesn't exist yet it . The credit card simulation is everywhere because we are constantly using them in time when we are all strapped for cash -there is no way of getting around it unless we have some spare change lying around.
Again, I would like to thank Ken Rufo for his excellent and helpful post about Baudrillard. Maybe the next time we go to Disney, we will remember that it is all simulation and not actual reality. As Disney states, its "where all your dreams come true..." - but is it our dreams/simulations or reality?
until next time - -
pelipuff
I must say that I truly enjoyed this post explaining the various ideas expressed by Baudrillard. His real life examples and experiences, helped me get a better understanding of the concepts of simulation. simulacra, and the idea of the hyper-real.... or so I hope.
As I sat reading Rufo's example of Disney, it never really occurred to me that all of the countries or nations Disney puts on display in Epcot are actually this idea of simulacrum. Vacationers of Disney are supposedly "transported" into a place where they can travel around - country to country - and not have to leave the United States. Yet, according to Rufo, these nations are "so fake that they aren't actually copying anything, in fact they are making stuff up." For those of us who haven't been able to venture outside the US to experience these places first hand, what we see in Disney is what many of us may take as what the country actually looks like or what goes on within it.
How many times have we watched a movie or seen an image and thought, "Let's recreate that picture?" - Take for example, the image of the sailors kiss in Times Square. Many people have attempted for years to go to that same spot in NewYork and simulate that famous kiss. This simulation is what Baudrillard calls the hyper-real - "a simulation in which we filter our experiences though the simulation of that reality." Sure, its cliche, but we do it anyway because we assume it to be real.
The one point by Rufo/Baudrillard that I thought was interesting was the aspect of the
"integral reality" - which as Rufo explains that its a a state where the simulation never goes away - its everywhere. Rufo's example of a credit card, I could totally agree/understand because how often do we, as college students, resort to our credit card as a means of "having money." We never know how much we are spending, or paying for that matter for the desired object. This money that we believe to have doesn't exist yet it . The credit card simulation is everywhere because we are constantly using them in time when we are all strapped for cash -there is no way of getting around it unless we have some spare change lying around.
Again, I would like to thank Ken Rufo for his excellent and helpful post about Baudrillard. Maybe the next time we go to Disney, we will remember that it is all simulation and not actual reality. As Disney states, its "where all your dreams come true..." - but is it our dreams/simulations or reality?
until next time - -
pelipuff
Friday, October 24, 2008
You Think You Know... But You Have No Idea...
Foucault’s “What is an Author?” explains the idea of the significance of the author. In contrast with Barthes idea that the author does not exist, Foucault believes that the author does exists.
Foucault raises an idea that the “function of an author is to characterize the existence, circulation, and operation of certain discourse”, meaning the authors job is bring in an identity or meaning of some aspect into the text – whether it be literary or not. Depending on the authors discourse and writing style, the reader will be able to figure out a sense of who the author is and what he or she is like.
Upon surfing the web for a blog relating to Foucault’s theory, I stumbled upon Dr. Chris Chesher’s blog that talks about the idea of blogging and its crisis of authorship. Within his post, Chesher discusses how blogs carry on and in some cases “transform” the notion of authorship.
Despite my lack of blogging experience, blogs for others are the latest trend. More and more we are seeing blogs being used for journalism purposes, diary purposes, or even educational purposes. Given that blogs can be publicly personalized while remaining private at the time, Chesher believes that certain features bring up Foucault’s author function more effectively than other web technology. “The inverted narrative structure of the archive, the consistent voice, the time stamp that positions posts in a reference to a temporality shared with readers” reveals to many a sense of authorship in a different context.
When one writes a blog, they often create a name of which to go by in their posts. As they write, they bring a sense of style and voice as Chesher says to the blog. So as readers stumble upon the blog and read these posts, they have no idea who the “author” is. For the readers, they start to “attribute a text to an imagined writer.” Each post created by the name is supposed to reveal information about the supposed authors voice, personality, style, etc.
Which makes me wonder, after you have stumbled across this blog numerous times, reading my posts for class each week, do you feel as though you have me, the author, figured out yet? Am I living up to your expectations?
Foucault raises an idea that the “function of an author is to characterize the existence, circulation, and operation of certain discourse”, meaning the authors job is bring in an identity or meaning of some aspect into the text – whether it be literary or not. Depending on the authors discourse and writing style, the reader will be able to figure out a sense of who the author is and what he or she is like.
Upon surfing the web for a blog relating to Foucault’s theory, I stumbled upon Dr. Chris Chesher’s blog that talks about the idea of blogging and its crisis of authorship. Within his post, Chesher discusses how blogs carry on and in some cases “transform” the notion of authorship.
Despite my lack of blogging experience, blogs for others are the latest trend. More and more we are seeing blogs being used for journalism purposes, diary purposes, or even educational purposes. Given that blogs can be publicly personalized while remaining private at the time, Chesher believes that certain features bring up Foucault’s author function more effectively than other web technology. “The inverted narrative structure of the archive, the consistent voice, the time stamp that positions posts in a reference to a temporality shared with readers” reveals to many a sense of authorship in a different context.
When one writes a blog, they often create a name of which to go by in their posts. As they write, they bring a sense of style and voice as Chesher says to the blog. So as readers stumble upon the blog and read these posts, they have no idea who the “author” is. For the readers, they start to “attribute a text to an imagined writer.” Each post created by the name is supposed to reveal information about the supposed authors voice, personality, style, etc.
Which makes me wonder, after you have stumbled across this blog numerous times, reading my posts for class each week, do you feel as though you have me, the author, figured out yet? Am I living up to your expectations?
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
"Above all things, this story is about love....."
In the film, Derrida discusses his feelings about love saying, “It’s the most important thing in anyone’s life.” However, how do we know if we love someone? Do we love someone because they are a person, or do we love someone for their qualities – humor, caring, genuine, etc.? When falling in love with someone, there are usually certain aspects that attract us to him or her – their personality, their physical attributes, etc. These are the things that allow us to enjoy that person’s company, to want them around to make our lives more enjoyable. But, Derrida asks, what is it that we are falling in love with – the person itself, or these qualities?
If we say we are in love with their qualities, then we call into question Derrida’s idea of love being narcissistic because often the qualities that we are attracted to are the same qualities we find within ourselves – whether it be humor, intelligence, beauty, etc. Narcissism is the failure to see a separation between the self and others. Everything that we see in others is just an extension of ourselves. We can use the example mentioned in class regarding a baby. Way back many years ago (for some of us), when we were all small babies, unable to communicate with the world, we had narcissistic tendencies. In our eyes, our mothers were an extension of us. When she would walk away, we just thought ourselves as being extended because of the fact that we could not separate the idea of self and other.
We can relate this idea of narcissism back to love because Derrida states “all love is about projecting our own needs and desires onto the other person.” Our own wants and qualities are the things we look for in a person – it’s what makes us attracted to that person. Take for example the idea of a “money maker.” If we feel as though we need a lavish lifestyle filled with money and material things, then we are going to love a person who makes a significant amount of money and lives in a wealthy lifestyle. Our desire to have these qualities is being projected onto someone we love or are looking to love.
Derrida’s ideas on love are interesting to consider because how often are we battling our opinions on whether or not we love someone. Do we love them because they exist or because there are qualities within this person that we see in ourselves and enjoy? I feel as though when we look at love, we often chose the idea that love means to love a person’s qualities because otherwise we would be loving every person simply because they are a person –they are there. If we love someone for their qualities, there are only a certain amount of people that share the same qualities and values as us.
If, in my twenty years, I have learned anything from watching cheesy, cliché, romantic movies, it’s the fact that we all believe there is someone out there for all of us.
Until next time…..
pelipuff
If we say we are in love with their qualities, then we call into question Derrida’s idea of love being narcissistic because often the qualities that we are attracted to are the same qualities we find within ourselves – whether it be humor, intelligence, beauty, etc. Narcissism is the failure to see a separation between the self and others. Everything that we see in others is just an extension of ourselves. We can use the example mentioned in class regarding a baby. Way back many years ago (for some of us), when we were all small babies, unable to communicate with the world, we had narcissistic tendencies. In our eyes, our mothers were an extension of us. When she would walk away, we just thought ourselves as being extended because of the fact that we could not separate the idea of self and other.
We can relate this idea of narcissism back to love because Derrida states “all love is about projecting our own needs and desires onto the other person.” Our own wants and qualities are the things we look for in a person – it’s what makes us attracted to that person. Take for example the idea of a “money maker.” If we feel as though we need a lavish lifestyle filled with money and material things, then we are going to love a person who makes a significant amount of money and lives in a wealthy lifestyle. Our desire to have these qualities is being projected onto someone we love or are looking to love.
Derrida’s ideas on love are interesting to consider because how often are we battling our opinions on whether or not we love someone. Do we love them because they exist or because there are qualities within this person that we see in ourselves and enjoy? I feel as though when we look at love, we often chose the idea that love means to love a person’s qualities because otherwise we would be loving every person simply because they are a person –they are there. If we love someone for their qualities, there are only a certain amount of people that share the same qualities and values as us.
If, in my twenty years, I have learned anything from watching cheesy, cliché, romantic movies, it’s the fact that we all believe there is someone out there for all of us.
Until next time…..
pelipuff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
