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
Friday, October 31, 2008
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
Wednesday, October 1, 2008
When a train became a train....
How many times have we come across a word or any form of language and wondered where its meaning came from? Or why we call the object that word in general? Well Saussure followed through with this idea and came up with an interesting theory - that "signs function not through their intrinsic value but by the relative position."
Take Saussure's/Barry's example of a train. As many Boston residents travel around the city, we often jump on the T to get to one place to another. But while you're waiting at the platform, have you ever wondered why the train is called a "train?" According to Barry, one can't base a "train" on physical characteristics simply for the fact that they can change. Clearly you can't base the train on the time when it leaves, considering they run each at different intervals. However, let's pretend for a minute that we wanted to travel to South Station but due to rail maintenance the green line is down and we must use the red line between Park Street and South Station. With Saussure, the train is given its identity/meaning by "its position in a structure of differences" (43) - because we only know the red line train since it runs through these two stops thus making its identity purely relational to the stops we need to travel to.
For me personally, post structuralism helps me understand this statement better because the relationship between the red line and these stops is stable. Neither one is anything without the other - Park Street would lack meaning if it wasn't for the fact that I can jump on the red line. Yet, according to the post structuralism theory, to define a train simply by two stops is completely unreliable because it wants to define and reveal the center. Structuralism allows us to give a train its meaning because we are its center. We hold the meaning.
Take Saussure's/Barry's example of a train. As many Boston residents travel around the city, we often jump on the T to get to one place to another. But while you're waiting at the platform, have you ever wondered why the train is called a "train?" According to Barry, one can't base a "train" on physical characteristics simply for the fact that they can change. Clearly you can't base the train on the time when it leaves, considering they run each at different intervals. However, let's pretend for a minute that we wanted to travel to South Station but due to rail maintenance the green line is down and we must use the red line between Park Street and South Station. With Saussure, the train is given its identity/meaning by "its position in a structure of differences" (43) - because we only know the red line train since it runs through these two stops thus making its identity purely relational to the stops we need to travel to.
For me personally, post structuralism helps me understand this statement better because the relationship between the red line and these stops is stable. Neither one is anything without the other - Park Street would lack meaning if it wasn't for the fact that I can jump on the red line. Yet, according to the post structuralism theory, to define a train simply by two stops is completely unreliable because it wants to define and reveal the center. Structuralism allows us to give a train its meaning because we are its center. We hold the meaning.
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Purchasing Marxist Ideology - Credit or Debit?
After reading Dr. Craig's blog post about Marxist theory, I feel that I was able to gain a better understanding of Marxism in general as well as the Marxist theory.
Who knew that one could walk into a seemingly innocent department store and suddenly be suckered into Marxist beliefs? Or so we think. I must say that I have to agree with Dr. Craig's idea that the Manifesto is not viewed the same way in today's capitalistic society. While the pants on display may tell of a revolution, however, its not the same revolution Marx wants us to partake in - communism. Instead it is a "fashion revolution" - a revolution that these pants will mark "a radical change" in our society. We'll call it, "Burgundy is the new Black!" Lost in this new change, are the ideas of balancing out the ruling class because when you look closely, you are actually helping the ruling class in some sweatshop out there.
The most interesting part of Dr. Craig's lecture was his sports analogy. How many times have we, either as students or as adults, on a fall Sunday afternoon invited a few friends over to relax and watch the "game of the week?" Pretty much all of us. Yet, how would you feel if you realized that your nice, relaxing day away from the office, still considers you to be "working?" With Dr. Craig's statement, "American ruling class ideology continuously spins narratives that attempt to limit the working class’s ability to recognize and respond to its own subjugation," we as a society, do not even recognize that we are being fooled by the ruling class. Our distraction is really a money maker for the ruling class, whom is earning a profit off each potato chip we eat, case of beer we buy, and advertisements we watch. Yet, even for those who do recognize this hegemonic power, we, as "workers in the low-wage" jobs continue to take the ideology of the ruling class as truth. We do nothing to change the situation - it just continues to happen.
Even with literature, we can easily become consumed and "distracted" by the plot of the book without truly understanding what the text is trying to tell say. In order to not become too distracted or sucked in - whether it be at a sports bar, a department store display, or even in a great piece of literature - one must truly look deeper and closer to the meaning that is revealed underneath the surface.
Until next time...
pelipuff
Who knew that one could walk into a seemingly innocent department store and suddenly be suckered into Marxist beliefs? Or so we think. I must say that I have to agree with Dr. Craig's idea that the Manifesto is not viewed the same way in today's capitalistic society. While the pants on display may tell of a revolution, however, its not the same revolution Marx wants us to partake in - communism. Instead it is a "fashion revolution" - a revolution that these pants will mark "a radical change" in our society. We'll call it, "Burgundy is the new Black!" Lost in this new change, are the ideas of balancing out the ruling class because when you look closely, you are actually helping the ruling class in some sweatshop out there.
The most interesting part of Dr. Craig's lecture was his sports analogy. How many times have we, either as students or as adults, on a fall Sunday afternoon invited a few friends over to relax and watch the "game of the week?" Pretty much all of us. Yet, how would you feel if you realized that your nice, relaxing day away from the office, still considers you to be "working?" With Dr. Craig's statement, "American ruling class ideology continuously spins narratives that attempt to limit the working class’s ability to recognize and respond to its own subjugation," we as a society, do not even recognize that we are being fooled by the ruling class. Our distraction is really a money maker for the ruling class, whom is earning a profit off each potato chip we eat, case of beer we buy, and advertisements we watch. Yet, even for those who do recognize this hegemonic power, we, as "workers in the low-wage" jobs continue to take the ideology of the ruling class as truth. We do nothing to change the situation - it just continues to happen.
Even with literature, we can easily become consumed and "distracted" by the plot of the book without truly understanding what the text is trying to tell say. In order to not become too distracted or sucked in - whether it be at a sports bar, a department store display, or even in a great piece of literature - one must truly look deeper and closer to the meaning that is revealed underneath the surface.
Until next time...
pelipuff
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Marxism vs. liberal humanism: Who wins?
Karl Marx - what a guy. To him, there was no such thing as class. Every single person was on the same playing field no matter where you techinically stood on the "economic ladder." But, while to some his theories about society may have been considered to be "genius", Marxist theory and liberal humanism seem to be at odds.
In one corner you have Marxist criticism - all power must be balanced, and wealth should be spread out rather than some having all of it.
In the other corner, awaiting patiently is liberal humanism - an idea that we read literature to futher understand the ideas of human nature, because it ".. transcends... " (Barry 17).
Round after round, theorists can duel debating the pros and cons of each form of criticism with no result in sight. So I took it upon my liberties to make a small contribution in the ongoing battle.
Engelsian marxism states that there is a freedom to writing whatever it is that you want to write -there does not need to be a direct relationship between the economic system and art/literature, only relatively. Literature does not necessarilly need to be connected to economics and social class when reading closely because "language of literature has its own characteristics procedures and effects" - never mind all this silly nonsense about class from the "ordinary language." (Barry 161) Liberal humanism sees it differently. It sees that language - more specifically "form and content" are placed together in a natural way because one "grows from another" (which would explain why when writing a paper, content and form are like two peas in a pod.. but I digress).
Yet, as I look at this from my own personal experience, the liberal humanism aspect is what sucks me into a book. All of the fluffy and descriptive language - regardless of the plot -help me enjoy the plot because it hides (temporarily) the ideas of the economic or political systems as I sit and ponder what is going to happen next to the main character of the story without thinking about how his character could change because of his social class standing, etc.
The bell has rung - this match/round is over.
Until next time....
pelipuff
In one corner you have Marxist criticism - all power must be balanced, and wealth should be spread out rather than some having all of it.
In the other corner, awaiting patiently is liberal humanism - an idea that we read literature to futher understand the ideas of human nature, because it ".. transcends... " (Barry 17).
Round after round, theorists can duel debating the pros and cons of each form of criticism with no result in sight. So I took it upon my liberties to make a small contribution in the ongoing battle.
Engelsian marxism states that there is a freedom to writing whatever it is that you want to write -there does not need to be a direct relationship between the economic system and art/literature, only relatively. Literature does not necessarilly need to be connected to economics and social class when reading closely because "language of literature has its own characteristics procedures and effects" - never mind all this silly nonsense about class from the "ordinary language." (Barry 161) Liberal humanism sees it differently. It sees that language - more specifically "form and content" are placed together in a natural way because one "grows from another" (which would explain why when writing a paper, content and form are like two peas in a pod.. but I digress).
Yet, as I look at this from my own personal experience, the liberal humanism aspect is what sucks me into a book. All of the fluffy and descriptive language - regardless of the plot -help me enjoy the plot because it hides (temporarily) the ideas of the economic or political systems as I sit and ponder what is going to happen next to the main character of the story without thinking about how his character could change because of his social class standing, etc.
The bell has rung - this match/round is over.
Until next time....
pelipuff
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
After all it's all about the wordplay...
It may be a surprise to many - especially in a world where cyberspace seems to be taking over - that this whole concept of blogging is fairly new to me. While I have "blogged" before, I am still working out the kinks.
This blog, specifically, comes courtesy of a Critical Theory class I am enrolled in - the next step in achieving a major in English. Now you may be asking, "If she is an English major, shouldn't she already know about theories?" Incorrect, dear readers. While previous major requirements have enlightened me on the various styles of theory, none of them have truly gone in depth into the concept of theory.
While it is only the second or third day of starting this class, I must admit that this class already has promise. Not promise in the sense that it was going to beat theory to death, but that it is engaging and approaches theory from an interesting perspective. Already my class has contributed points about differences between reading for a class in high school and in college. Clearly, we all decided that college allows students to truly grasp at what a book is trying to convey. Rather than just reading to complete the assignment, we all read to understand the "theory" behind it. What really makes the book tick.
When the winter starts showing is cold, frosty face in the city of Boston, and finals are doing loops in many students brains, I hope to be able to post back on this blog with a statement about how much I enjoyed taking this class and how better prepared I feel about choosing English as my future career path.
Until next time....
~Pelipuff
This blog, specifically, comes courtesy of a Critical Theory class I am enrolled in - the next step in achieving a major in English. Now you may be asking, "If she is an English major, shouldn't she already know about theories?" Incorrect, dear readers. While previous major requirements have enlightened me on the various styles of theory, none of them have truly gone in depth into the concept of theory.
While it is only the second or third day of starting this class, I must admit that this class already has promise. Not promise in the sense that it was going to beat theory to death, but that it is engaging and approaches theory from an interesting perspective. Already my class has contributed points about differences between reading for a class in high school and in college. Clearly, we all decided that college allows students to truly grasp at what a book is trying to convey. Rather than just reading to complete the assignment, we all read to understand the "theory" behind it. What really makes the book tick.
When the winter starts showing is cold, frosty face in the city of Boston, and finals are doing loops in many students brains, I hope to be able to post back on this blog with a statement about how much I enjoyed taking this class and how better prepared I feel about choosing English as my future career path.
Until next time....
~Pelipuff
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
