Analysis #7 (Ethnicity Studies and/or Post-Colonial Theory)
Said. Orientalism 1861
Edward Said was a very successful academic that wrote the “landmark” work called Orientalism. In this work “Said discusses how European and U.S. literary and cultural representations, academic disciplines, and public perceptions foster biases against non-Western peoples, casting them as oriental Others” (1861). This work is considered by many to be what starts the “field of postcolonial studies” (1861). Said’s “work focused on imperialism and the interplay between the dominant West (the ‘Occident’) and the Middle and Far East (the ‘Orient’) (1861).
Even though he has the West to thank for all his academic achievements with his works prominently displayed in College textbooks to be studied by thousands of students Said is perhaps bitter because he felt “out of place” (1862). Perhaps all the gifts he receives from the “Occident” were not enough. Perhaps he feels guilty for getting an education from the very best Western schools. Perhaps he felt more of an allegiance to the “Orient” that is his place of origin. Said spends much time in the West and observed the West’s “understandings of Arab culture” (1862). This observation brings about the work known as “Orientalism” that “voiced a strong dissent against pro-Israeli U.S. policies that operated at the expense of Arab peoples” (1862). Said seems to believe that, “Orientalism reveals more about the West and its fantasies than it does about the actual people, culture, and history of the East; not simply a myth, it is ‘more particularly valuable as a sign of European-Atlantic power over the Orient than it is as a veridic discourse about the Orient’” (1862, 1863). Shortly after this quote from Said’s biography in the textbook the race card is thrown as a possible explanation for the way some western scholars portray the East. It reads, “…Said’s analysis is a sharp warning to scholars and intellectuals, showing how scholarship is sometimes informed by rasism and how intellectuals have been complicit in the administration of imperial power” (1863).
To find out a different perspective of Said I looked on the internet:
“In 1980 Said criticized what he regarded as poor understanding of the Arab culture in the West” [2]:
“So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Moslems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists. Very little of the detail, the human density, the passion of Arab-Moslem life has entered the awareness of even those people whose profession it is to report the Arab world. What we have instead is a series of crude, essentialized caricatures of the Islamic world presented in such a way as to make that world vulnerable to military aggression.”[1]
Notice the date that this quote from Said is from. They year he says this is 1980.
On November 4, 1979, an angry mob of young Islamic revolutionaries overran the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, taking more than 60 Americans hostage. "From the moment the hostages were seized until they were released minutes after Ronald Reagan took the oath of office as president 444 days later," wrote historian Gaddis Smith, "the crisis absorbed more concentrated effort by American officials and had more extensive coverage on television and in the press than any other event since World War II." [3]
At this point I begin to wonder how our textbook could have ever described Said as someone with a “sense of homelessness” (1862). The textbook informs the reader that “this sense of homelessness defined for him the proper stance of the intellectual, who should remain independent of fixed theoretical, disciplinary, professional, and national loyalties, yet always be attentive to social injustices and what he calls the “brute reality” of history” (1862).
Do Said’s words from "Islam Through Western Eyes," sound like the words of an objective intellectual? Perhaps he strongly supports a particular side, for his argument defends one perspective (Islam) while blaming another for it’s negative over exposure (mass media, and America).
Online there is a picture of Said throwing a rock at Israeli guards near the border fence. Is this the image of a man “independent” of “national loyalties”? Is this how a "professional" should behave while being “attentive to social injustices” (1862)?
I agree with Said’s belief that there are Western scholars that feel superior to the East, but I also believe there are Eastern scholars that feel superior to the West. Perhaps if Said had asked people from the East if they think that their culture is superior to the West he may be surprised as to how many Easterners would say “yes”. Perhaps then he could have written something not so one sided, or perhaps that was never his intention.
The Middle East has become very wealthy and should be thankful that they possess such an important resource. Said should wonder what the middle east would have been like without it. Said thinks very little of the West for I re-enter a portion from a quote used earlier in this analysis: “So far as the United States seems to be concerned, it is only a slight overstatement to say that Moslems and Arabs are essentially seen as either oil suppliers or potential terrorists” [1] I could not find any quote of what Said believes the Muslims and Arabs think of America. Said seems to have saved his voice for only making derogatory comments about the West. Said seems to believe that the West is so simple minded, and heartless that they look at Muslims not as people, but as terrorists with oil. Does this not make his entire essay a junket of hypocritical thought wrapped in a very small box painted red, white and, blue with a sloppy hand and very broad strokes?
When there is major social injustice (Kosovo, Kuwait, Iraq, Germany) America is there to help. When there is a natural disaster anywhere on the globe, America is there to help (Haiti earthquake, Pakistan floods). I have not seen these elements incorporated into the textbook and students are not taught of America’s good works. Why this is so, one can only speculate.
Definitions:
Imperialism – The policy of extending a nation’s authority by economic and political means over other nations.
Works Cited
[1] Edward W. Said, "Islam Through Western Eyes," The Nation April 26, 1980, first
posted online January 1, 1998, accessed December 5, 2005.
http://www.ghazali.net/archives2008/html/islam_through_western_eyes.html
[2] http://www.bookrags.com/wiki/Edward_Said
[3] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/general-article/carter-hostage-crisis/
Edward W. Said. "Orientalism". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
The American Heritage Dictionary. Fourth Edition. Bantam Dell. New York. New York. 2001
Monday, May 16, 2011
Analysis 6: Feminism and Barbarella workin 9 to 5
Feminism
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar: The Madwoman in the Attic (1979)
To read this can make an American man in today’s American society feel attacked for something he does not believe of women in literature. I generally do not choose a book based on whether it is written by a man or woman. This takes the term “judging a book by its cover” to a new level of “judging a book by its gender”. Perhaps, this would have been a better title than, “The Madwoman in the Attic”. According to Gilbert and Gubar I guess I couldn’t help but to come up with a better title for their article being that I am a man and all.
The year 1979 was a different time. The film 9 to 5 starring Dolly Parton, Lilly Tomlin, and Jane Fonda released a year after “The Madwoman in the Attic” was written. This movie is a feminism film manifesto that brings to light sexism in the American workplace. Ten years earlier, in 1968, Jane Fonda stars in Barbarella, a movie that is the true embodiment of what feminists seem to hate. To preview this movie go to: (http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1265106969/).
Gilbert and Gubars article expresses outrage directed toward the history of western literature and its “patriarchal” views. They seem to have difficulty understanding how this happened and why. They are not looking at this history scientifically and they seem to wonder, “Who put men in charge?” The question can also be asked in history, “Why didn’t woman take charge?” Perhaps it was social order that worked at the time. I am happy to see women’s dramatic progress in the western world. Women and men have always been mentally equal, but not equally educated. In America men and women have an almost equal standing. I believe this is because the west is much more technological than it was in the eighteen hundreds. Even in the early nineteen-seventies the world was still a bit technologically deficient. I believe that in today’s world there are more women graduating from college this year than men and I think that’s great!
Gilbert and Gubars article points out with a hint of unfair disgust that, “Western literary history is overwhelmingly male---or, more accurately, (here’s that word again) patriarchal” (1928). They then suggest that this fact has been ignored by many theorists because, “one supposes...they assumed literature had to be male” (1928). This is a good example of perhaps how the author feels, for the “one” in that statement may be the authors expressing their broad brush emotion towards men. The reason it has not been the focal point of most theorist could simply be that they have other things that interest them more.
Gilbert and Gubars then ask a question, “Where does a woman writer ‘fit in’ to the overwhelmingly and essentially male literary history Bloom describes?” (1928). They answer their own question and pronounce a glorious discovery, “that a woman writer does not ‘fit in’” (1928). They then pronounce their opinion in a factual way about how a female writer is viewed by this patriarchal society as, “a freakish outsider” (1928).
The article continues and unleashes sentences the length of long paragraphs forcing the reader to take in two or even three deep breaths to voice the complexity of long trains of thought while attempting to grasp its full meaning.
The article ends with these words of wisdom, “…we must begin by redefining Bloom’s seminal definitions of the revisionary ‘anxiety of influence.’ In doing so, we will have to trace the difficult paths by which nineteenth-century women overcame their ‘anxiety of authorship,’ repudiated debilitating patriarchal prescriptions, and recovered or remembered the lost foremothers who could help them find their distinctive female power” (1938).
Isn’t this self-absorbed way of thinking what they seem to hate about patriarchal society? This almost sounds like a war cry for women to unite and focus no more on literature written by men, for they had their turn. I imagine the authors saying, “Now it’s our turn! You are not a freakish outsider! You are a woman with thoughts that need to be heard!” This is true. Women, of course, should be heard. I never thought any different. The authors seem to assume that all men think this way, and that is why I take my sarcastic pokes at the article.
The authors state that, “Her battle, however, is not against her (male) precursor’s reading of the world but against his reading of her. In order to define herself as an author she must redefine the terms of her socialization” (1929, 1930). This seems to suggest that man has defined women and this has not been an accurate description nor credit her full ability. From my perspective I have seen strong women denigrated relentlessly by other women. In the job world I have had female bosses, and in the lunch room I heard the women of the office comment every day on what she wore. They would mimic her and any little thing she said to delegate the job was considered “bossy” by them. I have seen many examples in my life in which women in a group will tear down another that attempts to take charge. I’m sure this does not happen all the time, or even most of the time, but it happens, a lot. Before women can “redefine the terms of her socialization” I think they should respect each other’s goals, or at the very least try to like each other.
Works Cited
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar. "The Madwoman in the Attic". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar: The Madwoman in the Attic (1979)
To read this can make an American man in today’s American society feel attacked for something he does not believe of women in literature. I generally do not choose a book based on whether it is written by a man or woman. This takes the term “judging a book by its cover” to a new level of “judging a book by its gender”. Perhaps, this would have been a better title than, “The Madwoman in the Attic”. According to Gilbert and Gubar I guess I couldn’t help but to come up with a better title for their article being that I am a man and all.
The year 1979 was a different time. The film 9 to 5 starring Dolly Parton, Lilly Tomlin, and Jane Fonda released a year after “The Madwoman in the Attic” was written. This movie is a feminism film manifesto that brings to light sexism in the American workplace. Ten years earlier, in 1968, Jane Fonda stars in Barbarella, a movie that is the true embodiment of what feminists seem to hate. To preview this movie go to: (http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi1265106969/).
Gilbert and Gubars article expresses outrage directed toward the history of western literature and its “patriarchal” views. They seem to have difficulty understanding how this happened and why. They are not looking at this history scientifically and they seem to wonder, “Who put men in charge?” The question can also be asked in history, “Why didn’t woman take charge?” Perhaps it was social order that worked at the time. I am happy to see women’s dramatic progress in the western world. Women and men have always been mentally equal, but not equally educated. In America men and women have an almost equal standing. I believe this is because the west is much more technological than it was in the eighteen hundreds. Even in the early nineteen-seventies the world was still a bit technologically deficient. I believe that in today’s world there are more women graduating from college this year than men and I think that’s great!
Gilbert and Gubars article points out with a hint of unfair disgust that, “Western literary history is overwhelmingly male---or, more accurately, (here’s that word again) patriarchal” (1928). They then suggest that this fact has been ignored by many theorists because, “one supposes...they assumed literature had to be male” (1928). This is a good example of perhaps how the author feels, for the “one” in that statement may be the authors expressing their broad brush emotion towards men. The reason it has not been the focal point of most theorist could simply be that they have other things that interest them more.
Gilbert and Gubars then ask a question, “Where does a woman writer ‘fit in’ to the overwhelmingly and essentially male literary history Bloom describes?” (1928). They answer their own question and pronounce a glorious discovery, “that a woman writer does not ‘fit in’” (1928). They then pronounce their opinion in a factual way about how a female writer is viewed by this patriarchal society as, “a freakish outsider” (1928).
The article continues and unleashes sentences the length of long paragraphs forcing the reader to take in two or even three deep breaths to voice the complexity of long trains of thought while attempting to grasp its full meaning.
The article ends with these words of wisdom, “…we must begin by redefining Bloom’s seminal definitions of the revisionary ‘anxiety of influence.’ In doing so, we will have to trace the difficult paths by which nineteenth-century women overcame their ‘anxiety of authorship,’ repudiated debilitating patriarchal prescriptions, and recovered or remembered the lost foremothers who could help them find their distinctive female power” (1938).
Isn’t this self-absorbed way of thinking what they seem to hate about patriarchal society? This almost sounds like a war cry for women to unite and focus no more on literature written by men, for they had their turn. I imagine the authors saying, “Now it’s our turn! You are not a freakish outsider! You are a woman with thoughts that need to be heard!” This is true. Women, of course, should be heard. I never thought any different. The authors seem to assume that all men think this way, and that is why I take my sarcastic pokes at the article.
The authors state that, “Her battle, however, is not against her (male) precursor’s reading of the world but against his reading of her. In order to define herself as an author she must redefine the terms of her socialization” (1929, 1930). This seems to suggest that man has defined women and this has not been an accurate description nor credit her full ability. From my perspective I have seen strong women denigrated relentlessly by other women. In the job world I have had female bosses, and in the lunch room I heard the women of the office comment every day on what she wore. They would mimic her and any little thing she said to delegate the job was considered “bossy” by them. I have seen many examples in my life in which women in a group will tear down another that attempts to take charge. I’m sure this does not happen all the time, or even most of the time, but it happens, a lot. Before women can “redefine the terms of her socialization” I think they should respect each other’s goals, or at the very least try to like each other.
Works Cited
Sandra M. Gilbert and Susan Gubar. "The Madwoman in the Attic". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Analysis 5: Three debates on the term postmodern
Analysis #5 Lyotard
In Defining the Postmodern Jean-Francois Lyotard discusses three debates on the term post-modern.
The first debate is about architecture (1466)
The Second discusses “the idea of progress” (1467)
The third is “expressions of thought” (1468)
The Second discusses “the idea of progress” makes a few interesting points that caught my thoughts and left me thinking. One of the points made here is that which states that “liberals, conservatives, and leftists” have disagreed about almost everything, “but the parties concurred in the same belief that enterprises, discoveries and institutions are legitimate only insofar as they contribute to the emancipation of mankind” (1467).
This is a very confusing and vague statement. It seems as though all the talking heads agree that progress through enterprises, discoveries, and institutions is good as long as it “emancipates” or “frees” mankind “from restraint, control, or the power of another”. I find it very difficult to believe that “liberals, conservatives, and leftists” want mankind to be “emancipated” because all that these groups ever want to do is restrain, control, and hold power over mankind. It’s like saying, “We can free you, but you must always do what we say”. The only thing that I believe they agree on is that they think that they know what is best for everyone. When they say that they want mankind emancipated, what do they want us to be emancipated from? Our subtle flaws make each of us different? Our beliefs? Our personal faiths? Our political incorrectness for only they know what is acceptable? Are they not the ones that are determined to control and plan each step into the future? Liberals and Leftist seem to hide behind a false heart of freedom that cloaks their true intention for control as they plead with humanity to join them in their “Cartesianism” world view determined to “break from the past by starting from a radical doubting of all received truths (1466). The only way to tear down this great nation is to overwhelm the system with half-truths, and right out lies. The Leftists and Liberals gain control as they over-react to everything with pretend offence waiting for any reason they can to reach for that race card (the perfect weapon to end a debate). Conservatives want to keep things like a black and white sitcom from the 1950’s and follow a very strict path as to what they see as moral, normal, and just. Strict Conservatives stagnant view of humanity leaves us in a two dimensional black and white series, for color is considered to risqué. If left to their own conservative devises mankind may resemble the lifestyles of the Puritans. We need conservatives to lighten up, leftist to shut up, and liberals to calm down. They need to find balance, but they are too radically different. The pendulum may swing back and forth but the only way to stop it is to center. What humanity needs is to always be slightly confused for confusion leads to questions, and questions lead to answers.
Definitions
Emancipate
1: to free from restraint, control, or the power of another; especially: to free from bondage < emancipated the slaves>
2: to release from the care, responsibility, and control of one's parents
Works Cited
http://dictionary.reference.com/
Jean-Francois Lyotard. "Defining the Postmodern". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
In Defining the Postmodern Jean-Francois Lyotard discusses three debates on the term post-modern.
The first debate is about architecture (1466)
The Second discusses “the idea of progress” (1467)
The third is “expressions of thought” (1468)
The Second discusses “the idea of progress” makes a few interesting points that caught my thoughts and left me thinking. One of the points made here is that which states that “liberals, conservatives, and leftists” have disagreed about almost everything, “but the parties concurred in the same belief that enterprises, discoveries and institutions are legitimate only insofar as they contribute to the emancipation of mankind” (1467).
This is a very confusing and vague statement. It seems as though all the talking heads agree that progress through enterprises, discoveries, and institutions is good as long as it “emancipates” or “frees” mankind “from restraint, control, or the power of another”. I find it very difficult to believe that “liberals, conservatives, and leftists” want mankind to be “emancipated” because all that these groups ever want to do is restrain, control, and hold power over mankind. It’s like saying, “We can free you, but you must always do what we say”. The only thing that I believe they agree on is that they think that they know what is best for everyone. When they say that they want mankind emancipated, what do they want us to be emancipated from? Our subtle flaws make each of us different? Our beliefs? Our personal faiths? Our political incorrectness for only they know what is acceptable? Are they not the ones that are determined to control and plan each step into the future? Liberals and Leftist seem to hide behind a false heart of freedom that cloaks their true intention for control as they plead with humanity to join them in their “Cartesianism” world view determined to “break from the past by starting from a radical doubting of all received truths (1466). The only way to tear down this great nation is to overwhelm the system with half-truths, and right out lies. The Leftists and Liberals gain control as they over-react to everything with pretend offence waiting for any reason they can to reach for that race card (the perfect weapon to end a debate). Conservatives want to keep things like a black and white sitcom from the 1950’s and follow a very strict path as to what they see as moral, normal, and just. Strict Conservatives stagnant view of humanity leaves us in a two dimensional black and white series, for color is considered to risqué. If left to their own conservative devises mankind may resemble the lifestyles of the Puritans. We need conservatives to lighten up, leftist to shut up, and liberals to calm down. They need to find balance, but they are too radically different. The pendulum may swing back and forth but the only way to stop it is to center. What humanity needs is to always be slightly confused for confusion leads to questions, and questions lead to answers.
Definitions
Emancipate
1: to free from restraint, control, or the power of another; especially: to free from bondage < emancipated the slaves>
2: to release from the care, responsibility, and control of one's parents
Works Cited
http://dictionary.reference.com/
Jean-Francois Lyotard. "Defining the Postmodern". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
Analysis 4: Perhaps X Marx the wrong spot
Definition of CAPITALISM
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by INVESTMENTS that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private PROPERTY b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
“Capitalism has no remedy for the worst social and economic problems that it creates and that will eventually rend it asunder” (649).
“Marx is certain that capitalism will end, and why: but no one can know exactly what the roles of intellectuals and critics will be, and what the new society will look like, until the force of historical necessity brings them into being” (649).
We know what a (almost) free Capitalist society looks like, as Americans we are living it firsthand. Capitalism does have its flaws, nothing is perfect. One of the main objectives of the Socialist in our society is to intensely magnify these flaws, and pluck at the heartstrings of those that are unsatisfied with the imperfect world in which they live. The socialist mantra of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds” sound so poetic, mysterious, and glorious like the sirens of the shore beckoning ships to come closer. We know what happens then. Marxism (or Socialism) is very clever with its deception, and art of distraction. It infests society, strangles freedom, kills dreams and claims people need guidance, not from God but from government.
See Quote above: “Marx is certain that capitalism will end, and why: but no one can know exactly what the roles of intellectuals and critics will be, and what the new society will look like, until the force of historical necessity brings them into being” (649).
Does this suggest that Socialism is inevitable once Capitalism has dissolved into the folds of history? Is this a warning that other possibilities are waiting on the wings, and society must be ready to run to Socialisms warm loving embrace? The quote says that “no one can know exactly what the roles of intellectuals and critics will be, and what the new society will look like…” (649). Perhaps I could propose a guess that the role of all “intellectuals and critics” that oppose socialism in a socialist society would be imprisonment or death. As for what society would look like I can only go by Socialist societies examples that have or still exist today. It seems as though all the societies I can think of that aim for the “gift” of Socialism overstep the mark (or Marx) and fall into Communism.
“While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism", the two are not the same - communism is an extreme form of socialism.”
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Socialism is most successful in small amounts but society must strictly adhere to the prescribed amount. America has some Socialism, intertwined into its free, capitalist society. Like its more successful brother Capitalism, Socialism wants more power. To do so it must weaken Capitalism by magnifying its flaws. They must spread these flaws and press the case for Social reform by taking over Schools, and News agencies. It must claim it is for “the children” or for our own good for we are not capable of handling our own freedom. Socialism knows people need to believe in a higher power. That slot is generally filled by God. It seems as though Socialists want that higher power slot to be filled not by God, but by government. They seem to magnify all the flaws with religion and its messengers. They make it seem foolish to believe in such things. The word of God quiets and the mouth of Government become large.
Although I disagree with the want for a Socialist society, I can understand it in very small doses. I love freedom. To do whatever I want to do with my life, over many hurdles of obstacles, and over each one a measurement of success. Life is not perfect there will always be flaws. Socialism is happy to point out the flaws of life to offer its lie of perfection. Every attempt made for a Socialist society seems to fall into communism and that’s simply a world in which I dread for our future.
If anything this subject really got me thinking. Many will agree with me, while others say, “prove it”. I would not ask the same to a Socialist, because I think what that will lead to is not the perfect world offered by Socialism, but to the restricted harsh world of Communism instead.
Works Cited
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. "From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by INVESTMENTS that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Definition of SOCIALISM
1
: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2
a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private PROPERTY b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3
: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
“Capitalism has no remedy for the worst social and economic problems that it creates and that will eventually rend it asunder” (649).
“Marx is certain that capitalism will end, and why: but no one can know exactly what the roles of intellectuals and critics will be, and what the new society will look like, until the force of historical necessity brings them into being” (649).
We know what a (almost) free Capitalist society looks like, as Americans we are living it firsthand. Capitalism does have its flaws, nothing is perfect. One of the main objectives of the Socialist in our society is to intensely magnify these flaws, and pluck at the heartstrings of those that are unsatisfied with the imperfect world in which they live. The socialist mantra of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds” sound so poetic, mysterious, and glorious like the sirens of the shore beckoning ships to come closer. We know what happens then. Marxism (or Socialism) is very clever with its deception, and art of distraction. It infests society, strangles freedom, kills dreams and claims people need guidance, not from God but from government.
See Quote above: “Marx is certain that capitalism will end, and why: but no one can know exactly what the roles of intellectuals and critics will be, and what the new society will look like, until the force of historical necessity brings them into being” (649).
Does this suggest that Socialism is inevitable once Capitalism has dissolved into the folds of history? Is this a warning that other possibilities are waiting on the wings, and society must be ready to run to Socialisms warm loving embrace? The quote says that “no one can know exactly what the roles of intellectuals and critics will be, and what the new society will look like…” (649). Perhaps I could propose a guess that the role of all “intellectuals and critics” that oppose socialism in a socialist society would be imprisonment or death. As for what society would look like I can only go by Socialist societies examples that have or still exist today. It seems as though all the societies I can think of that aim for the “gift” of Socialism overstep the mark (or Marx) and fall into Communism.
“While the word "socialism" is sometimes used interchangeably with "communism", the two are not the same - communism is an extreme form of socialism.”
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Socialism is most successful in small amounts but society must strictly adhere to the prescribed amount. America has some Socialism, intertwined into its free, capitalist society. Like its more successful brother Capitalism, Socialism wants more power. To do so it must weaken Capitalism by magnifying its flaws. They must spread these flaws and press the case for Social reform by taking over Schools, and News agencies. It must claim it is for “the children” or for our own good for we are not capable of handling our own freedom. Socialism knows people need to believe in a higher power. That slot is generally filled by God. It seems as though Socialists want that higher power slot to be filled not by God, but by government. They seem to magnify all the flaws with religion and its messengers. They make it seem foolish to believe in such things. The word of God quiets and the mouth of Government become large.
Although I disagree with the want for a Socialist society, I can understand it in very small doses. I love freedom. To do whatever I want to do with my life, over many hurdles of obstacles, and over each one a measurement of success. Life is not perfect there will always be flaws. Socialism is happy to point out the flaws of life to offer its lie of perfection. Every attempt made for a Socialist society seems to fall into communism and that’s simply a world in which I dread for our future.
If anything this subject really got me thinking. Many will agree with me, while others say, “prove it”. I would not ask the same to a Socialist, because I think what that will lead to is not the perfect world offered by Socialism, but to the restricted harsh world of Communism instead.
Works Cited
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Capitalism_vs_Socialism
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/capitalism
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. "From Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Friday, March 25, 2011
Analysis 3: Phenomenology, Reader-Response Theory, or Psychoanalysis
Sir Sigmund Freud-Wexler III
Phenomenology, Reader-Response Theory, or Psychoanalysis
This was the topic of our group presentation. I had a lot of fun creating visually creative presentation from PowerPoint. Each from the group took one or two topics from the list of subjects and made it their own. Each was assigned to create what they believe to be a fun and interactive experience for the class to enjoy. There were many subjects to cover and we thought this to be the best way to cover each of them thoroughly. The presentation date was coming quickly and none of us were able to get together at one time. I attempted to take the reins and reel everyone in so that we could have a cohesive demonstration. This was a very difficult task. Many were difficult to reach through e-mail, and others sent their portions last minute. Some were quick to respond.
I think perhaps there were too many people in one group, and too many topics to cover for one presentation to remain effective, fun, and interesting. I would have preferred to have the group split in half. One to cover Freud, and Lacan. The other to cover Phenomenology, Reader-Response Theory. Groups of three are much easier to manage and perhaps we could have acted more like one group instead of one in a group. To have only three in the group would have allowed me to help them create one single PowerPoint that flowed smoothly. We could have easily coordinated a meeting time to work on our performance. I was glad we were able to pull together in the end, but at times it felt like I was pulling teeth.
I created a PowerPoint presentation that covered Freud's interpretation of dreams, and the story of Oedipus Rex. The class responded very positively to my work and I think they were very impressed with the visual effects, storyline, and interactive experience with the picture puzzle. I would have spent more time with the interactive portions of my presentation, but in the interest of time, and knowing that I was the first of six, I needed to speed up a bit. They seemed to have fun and responded quickly with the answer to the picture puzzle. The quick response tells me that the class was paying attention, and appeared very alert to my questioning. There were also outbursts of laughter which fueled my performance and let me know that I was doing a good job. I had a lot of fun telling the story of Oedipus Rex as well. The changing images kept the student's eyes up front and excited with each changing image. I used pop culture icons to convey the story, and portray the characters of Oedipus Rex.
I finished with an interactive segment and asked the class to interpret a dream image. First by looking at the image as a composition, and then to look at it again but this time as a picture puzzle. I then explained that by looking at both the manifest dream-content and the dream-thoughts we can disentangle the meaning of the dream.
Answer: A Hero’s Welcome
Reflection 4: Saussure, Signifiers, and Sauce
Ferdinand De Saussure was a very complex thinker and "gave birth to structuralism by means of a book he never wrote" (845). After Saussure's death in 1913 his colleagues discovered Saussure's class notes and compiled them into what is now known as "The Course in General Linguistics" (845).
From the readings an attempt is made to find the truest meaning for language.
"Language is a storehouse of sound-images, and writing is the tangible form of those images" (850).
"Language is a system of signs that express ideas"(851).
"The words of our language" are thought of like "sound-images"(853). These sound images are linked to a "concept". "The two elements are intimately united, and each recalls the other" (853). A good example of this is the word "pencil". When one reads the word "pencil" their mind should have created an image of a pencil. Some may have pictured a mechanical pencil (and if you hadn’t you just did) or perhaps a wooden pencil. More sound images can be aligned with its related concept to create very detailed imagery to the point of being almost identical. The same is to go the opposite way. If someone held up a pencil in front of you and told you to write down what you see in their hand, you would write the word "pencil". In a room of thirty English as a first language people asked the same question they would most likely write the word "pencil" as well.
We were given different articles from a magazine in class this day, and were told to write down what you see. Professor Wexler then went around the class and held up articles to see if there is a common description of the message that the ads were attempting to portray. The class had a lot of fun interpretation the message of the ads. We could have done this for an entire class. My ad was a boy holing a jar that once held tomato sauce, but now held a grass hopper. His eyes were very excited about his discovery of this new creature as he held it up for the picture. Parents sometimes have difficulty feeding their kids nutritious things, but the ad suggests just the opposite will happen if this sauce is on their plates.
Works Cited
Ferdinand De Saussure. "Course in General Linguistics". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
From the readings an attempt is made to find the truest meaning for language.
"Language is a storehouse of sound-images, and writing is the tangible form of those images" (850).
"Language is a system of signs that express ideas"(851).
"The words of our language" are thought of like "sound-images"(853). These sound images are linked to a "concept". "The two elements are intimately united, and each recalls the other" (853). A good example of this is the word "pencil". When one reads the word "pencil" their mind should have created an image of a pencil. Some may have pictured a mechanical pencil (and if you hadn’t you just did) or perhaps a wooden pencil. More sound images can be aligned with its related concept to create very detailed imagery to the point of being almost identical. The same is to go the opposite way. If someone held up a pencil in front of you and told you to write down what you see in their hand, you would write the word "pencil". In a room of thirty English as a first language people asked the same question they would most likely write the word "pencil" as well.
We were given different articles from a magazine in class this day, and were told to write down what you see. Professor Wexler then went around the class and held up articles to see if there is a common description of the message that the ads were attempting to portray. The class had a lot of fun interpretation the message of the ads. We could have done this for an entire class. My ad was a boy holing a jar that once held tomato sauce, but now held a grass hopper. His eyes were very excited about his discovery of this new creature as he held it up for the picture. Parents sometimes have difficulty feeding their kids nutritious things, but the ad suggests just the opposite will happen if this sauce is on their plates.
Works Cited
Ferdinand De Saussure. "Course in General Linguistics". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Relection 3: From Longinus, to Kant, please enlighten me.
First group presentation was very interesting and demonstrated a number of videos that each in the group had chosen as their example of what sublime meant to them.
The dictionary’s definition of sublime is:
Sublime – 1. Of high spiritual, moral, or intellectual worth 2. Inspiring awe; impressive
What may seem sublime to one may be subliminal to another for to be truly sublime it must create universal emotional reaction of absolute inspiration. The differences in the videos selected suggest that none from the group were able to pinpoint such a rarity as this. This difference also suggests that one’s perception of the sublime is based on personal preferences and opinion. A few of the video’s shown did have the same subject matter that covered a sports event. Also all from the group were male. All three sports videos were chosen by young men in their early twenties. Two others from the group chose something pertaining to battle. The last in the group was male, but he was much older than the others in the group. He chose an inspirational speech by “James Farmer” as his best offering for what is sublime. He really seemed to look at this speech as a point that perfectly embodies the meaning of the sublime. I found a hint of the sublime not so much from the speech, but more so by observing him watching the speech. His eyes were filled with powerful emotion. He would look out to the class searching for one that shared his emotional connection so deeply moved by the power of what was unfolding upon the screen before us. I don’t believe his scanning eyes found a match. This perhaps made this moment lean a bit further towards a sublime example not because of what was being presented on the screen, but instead by what was going on with the class and the student searching for one that understands and shares that feeling in the moment. Perhaps we will never agree to what is truly sublime but we can agree there are levels in between.
“Sublimity, on the other hand , produced at the right moment, tears everything up like a whirlwind, and exhibits the orators’ whole power at a single blow” (137).
“Greatness, the argument runs, is a natural product, and does not come by teaching” (137).
These two quotes develop a clearer picture in my mind that help me to recognize that chasing after something truly sublime may never be captured.
Works Cited
Longinus. "On Sublimity". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
The dictionary’s definition of sublime is:
Sublime – 1. Of high spiritual, moral, or intellectual worth 2. Inspiring awe; impressive
What may seem sublime to one may be subliminal to another for to be truly sublime it must create universal emotional reaction of absolute inspiration. The differences in the videos selected suggest that none from the group were able to pinpoint such a rarity as this. This difference also suggests that one’s perception of the sublime is based on personal preferences and opinion. A few of the video’s shown did have the same subject matter that covered a sports event. Also all from the group were male. All three sports videos were chosen by young men in their early twenties. Two others from the group chose something pertaining to battle. The last in the group was male, but he was much older than the others in the group. He chose an inspirational speech by “James Farmer” as his best offering for what is sublime. He really seemed to look at this speech as a point that perfectly embodies the meaning of the sublime. I found a hint of the sublime not so much from the speech, but more so by observing him watching the speech. His eyes were filled with powerful emotion. He would look out to the class searching for one that shared his emotional connection so deeply moved by the power of what was unfolding upon the screen before us. I don’t believe his scanning eyes found a match. This perhaps made this moment lean a bit further towards a sublime example not because of what was being presented on the screen, but instead by what was going on with the class and the student searching for one that understands and shares that feeling in the moment. Perhaps we will never agree to what is truly sublime but we can agree there are levels in between.
“Sublimity, on the other hand , produced at the right moment, tears everything up like a whirlwind, and exhibits the orators’ whole power at a single blow” (137).
“Greatness, the argument runs, is a natural product, and does not come by teaching” (137).
These two quotes develop a clearer picture in my mind that help me to recognize that chasing after something truly sublime may never be captured.
Works Cited
Longinus. "On Sublimity". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Analysis 2: Word Picture: Divide, Categorize, and Conquer
This painting is called “The Raft of the Medusa” by the artist Theodore Gericault. It does not portray a lighthearted moment in history as my brief narrative depicts. This painting is of the image of a shipwreck of a “navel frigate” called “Meduse”. It “ran aground” and the people on board quickly constructed a raft from parts of the broken hull of the ship. More than one hundred people died. Some died slower than others. These were the ones that drifted about the sea for weeks, with no food or water to sustain them. Madness set in as well as cannibalism of the dead.
To analyze this painting through the view of structuralism a common thread can be used to stitch a clear story. Almost anyone in the world can recognize from this painting that something has gone horribly wrong. By viewing this painting through the eyes of structuralism one can recognize and categorize the “underlying basic plot” of what is occurring in the painting. A structuralism view can also characterize each individual on the raft by studying their expressions and body language. It can also observe the portrayal of nature depicted in the painting and recognize the ruff sea that steals away all control from the helpless adrift on the fragmented vessel.
By using structuralism one can also begin to understand the artists thought process. Gericault must have been inspired to create such a masterpiece. He did not simply walk out of “a cave” somewhere, pick up a brush and paint this image from fathomless thought. There is a list of steps that can be created through structuralism to explain what brought about such an insightful deep clear vision that is now captured in the brushstrokes of genius.
A shortlist would perhaps look like this:
To analyze this painting through the view of structuralism a common thread can be used to stitch a clear story. Almost anyone in the world can recognize from this painting that something has gone horribly wrong. By viewing this painting through the eyes of structuralism one can recognize and categorize the “underlying basic plot” of what is occurring in the painting. A structuralism view can also characterize each individual on the raft by studying their expressions and body language. It can also observe the portrayal of nature depicted in the painting and recognize the ruff sea that steals away all control from the helpless adrift on the fragmented vessel.
By using structuralism one can also begin to understand the artists thought process. Gericault must have been inspired to create such a masterpiece. He did not simply walk out of “a cave” somewhere, pick up a brush and paint this image from fathomless thought. There is a list of steps that can be created through structuralism to explain what brought about such an insightful deep clear vision that is now captured in the brushstrokes of genius.
A shortlist would perhaps look like this:
Knowing Gericault’s history:
Brief account of his life story may explain his career and interests
Why he chose this subject to paint:
Why he chose this subject to paint:
Perhaps he thought this was a big story that could help his career (wiki)
The lengths he took to understand the story to depict it in a factual manner:
Interviews survivors (wiki)
The models he used for the painting:
His friends and fellow artists modeled for the painting (wiki)
Creating such lists by narrowing down basic plots, creating categories, and recognizing patterns helps one to understand. Structuralism is a powerful source to utilize when engaging the complex.
Divide, Categorize, and Conquer
Works Cited
Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Raft_of_the_Medusa
Reflection 3: Greed Good, Morally Challenged Bad
Reflection 3
Today we had a guest speaker named Professor O’Neil. He is a very interesting personality, and he is a great example in himself with the subject matter for which he pertains. He spoke to us about the Greeks, and their pursuit of perfect persuasion. He told us that most Athenians could read and write and this helped to enhance their power of speech in the public arena. He told us that the Acropolis broke the bank in this land that was 95% agriculture. This was a polis or “city state” and they lived in an urban environment surrounded by farmland. The Greeks were very competitive and they thought very highly of themselves. They prided themselves and judged people by their physical and mental capabilities.
The professor then talked about rhetoric and to be good rhetoric it had to be memorable and appealing. To better themselves they would hire a sophist to teach them the art of rhetoric and speech. He said that there are basically two types of argument. These are the epagoge and dialectic arguments.
Epagoge (induction)
Example: If every time a student drank an energy drink they fall over. Then they should not drink it!
Dialectic (syllogism) Declarative sentence, subject predicate, true or false
Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
After the lecture we reassembled at the classroom. Professor Wexler showed us a clip from the movie “Wallstreet” and Michael Douglas’ character explains how greed is good. The class was asked to try to create a dialectic argument to prove that greed is good. I thought about this for some time that night. I thought about it on the long drive home. I came up with the following:
The characteristic of greed has been demonized by many as a shameful way to behave in society. They have no gratitude for the advancements it has helped to achieve and they blame it for all that have fallen in the race. All creatures possess the greed gene for without it they would fall. If a lion ignores its inner greed the lion is last to the kill and therefore receives only scraps. The scraps may sustain the lion but it will grow weaker as others grow stronger. The stronger lions have cubs that utilize their greed to get as much of the kill as possible and the lion that ignores his greed gets even less scraps then before. Soon there are no scraps left for the lion that has ignored his greed. The lion has failed to support his existence and starves.
Every advancement in human society has greed to thank for it.
Greed is just another word for motivation.
Society cannot advance without motivation.
Advancements in society are good, therefore greed is good.
When greed is utilized by those with no moral compass many blame greed for the outcome. Perhaps greed should not take the blame but instead the blame should be focused on those that lack a moral compass.
Today we had a guest speaker named Professor O’Neil. He is a very interesting personality, and he is a great example in himself with the subject matter for which he pertains. He spoke to us about the Greeks, and their pursuit of perfect persuasion. He told us that most Athenians could read and write and this helped to enhance their power of speech in the public arena. He told us that the Acropolis broke the bank in this land that was 95% agriculture. This was a polis or “city state” and they lived in an urban environment surrounded by farmland. The Greeks were very competitive and they thought very highly of themselves. They prided themselves and judged people by their physical and mental capabilities.
The professor then talked about rhetoric and to be good rhetoric it had to be memorable and appealing. To better themselves they would hire a sophist to teach them the art of rhetoric and speech. He said that there are basically two types of argument. These are the epagoge and dialectic arguments.
Epagoge (induction)
Example: If every time a student drank an energy drink they fall over. Then they should not drink it!
Dialectic (syllogism) Declarative sentence, subject predicate, true or false
Example: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Therefore Socrates is mortal.
After the lecture we reassembled at the classroom. Professor Wexler showed us a clip from the movie “Wallstreet” and Michael Douglas’ character explains how greed is good. The class was asked to try to create a dialectic argument to prove that greed is good. I thought about this for some time that night. I thought about it on the long drive home. I came up with the following:
The characteristic of greed has been demonized by many as a shameful way to behave in society. They have no gratitude for the advancements it has helped to achieve and they blame it for all that have fallen in the race. All creatures possess the greed gene for without it they would fall. If a lion ignores its inner greed the lion is last to the kill and therefore receives only scraps. The scraps may sustain the lion but it will grow weaker as others grow stronger. The stronger lions have cubs that utilize their greed to get as much of the kill as possible and the lion that ignores his greed gets even less scraps then before. Soon there are no scraps left for the lion that has ignored his greed. The lion has failed to support his existence and starves.
Every advancement in human society has greed to thank for it.
Greed is just another word for motivation.
Society cannot advance without motivation.
Advancements in society are good, therefore greed is good.
When greed is utilized by those with no moral compass many blame greed for the outcome. Perhaps greed should not take the blame but instead the blame should be focused on those that lack a moral compass.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Reflection 2
Today we learned more about Plato and his rhetoric against rhetoric and poetry. We watched a video called the allegory of the cave by Plato. The video shows a group of four people in a cave that know nothing else but what is brought before them. They are chained and yet they seem content. One day one of them is released into the light of day. He cannot believe what he sees in this new world and he is grateful for he thinks back to his existence in the cave and how restricted he was from all that could be known. He was exposed for so many years to only one layer of existence, now he holds witness to a new one. He feels pity for those left in the cave. He tries to enlighten them of what he has witnessed and they laugh at him. They do not care to try to escape from the cave for this new world would mean that everything they know means nothing and rather than face the truth they remain in denial.
There are a few quotes from the film that I found very interesting:
“Better to be the poor servant of a poor master and to endure anything, rather than think as they do, and live after they manner”
This means that their existence is vacant, and void of true meaning, and therefore their existence is worthless.
“It is the task of the enlightened not only to ascend, to learning, and to see the good but to be willing to descend again to those prisoners and to share their troubles and their honors whether they are worth having or not, and this they must do even with the prospect of death. They should give of their help to one another wherever each class is able to help the community.”
A statement made by one who is considered by many to be enlightened may be held as truth, when actually it is a mere opinon that contains possibility.
For example:
Karl Marx said, “From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.”
One should give to the community, but first they must develop themselves. They must be given the freedom to discover their talents and pursue their dreams. They must aim to be as successful as they can with the talents they have acquired while living a free life. Giving to the community should never be forced; it is appreciated most when given freely.
Ben Franklin said, “‘I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.’
Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766”
This statement sounds good as well, but it won't work everywhere. Other factors must be in place first such as: good moral values, security from crime, plenty of natural resources, education towards a trade. His statement may work well in America but not so much in Haiti.
These are two very different views on how a society should be. The views were spoken by two men considered by many to be enlightened ones. These statements may be considered by many as a new layer of truth when actually they are more like layers of realities possibilities.
The man that was freed to see outside of the cave only saw one layer of realities possibilities. He saw one landscape, one terrain, a body of water, some trees, a few species of wildlife, the sun, the moon, the stars, and the sky. This is what he reported to the other three left in the cave, and it is only one layer of realities possibilities. The world is not static, it is ever changing, and there are always new layers to discover. Even the cave itself is a layer, and each layer is very limited. The man that had left the cave was not enlightened by all that reality holds; he was only exposed to another layer of realities possibilities.
Perhaps what Plato was suggesting is to never be closed minded and unwilling to listen to what one believes possible, and if one believes, he must never be afraid to share.
Whether we like it or not, we all live in a “cave”. We will never be able to escape from it. We can only expand it by exposing layer upon layer of realities possibilities. In some strange way we need the “cave” for it helps us to make sense of our existence. If we were unable to make sense of things life would be nothing more than perpetual confusion that is void of all meaning.
Works Cited
Carl Marx Quote taken from: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/k/karl_marx.html#ixzz1EWybu6Vx
Ben Franklin Quote taken from:
http://www.marksquotes.com/Founding-Fathers/Franklin/index2.htm
© 2001-2004 Interesting.com
Allegory of the cave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d2afuTvUzBQ
Churchill Films, Produced by Nick Bosustow and C.B Wismar
Sunday, February 20, 2011
Reflection 1
This was our first class together and the room was full of wide eyes curious as to what was going to happen next. Would our minds be able to handle such a deep topic as Major Critical Theory, are we in too deep? Professor Wexler entered the room and the room fell silent. I could sense anxious anxiety abound! I think everyone was sitting up a bit straighter than usual, and all eyes were on Professor Wexler. He began to speak, “Wow we have a lot to do today, yet at the same time I still think we’ll still get out early.” The class sighed a relief filled,”yeahhhh..” Professor Wexler then told us we were going to learn about a man named Gorgious, and once again revealed his sense of humor by saying, “That’s always good right?” By this time the tension in the air was lowered dramatically, and we were now ready to learn.
Later in the class we watched a clip from the movie “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang”. The clip shows a woman on a turning pedestal with mirrors in front of her. She was a Doll on a music box and she sang a sad song that evokes a sense of insecurity, loneliness, and longing for love.
These are the lyrics they sang:
What do you see
You people gazing at me
You see a doll on a music box
That's wound by a key
How can you tell
I'm under a spell
I'm waiting for love's first kiss
You cannot see
How much I long to be free
Turning around on this music box
That's wound by a key
Yearning
Yearning
While
I'm turning around and around
What do you see
(Truly Scrumptious)
You people gazing at me
(you're truly truly scrumptious)
You see a doll on a music box, that's wound by a key
(scrumptious a...)
How can you tell I'm
(whe...)
Under a spell I'm
(...)
Waiting for love's first kiss
(honest truly, your the answer to my wishes)
You cannot see
(Truly Scrumptious)
How much I long to be free
(though I may seem presumptuous)
Turning around on this music box that's wound by a key
(ne..)
Yearning
(my heart beats so unruly)
Yearning
(because I love you truly)
While I'm turning around and around)
(honest, Truly I do)
The class was then asked what they observed in the clip. The observations were very interesting and we probably could have analyzed the clip for hours but we hit some pretty major critical points. One student looked at this clip with a feminist point of view saying that the man was free to do as he wishes, while the woman is confined to her pedestal. I noticed that there are mirror to one side of the woman and suggested that she was forced to look at herself whenever the pedestal turned her in that direction. This was a very interesting first day, and I looked forward to the weeks to follow.
Work Cited
Picture and Lyrics found at http://unsinkablecork.com/chitty/songs.htm
Later in the class we watched a clip from the movie “Chitty Chitty Bang Bang”. The clip shows a woman on a turning pedestal with mirrors in front of her. She was a Doll on a music box and she sang a sad song that evokes a sense of insecurity, loneliness, and longing for love.
These are the lyrics they sang:
What do you see
You people gazing at me
You see a doll on a music box
That's wound by a key
How can you tell
I'm under a spell
I'm waiting for love's first kiss
You cannot see
How much I long to be free
Turning around on this music box
That's wound by a key
Yearning
Yearning
While
I'm turning around and around
What do you see
(Truly Scrumptious)
You people gazing at me
(you're truly truly scrumptious)
You see a doll on a music box, that's wound by a key
(scrumptious a...)
How can you tell I'm
(whe...)
Under a spell I'm
(...)
Waiting for love's first kiss
(honest truly, your the answer to my wishes)
You cannot see
(Truly Scrumptious)
How much I long to be free
(though I may seem presumptuous)
Turning around on this music box that's wound by a key
(ne..)
Yearning
(my heart beats so unruly)
Yearning
(because I love you truly)
While I'm turning around and around)
(honest, Truly I do)
The class was then asked what they observed in the clip. The observations were very interesting and we probably could have analyzed the clip for hours but we hit some pretty major critical points. One student looked at this clip with a feminist point of view saying that the man was free to do as he wishes, while the woman is confined to her pedestal. I noticed that there are mirror to one side of the woman and suggested that she was forced to look at herself whenever the pedestal turned her in that direction. This was a very interesting first day, and I looked forward to the weeks to follow.
Work Cited
Picture and Lyrics found at http://unsinkablecork.com/chitty/songs.htm
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Analysis 1: Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan
Is the embodiment of a great speaker, and perhaps one of the greatest masters of persuasion through performance the world has ever witnessed. To listen to his words, to hear the passion and conviction in his voice can make ones heart begin to pound with patriotism for he reminds us that we are Americans first, and that freedom is not free. His confidence is that of an experienced leader, and he knows what makes a true American tick. He is proud of this country, and it is refreshing to hear such vigor, passion and love directed towards it.
Here is the first portion of the speech. Please read this first and then watch the video to realize Gorgias’s belief in the power of performance and how it promotes an effective persuasion.
“Those who would trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state have told us they have a utopian solution of peace without victory they call their policy accommodation and they say it will only avoid any direct confrontation with the enemy he’ll forget his evil ways and learn to love us all who oppose them are indicted as war mongers they say we offer simple answers to complex problems well perhaps there is a simple answer, not an easy answer, but simple…”
(Please view the video in its entirety)
This speech is a strong example of rhetoric and the art of persuasion.
Reagan is a great example of ethos. He “looks the part” of a man that stands tall and appears virtuous (Arête) in his beliefs. His voice is direct and clear. His words are well thought out and encompass a powerful message for the people to absorb (Eunoia). He has an understanding of human emotion, and desire. He creates powerful imagery through the mention of Jesus Christ and the cross. He reminds the people of our forefathers and their words as when Alexander Hamilton is quoted as saying, "A nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master, and deserves one!" This is powerful, powerful stuff and Reagan knew how to work an audience. There was steady tone of his voice that would lift and drop at just the right moments. He knew what Americans long for, what they fear, and what they would fight for when pushed. He understands the evil that pursues our way of life and that we must never appease it but instead confront it. His words, speeches, and wisdom still hold great meaning too many Americans today. They are left longing for the one that will fill his shoes, but they know it most likely won’t happen again in their lifetime.
The Encomium of Helen (perfomance version not available)
Encomium of Helen
Gorgias was a great speaker that “came to Athens in 427B.C.E” (37). “He quickly became one of the most influential of the sophists, a group of itinerant teachers who went from city to city earning their living by instructing others in subtle argumentation” (37). Gorgias believed that “one should make men skillful at speaking” and he “aims to persuade through performance” (37). “Gorgias likens the power of speech to persuade to the power of magical charms or drugs to alter the mind or body” (37).
The Nutshell
It is said that Helen of Troy was the most beautiful woman of the day. There were many men that pursued her glance and failed. She married Menelaus not for love, but it is said to have been an arranged marriage. Gorgias never mentions that in his speech, but it is a very important detail to analyze for once the “jury” discovers this information it reduces the possibility of her being “abducted” by Paris. A Prince of Troy named Paris was in search of the love of his life. There was an argument as to who the most beautiful goddess was and “Zeus proclaimed that Paris… thought to be the most beautiful man alive, would act as the judge”( http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html). He chose Aphrodite as most beautiful and in return she “owed him one”. She told him that he could have any woman he chose, and he chose Helen. It is said that Helen and Paris ran off together, which in turn started a war.
The Encomium of Helen is an attempt by Gorgias to come to “the defense of Helen of Troy, a character long vilified by poets…” (37)
Analysis
The Encomium of Helen is an interesting argument, but it is flawed. The speech lacks punch, and its powers are diminished for it is merely a passionate speech in the form of words on paper. Gorgias utilized much more than just words on paper to artfully arrange the hearts intended for his persuasion. We cannot witness Gorgias’s masterful performance that must have accompanied these words from the pages. He must have made these words come to life and pull the listeners from their foundations to build a new. We cannot see the subtle expressions in Gorgias’s face as he confidently pleaded his case to the audience that gathered in the street. Words were only half of Gorgias’s arsenal for he was a man that could “persuade through performance” (37). A master of speech such as he would have utilized ethos, eunoia, and arête to compliment his performance and win over the hearts of the stubborn listener. He would certainly understand human desires, and emotions, and be able to push the buttons of the potential jury that intently listened. He would have to observe the reactions from the audience and gauge his tone appropriately to formulate the most effective way to implant his belief through the performance he gives, and the words he speaks.
The Emcomium of Helen can be read today. It can be mimicked and performed. But it can never be witnessed. For Gorgias is long gone, and his ability to persuade never to be captured, felt, or fully understood. The words are but a mere skeleton of his ability to persuade through “subtle argument” (37) and to realize this is to feel loss, for how can one critique just words on paper when they are only half of the argument available.
Vocabulary Words
Itinerant (454) – adj.- Traveling from place to place to perform work
Works Cited
Gorgias of Leontini. "Encomium of Helen". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010.
“itinerant.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.454.
Mortal Women of the Trojan War
The Women of the Trojan War in Latin Literature
http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html
Print.
Gorgias was a great speaker that “came to Athens in 427B.C.E” (37). “He quickly became one of the most influential of the sophists, a group of itinerant teachers who went from city to city earning their living by instructing others in subtle argumentation” (37). Gorgias believed that “one should make men skillful at speaking” and he “aims to persuade through performance” (37). “Gorgias likens the power of speech to persuade to the power of magical charms or drugs to alter the mind or body” (37).
The Nutshell
It is said that Helen of Troy was the most beautiful woman of the day. There were many men that pursued her glance and failed. She married Menelaus not for love, but it is said to have been an arranged marriage. Gorgias never mentions that in his speech, but it is a very important detail to analyze for once the “jury” discovers this information it reduces the possibility of her being “abducted” by Paris. A Prince of Troy named Paris was in search of the love of his life. There was an argument as to who the most beautiful goddess was and “Zeus proclaimed that Paris… thought to be the most beautiful man alive, would act as the judge”( http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html). He chose Aphrodite as most beautiful and in return she “owed him one”. She told him that he could have any woman he chose, and he chose Helen. It is said that Helen and Paris ran off together, which in turn started a war.
The Encomium of Helen is an attempt by Gorgias to come to “the defense of Helen of Troy, a character long vilified by poets…” (37)
Analysis
The Encomium of Helen is an interesting argument, but it is flawed. The speech lacks punch, and its powers are diminished for it is merely a passionate speech in the form of words on paper. Gorgias utilized much more than just words on paper to artfully arrange the hearts intended for his persuasion. We cannot witness Gorgias’s masterful performance that must have accompanied these words from the pages. He must have made these words come to life and pull the listeners from their foundations to build a new. We cannot see the subtle expressions in Gorgias’s face as he confidently pleaded his case to the audience that gathered in the street. Words were only half of Gorgias’s arsenal for he was a man that could “persuade through performance” (37). A master of speech such as he would have utilized ethos, eunoia, and arête to compliment his performance and win over the hearts of the stubborn listener. He would certainly understand human desires, and emotions, and be able to push the buttons of the potential jury that intently listened. He would have to observe the reactions from the audience and gauge his tone appropriately to formulate the most effective way to implant his belief through the performance he gives, and the words he speaks.
The Emcomium of Helen can be read today. It can be mimicked and performed. But it can never be witnessed. For Gorgias is long gone, and his ability to persuade never to be captured, felt, or fully understood. The words are but a mere skeleton of his ability to persuade through “subtle argument” (37) and to realize this is to feel loss, for how can one critique just words on paper when they are only half of the argument available.
Vocabulary Words
Itinerant (454) – adj.- Traveling from place to place to perform work
Works Cited
Gorgias of Leontini. "Encomium of Helen". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010.
“itinerant.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.454.
Mortal Women of the Trojan War
The Women of the Trojan War in Latin Literature
http://www.stanford.edu/~plomio/history.html
Print.
Wednesday, February 9, 2011
Plato’s Play-doh: Molding the perfect society
Ah, if we could only remove the humanity from humanity could we possibly experience the perfect world of Plato’s society. To sever our hearts from our heads and gaze upon the brilliance that is Plato. It is he who holds all the answers that may guide us to enlightenment. For it is only Plato that can make sense of it all, and we are but buffoons searching for shiny objects to dazzle our simple minds. Thank God for Plato, or should we simply thank Plato for Plato?
Does he not realize what he is proposing is lunacy? He is proposing censorship of the common man for he believes it to be dangerous. A free mind is a dangerous mind as far as Plato is concerned. Unless of course we are talking about Plato’s mind. Plato seems to believe that he should never be stifled by censorship, but the people are too fragile to hold such a power as free speech. Does he truly believe that he has the power to stop the people from thinking “illegal” thoughts, or speaking their minds at will?
Plato discusses grief
If we cannot experience grief, then how do we know what pleasure is? If every day were sunny, would we not miss the rain? Life is to be experienced, not hobbled by what another claims to be a perfect society. We must be free to choose our own path.
There are three sides to every story: Their story, the others story, and the truth.
Conclusion
I suppose most of us have toyed with the idea of a perfect society and what that would entail. I believe it is very unlikely that any two views would be exactly the same. Therefore there is no such thing as a perfect society nor will there ever be. There are simply too many variables, too many opinions, too many people with too many ideas with the inability to see far enough into the future to analyze all the consequences of every action made presently for ever a perfect society to exist. Man is a flawed creature, and a perfect society is perfect. To achieve a perfect society it is necessary to expel all that is flawed. Therefore a perfect society could never include man in the first place.
Plato. "Republic, Book II". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Plato. "Republic, Book X". ed. Leitch, Vincent B. The Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton &, 2010. Print.
Major Critical BLOG
Welcome to my BLOG. My name is Stephan Harder and I have never seriously launched my thoughts into cyberspace. What does BLOG even stand for? Blabbering Ladies Or Gentlemen? It is a bit uncomfortable for me to open a door that welcomes such opportunity for criticism. To allow for unknowns to peer into my mind is not what I would consider to be a pleasant voluntary experience. Maybe by the end of this class I will feel differently about the Blogosphere, but for now I am a bit uneasy about the whole concept.
I wasn’t sure what to expect when I signed up for a course called Major Critical Theories. Even its title sounds intimidating. I decided to figure out the meaning of this course by breaking down its title into singular definitions. I believed that this would help me to get a grasp on what to expect in this course, and this is what I found in the dictionary:
Major
1. Greater in importance, rank, or extent
2. Of great concern; very serious
Critical
1. Inclined to judge severely
2. Marked by careful evaluation
Theory
1. Abstract reasoning; speculation
2. An assumption
3. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, esp; one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted
A theory is simply a theory, there are no truths unless there is no other possibility, and there is almost always another possibility.
The word abstract is used to describe the type of reasoning that takes place at the conception of a new theory so I looked this word up as well:
Abstract
1. Considered apart from concrete existence
2. Difficult to understand
I then proceeded to compile and extrapolate the meanings of these words to form one definition to explain what the course title possibly means, and what it entails. I believed this would clarify what to expect from this course, to understand why these words were chosen for its name, and to put my mind a bit more at ease with the prospects of its depths.
This is what it looks like when all definitions are combined:
Major Critical Theory - Difficult to understand reasoning that is based on speculation and assumptions drawn from what is considered apart from concrete existence and yet holds a rank of great importance to be severely judged with careful evaluation for it contains repeatedly tested or widely accepted statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena of very serious and great concern.
I must say my mind is now at ease…?
In any case I look forward to the guidance and instruction of our good professor Wexler to untangle the threads of confusion and lead us through the depths of all the possibilities we can fathom within the short structured timeframe that we are together.
Works Cited
“Abstract.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.4.
“Critical.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.209.
“Major.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.509.
”Theory.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.848.
I wasn’t sure what to expect when I signed up for a course called Major Critical Theories. Even its title sounds intimidating. I decided to figure out the meaning of this course by breaking down its title into singular definitions. I believed that this would help me to get a grasp on what to expect in this course, and this is what I found in the dictionary:
Major
1. Greater in importance, rank, or extent
2. Of great concern; very serious
Critical
1. Inclined to judge severely
2. Marked by careful evaluation
Theory
1. Abstract reasoning; speculation
2. An assumption
3. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, esp; one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted
A theory is simply a theory, there are no truths unless there is no other possibility, and there is almost always another possibility.
The word abstract is used to describe the type of reasoning that takes place at the conception of a new theory so I looked this word up as well:
Abstract
1. Considered apart from concrete existence
2. Difficult to understand
I then proceeded to compile and extrapolate the meanings of these words to form one definition to explain what the course title possibly means, and what it entails. I believed this would clarify what to expect from this course, to understand why these words were chosen for its name, and to put my mind a bit more at ease with the prospects of its depths.
This is what it looks like when all definitions are combined:
Major Critical Theory - Difficult to understand reasoning that is based on speculation and assumptions drawn from what is considered apart from concrete existence and yet holds a rank of great importance to be severely judged with careful evaluation for it contains repeatedly tested or widely accepted statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena of very serious and great concern.
I must say my mind is now at ease…?
In any case I look forward to the guidance and instruction of our good professor Wexler to untangle the threads of confusion and lead us through the depths of all the possibilities we can fathom within the short structured timeframe that we are together.
Works Cited
“Abstract.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.4.
“Critical.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.209.
“Major.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.509.
”Theory.” The American Heritage Dictionary. 4th Ed. New York: Bantom Dell, 2001.848.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)