Rarely does conservation come down to immediate life and death decisions. We talk about preserving the environment or saving endangered species as a far-off idea, something we should obviously do. It is sometimes slightly inconvenient to remember to bring along our reusable bags to Super Target, and a Prius may have cache on par with a Beemer in some circles, but as yet there is no convertible model. It became obvious during the ecocriticism unit that we are badly missing the point.
What happens when we privilege animal life equally (or above) human life? Here's the article from The New Yorker that I mentioned in class. I think it raises some relevant issues about the consequences of the ideas about privilege we discussed. Article HERE.
Friday, April 30, 2010
Tuesday, April 27, 2010
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Friday's class
Dear class, although I was not able to make it back to Tulsa in time for class, I admire you for sticking around and carrying on without me. I regret missing Amelia's presentation and the ensuing discussion, as I'm sure she and everyone else had much edifying things to say.
I am proud, furthermore, that you all have taken ownership of this course and of your own learning. You have helped each other navigate very difficult material, and class to me has felt from the beginning as if it were a conversation between a group of intellectually curious and open-minded people interested in similar things.
One of my ultimate goals for you coming out of this class is that you have the confidence and skills learn on your own. Friday proves to me that you are ready for that goal, and I expect that each and every one of you will continue to teach yourselves and others for the rest of your lives.
I am proud, furthermore, that you all have taken ownership of this course and of your own learning. You have helped each other navigate very difficult material, and class to me has felt from the beginning as if it were a conversation between a group of intellectually curious and open-minded people interested in similar things.
One of my ultimate goals for you coming out of this class is that you have the confidence and skills learn on your own. Friday proves to me that you are ready for that goal, and I expect that each and every one of you will continue to teach yourselves and others for the rest of your lives.
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Queercore
Awhile back, one of my friends showed me this pamphlet published by S.C.A.B, the Society for the Complete Annihilation of Breeders. I'll let you look for yourself:
http://36-c.blogspot.com/2008/12/scab-manifesto-1990.html?zx=21e968a8263c944
Of course, I was initially very shocked, and a little upset, although as that wore off I began to think that they couldn't possibly be serious.
I later came to the conclusion that they were, although not in the way I had first. Something weird happens when subaltern groups say outrageous things. They were serious about saying something, by using their unique position to reveal the bigotry of the radical discourses that we are used to hearing. In an ideal world, any anti-gay literature would seem as bizarre as this. However, I could also see how violence in any discourse is harmful. I'm surprised I've spent so much time trying to figure out one group in a tiny party called queercore, but I suppose that's what they wanted.
http://36-c.blogspot.com/2008/12/scab-manifesto-1990.html?zx=21e968a8263c944
Of course, I was initially very shocked, and a little upset, although as that wore off I began to think that they couldn't possibly be serious.
I later came to the conclusion that they were, although not in the way I had first. Something weird happens when subaltern groups say outrageous things. They were serious about saying something, by using their unique position to reveal the bigotry of the radical discourses that we are used to hearing. In an ideal world, any anti-gay literature would seem as bizarre as this. However, I could also see how violence in any discourse is harmful. I'm surprised I've spent so much time trying to figure out one group in a tiny party called queercore, but I suppose that's what they wanted.
Post Colonialism
Today I had an interesting experience at my tutoring job at McLain High School in North Tulsa. I was assigned to monitor EOI tests with a few other volunteers from the community. McLain is a primarily black school, and its students are most often the lowest performers in the district. Anyway, today I was able to talk with 4 older members of the community, all black, and all who have grown up facing adversity because of the color of their skin. I couldn't help while I was sitting at a table with all of them, feeling a strong sense of guilt over the color of my own skin, and an inherent inability to relate to them. They discussed topics such as the Tulsa race riot, segregation and in turn the ill effects of integration, along with prominent civil rights leaders such as W.E.B. DuBois and Booker T. Washington. They talked about their inability to find a sense of identity without a real place to call home, much like we discussed in class. I was telling Amelia about this after I got back from the school, and we both agreed that there is this sense of guilt that we as white people have been instilled to feel for our race's injustices against black Americans, even if we ourselves haven't committed anything worth feeling guilty about. I enjoyed listening to them, and they really enlightened me to a lot of things, but I couldn't escape this feeling.
Ecocriticism
My first semester at TU, I took a 1063 class whose contents were all related to Nature. In the class we read many authors that were referenced in The Ecocriticism Reader, including Edward Abbey, Annie Dillard, Terry Tempest Williams, Thoreau, Adrienne Rich, Gary Snyder and others. I had no idea at the time, (probably because my professor didn't articulate it) that ecocriticism was a literary theory. I really enjoyed that class because we explored all the ways in which nature affects society and culture. The underlying tone of the class was that every person is obligated (much like Levinas' Other as discussed in Who is my Neighbor?) to take care of their piece of the world as long as they live on it and in some ways abuse its resources. Anyway, I highly recommend these authors to everyone...maybe for a summer reading list?
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
The Need for New Historicism
A couple of weeks ago I was flipping through the Tulsa World when I came across an article with an intriguing title--"Politicians, pundits aim to rewrite history" (I couldn't get any sort of link to this to work, but you can find the article on the newspaper's website if you like). This article depicts some present ways in which politicians of the right are attempting (as the title says) to rewrite history, particularly in ways that would be unflattering to liberalism and thus, presumably, to the current regime (I do not mean to offend any who may be a part of the right, as there are many conservatives who are not fond of what is going on as well. I also don't mean to spark some sort of political debate.). Examples of changes they would like to be made are depicting Jamestown as a failed example of socialism. This ignores the fact that Jamestown was "a capitalist venture funded by the Virginia Company of London."
This seems to me to be one of the problems that New Historicism establishes itself as being counter to--the effect of biases on the writing of history. I do not think that it can be denied that these revisions are intended as means of bolstering the views of the Republican party; as Alan Brinkley (a historian at Columbia University) puts it in the article, "History in the popular world is always a political football. The right is unusually mobilized at the moment."
This seems to me to be one of the problems that New Historicism establishes itself as being counter to--the effect of biases on the writing of history. I do not think that it can be denied that these revisions are intended as means of bolstering the views of the Republican party; as Alan Brinkley (a historian at Columbia University) puts it in the article, "History in the popular world is always a political football. The right is unusually mobilized at the moment."
Why the Closet Will Never Go Away
In the end, I have to agree with Sedgewick; I don't think the closet is escapable. I think that the Netherlands and Iceland, two of the most tolerant countries on the planet, really demonstrates this fact. In both of these countries, many of the problems associated with homosexuality in less tolerant countries (drug use, STDs, mental illness) remain. Granted, they're lessened, but they still exist.
Of course, when you establish the closet as inescapable, the obvious follow up question is: why? And I think there are several reasons.
First of all, even in a country where parents would be as happy with a gay child as with a straight one, the assumption will be that you are heterosexual. The vast majority of people in the world are, unfortunately, heterosexual. And even if you believe the works of Kinsey on the subject, most people are going to end up being mostly heterosexual. It's insescapable.
It goes back to the whole "biological underpinning" that we discussed in the feminism unit. There are biological reasons for homosexuality. There have been all sorts of studies linking male homosexuality with population pressures and surplus males. When you're dealing with something that blurs the line between culture and biology, you run into these sorts of questions.
A second reason I don't think the closet will ever go away, which may seem rather tangetial, is that history is not progressive. We all assume that homosexuality will be more accepted in the future, but this isn't necessarily the case. Classical Greece was less homophobic than Hellenistic Greece which was less homophobic than modern Greece. The Age of Decadence precedes the Victorian Era. The Roaring Twenties was thirty years before the Square Fifties. And so on. History can change in ways that no one would have predicted.
Of course, as Professor Jenkins rightly pointed out, this does preclude the role of activism. It also precludes the role of the individual in dealing with this sort of thing. There are things people can do that can "fight the closet." Coming out the closet is one. Respecting alternative sexualities is another. We might not be able to see a culture where the closet is destroyed, but we can see one where the closet doors are thinner.
Of course, when you establish the closet as inescapable, the obvious follow up question is: why? And I think there are several reasons.
First of all, even in a country where parents would be as happy with a gay child as with a straight one, the assumption will be that you are heterosexual. The vast majority of people in the world are, unfortunately, heterosexual. And even if you believe the works of Kinsey on the subject, most people are going to end up being mostly heterosexual. It's insescapable.
It goes back to the whole "biological underpinning" that we discussed in the feminism unit. There are biological reasons for homosexuality. There have been all sorts of studies linking male homosexuality with population pressures and surplus males. When you're dealing with something that blurs the line between culture and biology, you run into these sorts of questions.
A second reason I don't think the closet will ever go away, which may seem rather tangetial, is that history is not progressive. We all assume that homosexuality will be more accepted in the future, but this isn't necessarily the case. Classical Greece was less homophobic than Hellenistic Greece which was less homophobic than modern Greece. The Age of Decadence precedes the Victorian Era. The Roaring Twenties was thirty years before the Square Fifties. And so on. History can change in ways that no one would have predicted.
Of course, as Professor Jenkins rightly pointed out, this does preclude the role of activism. It also precludes the role of the individual in dealing with this sort of thing. There are things people can do that can "fight the closet." Coming out the closet is one. Respecting alternative sexualities is another. We might not be able to see a culture where the closet is destroyed, but we can see one where the closet doors are thinner.
MC Solaar and PostCo
Hopefully people will find this interesting, as we talked about rap the other day.
MC Solaar was born in Senegal (a French colony) and moved to France when he was very young. I thought of his work as we talked about hip hop and rap spreading over the world. We talked about postcolonial situations within the country of the colonized, not so much when the colonized ends up in the colonizer's country, which is what is happening today in France. Although we don't normally think of France as a country where there are racial tensions, they definitely exist within France today. You might remember the student riots a few years ago in Paris.
Anyway, here is the video. I can't figure out the embedding, so I hope you don't mind a little copy-paste action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8kGW16RYs&a=2s8YkAZUYWU&playnext_from=ML
It includes imagery of both the old, faded idea of the American West, as well as the exploitation of American cultures to other countries. Does the America act as a colonizer of cultures, even when they don't have a physical presence in other countries? The song also ask questions about the situation of minorities in France, the violence they encounter, ect. Don't worry, the video has subtitles. :)
MC Solaar was born in Senegal (a French colony) and moved to France when he was very young. I thought of his work as we talked about hip hop and rap spreading over the world. We talked about postcolonial situations within the country of the colonized, not so much when the colonized ends up in the colonizer's country, which is what is happening today in France. Although we don't normally think of France as a country where there are racial tensions, they definitely exist within France today. You might remember the student riots a few years ago in Paris.
Anyway, here is the video. I can't figure out the embedding, so I hope you don't mind a little copy-paste action.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-n8kGW16RYs&a=2s8YkAZUYWU&playnext_from=ML
It includes imagery of both the old, faded idea of the American West, as well as the exploitation of American cultures to other countries. Does the America act as a colonizer of cultures, even when they don't have a physical presence in other countries? The song also ask questions about the situation of minorities in France, the violence they encounter, ect. Don't worry, the video has subtitles. :)
Why I Hate Brokeback Mountain
In Bressler's section on Queer Theory, he mentions Brokeback Mountain and gives a list of various people's opinion on the movie. I figure, since this movie is theoretically supposed to be about people like me and for people like me, that I'd add my opinion.
I hated Brokeback Mountain, and I hated people's reaction to it.
It wasn't just the reaction of people on the Right. Not every movie review that didn't like it was condemming it for bringing down the wrath of God. But there seemed to be a recurring theme in all the reviews I read: it was too graphic.
Too graphic.
Too graphic.
This movie was mild compared to similar R rated movies, quite honestly. The only reason that it got the "graphic" label so consistently was that it was gay. You switch out one of the guys with a girl, I highly doubt that anyone would have complained.
Please forgive me for linking to TVTropes, but:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays
If you really, really wanted to make a statement about gay rights, if you really wanted your movie to defy stereotypes about homosexuality, you'd have the gay couple live happily ever after.
I'm not saying that you can't have literature that ends in tragedy for gay people, but:
1) Pretty much all mainstream culture follows this trope
2) It still plays into the stereotype that gay love ends in tragedy, even when it's trying to portray said relationships positively. It's hard to realize how pervasive and how influential this sort of thing can be.
For example, I write short fiction, and I feature lots of stories with gay male characters. But I've noticed a rather unsettling recurring theme: it always ends in tragedy. And true, maybe I just prefer to write tragic stories. But my straight characters have gotten happy endings. It's an almost subconcious thing: if I'm writing a story with a gay main character, it will not end well.
Maybe Brokeback Mountain wouldn't bother me so much if wasn't touted as so progressive, so subversive. If this had just been an art house flick about gay cowboys eating pudding that no one had heard about, I probably wouldn't even care. But then everyone talks about how great it is, and I wonder if they're seeing the same movie I'm seeing. I wonder if they're seeing a movie where gay men are portrayed as promiscuous adulterers betraying their poor put upon wives. I wonder if they're seeing a movie that is almost overbearingly modest called "graphic." I wonder if they're seeing a movie that's so cloyling unaware of how ignorant it is about gay life.
In a way, it kind of reminds me of Hostel. Now, Brokeback Mountain is superior to Hostel in pretty much every way. But Eli Roth tries to claim that the movie isn't homophobic while ignoring the fact that his main villain fits pretty much every bullet point of the monstrous homosexual: he's a cheater, he's promiscuous, he preys on younger, heterosexual men. Roth can claim that this is critiquing homophobia somehow, but I'm reminded of what someone said about anti-war movies: it's impossible to make an actual anti-war movie, because any movie portraying war inevitably glamorizes it. You can't create this image of a monster whose inhumanity is so closely linked to his homosexuality, and then wink at me and tell me it's "ironic." There are limits to irony, despite what post-modernism tends to say, and we've rather clearly hit the limit.
That's one of the nice things about the death of the author, I suppose. When an author creates a work and says something about it that is clearly untrue, you are allowed to call them on it. Otherwise, Narnia wouldn't be an allegory, Farenheit 451 would be about political correctness, and Hostel would be a feminist film. As long as you can back up what you are saying, you are free to say it, regardless of what the author says otherwise.
So I guess that in the end this blog post wasn't really about Brokeback Mountain. But it related, tangentially, to the topic, and I hope that's good enough.
I hated Brokeback Mountain, and I hated people's reaction to it.
It wasn't just the reaction of people on the Right. Not every movie review that didn't like it was condemming it for bringing down the wrath of God. But there seemed to be a recurring theme in all the reviews I read: it was too graphic.
Too graphic.
Too graphic.
This movie was mild compared to similar R rated movies, quite honestly. The only reason that it got the "graphic" label so consistently was that it was gay. You switch out one of the guys with a girl, I highly doubt that anyone would have complained.
Please forgive me for linking to TVTropes, but:
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/BuryYourGays
If you really, really wanted to make a statement about gay rights, if you really wanted your movie to defy stereotypes about homosexuality, you'd have the gay couple live happily ever after.
I'm not saying that you can't have literature that ends in tragedy for gay people, but:
1) Pretty much all mainstream culture follows this trope
2) It still plays into the stereotype that gay love ends in tragedy, even when it's trying to portray said relationships positively. It's hard to realize how pervasive and how influential this sort of thing can be.
For example, I write short fiction, and I feature lots of stories with gay male characters. But I've noticed a rather unsettling recurring theme: it always ends in tragedy. And true, maybe I just prefer to write tragic stories. But my straight characters have gotten happy endings. It's an almost subconcious thing: if I'm writing a story with a gay main character, it will not end well.
Maybe Brokeback Mountain wouldn't bother me so much if wasn't touted as so progressive, so subversive. If this had just been an art house flick about gay cowboys eating pudding that no one had heard about, I probably wouldn't even care. But then everyone talks about how great it is, and I wonder if they're seeing the same movie I'm seeing. I wonder if they're seeing a movie where gay men are portrayed as promiscuous adulterers betraying their poor put upon wives. I wonder if they're seeing a movie that is almost overbearingly modest called "graphic." I wonder if they're seeing a movie that's so cloyling unaware of how ignorant it is about gay life.
In a way, it kind of reminds me of Hostel. Now, Brokeback Mountain is superior to Hostel in pretty much every way. But Eli Roth tries to claim that the movie isn't homophobic while ignoring the fact that his main villain fits pretty much every bullet point of the monstrous homosexual: he's a cheater, he's promiscuous, he preys on younger, heterosexual men. Roth can claim that this is critiquing homophobia somehow, but I'm reminded of what someone said about anti-war movies: it's impossible to make an actual anti-war movie, because any movie portraying war inevitably glamorizes it. You can't create this image of a monster whose inhumanity is so closely linked to his homosexuality, and then wink at me and tell me it's "ironic." There are limits to irony, despite what post-modernism tends to say, and we've rather clearly hit the limit.
That's one of the nice things about the death of the author, I suppose. When an author creates a work and says something about it that is clearly untrue, you are allowed to call them on it. Otherwise, Narnia wouldn't be an allegory, Farenheit 451 would be about political correctness, and Hostel would be a feminist film. As long as you can back up what you are saying, you are free to say it, regardless of what the author says otherwise.
So I guess that in the end this blog post wasn't really about Brokeback Mountain. But it related, tangentially, to the topic, and I hope that's good enough.
Monday, April 19, 2010
"In many discussions I heard or participated in immediately after the Supreme Court ruling in Bowers v. Hardwick, antihomophobic or gay women and men speculated--more or less empathetically or venomously--about the sexuality of the people most involved with the decision. The question kept coming up, in different tones, of what it could have felt like to be a closeted gay court assistant, or clerk, or justice, who might have had some degree, even a very high one, of instrumentality in concieving or formulating or 'refining' or logistically facilitating this ruling, these ignominious majority opinions, the assaultive sentences in which they were framed" (75).
Not too long ago, they played a documentary at Circle Cinema--Outrage--about this very topic: the problem of closeted homosexuals in positions wherein they have the capability of helping along legislation, court rulings, etc. that are anti-gay. Though I just said this was played not too long ago, it was actually long enough that I don't precisely remember the exact details, but, suffice it to say that this has been a fairly significant and recent issue. Kirby Dick, the director, seeks to present the case of several politicians who are believed to be gay, but who have strongly anti-gay voting records (presumably to deflect attention from their orientation, which, were it to "come out," they believe would be a detriment to their political career). Some of these men (I do not recall any women being included) are married and very succesful (I believe one was seen as some sort of rising-star with the possibility of a very high-level office in his future). The movie, I thought, was very thought-provoking--particularly in the depiction of one man's attempt to forcibly "out" those sorts of politicians. He made it his goal to force them out of the closet. I don't know how I feel about this or, maybe more importantly, how Sedgwick would feel about this manifestation of the closet dynamic. On the one hand, the politicians' (admittedly rumored) in-the-closet-ness is negatively affecting progress for homosexuals, but, on the other hand, it seems pretty vicious to take away someone's closet without their consent.
Not too long ago, they played a documentary at Circle Cinema--Outrage--about this very topic: the problem of closeted homosexuals in positions wherein they have the capability of helping along legislation, court rulings, etc. that are anti-gay. Though I just said this was played not too long ago, it was actually long enough that I don't precisely remember the exact details, but, suffice it to say that this has been a fairly significant and recent issue. Kirby Dick, the director, seeks to present the case of several politicians who are believed to be gay, but who have strongly anti-gay voting records (presumably to deflect attention from their orientation, which, were it to "come out," they believe would be a detriment to their political career). Some of these men (I do not recall any women being included) are married and very succesful (I believe one was seen as some sort of rising-star with the possibility of a very high-level office in his future). The movie, I thought, was very thought-provoking--particularly in the depiction of one man's attempt to forcibly "out" those sorts of politicians. He made it his goal to force them out of the closet. I don't know how I feel about this or, maybe more importantly, how Sedgwick would feel about this manifestation of the closet dynamic. On the one hand, the politicians' (admittedly rumored) in-the-closet-ness is negatively affecting progress for homosexuals, but, on the other hand, it seems pretty vicious to take away someone's closet without their consent.
Queer Theory
Hi everyone! Here's my powerpoint rundown of Queer Theory, which I'll be glad to present in class on Wednesday if there's time. Enjoy!
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B7ad_oxlGKo8MTk0ZjlkN2UtZjAyMi00MjU3LTgxMTQtNDNjMTEzY2NmYTYw&hl=en
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B7ad_oxlGKo8MTk0ZjlkN2UtZjAyMi00MjU3LTgxMTQtNDNjMTEzY2NmYTYw&hl=en
Friday, April 16, 2010
Postmodern/Cultural Fantasies
Well, embedding didn't work. Trying again:
((Included) (Excluded))
Copyright, credit, and thanks go to Dorothy at Cat and Girl)
((Included) (Excluded))
Copyright, credit, and thanks go to Dorothy at Cat and Girl)
I hope I don't get in trouble for this:
Ok, this is a comedic(?) video that has always fascinated me. It is a song and accompanying video. It is also somewhat (very) offensive.
1) It plays to multiple stereotypes: Black fathers not caring for their children, blacks being generally under-educated, even black people needing to work more on their personal hygiene (which I confess I haven't even heard of before.)
2) It attempts to correct what it perceives as problems, not directly with the way that blacks are perceived in society, but rather with the ways that it perceives these problems to be aggravated by the African-American community (especially the younger members of that community.)
I am interested in both the positive and negative aspects of this video, especially as it might relate to the black community castigating those it deems "too white" or "too conciliatory." I'm not sure how this issue has fared in contemporary African-American studies, but I know that it was at one time a fairly important counter-argument against blacks in the US overcoming status discrepancies by obtaining a better education, speaking English more "correctly," and that sort of thing.
I'm going to link to the video twice. The first will be the clean version. If you are easily offended, I'd watch this one:
However, the clean version has most of the lyrics cut out, to the point where it is actually difficult to understand what is being said roughly 70 percent of the time. If you are less easily offended, or just desperate to hear the song without irritating gaps, then here's the original version:
Thursday, April 15, 2010
Link to African-American ciritcism ppt googledoc
http://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B_qgtV4p-Z94YzFkMGQ2NzMtNDJiYy00NDlhLTg3YTItZmQ0ZGIyNzI3ZDVi&hl=en
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Clarence Page and the Pitfalls of "Color Blindness"
What Elizabeth was saying about the comedian who said that people who claim to not see color are pretty much deluding themselves reminded me of an essay I read for sociology last semester--"Showing My Color" by Clarence Page (he also has a book by the same name). I can only find a small portion of it online (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/books/chap1/showingmycolor.htm), but it at least sort of goes into the issue at the bottom of the excerpt. He says that Martin Luther King Jr.'s statement of his dream that he would one day know a time when people would "not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character" has frequently been used to support the idea of "color blindness" (claiming to not see the color of a person's skin)--a use of the phrase that he disagrees with. He counters that "[he doesn't] want Americans to be blind to [his] color as long as color continues to make a profound difference in determining life chances and opportunities. Nor [does he] wish to see so significant a part of [his] identity denied." Also in the essay, he covers a lot of the issues we discussed in relation to African-American Studies. He describes the experience of double-consciousness as being like a "transracial," like "a transsexual who feels trapped in the body of something unfamiliar and inappropriate to his or her inner self." And, on the issue of identity, he says that "there is no one way to be black. We [blacks] are a diverse people amid a nation of diverse people" and that "...a comfortable identity serves to provide not only sense of belonging and protection for the individual against racism, but also, ultimately, a sturdy foundation from which the individual can interact effectively with other people, cultures, and situations beyond the world of blackness."All in all, he makes some good points, I think, and I would reccomend reading the essay (I cannot speak for how the whole book is, as I haven't read it) if you can locate a more complete copy.
Tuesday, April 13, 2010
Rae Armantrout, Brand-New Pulitzer Prize Winner
(Heard this in class today, thought about Levinas and the Other. Enjoy!)
Intact
1
From what I don’t recall
I am able to infer
what didn’t happen
in a given setting
while you can’t or won’t
so that
I might have been behind you
in the boat
or you might have been alone
or accompanied by strangers.
Alternates persist
since they aren’t named as such.
On the other hand, I feel
the removal of one element
changes the event
so it must disappear
(intact)
2
If thunder clapped,
small flowers
at leaf joints
stared straight ahead
in silence.
Did rocks react?
Try to recall
http://jacketmagazine.com/12/arman.html
Intact
1
From what I don’t recall
I am able to infer
what didn’t happen
in a given setting
while you can’t or won’t
so that
I might have been behind you
in the boat
or you might have been alone
or accompanied by strangers.
Alternates persist
since they aren’t named as such.
On the other hand, I feel
the removal of one element
changes the event
so it must disappear
(intact)
2
If thunder clapped,
small flowers
at leaf joints
stared straight ahead
in silence.
Did rocks react?
Try to recall
http://jacketmagazine.com/12/arman.html
The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air
This is an interesting essay I stumbled upon today about how "The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air" challenges stereotypical depictions of black families on TV by placing one in an upper-class atmosphere. There's a pretty great clip on the second page of the essay as well. Check it out!
Response to "Postmodern Blackness" by Bell Hooks
I enjoyed reading this essay because it develops a point of view about empathy that we have been struggling to understand in this unit on cultural studies. How am I as a middle class white student suppose to understand and empathize with cultures vastly different from my own? Hooks offers an answer in the form of postmodernism. She states, "The overall impact of the postmodern condition is that many other groups now share with black folks a sense of deep alienation, despair, uncertainty, loss of a sense of grounding, even if it is not informed by shared circumstance" (Paragraph 8). I found this very interesting and insightful. Sure there is no way we can legitimately place ourselves within the culture, but we can understand through our own human nature the feelings of those in separate cultures through a postmodernist mindset, which allows for all kinds of radical influences to emerge.
Friday, April 9, 2010
Making Breaks in the Post
Does anyone know how to make jumps in the posts on the blog? I feel bad about writing so much and monopolizing the space, but my attempts to insert text breaks are ineffective.
Thanks much.
Thanks much.
Chinua Achebe, Aggravated Postcolonialist
In his essay “An Image of Africa”, Chinua Achebe expressed his ire about the influential role Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness played in shaping and perpetuating negative stereotypes of African people in English-language literature and academia. (There's a quick run-down of how Achebe’s arguments relate to Conrad's book after the jump)
Achebe’s 1975 criticism of an 1899 novel reflects cultural norms and expectations of earlier European and American societies, which may be less valid in the contemporary era of globalization where many Americans and Europeans presume some African citizens to be literate and intelligent, and are more personally familiar with educated African immigrants in their own communities. Although Conrad’s symbolic link between moral purity and European whiteness (and its correlative connection of African ethnic identity with savagery and evil) is less explicit in contemporary European and American cultures, the strength of the white/black, good/evil dichotomy in his novel may subconsciously introduce such racist concepts to new generations of readers without the mitigating influence of an authority’s critical guidance.
At the same time, is it really the responsibility of a culture to slip a leaflet into each copy of Heart of Darkness, saying 'Africans are just as important and valuable as any other group. Conrad is a racist. Be nice. Be open-minded. Or else.’? And who gets to decide which pieces of information and artwork should be censored and controlled? I think Achebe’s contention that Conrad's novel fulfills some “Western desire and need” for superiority over other cultures (African cultures in this case) is an easier case to argue. “If the African characters in the Heart of Darkness cannot be accepted as peers with independent motivations (resembling those of the narrator and resembling ours) and an autonomous voice, pity is the response that remains” (788).
Charity events to assist impoverished Africans, such as Feed the Children, Live Aid concerts, the Peace Corps, and USAID have run for decades and are motivated by pity (among other factors). While some aid programs have helped people in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and other locations achieve economic independence and increase their quality of life, other programs have poor track records when it comes to actually assisting their recipients; such programs create cycles of aid dependence and perpetuate poverty (if the donations even reach their intended audience at all). Such aid programs may benefit their donors more than their recipients by allowing their (comparatively rich) sponsors to feel good about themselves by sending money to ostensibly help people. This situation echoes Achebe’s critique of Western-African power relationships: “the West seems to suffer deep anxieties about the precariousness of its civilization and to have a need for constant reassurance by comparing it with Africa.” (792) Charity work provides a convenient venue to demonstrate superiority in this model, because the ability to help others and dictate the terms for the use of aid packages demonstrates the Western donors’ financial abundance (which they may also construe as moral superiority). But is this an accurate perception of Western-African power relationships at the moment? Is this a new colonialism?
[The Jump, if the code works right]
Achebe's article:
http://www.sjsu.edu/upload/course/course_6697/Achebe_An_Image_of_Africa.pdf
Achebe's argument, as applied to Conrad's novel:
Achebe’s charge that “White racism against Africa is such a normal way of thinking that its manifestations go completely undetected” (788) may have some validity: symbolic contrasts of light and darkness permeates the events of Conrad’s narrative, elucidating the savage depravity inherent in all human souls by establishing physically dark African characters (and Europeans who imitate them) as examples of sub-human behavior. According to Achebe, “Conrad projects the image of Africa as “the other world,” the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where a man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by a triumphant bestiality” (783). Conrad follows the symbolic codes of the Victorian era to enforce his distinction between the ‘pure, white European conqueror-masters’ and the ‘dirty, bloodthirsty African slaves/laborers’; this color-based dichotomization relies on Victorian cultural conceptions of Africa as 'The Dark Continent”, a paragon of evil and symbol of depravity.
Language is a key factor in Conrad’s establishment of European cultural superiority in Heart of Darkness, and the literal devoicing of African characters in the novel enforces their subhuman status. Conrad's audience is able to access and understand the motivations and perspectives of the European traders, sailors, and other workers through the British sailor Marlow's narration, but they have no comparable opportunity to listen to the thoughts and perspectives of the Congolese. The relative accessibility of the European narrative compared with the Congolese story requires the audience to privilege the European version of events and encourages them to sympathize with the Europeans’ struggles, while forcing them to ignore the astonishingly tragic mutilation and exploitation of Congolese citizens under the rule of the Belgian King Leopold (because the English narrator usually does). Linguistic incomprehensibility exoticizes the Congolese characters, and enforces their depiction as enigmatic and animal-like savages who lack rational thought and the literacy that symbolizes such intelligence.
Achebe’s 1975 criticism of an 1899 novel reflects cultural norms and expectations of earlier European and American societies, which may be less valid in the contemporary era of globalization where many Americans and Europeans presume some African citizens to be literate and intelligent, and are more personally familiar with educated African immigrants in their own communities. Although Conrad’s symbolic link between moral purity and European whiteness (and its correlative connection of African ethnic identity with savagery and evil) is less explicit in contemporary European and American cultures, the strength of the white/black, good/evil dichotomy in his novel may subconsciously introduce such racist concepts to new generations of readers without the mitigating influence of an authority’s critical guidance.
At the same time, is it really the responsibility of a culture to slip a leaflet into each copy of Heart of Darkness, saying 'Africans are just as important and valuable as any other group. Conrad is a racist. Be nice. Be open-minded. Or else.’? And who gets to decide which pieces of information and artwork should be censored and controlled? I think Achebe’s contention that Conrad's novel fulfills some “Western desire and need” for superiority over other cultures (African cultures in this case) is an easier case to argue. “If the African characters in the Heart of Darkness cannot be accepted as peers with independent motivations (resembling those of the narrator and resembling ours) and an autonomous voice, pity is the response that remains” (788).
Charity events to assist impoverished Africans, such as Feed the Children, Live Aid concerts, the Peace Corps, and USAID have run for decades and are motivated by pity (among other factors). While some aid programs have helped people in Africa, Asia, Latin America, and other locations achieve economic independence and increase their quality of life, other programs have poor track records when it comes to actually assisting their recipients; such programs create cycles of aid dependence and perpetuate poverty (if the donations even reach their intended audience at all). Such aid programs may benefit their donors more than their recipients by allowing their (comparatively rich) sponsors to feel good about themselves by sending money to ostensibly help people. This situation echoes Achebe’s critique of Western-African power relationships: “the West seems to suffer deep anxieties about the precariousness of its civilization and to have a need for constant reassurance by comparing it with Africa.” (792) Charity work provides a convenient venue to demonstrate superiority in this model, because the ability to help others and dictate the terms for the use of aid packages demonstrates the Western donors’ financial abundance (which they may also construe as moral superiority). But is this an accurate perception of Western-African power relationships at the moment? Is this a new colonialism?
[The Jump, if the code works right]
Achebe's article:
http://www.sjsu.edu/upload/course/course_6697/Achebe_An_Image_of_Africa.pdf
Achebe's argument, as applied to Conrad's novel:
Achebe’s charge that “White racism against Africa is such a normal way of thinking that its manifestations go completely undetected” (788) may have some validity: symbolic contrasts of light and darkness permeates the events of Conrad’s narrative, elucidating the savage depravity inherent in all human souls by establishing physically dark African characters (and Europeans who imitate them) as examples of sub-human behavior. According to Achebe, “Conrad projects the image of Africa as “the other world,” the antithesis of Europe and therefore of civilization, a place where a man's vaunted intelligence and refinement are finally mocked by a triumphant bestiality” (783). Conrad follows the symbolic codes of the Victorian era to enforce his distinction between the ‘pure, white European conqueror-masters’ and the ‘dirty, bloodthirsty African slaves/laborers’; this color-based dichotomization relies on Victorian cultural conceptions of Africa as 'The Dark Continent”, a paragon of evil and symbol of depravity.
Language is a key factor in Conrad’s establishment of European cultural superiority in Heart of Darkness, and the literal devoicing of African characters in the novel enforces their subhuman status. Conrad's audience is able to access and understand the motivations and perspectives of the European traders, sailors, and other workers through the British sailor Marlow's narration, but they have no comparable opportunity to listen to the thoughts and perspectives of the Congolese. The relative accessibility of the European narrative compared with the Congolese story requires the audience to privilege the European version of events and encourages them to sympathize with the Europeans’ struggles, while forcing them to ignore the astonishingly tragic mutilation and exploitation of Congolese citizens under the rule of the Belgian King Leopold (because the English narrator usually does). Linguistic incomprehensibility exoticizes the Congolese characters, and enforces their depiction as enigmatic and animal-like savages who lack rational thought and the literacy that symbolizes such intelligence.
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Outsiders to Post Colonialism
Here's my struggle: I want to latch on and say, "Right on! Western culture has been a dominating and homogenizing force for too long, suppressing other narratives as they struggle to be told!" But in saying so, I feel I am intruding on a silence that isn't mine, impressing upon the unspeakable/unsaid of a displaced culture. It isn't quite the same as men coming to feminism, the way I see it, because I can stand face to face with a man. I can question him, we speak (almost) the same language, and come from similar cultural traditions. Despite my sincerest efforts and best intentions to understand and embrace cultures other than my own, I can't escape the propensity to totalize.
I think aesthetic distance/obscurity might be the way out. It allows me to receive a nonwestern narrative in a way that forces me to grapple instead of sympathizing (because I certainly can't empathize) or condescending or trying to make the culture in question and my culture the same. I have to meet the work on its terms, instead of pulling it toward mine.
Except. Has anyone read the Posionwood Bible? Does anyone else find in it two almost totally alien cultures that are made distant as their stories are told? I'm thinking of Southern Baptist Culture and Congolese Culture, although perhaps the former is not so foreign to some. Anyway, it's by Barbara Kingsolver, and maybe I only love her work because she is rooted in biology, like I am, but it seems she somehow moves among the stories of other cultures with out dominating them or making them white. Poisonwood is one example, I think The Bean Trees is another (dealing with immigration). This rambled. My apologies. Thoughts?
I think aesthetic distance/obscurity might be the way out. It allows me to receive a nonwestern narrative in a way that forces me to grapple instead of sympathizing (because I certainly can't empathize) or condescending or trying to make the culture in question and my culture the same. I have to meet the work on its terms, instead of pulling it toward mine.
Except. Has anyone read the Posionwood Bible? Does anyone else find in it two almost totally alien cultures that are made distant as their stories are told? I'm thinking of Southern Baptist Culture and Congolese Culture, although perhaps the former is not so foreign to some. Anyway, it's by Barbara Kingsolver, and maybe I only love her work because she is rooted in biology, like I am, but it seems she somehow moves among the stories of other cultures with out dominating them or making them white. Poisonwood is one example, I think The Bean Trees is another (dealing with immigration). This rambled. My apologies. Thoughts?
Edward Said
Here are a couple links (I'm not very skilled with technology, so I can only offer you links, not embedded videos. I apologize.) to interviews with Edward Said in which he discusses his book Orientalism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njKVdFL6Kw
This is the one where he discusses humanism. Coincedentally, you can also learn French from this one, as, apparently, it originally aired on TV cinq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw
This is the one that we watched a clip from in class.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_njKVdFL6Kw
This is the one where he discusses humanism. Coincedentally, you can also learn French from this one, as, apparently, it originally aired on TV cinq.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xwCOSkXR_Cw
This is the one that we watched a clip from in class.
This doesn't directly relate to our current unit, but I ran across an article on the author of our article for today (Homi K. Bhabba) that I found interesting. This author apparently won a "Bad Writing" competition in 1998, where he was criticized for his jargon-filled prose.
http://denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm
However, what I found most interesting was his reaction to this, especially in context of what we have been constantly discussing in class. It was actually helpful to me to see a writer of this incredibly dense prose address the fact that he is, as Dr. Jenkins pointed out, almost writing in another language. But, then, as this language becomes more and more understandable, there is a beauty to it that "simple English" really couldn't express. We are deciphering the theorists as they are trying to decipher life.
"I have certainly been accused of using difficult words and complex formulations. I can only say that I use the language I need for my work. For instance, Hegel's book is difficult, but it's not that Hegel said: "How can I make my reader's life a misery?" He had certain references, allusions, and readings. In my case, such allusions also cause difficulties."
http://www.hindu.com/lr/2005/07/03/stories/2005070300020100.htm
Although it's kind of a short interview, there is a little context, a little exploration of cultural values. It was quite interesting.
... Not the bad definition of interesting, mind you.
http://denisdutton.com/bad_writing.htm
However, what I found most interesting was his reaction to this, especially in context of what we have been constantly discussing in class. It was actually helpful to me to see a writer of this incredibly dense prose address the fact that he is, as Dr. Jenkins pointed out, almost writing in another language. But, then, as this language becomes more and more understandable, there is a beauty to it that "simple English" really couldn't express. We are deciphering the theorists as they are trying to decipher life.
"I have certainly been accused of using difficult words and complex formulations. I can only say that I use the language I need for my work. For instance, Hegel's book is difficult, but it's not that Hegel said: "How can I make my reader's life a misery?" He had certain references, allusions, and readings. In my case, such allusions also cause difficulties."
http://www.hindu.com/lr/2005/07/03/stories/2005070300020100.htm
Although it's kind of a short interview, there is a little context, a little exploration of cultural values. It was quite interesting.
... Not the bad definition of interesting, mind you.
Tuesday, April 6, 2010
Once Again: The Debate Over Literature
Monday, April 5, 2010
Kicking Sacred Cows
Kicking Sacred Cows:
The Christian Bible is probably one of the most studied and interpreted texts in literary history, and Biblical interpretation has had significant impact on political and cultural events for the last two thousand years (hello, Crusades!). Beyond its role in inflaming armed conflicts, the Bible has been a cornerstone of (Foucault-style) epistemological development in several European societies, and indirectly shaped the development of science, medicine, literature, technology, and art across the world. Biblical exegesis has shifted with historical developments and varied among cultures (further influencing Biblical interpretations), though many contemporary audiences forget the text's mutability of form and meaning through translation, editing, and other alterations. Luckily "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch can tell us all about it, or lazy people like me can catch the highlights in the New York Times' review of MacCulloch's book, conveniently written from the perspective of a New Historicist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/books/review/Meacham-t.html
New York Times writer Jon Meacham leads a fascinating discussion of the development of Christian doctrine in MacCullock's book, and points out the significance of certain New Testament highlights to the Bible's earliest audiences. "For Christians, the answer to Pilate’s question about truth is the death and Resurrection of Jesus and what those events came to represent for believers. “Came to” is a key point, for the truth as Peter and the apostles saw it on that dark Friday was not the truth as 21st--century Christians see it. The work of discerning — or, depending on your point of view, assigning — meaning to the Passion and the story of the empty tomb was a historical as well as a theological process, as was the construction of the faith." The review then describes the process Jesus' disciples followed in interpreting the events of Jesus' life and teachings as they tried to reconcile his death and subsequent events with their Jewish messianic beliefs. These Jewish beliefs were unfamiliar to me, and I had heard very little about the active construction of Christian faith before the 4th century AD; the teachers of Christianity I've met have presented the Bible as a received text and events of the life of Jesus Christ as hardly questionable. Like a good New Historicist critic, Meacham then asks: "To what extent should holy books be read and interpreted critically and with a sense of the context in which they were written, rather than taken literally? His answer that "Christianity cannot be seen as a force beyond history, for it was conceived and is practiced according to historical bounds and within human limitations" could have come out of Bressler. Meacham's final message that religion is fluid and that historians have a role in determining belief and doctrine seems very relevant to New Historicism, and hints that the technique may still have a role in contemporary literary criticism.
The Christian Bible is probably one of the most studied and interpreted texts in literary history, and Biblical interpretation has had significant impact on political and cultural events for the last two thousand years (hello, Crusades!). Beyond its role in inflaming armed conflicts, the Bible has been a cornerstone of (Foucault-style) epistemological development in several European societies, and indirectly shaped the development of science, medicine, literature, technology, and art across the world. Biblical exegesis has shifted with historical developments and varied among cultures (further influencing Biblical interpretations), though many contemporary audiences forget the text's mutability of form and meaning through translation, editing, and other alterations. Luckily "Christianity: The First Three Thousand Years" by Diarmaid MacCulloch can tell us all about it, or lazy people like me can catch the highlights in the New York Times' review of MacCulloch's book, conveniently written from the perspective of a New Historicist.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/books/review/Meacham-t.html
New York Times writer Jon Meacham leads a fascinating discussion of the development of Christian doctrine in MacCullock's book, and points out the significance of certain New Testament highlights to the Bible's earliest audiences. "For Christians, the answer to Pilate’s question about truth is the death and Resurrection of Jesus and what those events came to represent for believers. “Came to” is a key point, for the truth as Peter and the apostles saw it on that dark Friday was not the truth as 21st--century Christians see it. The work of discerning — or, depending on your point of view, assigning — meaning to the Passion and the story of the empty tomb was a historical as well as a theological process, as was the construction of the faith." The review then describes the process Jesus' disciples followed in interpreting the events of Jesus' life and teachings as they tried to reconcile his death and subsequent events with their Jewish messianic beliefs. These Jewish beliefs were unfamiliar to me, and I had heard very little about the active construction of Christian faith before the 4th century AD; the teachers of Christianity I've met have presented the Bible as a received text and events of the life of Jesus Christ as hardly questionable. Like a good New Historicist critic, Meacham then asks: "To what extent should holy books be read and interpreted critically and with a sense of the context in which they were written, rather than taken literally? His answer that "Christianity cannot be seen as a force beyond history, for it was conceived and is practiced according to historical bounds and within human limitations" could have come out of Bressler. Meacham's final message that religion is fluid and that historians have a role in determining belief and doctrine seems very relevant to New Historicism, and hints that the technique may still have a role in contemporary literary criticism.
As a History Major...
I feel that the field of History, at least nowadays, acknowledges to some extent the artificiality of history.
For example, in my Chinese Philosophy class, with pretty much every document we read, there is a discussion of the veracity of the document. In our unit on Zhuangzi, we discuss the fact that Zhuangzi might not have written anything that he supposedly wrote and that each part of a his treatise seems to have been written by a different source. We discuss how Zhuangzi is called a Daoist, but only by later sources; no source ascribed to him refers to him as a Daoist. And Daoism itself is surrounded by these sorts of questions; Laozi's existence can be called entirely into question, for example.
And pretty much every history course I've taken has been like this, one way or another. Even in classes where we didn't read historical documents we've discussed matters of interpretation. In one class, we read a source that claimed a ancient Greek play's negative portrayal of barbarians was supposed to be ironic, and the question of whether modern day conceptions of irony can be applied that far back came up.
There seems to be a sort of hierarchy of history, from what is popularly concieved as history to what is discussed as history among scholars, and at the top level the very concept of history does begin to break down. Of course, the concept isn't abandoned wholesale, but there is definetly an awarness of its artificiality.
For example, in my Chinese Philosophy class, with pretty much every document we read, there is a discussion of the veracity of the document. In our unit on Zhuangzi, we discuss the fact that Zhuangzi might not have written anything that he supposedly wrote and that each part of a his treatise seems to have been written by a different source. We discuss how Zhuangzi is called a Daoist, but only by later sources; no source ascribed to him refers to him as a Daoist. And Daoism itself is surrounded by these sorts of questions; Laozi's existence can be called entirely into question, for example.
And pretty much every history course I've taken has been like this, one way or another. Even in classes where we didn't read historical documents we've discussed matters of interpretation. In one class, we read a source that claimed a ancient Greek play's negative portrayal of barbarians was supposed to be ironic, and the question of whether modern day conceptions of irony can be applied that far back came up.
There seems to be a sort of hierarchy of history, from what is popularly concieved as history to what is discussed as history among scholars, and at the top level the very concept of history does begin to break down. Of course, the concept isn't abandoned wholesale, but there is definetly an awarness of its artificiality.
Friday, April 2, 2010
Apparently, Ke$ha is relevant to our class
But given our rather lengthy discussion over Lady Gaga, you'd expect that, right?
In this very long article/blog/whatever, the author draws from several influences in order to make the argument that "Tik Tok" is pretty much a plague on society...but still relevant. There's even a shoutout to Barthes in there.
http://martinseay.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/%E2%80%9Cain%E2%80%99t-got-a-care-in-the-world-but-got-plenty-of-beer-ain%E2%80%99t-got-no-money-in-my-pocket-but-i%E2%80%99m-already-here%E2%80%9D/
In this very long article/blog/whatever, the author draws from several influences in order to make the argument that "Tik Tok" is pretty much a plague on society...but still relevant. There's even a shoutout to Barthes in there.
http://martinseay.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/%E2%80%9Cain%E2%80%99t-got-a-care-in-the-world-but-got-plenty-of-beer-ain%E2%80%99t-got-no-money-in-my-pocket-but-i%E2%80%99m-already-here%E2%80%9D/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)