Contribution to Group Project

Alas, class is nearly over and it is time to reflect on what has been done.

For our group project, I assisted in editing our slideshow and contributed a number of pictures and organizational ideas.  The main thing I wanted to focus on for this presentation was discussion, not lecture.  So I made sure that the group felt comfortable with that and we began trying to figure out the best way to create discussion.  We decided that video clips worked well and since the class has become to used to their use, it would be an easy way to present ideas.  Unfortunately, some of my other ideas weren't included in the presentation, as we wanted to keep consistancy and keep the time down on our presentation. 
Working in a group was at times, difficult and it was hard to accept when certain members took over, excluding some really good ideas or even members from the group.  Overall, however, I feel as though our project turned out well (aside form the controversy it created).  The only suggestion I would have for future group projects is to limit the size of groups, because it was extremely difficult to get everyone together and communicate effectively.

Cyborgs and Posthumans: Haraway's "A Manifesto for Cyborgs"

    Haraway’s Manifesto for Cyborgs brings up many interesting points.  Her theory that “there is nothing about being female that naturally binds women together into a unified category” is particularly interesting.  Feminists in the past have tried to seek something to tie them together and unite them in order to fight against a male dominated society.  Women have embraced their femininity or shunned it in the past in an effort to connect with other women.  Haraway’s version of feminism (although somewhat Utopian) is far more practical. Instead of demanding women to form a new stereotype, she asks all people to blend the borders between common ideas.
    This goes beyond just women.  Blacks, Whites, males, females, Chicanas, or whatever people happen to be needs to stop defining us.  This is the only way we will be able to move past the oppression and stereotyping of our society.  
    Another thing that is interesting about Haraway is the following statement: “It is not clear who makes and who is made in the relation between human and machine.”  This concept is intriguing and true especially in our modern day.  Technology has completely revolutionized the way we live, which in turn also reworks our survival needs.  Physical survival of the fittest becomes obsolete and instead those who are able to relate best with technology, not nature, are able to succeed and prosper.  Technology also becomes not only a tool, but an expression of self, and extension of self.  Although we create and enhance technology, we also let it create and define our own personal identity.

Analysis #7 Ethnicity Studies/Post-Colonial Theory

    This video clip differs from the thoughts of Gloria Anzaldua, who declares that she won’t be a part of America’s melting pot.  Instead she wants to be an American, but continue to hold on to every part of her past.  Although this video’s message is supposed to be good, Anzaldua would be unable to completely agree with its approach.  Whereas the melting pot blends away differences, Anzaldua believes that the understanding of different cultures in the pasts of individuals is a key part of overcoming ignorance.  Instead of simply blending cultures together, she insists people must be in touch with their heritage and they must also try to understand the heritage of others. 
    Her approach seems to be more of what has been referred to by some as a “salad bowl” approach more than a melting pot.  In her approach there are differences that can’t be blended away, but that remain working together amongst other differing cultures.  Here writing even includes some of this “salad bowl” concept.  Her writing employs different languages that can often be confusing, but serves to show that she wishes to incorporate different aspects of her culture into the same body of work.
    This video also seems to imply that cultures are effectively combined in America, something Anzaldua would have also disagreed with.  Although some individuals have mixed cultures, she recognizes that the dispersal of cultures is not even in America.  They are also not always even in rank.  If America truly was a melting pot, then racism and oppression wouldn’t exist, which it still very clearly does.

 Works Cited

Anzaldua, Gloria. Borderlands/La Fronters: The New Mestiza.” Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 2010. 2098-2109. Print.

SchoolHouseRocksKids. “The Great American Melting Pot” Feb 19, 2010. May 8, 2011.  Web.

Analysis #6 Gender Studies/ Feminist Theory

    In her Feminafesto, Anne Waldman asks the question “is language phallogocentric?”  She refers to practice of misogyny in the literary practice, but the phallogocentric nature of words exists in the real world as well as the literary world.  In particular, the army uses many of these types of words and although these practices were more predominant when women weren’t involved in the military, but they still exist.  Phalluses become a symbol of power, while the feminine is used to subvert that power in other terms.
    The phallic and destructive components of war are coded male according to writer Joshua Goldstein in his book War and Gender.  Bombs, missiles, guns all represent the male and are therefore coded male.  Hence the phrase “this is my rifle, this is my gun. This is for fighting, this is for fun.”  The male’s private are turned into a symbol of power and their gun is turned into a phallus.
    Inversely, carriers of these phalluses are coded in terms of the female.  Other coded images are targets, thing male coded objects are intended to destroy and conquer.   Just as Waldman states, there is misogyny and women in war are coded to be mothers, and carries of phallus carriers; whores as receivers of the phallus; and sex objects to be dominated and destroyed by these phallic symbols. 
    This phallogocentric language not only serves as a commentary on gender perception, but also reinforces it.  It supports and reiterates the notion that the feminine/female is something to be dominated by the masculine/male.  Waldman hopes that one day “the page not be empty female awaiting penetration by dark phallic ink-juice.”  It seems, too, she should start hoping that that the enemy is not something to be dominated and destroyed by phallic weaponry.

Works Cited

Goldstein, Joshua. War and Gender. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001. Print.

Youtube clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kU0XCVey_U

Feminism and Gender Studies: Butler's "Gender Trouble"

    This is Nina Flowers, she’s a drag artist if you haven’t noticed.  According to Bulter’s theories, drag the Nine uses serves a potentially useful tool in the modification of gender stereotypes.  Characters such as Nina Flower serves as an imitation of the “feminine” in the form of a man dressed in women’s clothing.  They push the boundaries of gender and work to re-establish them. 
    Bulter, unlike many feminists, doesn’t hate men and avoid categorizing women into the broad terms of a “True Woman” “New Woman” or any other popular categorization of women, as all are different.  She encourages men to participate in the equality of women by blurring genders lines and discouraging violence.
    Bulter asserts that gender is not an accurate representation of, but it is rather a performance.  This goes to explain why many people that dress in drag primarily perform in drag shows and competition, it become a performance.  Although these men identify as men in regards to sex, they are able to push the boundaries in order to draw additional attention to the division in gender perception.
    If Butler is correct, the gender imitated by drag artists such as RuPaul does not truly even exist.  It is merely an imitation of an imitation of something that has never existed.  This means that drag imitates a gender role that has been created by a culture as a response to sex.  These gender definitions don’t accurately portray the sex they are attributed.  I’m not all that sure I completely comprehend this concept, but it certainly seems interesting.

Analysis #4 Marxist Theory

   
    This cartoon was an attempt during the Cold War to defend Capitalism against Anti-capitalististic individuals like Marx.  Although it’s supposed to defend Captialism, it also points out many of the points Marx is uncomfortable with regarding Capitalism.
    Marx would have immediately noticed that the main character, Freddie Fudsie creates a surplus of supply and because of this he no longer has need for the extra product as he already has enough soap to satisfy his personal needs.  This soap can then be sold for profit.  The labor time it takes to make this product and its use to others creates its value, which after time and trade becomes a fairly universal price in relation to other products.  Money becomes the middle-man for trade and its value is established in relation to a dollar making trade easier.
    Since Freddie is able to speed up his production time, he is also able to speed up the speed in which he makes his product, making it possible to create more product and gain more profit.  He is also able to expand his business into new areas.  Doing this also has an effect on the relationship Freddie has with his product.  He and his workers become emotionally divorced from the product their making.  Labor time decreases and the value decreases, but the amount of production compensates for this as society still places additional value on his product for its quality and its brand.
    The video states that the profit motive is the driving force behind the American industry and that this is beneficial to future generations of Americans.  However it is interesting to notice that Freddie’ original goal is to create more time to enjoy his life.  Instead he becomes corrupted by greed.  The future generations, too have no time for enjoyment, as they perpetuate the market that individuals such as Freddie have created, robbing their lives of free time as they become slaves to their profit and the market.

 Works Cited

Marx Karl. “Commodities.” Norton Anthology of Theory and Criticism. Ed. Vincent B. Leitch. W.W. Norton & Company: New York, 2010. 663-671. Print.

Animation Station. “Going Places” (1948). March 29, 2011.  Web.

Analysis #3 Pyschoanalysis

Freud's theory of fetishism is one that seems unlikely to many in today's society and exhibits many flaws and holes in its research. However, he is one of the few people who have given any remotely plausible reasoning to the development of fetishes in adults and is, therefore, worthy of consideration. The clip for this analysis displays several common and not so common costuming selections for serious fetishists and here, I will attempt to explain their significance through a Freudian perspective . Although some of them many seem initially obscure, Freudian analysis offers an explanation for their presence, whether it is accurate or not.
For instance, the animal costumes or "fuzzies" depicted in this video directly correlate with Freud's hypothesis that a young man's fetish is established by the last thing he observed before he realized that his mother no longer possessed a phallus. The fur in many of these costumes, according to Freud, would be a symbol of the mother's pubic hair which, "should have been followed by the longed-for sight of the pubic member". These individuals have focused their sexual attention on these costumes in order to redirect their fear of castration and deny their homosexuality. By focusing their sexual attention on the fur instead of the women, these fetishists can engage in sexual relations with women while continuing their sexual attraction to a phallic symbol and ignoring their fear of castration.
The latex outfits seemed a little less clear than the fur, as Freud didn't specifically address latex in his writing. They didn't seem to initially represent anything except a lack of hair, which would be contrary to the previous fetish, involving hair. This seemed extremely confusing for some time, however, a little inventive thinking clarified the situation. It donned on me after some time that a person clad in latex could physically represent the phallus itself. Fetishists could literally have sex with a sort of phallus without being considered homosexual or even having to consider the gender of the person they were engaging in sex with.

Unfortunately this video clip also addressed some issues with Freud's theories, not all of the costumes and practices observed seem in accordance with his beliefs. For instance, the balloon fetish don't seem to have any correlation with phallic imagery. Also Freud never considers variation in his fetishists. What if they are already openly gay? or female?
An openly gay man wouldn't need a symbolic phallus, as he has already addressed the desire for a penis. S&M and fetishism is popular in many homosexual circles, so it's not as if gay openly gay men are exempt from fetishes. Is this a fatal flaw in Freud's argument, or has our definition or fetish changed? It is possible that some people just immensely enjoy social taboo in a way that Freud's concept of "fetish" does not include.
In addition I found it interesting that Freud never addresses female fetishists. Although fetishists in the video seem to be primarily male, there is also a woman depicted. Does Freud's theory then become reversed? Do women experience the development of a fetish due to a fear of phalluses and the fear that they might grow some strange appendage from their groin? These incomplete thoughts lead me to question Freud's theories.

Works Cited

Current Media. "Youtube's Creepiest Fetish Costumes" Oct. 30 2009. Web. March 22 2011.
Freud, Sigmund. "Fetishism." (1927). Print. New York:W.W. Norton & COmpany.

Reader Response Theory- Barthes "Death of the Author"

Originally, I had been a huge believer in the influence of an author on a text, but after reading Barthes’s “Death of the Author,” I admittedly began to question some of my previous conceptions. I still believe in some cases, the Author exists more strongly in the text than in other pieces (one example being Tennessee William, who reflects much of his personal life and experience in his work) however, it can limit depth of a work to only analyze the author of the text. It prevents readers from considering other alternatives and interpretations. Instead, combining reader response in conjunction with technical elements employed by the author may allow for a deeper and more meaningful or applicable analysis. This doesn’t mean the author needs to be completely dead to the work, but they become more of an echo than anything.

Something that assisted in digesting this work was looking at literary criticism in a way similar the way in which movies are often viewed by audiences. No one considers the value of the work based on the life experience of the author unless it is extremely relevant to the work. Movies based on true stories retain a far louder echo of the author, but as most movies aren’t based on real situations, we must find other ways to critique the material. We instead begin to look at the visual effects, camera angles, believability of the characters, and how we personally respond to the work because of our understanding of reality. This allows for a greater conversation and more varied interpretations of a work, giving it added depth and appeal to different backgrounds. I believe this was what Barthes believes should be the case for literature as well.

Psychoanalysis: Lacan's Mirror Stage

One thing that I felt wasn't covered sufficiently by Lacan was the formation of the ego in situations lacking a mirror. Of course, one who hasn't seen their reflection would eventually develop a sense of self due to "social determination," but would they be lacking some sort of essential formative step in the development of self-awareness? Or would their sense of self awareness be more accurate due a lack of the "statue in which man projects himself" or the "phantoms that dominate him." This is to say, what exactly would the effects be if a man were to never see a reflection of his own image? It would be extremely interesting to compare the resulting egos of people exposed and unexposed to images of themselves.

Lacan's theory manages to explain one potential aspect of the development of ego, but also explains a common human obsession, which is that of the "double." Our society has a slight fascination with twins and the concept of a "doppelganger." Dostoyevsky was particularly attracted to the concept of the doppelganger, writing a book called "The Double" in which a man is forced to face his evil counterpart. Even Madonna has featured the concept of an evil twin in her "Die Another Day" music video. These doppelgangers may represent evil due to the sense of competition and fragmentation Lacan claims we feel at the first exposure to a mirror. Twins most likely baffle people due to their similarity and must be interesting to study, as they are able to see a three dimensional image of their own likeness.

Structuralism and Semiotics: Frye "The Archetypes in Literature"

Frye seems particularly interested in what causes particular genres and archetypes to form.  In order to find cause of this formation, he looks for various patterns in imagery throughout time.  He traces back archetypes to ancient rituals and traditions, which I found to be interesting as a lot of it applied to several religious studies classes I have taken. People associated the seasons and certain symbols with other symbols such as life or death. Frye breaks it down essentially like this:

Spring→birth, revival→romance

Summer→success, marriage→comedy, pastoral

Autumn→death→tragedy

Winter→defeat→satire

These traditions and types often have different variations, but the imagery within each general is somewhat similar.  These patterns and associations are seen throughout literature and oral tradition in a great many cultures and communities, explaining their prevalence in literary works.

Another section I found to be interesting was the following quote: “The importance of the god or hero in the myth lies in the fact that such characters, who are conceived in human likeness and yet have more power over nature, gradually build up the vision of an omnipotent personal community beyond an indifferent nature.”  Like our need for rituals to try to influence the earth, we as humans like to try to explain things and try to overcome the indifference and pure randomness of nature.  This leads to our need for figures that are able to exert themselves against nature and prevail.  I found this to be an extremely insightful explanation as to the origin and need for hero figures in literature.

Picture post: Formalism, Analysis #2

Paintings such as this are part of why I can’t complete accept the scientific distancing that is a common attribute of Formalism.  The Formalist approach would to be analyze the form and content, but not to take into account the life of the artist.  Through the eyes a Formalist, this piece is valid because it uses different tones of white, cream, and grey.  It also experiments with a variety of texture, using both lumpy nodules and defined edges to provide contrast and bring attention directly to the center of the canvas.  These edges create interesting tilted angles within the piece and the bottom half has lines that radiate farther away from the center, which gives the appearance of a more heavily weighted bottom half that is additionally accentuated by spots of grey coloration. The top is also darker colored and set farther back, which highlights the depth of field and makes the farthest and lightest parts of the painting seem even farther out.

All of this is very interesting and relevant to the work, however, it leaves out all human aspects of the work.  I often have this problem with Formalism because it denies some very important aspects of this painting.  One of the reasons that this painting is so coveted is because of the artist’s process of creating it.  She spent nearly fifteen years layering paint on the canvas and chipping it away until she finally came up with the image she was satisfied with.  This background information undoubtedly adds additional value to the work when you see how much time and effort and intent was behind the work, even if it isn’t initially apparent by simply viewing the work.

Enlightenment Theory and Criticism

This week, Pope’s Essay on Criticism was my favorite of the provided readings. This section in particular stood out to me:

'Tis hard to say, if greater Want of Skill
Appear in Writing or in Judging ill,
But, of the two, less dang'rous is th' Offence,
To tire our Patience, than mis-lead our Sense

I think that this is very important in a society where so much of the information we receive is transmitted verbally and via the internet.

                One prime example of information being verbally misconstrued in my life is through my friend Nick.  Nick likes to mix accurate information with what he thinks is true and sometimes even what he knows as false.  Before I got to know him and was able to identify when he was adding little bits of flair to his “facts,” I often took his words to be true.  I even told other people some of the information he had given me, believing it to be true.  This misleading of the senses accounts for thousands of inaccurate statistics we soak up and spew out to our fellow peers, further misleading them.

                The internet is just as bad as my friend Nick.  The internet has become extremely useful in many ways, but also allows for the distortion of many truths.  Sites like Wikipedia or others that allow anonymous posting allow people who aren’t experts to sound like experts.  Another teacher was just telling me how a student had cited a random website in their paper.  It turns out this website was created by a 6^th grade class for a project and most of the information was flawed, but the presenter had believed all of it.

                Due to this I complete understand the desire for bad writing over convincing but untrue writing.

Classical Antiquity Continued

On Longinus and Aristotle:

This week, I found the Longinus reading to be particularly interesting.  At first I didn’t completely agree with what he was saying.  To me, the sublime could be simple and pure, whereas he says that it should not only be initially beautiful, but must also be able to maintain its beauty upon deeper analysis.  Eventually, however, I realized that we actually have similar thoughts on sublimity.  A dew drop for example is simple, pure and beautiful.  I initially thought that seeing sublimity is something so simple meant that we weren’t in agreement, however as I began to think about the beauty of the water drop and why it was so beautiful and it’s other attributes that make is special, I saw I was wrong.  Even simple things can be rather complex and therefore sublime.  Water is pure, but it refracts light, shows through color, and even gives life.

                 Due to the fact that I see nature as so often sublime, I wish that Longinus could have included more about sublimity in other areas besides literature, but seeing how this is a part of critical theory in literature, I guess that wouldn’t have made all that much sense.

                Another thing I particularly liked about Longinus was his desire for elevated diction.  This was very similar to Aristotle’s definition of “exotic names.”  Big words are always fun, even if sometime daunting and I thought exotic names sounded like a more exotic way of describing these words.

Analysis #1 Classical Antiquity

     In this skit, we see a prime example of a poor argument consisting of pure contradiction and no evidence or persuasive elements.  When contrasted with Gorgias’s “Econium of Helen” the difference between argumentation and well executed rhetoric becomes immediately apparent.  The two main characters of this skit are engaged in an argument, one of them even admitting that it is not necessarily a “good argument” in which neither is very persuasive to the other.  The characters merely contradict each other over and over in an effort to prove their respective points which seem to alter as the argument progresses.

     Instead of simply arguing back and forth in a series of “yes you did” and “no I didn’t” circular arguments as the two characters in the skit do, Gorgias makes a claim that Helen should be free of blame and then proceeds in his argument by stating the reasons as to why she shouldn’t be blamed.  He states that she was either in love, “persuaded by speech”, “ravished by force,” or “constrained by divine constraint.” This follow-through in his argument allows him to be far more convincing and effective than the two members of the skit.  As Gorgias states, persuasion must be added to speech in order to produce an influential argument.

There are only small glimpses in which the two actors employ any sort of use of rhetoric.  One of these times actually is in reference to rhetoric.  The actor argues, “An argument is a collective series of statements to establish a definite proposition,” but is quickly contradicted by a non-supported claim afterwards.  The only other instance that attempts at effective rhetoric is when one of the actors supplies an alternative argument for a claim made by the other actors.  One states that he has paid since they are still arguing and the other quickly refutes by offering the possibility that he could be arguing on his free time instead of as a result of payment.

Gorgias states many things about the power of speech, but the most notable might be:

The effect of speech upon the condition of the soul is comparable to the power of drugs over the nature of bodies. For just as different drugs dispel different secretions form the body, and some bring an end to disease and others to life, so also in the case of speeches, some distress, others delight, some cause fear, others make the hearers bold, and some drug and bewitch the soul with a kind of evil persuasion.

Indeed, the speech the characters participate does act as an effect on the condition of one of the actors.  He becomes flustered and most certainly “distressed” and at times “bold” due to his frustration with the inaccuracy of the speeches being presented to him.  The effect can also be quite confusing and disorienting for anyone viewing the clip if they are unaware of what is occurring in the scene.


Works Cited



Benthecartoon. "Monty Python Argument Clinic." Web. March 15 2011.

Gorgias “Econium of Helen" (1927). Print. New York:W.W. Norton & Company.

Reading for 2/1 (Gorgias and Plato)

I’m a little unclear on how many blog posts we are supposed to have, but I’m assuming if I cover each week’s reading I should be fine.  This being said, I’ll start on Gorgias’s Econium of Helen and Plato’s Republic Books II, III, and X.

                Gorgias is concerned with persuasion, not universal truth, which I think is interesting and really goes to show how there is never really one reality, as there can be multiple truths depending upon how one is persuaded and what facts are illuminated.  The book says that the way he thought could be stated as such:  “language as not simply representing reality but in effect producing reality by shaping the beliefs of an audience.”   Okay, now that’s a cool concept; language can create and mold reality.  It really shows how influential language is and reminds me of why I’m an English major, because language really is amazing and has such awesome capabilities.

In his Econium, Gorgias tries to prove that Helen’s “detractors” are lying and works to improve his overall ethos by attempting to show he purely is searching for truth. He says that either the gods willed her to act the ways she did, she was in love, or persuaded by speech.  All of these options leave her blameless.  I think it’s interesting how within his attempt to display the powers of rhetoric by changing people’s minds, he also additionally proves how rhetoric may have been powerful enough to change Helen’s mind and cause her to act the way she did. By implanting ideas, invisible matters may become apparent.

                I, personally, couldn’t relate to Plato’s thoughts as well as I could to Gorgias.  Plato favored strong censorship and thought that young people couldn’t distinguish allegory from truth, which I find absurd.  He manipulates logic in order to prove his point and guide those who he speaks with arrive at the same conclusions he has.  Because of his skillful manipulations of words, I admire him.  It is understandable that his need for absolute truth would follow people like Gorgias, who didn’t care much for truth and only wanted good arguments.   

                When you look at these two figures together, you can see the progression of ideas in Classical Antiquity.  There’s a series of actions and reactions, in which Gorgias and Plato come up with their opinions of what should be of value in society.

Hello, it's nice to meet you!

Alright, so I’m not exactly sure what to write for this blog (particularly for an introduction), so bear with me as I stumble through this. I’m sure it’ll get easier as I get more accustomed to the class. In any case, first I’ll tell you a bit about myself and then we can get into the fun theory stuff.

My name is Carmen Drake, and I’m currently in my third year here at CSUN. I like to keep busy, so I’m involved in several positions in my sorority and on the CSUN Dance Team. I have a love for reading that has existed for as long as I can remember, which has resulted in a slightly overactive imagination and a near-empty bank account. After reading, comes dance and then photography. I’ve recently become quite the collector of hobbies and look forward to try new things, which has recently led me to learn that I’m surprisingly good with a shotgun (skydiving is up next!)

Now, on to my introductory thoughts about Critical Theory... I’ve never taken a critical theory class before, so I know much about critical theories. Actually, to be more accurate, I know nothing about critical theory. Zip. Zero. Zilch. That being said, I’ll admit, this class is a little bit intimidating to me especially since when some my fellow students speak I feel like I have a huge question mark looming above my head. I’ve heard so many of the terms used for theory before, but I’ve never taken the time to learn them, which makes me feel a little behind already (which is ironic because I’m coming to this class to learn things, not because I already know them). The first readings also seemed a bit confusing, but as I went on, things got clearer and clearer once again with discussion. I’m excited for this class, but I know I’m going to have some confusion and misunderstandings along the way since this subject is so new to me.

In our first class we were asked what our “theory of theory” was. When the question was first asked, I was a somewhat confused. I know nothing about theory, so all I could think of was “how am I supposed to know what mine is if I don’t know what my options are?” However, as the class discussion proceeded I got a better idea of what was being asked and was consequently able to clarify my own thoughts, making it easier to come up with a better understanding and a rough answer.

I’ve decided that my theory of theory is that an author’s true intentions can never truly be known (even to the author himself) as much of the reasoning behind a work is unconscious. When we write, we reveal significant details about our beliefs and backgrounds that greatly impact the writing and readers’ responses. Authors often include themes and ideas that are important to their stories without even realizing that they are doing so and I think that sometimes when we write, we teach ourselves about ourselves, if that makes any sense.

As I said before, I’m new to all of this, so I apologize if I sound like an idiot sometimes throughout the course of the semester, but I’m looking forward to trying something new and learning some new things!