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.
Monday, May 16, 2011
Monday, May 9, 2011
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.
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.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
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
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 3, 2011
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.
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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)