Wrapping it all up

Over the past three months this class has covered a lot of material. Most of the material we read I had never been exposed to in class, and some I had never even heard of. Deconstructive theory was one of the subjects that was brand new to me. I feel like this class was a good introduction to Deconstruction, however I feel like we just touched upon the subject. I found Derrida and Straus to be overwhelmingly interesting figures found in literary theory. The film Derrida helped me to understand the brilliance behind the man, however I feel like I still know very little about his teachings, some of you may disagree, but I had a very tough time wrapping my brain around the Structuralism/Post-Structuralism theories.
The two theories that I feel like I was able to apply the most were Marxist Criticism and Feminist Theory. It helped that I had learned about Karl Marx and his ideology in previous classes, and if any of you guys had Dr. M before you would have undoubtedly at least touched on feminism in her other classes. I did enjoy the readings from rice and wuagh regarding feminism because it wasn’t the classic feminist theory I have been exposed too throughout high school and college.
The two theories mentioned above also aspire to change the way people think and act, they arte not just a critique. Keeping that in mind I see them as more powerful than the others. Applying their theories to texts helped me to see how the two ideologies had a strong impact on many people. I choose to do a close reading on fight club for my final paper. My original plan was to analyze how corporate consumerism manipulates people into thinking that your identity is rooted in what you own and your image. However while researching consumerism in the late 20th century I found that there were a lot of criticisms of the men of this generation, the baby boomers. I decided to incorporate feminist theory into my paper, and analyze the post-war American man, and the identity crisis they faced in light of the women’s movement, and among other aspects as well.
When first thinking about the final paper months ago, I wanted to do a post-structuralist reading on a text, however I my confidence sputtered when I realized that 10 pages was going to be difficult to cover. I felt like while the topic interested me greatly, I would not be able to produce a comprehensive research paper on the matter. What theories did you guys use? Was it one that interested you the most? Or was it the one you were most confident with?

Imus in the spotlight

Im an hour late..


I dont know exactly when Imus decided to bring racism and sexism into his daily morning radio show. It is obviously a very new story so its rather recent.. does anyone know what day he made his now notorious comment?

The reason i ask is because i was sitting in 12:00 Easter mass on sunday waiting for my turn to go up and recieve the Eurcaurist (spelling? sorry Jesus) and i see a man severly under dressed for Easter Sunday walk up and recieve the body of Christ. I'm not a terrible rude person but i decided to watch this guy and check out what his tee shirt said. So he goes up and does his thing, and as he walks by me i look at his shirt wich simply reads: IMUS IN THE MORNING. thats it. a little baffled but not shocked.

When i arrive back at school on monday my roommate is watching espn. Low and behold imus is now a household name. i heard of the guy before, knew nothing of his politics or what his show was all about, but now the world views him as a Sexist Biggit (spelling?). So Stewart Scott informs me, and the rest of the country for that matter, that Imus had made some derogatory comments on his radio show.

In class on tuesday... i learn his direct qoute: "Nappy headed hos," reffering to the rutggers womans basketball team, who were already in the spotlight for much more posative reasons, aka winning the NCAA national championship.

Lets back track to the man wearing the Imus in the morning shirt to EASTER MASS.
think about it and let me know

Edwards and his Bloggers

Link: http://www.lehigh.edu/~amsp/2007/02/blogger-authenticity-vs-presidential.html

So Edwards is running for president... (anyone but Bush right?!!)
Anyways, as a form of publicity and to get his message across on all different types of mediums and employs a handfull of his witty, educated, hopefully cultured, supporters to go around and wander the Bloguniverse or whatever crazy name they give it these days, and start political debates, spread his message and plans as potential president, anything to produce posative influence. The key word there is posative. Supposedly one of these bloggers dipped a toe in some hot water when they made some not so well recieved comments regarding the Catholic Church.

Now im not much into politics - please dont jump down my throat for that, i am of recently making myself more aware and preparing myself for future elections - but i dont think employing people to spread your word via blogspot.com is the smartest idea considering you as the candidate or any advisers you might have and trust, do not get the oppertunity to supervise what gets posted. Whatever is said directly reflects on Edwards, and that can come back to bite you in the ass. Not to mention what other posts will follow, by supporters and non-supporters alike. Things could get nasty

death by Foucault

When i began to dive in to Foucault's What is an Author? i was extremely- extremely scepitcal. Not that i doubted his genious or took him for a quack or anything, but i have read some of us other stuff before - History of Sexualitiy to be specific... and im not at all ashamed to say that almost every word of it went over my head. I was mainly afraid of his language and his word choice, and was weary as to if i was going to be able to decipher what he was saying.

For instance in History of Sexuality i read the section Dr. M had assigned for last semester and struggled immensenly with it. However what it was all said and done i thought i at least understood the general idea or thesis of his argument. Low and behold Friday noon roles around and Dr. M begins her lecture, and about ten minutes in my head was going in circles. Apparently i had gotten it all wrong and Fouccault's argument was the exact opposite of what i thought it was. It took my the rest of the semester to understand it enough to answer the question pertaining to to Foucault on the final. Oh well.

Anyways back to the What is an Author, It seems to me that Foucault is saying that it does indeed matter, our image of the author that we get when we read his/her work. Shakespeare was a great example. he said that the individual of William Shakespeare- and the details of his life that are unrelated to his "work" (which i am slightly confused by, when thinking of it in Foucault's terms) are not important to the image of Shakespeare as an author. For instance if it were found out that Shakespeare has 18 brothers and sisters, and father 3 illigtimate children, that should effect his status and and image as an "author". However if we come to find out the "The Taming of the Shrew" was derrived from another story that was never published and written by an unknown person, that would then in turn force us to question his image as an "author". Now, he would still be considered an author- undoubtedbly. Foucault also makes the point that if we were to find out that Shakespeare was responsible for a dozen of other works that were first attributed to other authors - depending on the subtance of the material - this can in fact also change his status as an "author" and in turn give him a different image.

"Work". This term that Foucault throws around more or less confused me. I dont think he gave a clear definition of what should constitute as a "work". he did ask a bunch of questions - that i thought were going to be answered shorlty after they were proposed.. but i never found the answers.. perhaps they are hidden in his vast vocabulary - because once again i do struggle with his work. So if any of you bright english majors want to point out what constitues as a "work" according to Foucault - on confidant on my ability to understand your language - or you just want to throw some page numbers my way, i'd appreciate it very much.

"I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think" - i think....

Lacan's twisting of Decarte's famous phrase: "I think, therefore i am" into "I think where I am not, therefore I am where I do not think" is an interesting concept. to be honest i like Decarte's idea a little better, i find it inspiring and empowering. I read it as an ambitious romantic would read it: i could be whatever it is i want to be, if you put your mind to it.. yada yada yada... but I'm pretty sure that is not what Decarte was trying to convey considering he later reworded the phrase to read: "I think, therefore i exist". thats pretty cool too, but pretty confusing as well. Take an inatimate object - a rock for instance, it does not think, but it still exists.

Anyway, Lacan was working off of the Freudian concept of the unconcious mind when he distorted Decartes original qoute. He was saying that most of a person thinks, their train of thought that essentially makes them who the are, is going on in the unconcious mind - where the person "is not'. the second part of the qoute kind of confuses me, and if anyone out there wants to throw some insight this way it would be apprecaited... perhaps an enthralling conversation will ensue....

Psycho -

Freud was an interesting dude was some pretty original ideas. he was undoubtedly a pioneer in field of psychology and in the exploration of the mind. His main thing was that he believed that there is a distinct seperation between that of our concious mind - the one that we make everyday simple desicions with, the one in which we have all our internal dialogue, yada yada yada.. and the unconcious mind - a completely different area of the brain which all of our 'repressed feelings' of desire, fear, and memories we choose to block out, all reside. that must be one crazy little place. We never actually enter our unconcious mind according to Freud.. rather it comes out on its own in subleties that have been overlooked or undiscovered in all the years since Freud.

One of the best ways to analyze whats going on in that crazy unconcious mind of your is to take a hard look at your dreams and open yourself up to interpretation. Freud would interpret dreams of his patients.. and make claims that would shock the hell out of them. One patient that Barry discusses in particular is that of Dora. She was an eighteen year old girl who had threatened to kill herself, and claim that she had been sexually abused by her fathers friend. Through a bizzare interpretation of dream she had in which her father helped save her from a fire, Freud made the claim that the fire was her burning lust for her father (Oedipus Complex) in which she is resentful that it isnt returned... and through a couple other associations that arnt even related to the dream.. Dora actually desired the man she claimed was abusing her.

This case was highly publicized and critiqued .. and needless to say did not help Freud popularity. To this day his thoughts and ideas are heavily challenged... especailly by Feminist Critics.

Okay Freud, you were brave and daring... kodus... you made great advances in the field of psychology and provoked some really interesting thought your theory.. but you should have taken it a little easy on the little cocaine expierment.

Derrida

Derrida claims that there is nothing outside a text, and that reality as we know it is a construction, and therefore reality is a type of text. Ever structure or construction must of a center according to Derrida. Within this structure ther must be a center which I think must be undisrupted to begin with. When the center is disrupted, it is called Derrida calls this a rupture. What ruptures a structure? Is it play? What exactly is play. I know it is defined as the disruption of presence. So are rupture and play linked because center and presence are linked? Sorry if I'm confusing you.


Going back to the center, aka the source of truth within a structure. It has been understood that for the center to be "present" it resides in the middle. If the center is absent (not-present) it resides on the outside. Only when the center is fully present can the structure be condsidered stable or fixed. Derrida attacks the entire idea of Knowledge as presence.

Another concept i am begining to grasp is that of Nature Vs. Culture. Nature has been around forever. Culture is secondary to nature because it is in away a product of it. Human nature is what leads to the development of cultures. Things that are natural, can be found throughout the entire natural world, and are unaffected by culture. Aspects of life that are exclusive to a certian region or a certian people is a part of the cultural world. An example of something that is a part of both the cultural and natural world is the incest taboo. Incest is denounced and looked down upon on in all cultures. It is a natural law not to sleep with your family members. Therefore the law is satisfied in both the natural and cultural world

Tuesdays class helped clear a couple things up for me. I found it to be one of the more "helpfull" classes thus far. Dr. McGuire did more lecturing than usual, and i know that this is a seminar and all but sometimes lectures can do wonders if done at approipiate times. I think Derrida qualifies.

Post/ Structuralism

Post-Structuralism came about after Structuralism
and in my opinion fixed what was wrong with Strucuralism.
Both theories concentrate on binary pairs, especially when dealing
with the concept of words. Structuralism is more concerned with the
parallels that are found in language, more specifically words in general.
Post-Structuralism works off this idea of binary pairs, but is more concerned
with the contradictions that are found in language and more specifically
words. One way of thinking about this is that words contaiminate eachother.
This idea of contamination differs from Structuralist concept that suggests
that our reality is constructed through language. The similarity is that
both consider language as a system. Post-Structuralism is concerned
more with the "centers" of systems. I dont completely understand
the idea of the "center". One thing we touched on in class was
the idea that man is the center of knowledge, but does that
mean that man is the center of language? How do
Structuralists feel about this? Do they Acknowledge
man as the center of knowledge and language??

Construct it

Structuralism seems to have many concepts and ideas working within it. To say i understand them all, or even some, would be a complete lie. To be honest i will probably walk in to tomorrows class with one or two basic concepts of structuralism, and hear about a billion more ideas thrown around the room by you all and by Dr. M. The trend is i will walk out with one or two more ideas. I guess the idea of this class is to piece this and that together and figure it out for your own. the thing that i dont particularly like is that each form of theory is so dense, and every week we are reading something new, and to be honest it confuses me very much so. I just delated an entire blog that i wrote because i thought i was writing it all Structuralism and it turned out that the main thesis of blof was Liberal Humanist-based. that scares me.
Anyway, now that I'm on the right theory (hopefully) lets talk a little about the "hut" idea. i seemed to have grasped that for the most part. Basicaly words are to be seen as a relation. This means that words do not mean anything without it having a relation to another word. Barry used the hut example with "shed-hut-house-mansion etc"). Suposedly this works when working with opposites. such as how the word "male" is a direct relation to "female" which is the opposite of male. Without the idea that words work as relation to eachother... words would be merely arbritary. Right? So by that standard.. words have no concrete meaning... that language has no fixed meaning.

Peter Barry

I had mixed feelings about Peter Barry's article on theory, particularly literature theory, and science. i feel that he had some very interesting points and he did fact prove them well. He kept beating into our heads that science came first (in the form of evolution) and that science continues to pave ways into the future and yadayadayada. Thats great. I'm happy there are people out there with the patience for the hideously boring and unadulterated fact that is science. But just because you guys are out there finding cures for cancer and playing in outerspace.. it doesnt mean you have to go around bullying us english people around. I'm kidding around, but based on Barry's article.. theorists and all others who study english are just wasting their time. This is not true.. there is method to our madness... right guys?

My Theory

Hey all,

Sorry it took me so damn long to get on this thing, no use in explaining why. Now that i have had over a week of class to write my first blog, first i would like to mention that this class is interesting and all , but it would be a complete lie to say that i am confident in the material. To be honest most of it goes completely over my head. Like Professor McGuire mentioned in class the other day.. I feel like i understand it, or may look as if I'm about to understand it.. but then it slips away, as i recall she said that was a good thing.. but i think she was just being nice. Anyway I cannot possibly lable myself any type of particular theorist, or say that i perfer one theory over another just yet. The plan is that this class will provide me with an over concept of theory and general and specifics on each theory. I feel that i still won't label myself after the class is concluded because i feel that the concepts we talk about in class are ever changing, and a persons particular views on those concepts may change with time, age, and expirience. All and all I'm looking forward to learning more about theory, considering it is for the most part alien to me.