THE END

Finally, a reading worth reading! This text was by far the best text this semester; it was interesting, reader-friendly, and entertaining. Terry Eagleton's sarcasm and frankness made the content that much more enjoyable to read; finally! This book does a really nice job of tying everything we read in class together. I understand that there is method to the madness, and believe me it was madness; but if it were not for all of the other 'stuff' we read, Eagleton wouldn't make much sense to me. Or better yet, he would only be offering his biased interpretation and I probably would really like it because I had nothing to compare it to. I really feel a sense of accomplishment. But, I digress...

I think I like cultural theory. Chapters five and six were by far the most interesting in the book. These two chapters go back to the ancients and what is 'good' and 'bad' and who determines each. The way Eagleton explains the human animal and why or how we are the way we are I find fascinating. He is like Derrida (stupid Derrida) in the sense that he talks in circles throughout chapter five, but I found his circles to be easier to understand than Derrida's; maybe that is because I have been exposed to Derrida and can never forget. However, language is the key component that defines our humanity. Because we can use logic, define words, determine actions, we are separated from the stouts and giraffes. The logic, words and actions we use are based on and influenced by our culture, and of course it would be. Eagleton argues that if it weren't for our cultures, our world might not be in the condition it is today. I also really like how Eagleton looks at capitalism, naturalism, and socialism. We, as humans, are creatures that thrive on the sociality of our lives; we need culture in order to survive. Therefore, Eagleton says that our -isms "exploit" us causing the conflict in our sociality.

I also found what he said about equality very correct. In chapter six, page 147, Eagleton states, "Treating people in an equal manner does not mean treating them as if they were all the same; it means attending even-handedly to each individual's unique situation. Equality means giving as much weight to one individual's particularity as to anothers." In order to understand what equality really is, you need to know yourself first and then you can understand your neighbor. This also applies to happiness and friendship. Reaching your full potential can possibly give you happiness, then you are at peace with yourself and your friendships will flourish. Don't we all want that?

This book tied a lot of the information from this class together for me. I think I have some understanding of the theory, rhetoric, and discourse involved in literature. Power gives control, control can cause change, change creates a new theory - and the cycle continues. Our words have a lot to say about us, our beliefs, lifestyle and ultimately our culture. We can define ourselves and influence our audience through our words, written or spoken. If we know our audience we can then become a part of the culture to create the change we want to see eventually becoming a part of history. I feel like I am now talking in circles (stupid Derrida). Thank heaven for Eagleton and his helpful last reading!

Do We Write History or Our Being into It?

The Gates piece caused me to think the most this week. One phrase that caught my attention and I just can't seem to forget is "The slave narratives, taken together, represent the attempt of blacks to write themselves into being (1897)." I never thought about anyone writing themselves into being. I have heard argument after argument about "race" and "superiority"; but this really is fascinating to me. This made me think about literature in a whole new light.

Doesn't any author try to 'write themselves into being'? That is the purpose of writing, I think. However, for slaves during the 17th and 18th centuries, they seemed to have a lot more on the line. To have to prove their humanity, their intelligence, their 'being' is crazy. But, the irony lies in the next few lines: Accused of having no collective history by Hegel, blacks effectively responded by publishing hundreds of individual histories which functioned as the part standing for the whole (1897). How powerful that is - to make your history known when no one wanted to know it. This ties to Bhabha's essay on page 297, "Foucault stresses that the relations of knowledge and power within the apparatus are always a strategic response to an urgent need at a given historical moment...that the force of colonial discourse a theoretical and political intervention, was the need, in our contemporary moment, to contest singularities of difference and to articulate modes of differentiation."

All of this consistently reinforces what I think: those who have knowledge have power; and once a person has power, he or she has control and can cause positive or negative change. Persuasion is no longer really an art form, but a strategy for survival. Knowledge, especially in this class, is the spoken or written word. If an individual can successfully communicate and convey a message in a particular discourse community, then that individual can move mountains. The perfect audience is only perfect when the speaker knows what he or she is up against. I may not like Derrida, but I do like what Gates included on page 1901, "We must master...'how to speak the other's language without renouncing (our) own.'" Knowledge and power - power and control.

A Linguist, Sociologist, and an Economist...sounds like a REALLY BAD joke!

Thank God for editor's introductions! There is a lot in this book to cover, and I don't even know where to begin. But I guess the one occurring theme was how language and linguists do not see class or sociology as a contributing factor to communication. I found Bourdieu very interesting in the sense that he used economic terms to discuss language and communication and how all of it correlates to success. But I guess I already knew that subconsciously, being a teacher and all.

Bourdieu seems to stress that education gives some students an advantage over others no matter the social class; however, students are being taught how to 'play the game' without realizing or understanding what 'the game' is. This still sounds like manipulation. Words have power, and the person who knows how to use the words has the power; and when he/she has the power, he/she has the control to influence, persuade, change, assimilate, dissimilate, encourage, discredit, etc. (these are all words with some similar meanings) people. The dominate language allows for power; and those who master the dominate language will dominate the public, or the market.

Language is not only words, it is actions, intonations, and sometimes silence. I immediately thought of the argument of nature vs. nurture with the introduction of the bodily hexis. Are we predisposed to behave and communicate in certain ways based on our gender (nature)? Or do we communicate based on our placement in or origin from a social class (nurture)? I found this argument fascinating. Look at any child in school. Their body and spoken language speaks volumes (no pun intended) about who they are and where they come from. If the child has not been exposed to a variety of social settings, they will not be able to compete at the same level with the students who have been exposed; hence, oooh that awful term, tracking in the education system (honors courses, leveled courses, technical track, college track, you get the picture).

So what would the linguist say about our educational system today? What would the sociologist say? And finally, what would the economist say? Bourdieu seems to combine all three into one and say the power of language is determined by the status and education of the speaker and the level of the audience. Because a lot of words could be used without very much meaning, and the speaker would sound very smart because the audience wouldn't have a clue. A bunch of nothing in a whole lot of something. Stupid Derrida and his center!