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!

History, Reality, and Point of View

All I could think about as I read this week was what is going on in my senior composition course. We are reading The Jungle and talking about socialism vs. capitalism and of course Marxism. They had to know the context in order for to understand the content; once that was untangled, they really started to look at the book with a new set of eyes; a new 'mode of human sense perception' so-to-say. Reading Eagleton caused me to think about history and what is real and "pseudo-real". Sinclair made the real seem pseudo-real and, in doing so, caused history to change. My seniors have so far concluded that in theory, Marxism is great, but it is humanity that destroys it; therefore, society will never be classless. This then tied into Benjamin's "Mechanical Reproduction". Artists, be they authors, sculptors, or painter, reproduce 'things' from their perspectives and viewpoints. What they see is what they create; hence, The Jungle, To Kill a Mockingbird, The Kite Runner, Schindler's List, Malcom X, and W.

Literature is art as is film, photography, etc. However, things tend to get all jumbled up and the public is left to try and determine things on their own. Actors are not the people they portray on screen as authors are not the characters or narrator they create; they are a personality, but not necessarily their personality. Photographs are taken from one point of view or perspective and then published from that point of view so the public can see the same point of view as the photographer, as is literature of any form. It all seems to be a lot of manipulation. We are constantly told by the critics and/or experts what is good and what is bad. We do, though, determine what is aesthetically appealing or grotesque and then become the critic. So to whom do we listen? The authors, journalists, photographers, painters, film writers, directors, or actors?

History has a part in our literature, paintings, pictures, and film; but it is from the creator's point of view from which we see. Sinclair caused a nation to change from sharing his point of view; granted it wasn't the change he wanted to see, but it was a change nonetheless. Benjamin says it himself, "During long periods of history, the mode of human sense perception changes with humanity's entire mode of existence. The manner in which human sense perception is organized, the medium in which it is accomplished, is determined not only by nature but by historical circumstances as well" (1235). Art offers us one point of view, the creator's; interpretation gives us many points of view and a lot of it is based on the current events and realities.

Too Many -isms

"Feminism is a movement to end sexism, sexist exploitation, and oppression" (Hooks, 1). Isn't that what racism, classism, ageism, etc. also try to do? Just put -ism at the end of any word and there you have a new movement! I understand the need for equality, but a double standard is always involved. Feminism is a good example, I think, of context vs. content. We need to know the history, the background, of the era in order to understand the meaning behind the driving forces of the movement. This topic definitely has a center. I became frustrated at points with the Hooks reading and wanted to move to the content like Barry did. Analyzing the words, the language, the form was more interesting to me than interpreting meaning for this particular unit. Therefore, I think I want to focus on the idea Barry presents with language and how there is masculine and feminine language.

Having recently read the Bronte canon, I find that what Barry discusses holds some truth to it. When Charlotte wrote The Professor, she was trying to write from a male's point of view - the book was horrible. Most authors write what they know. I admire Ms. Bronte for publishing an average book under a male pseudonym (Acton Bell), but her best work was written from her female perspective. I agree that we learn our gender through our culture and our society; and the patriarch of our world causes a cultural oppression expected by all individuals. Literature only seems to reiterate that. One of the things I liked about Hook was she was not 'anti-male' or male-bashing, but she wanted to end sexism for both parties involved. Literature could be the mechanism that offers the solution; but couldn't literature do that for any of the -isms?

From the beginning of time, women have had to work hard to be recognized because of a male dominated society. Our literature is a reflection of the struggles humanity has faced, and feminism in only one of the many different struggles we have encountered in our short existence on Earth. Remember, our literature is a record of our human experiences and we rely on it to show us the world as it was, is, and might be. This particular movement and these particular readings are a good example of how important context is in literature. Through the context we learn the content. When we understand the content, we can understand the language be it masculine or feminine.

So Be It!

I fear I am the last one to post this week; it has been one of those weekends, so be it...

I had a difficult time trying to read everything and wrap my brain around all of it; so I am going to try to comment on one section I might have some semblance of a grasp on - hegemony. From what I understand, hegemony is control. Well, if we are speaking of control and hegemony as rhetoric, since this is a class concerning rhetoric, I think I can agree with the simple definition of control. Now, as to who has control is a debatable question. Is control found in the political powers that be, the societal powers that be, or is it found within the self? I was reminded of the ancients, the way they addressed crowds and the way they won the admiration of the audience. Hegemony seems to define what the ancients were doing - breaking classes down by domination and subordination. Being the dominate individual or class definitely gives you the upper hand in society because you create thought and have power which makes others subordinate allowing you to have control.

Isn't that what we, as teachers, do in the classroom on a daily basis? We try to dominate a room of 30+ unruly teenagers, who will eventually submit to our demands, ultimately giving us the control needed for social progress in a culture of learning, right? Control, that is the key; but how it is established and practiced is based on how the dominate individual sees and understands him/herself. Thus enters hegemony.

So what really governs and controls us? The reading says, based on my meek interpretation, that our culture determines our social process which in turn offers us our ideology. However, there are many different cultures I belong to; therefore, I follow a variety of social processes and eventually end up with several ideologies; but where are those ideologies found? In society or in me? The readings left me with nothing more than an almost infinite list of questions. So what does that say about my social process and culture? All of this only hurts my always-already confused head. Amen- So Be It!

Words Are Just Words, Right?

This week's reading theme seems to address power and its roots. Words are words, end of story; however, what gives words their power is based on the context in which the words are spoken/written. Connotation is what gives words their power, their meaning.

Foucault talks about subjugated knowledges and types of these knowledges: historical knowleges and social knowledges (130). From what I gather, the historical knowldeges are hidden, changed, and denied while the social knowledges are those that have mutated the historical so that common discourses can understand what is happening. We determine what is popular, right, and just based on who says it is popular, right, and just. Power itself is only a word, and as Foucault says power is "...neither given, nor exchanged, nor recovered, but rather exercised, and that it only exists in action" (133). So if we tie power to words, then when the words are exercised at the right time in the right context, the speaker has all the power in the world? Possibly...

Jameson talks about the social and historical resonance of texts; but again, words are words until they are given power in the appropriate setting by the appropriate person. One can totalize thought if the audience is captive, allowing power to be exercised.

Interpretations, illusions, criticisms can probably share similar definitions; however, each is very different when we interpret, illustrate or criticise what each means to us. If my definition is better than yours, does that mean I have the power? Can I captivate and totalize thought in the audience? Could I run the world? I think only if I decide to exercise the power of the language. I was reminded of Carlos Mencia after reading Foucault and Jameson. He believes how we interpret words ourselves is what gives the words the power. A word is just a bunch of letters put together to make a sound - the meaning is given when we decide to interpret the sound. Mencia is right on; we become offended by language and words because we empower the speaker to offend us. Words are only words.