GM, Bell Hooks, My Sweet.

Certainly from the standpoint of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the hope is that desires for the “primitive” or fantasies about the Other can be continually exploited, and that such exploitation will occur in a manner that reinscribes and maintains the status quo. Whether or not desire for contact with the Other, for connection rooted in the longing for pleasure, can act as a critical intervention challenging and subverting racist domination, inviting and enabling critical resistance, is an unrealized political possibility. (Bell Hooks 367).

Sweet weeping Jesus on the Cross, what a complete load of horse shit! Instead of beginning your sentence with “Certainly” you, in all basic common decency should have began with “Most certainly not…” you nasty ass-bitch. That’s it, I said it, is that what you wanted to hear?
Bell, my love, I do agree with you on one thing though, the “capitalist patriarchy” although I would feel better if you changed that to “elite capitalist.” Since, I’m sure, as you very well must know there’s only one true color and that’s “Benjamin Green.” Get it?
Oh, and another thing sweet heart, the “desires for the ‘primitive’ or fantasies about the Other” kind of bothers me too. Okay, I admit to buying some pretty good weed from a ‘primitive’ once when I was sixteen, but that was then, this is now. Let me see, oh yes, this morning I had a root canal done by an “Other” and last week I met with and paid a very sizeable retainer to, one of attorneys, who, happens to be so black in complexion, that I suppose, when he is lying upon on set of white bed linen he could be easily mistaken for a hole in the sheets.
Baby Doll, you very much remind me of the young lady I came across this morning at a local convenience store, when I stopped for a morning coffee. Her name was “Lady Paradise” a name not discerned by her name tag; but, rather from the tattoo she had stitched across her throat, “Lady Paradise,” and, she didn’t like me. It was quite obvious and it was also quite obvious she didn’t like me for one reason and one reason only—my complexion. Let’s just say that her attitude would most certainly replace any “hot sauce” I needed on my breakfast burrito.
But you know what; I didn’t let it bother me. The way I look at it, I’m doing my thing, and, she is doing hers. I most certainly don’t know what’s going on in her life, and, she wouldn’t have a clue about mine, which brings me back around to you.
Bell, my dear, I think you need to take up a different line of work, instead of writing that is. Yes, I’ve given this a great deal of thought and I think what befits you most exceedingly would be for you to become a night deposit receptacle in a sperm bank. Peace.

GM, Foucault

“Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance”. (Foucault 101)

I love this quote. It’s true, it’s funny, and it’s very sad. And, it’s “on-point” now more than ever. However, it (surveillance) involves much more than being watched. It also involves our thought processes, what we say, what we think. We are now under constant surveillance by the “Thought Police” as well.
The “Thought Police” are everywhere, from the poet, Maya Angelou, who spoke at Rollins most past recent colloquy, chastising writers for using certain, “unacceptable” language, in her view, language which is now deemed inappropriate, to being afraid of entering onto certain websites for fear of wondering who is watching. The “Thought Police” are now part of our everyday culture. Political correctness has gone awry.
The last time I was in London, I had the opportunity to be in Piccadilly Circus at 11:00pm on St. Patty’s Day. It was a beautiful Saturday evening. Since then, I’ve read somewhere that London is one of the worlds most surveiled cities, that when out in the public while in London, chances are that you are being watched. It’s a fact of life there. This brings me to another Foucault quote that I like and think very appropriate here.
We are neither in the amphitheatre, nor on the stage, but in the panoptic machine, invested by its effects of power, which we bring to ourselves since we are part of its mechanism. (Foucault 101)

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Excuse me, while in Piccadilly Circus (Soho) that night, I’ve never seen such a rowdy pack of chalky, drunk Brits in my life, me included. It was an “all-new” low. I’m so ashamed—just kidding—maybe. But I’m telling you right now, if those Brits were filming me that night, I’m sure they had to use an extra-wide lens. Cheers.

GM, Derrida

Every concept is necessarily and essentially inscribed in a chain or a system, within which it refers to another and to other concepts, by the systematic play of differences. (Derrida 127)

I find the above Derrida quote to be the essence of defining post modernism. Everything is connected but there is a particular or subtle (albeit) chaos-ness in everything, there is no final definition, there are no absolutes, except for death; maybe.
It’s particularly interesting to see how this relates to some of the other theorists we have read. From Saussure’s “In language, one can see neither divide sound from thought, nor thought from sound…” (6) and “In language there are only differences” (10). One might argue that Derrida is in contract to Saussure; however, bottom line they are saying the same thing—differences.
Derrida’s quote also connects to Habermas’ “as a result, (Hegemony) the distance grows between the culture of the experts and that of the larger public” (103). Surely, Derrida’s “deconstruction” methods the binary oppositions of everything can’t be a “good-thing” for the “average Joe” public.
I also see reflections of Lyotard in Derrida’s quote. Derrida is saying that, at least to me, we have differences and we will always have differences, to be left unanswered, which leaves chaos. Then, I find Lyotard’s “We have the Idea of the world…But we do not have the capacity to show an example of it” (43) quite apropos here along with his “It is our business not to supply reality, but to invent allusions to the conceivable which cannot be presented” (46).
Yes, Derrida is saying the same, but only in a different way, as several of our theorists have. Like Dorfman’s “Fiction reinforces in a circular fashion” (128), Derrida is telling us the there is no center, only circular, unending movement.

Eddie, 11/13

There are a few assumptions made by Cixous that we should leave alone for the discussion here. The first is that men and women are clearly divided groups, with each group held together by a sexual unity. Then, these two groups have traits which are different and opposite to one another–they do not compliment each other in function. Also, one group (the men) has the means to maintain a dominance over the other due to the above differences. All of the points are enough to fuel debates of exhausting lengths, but they are not the concern of concern this moment, so let them be for now.

When the women of the class were given the sole right to speak, what was supposed to happen? According to Cixous, the female participants of the class should have been keen on discussing applications of the theory and what it fails to satisfy. They should have been less interested in dissecting the theories to further rationalize them.

Men, according to her, are deconstructive. They seek to disassemble the machinery of reality, study its components, and then map their relations with one another. Through that exercise, men hope to find the “be” of our world – its building blocks. On the other hand, Women are constructive. They are unbound by the obsession with what is already there; they would rather explore what is not – the” other.” So the concern with women is not with why things are, but rather, what they are not.

One could associate the idea of aggressive domination with the deconstructive males, but here lies the dangerous assumption in question here: men, in their deconstructive ways, seek no inventive end. If men and women are binary opposites - and if women are the innovators, explorers and revolutionists - then it must first be assumed true that men do not already seek such goals. If not, then men may have a common end to share with women, and there may be the option of coexistence, cooperation and mutual support - which would make Cixous' romantic passion seem rather silly. So, Cixous is saying that men work to untangle and describe the real world, and that is the drive in and of itself. Naturally, things are never that simple.

Think of our education. Our study is exactly the process of learning what other great minds have taken apart and seen before us. Yet (hopefully) none of us will say that our goal is to simple know all this stuff and then call it a job well done. Deconstructing reality is never just about finding the building blocks. The basic units - like the theory of atoms, time or inertia - do nothing on their own which are relevant to our interests. Our aim as scholars is, then, to be able to take those "building" blocks and "build" things. There will always be things that we still need, and more things we already have to improve on. Masculine destruction has its ultimate interest in construction.

Besides, what good is Cixousian feminine imagination and innovation if we are without the muscle to ever attain them? Unhinged from the fear and limits of reality and science, we can hope and dream anything we like, but can we ever expect to see them realized with any sort of certainty? I, for one, do not find it comforting to have innovation at the price of not knowing why new ideas work better. They work when they do, and fail because it just happens. There would not be a thread of security to be had in that world.

So, what should we do? We should avoid dedicating our minds to rationalizing differences and maintaining binary opposites. If there is a war waged by feminists against a phallocentric culture, then could it not also be called a vaginocentric coup d'état? If we are to harbor such passionate hate towards any one extreme, then we only end up pushing for the other alternative form of unbalance. The "we do and they don't" mindset is more dominating than even the manliest of men will ever be.

Francesca, 11/13

To call someone a radical feminist has rather negative implications. This term conjures up images of butch lesbians seeking to castrate the male race as they burn every bra in sight. However, the very definition of the word radical proposes a different perspective. Radical is defined as of or relating to the root of something, affecting its fundamental nature. As we ascribe meaning in accordance to our comprehension of words, we demonstrate that language is subjective. Meaning is derived from a person’s unique experience with a particular word. By utilizing speech, we provide a context for people to recall instances associated with a given word, and thus validate its definition by means of confirming their preconceptions. Therefore, if someone’s preconception of a feminist is the image I have described above, then the mention of the word will call this description to mind. The subjectivity of one’s definitions are influenced by others experiences with the word. These preceding experiences provide a paradigm for the formation of one’s mentality. So, if society consistently presents feminists in an unflattering and biased light by depicting only sensationalized accounts of those who comprise the insane end of the spectrum, it is these images that will serve as the paradigm for many experiences with the word. Furthermore, it is this means of deriving meaning for a word that posits a problem. Feminist is merely a word. The negative implications the word has come to entail is a product of language’s subjectivity. At the root of this problem, is the word itself. Feminism is an inherently radical concept as it maintains the need for society to reevaluate the injustices of fundamental ideals. Yet, as Helene Ciouxs would agree with me, perhaps it the means by which we create these ideals that must be reconsidered, language.

Eric, Post-class, Feminism

I found it quite interesting that some women in the class did not like FEMINIST writings because they found them to be ‘angry.’ I began to wonder if they had some phobia of being called out as a feminist (a fate more terrible perhaps than being called a liberal) if they said they enjoyed it. Perhaps there is something of a stigma associated with feminism in modern culture; let’s take a look.

Here are some choice definitions of feminism from the classy website urbandictionary.com.

A real bitch .Wanting to steal power from men, wanting to subject men and degrade men. A suppressor of men with freedom . An enemy of traditional men. A destroyer of male ambition, a perverter of truth and a manipulating lier[sic] . Send them to antartica[sic] and the world will breathe a sigh of relief.

A group of smart lesbian thieves who have realized there is money to be made from goverment grants and through tax benifits by falsely distorting statistics and screaming downright lies in the street.Thier HQ can usually be found in any womans abuse shelter.[editor's note: OH NO THE TERRIBLE EVIL OF THE WOMEN'S ABUSE SHELTER]The screaming ones in the streets are just irritating,but beware the horn rimmed glasses,Birkenstock wearing ones who haunt the courts and halls of power,they are the ones who figure out how to bleed mens wallets dry.

(emphasis mine)
It would seem here that some people have the idea that all feminists are either grotesque monsters or people like Valerie Solanas who wrote these little gems:
“Every man, deep down, knows he's a worthless piece of shit.”
“The male chromosome is incomplete. All men are walking abortions.”
“Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation and destroy the male sex.”

Really though, most feminists are not like this. And women who believe this and avoid anything that might be construed as feminism because they don’t want to be thought of as man hating lesbians are helping to perpetuate not only an unequal society but the very myth of all feminists being hairy mannish lesbians with a taste for the flesh of men. (Unless, of course, they are being hairy mannish lesbians, in which case in wholeheartedly thank them for not making the rest of feminists look bad)

Sally, Post class 11/13

The theorist, Cixous, surprised me. Her feminist writings were a little "out there" for my tastes with her discussion of the masculine and feminine roles in society. However, I listened and participated in the exercise whereby only us 3 women could speak and the rest of you guys - 6 including Dr. Casey - were limited in expression -you could not speak and had to write your thoughts on paper. Then you had to wait to see if we would share what you had to say with the others since the option to ignore the mens' comments had been allowed and was part of the exercise. The discussion that followed after the men could speak again was quite interesting and revealing. It was during that discussion that a quote by Cixous caught my attention. Cixous, a French feminist theorist, describes men in fairly stereotypical terms: the traditional man values "virility, authority, power, money or pleasure." (161) She goes on to say "that is what society is made for -- how it is made; and men can hardly get out of it." (161) The key words for me are "can hardly." I have male friends who are sensitive, nurturing, and fair. They do not live for power, authority, or money. So, are they men who have transcended the stereotypical labels of the "male" or are they naturally, by nurture and/or nature, more balanced in their sense of self? I liked it that cixous left open the possibility that not all men are the same stereotypical "insensitive, power hungry males" most feminists describe. Cixous went on to gain credibility with me. She described women very accurately. Certainly, there are exceptions to every generalization, but for the most part women have a giving nature. Cixous describes a woman in this way: "She too, with open hands, gives herself --pleasure, happiness...But she doesn't try to 'recover her expenses.' I found this statement to be personally empowering for the following reason: I am in the process of a divorce after a 30 year marriage. I have no regrets and willingly loved and served my family over those years. However, it was at a great sacrifice to my career(I gave up a lucrative career and "volunteered" in a family business for 24 years, was a stay-at-home mom (successfully homeschooling our kids who have gone on to do good things with their lives in college and beyond.)

So,here I am at 50 basically starting over in life....Because of that, the men friends/relatives in my life see dollars and cents and self-sacrifice on my part; they kindly, but strongly, advise me to "recover expenses." I agree in part and know that I should protect myself for the future, but I also desire to be fair, to bow out gracefully and see us each go on with our lives. The key word is "future." My motivation is not based on what I have done in the past - I do not seek to "recover expenses." On bad days, my soon to be "ex" sees only his financial contribution to our household over our past 30 years together and rightfully wants to protect his interests; on good days, he seeks to be fair in settling our assets and wants to see me "taken care of." Back to Cixous....she described men as "always proving something" whereas women are "able not to return to themselves...she is not the being-of-the-end (the goal), but she is how-far-being-reaches." (161) I never thought I'd agree with a feminist, but I do tend to agree with Cixous on these points. She has a credibility that resonates with my heart and life experience at this juncture in my life. What is the goal in life? A year ago I thought it was to coast into the 'golden' years of life with my spouse...Cixous says women are not as goal oriented as men....she says women do not "flee the extemes." (161) She says women are not "beings-of-the-end" and I take that to mean, we're here for the journey. A journey through a life that abounds with surprises, accomplishments, and challenges.

Post Class Butler

The exercise in which men were not allowed to speak was very affective and it clearly illustrated what has happened to women throughout history. The most frustrating aspect of it was the time lag. Even if I had more relevant thoughts, I could not get them out fast enough to have the proper effect. Also, my thoughts were not read in the tone that I would I said them in, and therefore lacked the meaning that would have originally been conveyed.

The discussion of gender was of particular interest to me. How can it be that the "men" can't speak? You are then assuming that I am a man. But how did you come to that conclusion? id it my voice, my mannerisms? Is it that I have hair on my face? So do "women." Is it my clothes? Both genders wear jeans, both wear jackets and t shirts. it must somehow be known that I am a man. I've never known anyone who took me for a woman. What is it then? how am I a man and not a woman. What if I started to put clips in my hair and wear dangling earrings? Then I would wear a skirt and put eyeliner. Then am I still a man. Not in a lot of men's eyes. But to most I am still a man who "dresses like a woman." Then it must be my biological makeup and the difference in hormones that makes me a man. Nope, in that case we have just labeled penis=man vagina=woman. what if we inverted those labels at the start?

Francesca, Butler

In the history of feminism, there has been three distinct periods. As these periods are referred to as waves, each wave has held concerns that reflected the given era. The first wave dealt primarily with suffrage while the second focused on unofficial as well as official inequalities. Examples of such unofficial injustices included discrimination and oppression. These broad categories of feminist concern were recognized as issues that must be rectified in order to render official change. This attitude carried into the third wave, that which the theorist Judith Butler was writing in. Her desire to question the categorization of women as a specific group was motivated by the evidently discriminative polarization of gender relations in all subsequent contexts. Viewing gender as a binary opposition implies that gender is synonymous for the biological predeterminations characteristically referred to as sex. Yet, as gender is merely a social construct, it is consequentially an expression of the delineations provided by a given culture. Thus, Butler purports a recall of categorization in order to foster a subjectivity in gender expression. The ramifications of such subjectivity include an individualized expression of one’s identity, as ascribed not by cultural delineations but rather the person themselves. Such an imperative is a reflection of third wave feminist concerns for several reasons. Butler’s argument contends that the rectification of gender inequality must begin with the address of unofficial problems by means of theoretical debate. It is only when this predicament is taken care of the official concerns applicable to gender relations can begin to be effectively resolved. In addition, the issue of reclamation is predominant within the third wave. Butler is asking the reading to reassess the validity and utilization of a particular word, woman. By reclaiming a given word, the power of language is placed into she who is manipulating language. In conclusion, the theoretical nature of Butler’s work holds applicability to plausible situations its change would affect.

Eddie, Butler

Feminism is a tricky position to take. Judith Butler shares with us the problem of feminism and its crippling assumption that “the women” are what feminism seeks to aid and strengthen. She is concerned with that non-existent unifying “woman” which feminism enlists as their cause. A good part of this problem is actually brought about by the victories of feminism.

If feminism’s founding cause was to remove the unfair exclusion and oppression of the female population in society, they have succeeded in one significant way – it is now generally agreed to be wrong to publically object female equality. Supporting a group that seeks to maintain male dominance is now considered as ridiculous as supporting neo-Nazism or a coalition for pro-child molestation. Feminism has slain the evil demon. Yet the crumbling of the misogynistic underworld brought about a strange consequence: there is no longer a clear opponent for feminism. With the demon dead, its familiars rain upon the world as splinters and shards. Shadows of female oppression is numerous enough to appear anywhere, sharp enough to sting but never big enough to fuel their unified cause. Now, there is no clean group of victims to call “the women,” and this is the problem Butler speaks of. People often see feminists with fear and distaste, likely due to the perception that the feminists are struggling to find their fight and trying too hard to stay angry.

Staying angry may be more real of a cause than modern feminists would admit. Consider that feminism is supposed to bring about equality between women and men, yet by design, feminism maintains and reinforces difference. Is not feminism highly unwelcoming and exclusionary? It looms like a giant fortress, manned (or womanned?) by females and their supporters, and ready to punish all that stands in their way. Feminists remain partitioned behind the boundaries of a political group, so even if the two sexes are equal in every possible way, their insistence of them being the females and the others being the non-female will always provoke conflict. Butler speaks of ‘postfeminism,’ but it is more of a re-feminism. It should be called Feminism 2.0, where she wishes to patch it up and update it to accommodate modern needs and features. But I feel that feminism will provide no end to conflict. It serves to wrestle its enemies, break what limbs or tentacles latch onto their progression and grow to become the mighty force with walls too thick to penetrate. The walls are already quite think now.

So I suggest adopting the goal to ultimately eliminate the need for feminism. Militant protests and punishment only stops mistakes, but does not solve the causes. We should move towards political and social maturity through minimizing the separation of male and female. Women should not get “extra care” because they do not need that handicap. A feminist’s job well done is when people do not need to worry that they are disregarding the dignity of women, and keep their eyes on treating anyone and everyone as a proper human being. Sure, it’s idealistic, but why waste our time discussing feminism if all it does is keep the fights going?

Justin, hooks

In "Eating the Other," hooks says that, "Encounters with Otherness are clearly marked as more exciting, more intense, and more threatening. The lure is the combination of pleasure and danger. Hooks' discussion on the relationships between white and black people is interesting, because now I think it is very arguable that black people will sometimes react to this otherness with cooperation; they will act in a way that white people expect them to act when they are around white people as a means of distinguishing themselves. I got to know one of my best friends, who is black, when we were in middle school. At that point, he had many white friends and I had many black friends. Since then, for whatever reason, I don't have near as many black friends and he doesn't have near as many white friends. He talks a different way to his black friends and family than he talks to me, which is understandable. I'm sure I talk to my friends differently than I talk to him without necessarily noticing it. But the most interesting thing that I notice when he hangs out with my friends and me is that he will switch to his "black side" when it seems to be what people don't know him might expect. Often times he is intoxicated when he does it, which to me shows a truthfulness to what he's doing: it seems that he feels like he benefits from being the Other. The Other has become so commodified that he can switch it on as if trying to show his authenticity. I'm not talking here about someone that is acting fake, or foolishly. He's sharp and absolutely objective about the nature of race, and completely aware of it. It's just very interesting that what was a black characteristic of Otherness in white people's eyes can be acknowledged and utilized for the same type of reasons.

justin, 11/6

I think Foucault's discussion of the gaze is very important when it comes to the uses of the internet. The idea that there is someone watching is all that stops it from being a free zone for illegal acts. But the idea of the panopticon is especially important as well. When it comes to downloading music, there have been stories of downloaders being sued for great deals of money because they were being monitored. But how often does it really happen? Is that not more of a tactic to make an example, to open the window of the guard tower at least once to let the offenders know that somebody is watching, though they're not exactly sure when?
Shouldn't there be a gaze over the free space on the walls of the internet? Is there a way to stop every page with a comment box from becoming a bathroom wall, other than to do away with them? There are always stories on the news about people being caught for viewing child pornography on the internet. Though it's not exclusively for the purpose, don't these arrests serve as public humiliations for the offenders? Why shouldn't people be humiliated for covering a public space with hateful, racial slurs? It seems that a problem stems from the temptation of being able to do something without consequences. It breeds a taste for hostility that might not have been there in the first place. Is authority over commentary necessary?

Post-class, eric 11/6

The idea put forward by focault that "power should be visible and unverifiable" is an intersting one. I think however that visibilty is not neccessarily the right word for to describe the phenomenon that focault is referring to. Visibility implies that, in order for power to be an effective method of control, visual proof is required. One needs only look around them to find examples where a rumor or a news broadcast can control as well as an image of power.
Once instance is the air-marshal in post-9/11 America. After the announcment that armed air marshals would begin flying on domestic flights people started looking around their fellow passengers wondering which one of them was the air marshal. They made sure to act 'normally', to not arouse suspcion.
on the other hand perhaps some sort of visible is neccesary at certain times. power can not survive for long on rumor alone, unless it is an extremly pervasive rumor.
Conspiracy theories are rather interesting things. certainly, it would be reassuring to some sorts of people to know that the troubles in their lives and in the world in general were not the cause of incompetency or chance, but due to some evil plot working behind the scenes of the everyday world. the secret and the mystery have an innate power about them: the power of fear. Insular or secretive groups throughout history have made themselves the targets of the hate of others because of their closed nature or even their mere wierdness.
Freemasons, the Bavarian Illuminati, The Knights Templar, The order of the dragon, The jews have all been the subject of rumors about plots. Some people think that the lines in the sky from commercial jetliners are part of a government mind control program.

Anamnesis_dost class dududerrida

Derrida is problematic for me not because I disagree with him, but because I need to know what he thinks the implications of his philosophy are for life. I think it is important to point out the faultiness in de Saussure's model for signifiers. I think it's right that signifers are floating and that differance exists in everything. Yes, I think Derrida is essential. But I feel somewhat unfulfilled when I read him vs Foucault, who I think is more artful and more of a humanitarian. Both philosophers are historical, but Foucault's hsitory to me is the history that matters, the history which is critical and useful. And to be honest, I just think Foucault's philosophy is more interesting.

However, an interesting point in derrida's grammatology is the idea that there is not "unqualified presence" underneath the text. structuralists beleived that if the could jsut get to a certain point with a text then there would be an area of truth. I don't see how this can be true and I tend to side with Derrida that whatever meaning is implied is subject to immediate shifts and distortions. There was never an absolute meaning from which these shifts occur... it is all perceived anyway. I think this is particularly troubling for any form of ethics because the terms that are bound up with ethics (justice, morality, ethic) are subject to the most insidious scrutiny.
Also, deconstruction poses a direct threat to philosophy itself, calling into question its function on linguistic level and blurring the lines between "empirical" realms of study, like physics, with philosophy and indeed making no distinction between them. Deconstruction is able to do this precisely because of the idea that text pervades everything and in that sense even the theoretic speculations of philosophy and the epirical "facts" of science become fictions.

GeekinthePink

The whole idea of the binary oppositions in the beginning seem a little to elaborate to me. Activity/Passivity, Sun/Moon, Day/Night. I don't really agree with the point of view here--that one always has to follow the other, or that the female connotation is that we must follow the strong lead of the male. And her idea that one must be destroyed in order for the other to have meaning seems inconsistent with some of the other philosophers we have so far studied. What about Saussure telling us that language is made of differences and that we must have dissimilar values in order to know the vale of one thing? Or with Derrida, who tells us that meanings are deferred from one thing to the other and there is no point at which one thing can be defined without the existence of many other words in a labyrinth of meaning?

All of the binary oppositions she has juxtaposing one another have meaning in and of themselves and through each other, as I believe men and women do. The Sun has an existence completely opposite of the moon, and in that way, has nothing to do with the moon in its purpose. But, it does collaborate with it. Likewise, there is just as good of a reason for the night to exist as the day--one does not diminish the other and who says that sun precedes night? It could be that night precedes day or neither--this relationship cannot be defined. The fact that she says "we follow it, it carries us, beneath all its figures, wherever discourse is organized" shows women as the dumping grounds, but I think this is just her way of viewing it. I feel like she embraces the fact that women are different, because Cixous claim women have the ability to "change the rules of the old game." But I do not think she sees the reason women are treated different from men: we are different. And according to her, that is a bad connotation, but I don't think it necessarily is.

GeekinthePink

The whole concept of power being unverified is interesting. Kind of a big brother thing. I read a quote somewhere that said "George Orwell may be in 1984, but he can still predict the future." Ooh how correct sir. I mean, really, in 1984, they were actually being watched and getting caught was more than a threat, but still, the thought of power and consequence is a lot of times more powerful than actually seeing someone standing over you. For instance, my daughter likes to put on makeup. Now, she's only 2 and a half, so I don't particularly like it and she always smears it all over her face and the walls, so you can imagine she is not actually allowed to do this. But, it still happens every once and a while. How it happens now is that she takes it into the corner and hides behind the bed. Why? Because she knows I am there and If I seen her, she would be caught. The actual threat of being caught is there, but she tries to avoid this by hiding from my watchful gaze. Certainly, if there was nowhere to hide, she would not take the purse with the makeup because she knows she cannot do it with me watching.

Same thing with the prisoners and Foucalt. He has an excellent theory because if the prisoners do not know they are being watched, do not know who has the gun, they feel as if an eye is following them wherever they go. Consequently, it would take a brave (perhaps stupid) prisoner to commit an atrocity against himself or guards or fellow prisoners. "Our society is one not of spectacle, but one of surveillance." Very true. I'm thinking the medieval society was more spectacle. Where they tortured people, displayed heads on posts, made examples out of people. This postmodern society is observing, like animals in a cage. What goes on in the minds of these criminals? There are shows analyzing their minds and motives on the history and discovery channels. We send people to mental hospitals instead of prison in some cases. We are all about breaking down where these romanticized murderers get their twisted ambitions from. Not really sure if this is the way to go.

Mike of Modernity (or Post?)

The chaotic, disturbing, contradictory and sometimes frustrating "reality" that is uncovered in post-modern theoretical studies reaches a fever pitch with the writings of Bell Hooks. Brutal and direct she tears apart the commodification of what the white power structure calls "exotic" or "primitive" cultures: the Other. Hooks views this mass marketing of the other as simply another form of racism perpetrated by white America. The difference, she states, is that instead of enslaving by force, the white American marketing machine instead swallows these cultures creations, and themselves, whole. Her fascinating story of the young men speaking about their desire for sexual conquest of as many ethnic women as possible raised hairs on the back of my neck. But then I took pause and realized that at least they weren't talking about beting up as many ethnic groups as they could. Can one rationalize one being better than the other? That is certainly hard, as the desire to screw somebody doenst necessarily mean you respect or understand them,; least of all their culture. So where does the cycle stop? For Hooks it is when all people recognize and understand that their is racism, even unconscious racism happening all around us, and the only way to eradicate it is to acknowledge it. To me, this seems to be a throwaway answer. Where does the blame for one's ancestors past transgressions stop? How could I possibly understand how another culture can live unless I am a part of it? Not living in it - born into it. You can't. To truly understand is impossible. But what is so hard about letting others be. Maybe even learn to live in concert and enjoy the fruits of their history to help enrich our own future. Are we so scared of the "Other" that we must destroy all those we view as owning that moniker? Soon the only other left, will be us.

Eddie. 11/06

People love to be different in the same way – we have been told this more than once. I feel that the idea has ties to an inherant limit in the individual, and that limit manifests itself into the “cult of the new.” Allow me to discuss, in brief, my theory on why everybody is similarly deviant.

Consider the astounding number of people that have existed before the moment you read this text. Then combine that astronomical sum with the (hopefully) infinite number of people to come in the future. Is it not conceivable that true uniqueness in any sense is impossible? Sure, some may argue that our common sense already takes this into account when we speak of being “unique,” but it is important for this academic exploration to define that notion of a “limited unique” rather than to take it as the granted norm. Our restricted concept of uniqueness is the consequence of our limited social reach and not a given function of nature.

By a limited social reach, I refer to the amount of social engagement possible for an individual and also the greatest amount of social links he or she could maintain. Information technology has brought us magical leaps and bounds with those numbers, but still, for everyone there is a point of saturation. We can only talk to, and know, so many people in our lives, and that sum will always just be a small slice of the human world. We are all confined to the island of our social circle.

Thus, I will define “uniqueness” as being significantly deviant from the social norm within the limits of one’s social reach. Uniqueness is attainable or not depending on how far and wide the knowledge of one’s social circle spans. When a person invents or imports a new idea that is beyond the cloud of knowledge of the social island, the inventor or importer is crowned as “unique.” This is as close as a person can ever come to pure and absolute originality. But then what happens post-uniqueness?

It is not hard to see that the lone fact of being distinct and exceptional does not satisfy any practical or emotional needs. If anything, it is running away from the common instinct to fit in and gain the safety of the common society. But the deviation is, in fact, just the first step in attaining social accomplishment and esteem. The creator wants recognition. Such comes in the basic form of admiration for the person’s insight and elevates to bitter envy at the next level. At the top of the praise-ladder is when others choose to adopt the new ideas brought by the creator. Regardless if the followers are wise thinkers or just sheepish, imitation holds a definite connotation of functionality and competence. The creator has started a spark in a dark corner of the world and that spark has become a fire. So the purpose of being different is not so much as seeking absolute difference on the individual level, but rather to leave the cloud of social knowledge and find reassurance that the group is truly “different.”

Now imagine two separate patches of oil on a water surface. When one grows in size, it closes the gap between the two patches and as they collide, the edges bend and mesh with the other to form a long boarder line. As emo and goth cults grew in size, so did their exposure to the general population. When more people come into more contact with any exotic fad, the fad loses its exoticism and rarity. Individual followers become an example of that fad because the social circle is no longer naïve enough to fall for the illusion of the limited originality. Now they are merely different, and different in their own predictable way.

Sally, Butler Essay: Gender Trouble

The first time it happened, I was taken by surprise and had to laugh. I was called a dude, as in "Duuude!" It was a friendly utterance by a college student; I knew at that moment that things have really changed in our society! I was a 48 year old mother of two and I was a "dude"! Kinda cool! I have to admit, I liked it (maybe it was more because it was such a youthful label); I felt honored, in a sense, that I would be included in that special group! Labels, words, signifiers - how complex they can be if we aren't up on the true meanings and the shifts in meaning that inevitably occur.

I raised this topic with some other young men and found it to be a common dilemma among men. It turns out, they find certain conversations with females (they are all in college) to be so challenging that they basically stay away from certain topics unless they are feeling particulary confrontive or spunky. Those topics have to do with feminism and crosses over into traditional female/male relationships. For example, we've all heard of the dilemma facing men when they open a door for a female - they will either be thanked, ignored, or berrated. It truly is a dilemma because that action is one of courtesy, regardless of gender. But, courtesy becomes confused with feminism for some females, in particular.

Certainly, females are entitled to equal pay for equal work, same opportunities for sports, etc. So, when the male college student includes his female friends with an inclusive term such as "dude," why is there such a split reaction from females? Some females (I'm being careful here not to call my female cohorts "gals") like the term. They see it as "all things becoming equal." It does not diminish their identity as a female. Other times females give the males icy stares or confront the young man and accuse him of being disrespectful. What is a guy to do? lol

I recently saw a movie, an independent film The Puffy Chair that did a take on the "dude" trend. The setting was the typical boyfriend standing outside the window of the mad girlfriend trying to get her attention. He called her "dude"..... she smiled...and all was well. She saw the meaning behind the label and recognized the intent for what it was. That sparked a conversation with one of my college age sons who related to the scene in the movie for several reasons. He described a couple of instances when he had called a girl "dude" and got blasted for it. Then, he described other instances where he did the same, and she was ok with it. In either case, the girl was someone he liked and they each enjoyed each others company, i.e., he considered her a friend.

In short, women have achieved great success in the equalization of the sexes and there's still much to do. However, they need to be consistent in what they are demanding. All things being equal, a female (if she is truly a feminist) should see beyond the label and recognize when a male is seeking to equalize a relationship by using the same labels for males and females - he chooses not to discriminate, in other words. Of course, we females are complex creatures and maybe even we are not so clear on what we want regarding equality. I appreciate a door being opened for me, but I'm very independent, too. I DO thank the male for the courtesy, though. Butler states: "The masculine/feminine binary constitutes not only the exclusive framework in which that specificity can be recognized, but in every other way the 'specificity' of the feminine is once again fully decontextualized ...and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer." (194) Feminists need to be open to the context of any given situation or comment as they move ahead in their quest for equality. The new anthem for everyone could be the song, All the Young Dudes, by Mott the Hoople - a British band from the 70's.

Francesca, 11/6

In discussing Michel Foucault’s concept of “the gaze”, the applicability of this idea called another essay to mind. Nancy Henley’s work, The Sexual Politics of Interpersonal Behavior, asserted that nonverbal communication was an effective means of establishing dominance. By studying the duration of eye contact, indications of submission or dominance can be inferred. For instance, glancing in the direction of one you seek the approval may insinuate validation of one’s own behavior. Yet, when a glance becomes a stare this can signify aggression and the assertion of dominance. In addition, the aversion from another’s gaze also indicates subordination to a dominant counterpart. By means of this aversion, we recognize a struggle for control in peer interaction. Although Henley relates this struggle primarily to a male and female dynamic, its applicability corroborates Foucault’s concept. As the gaze functions within the panopticon, an unverifiable yet omnipresent power, the feeling of surveillance maintains a dominant and submissive dynamic. In other words, when one feels as though they are being constantly watched, their actions will submit to the repressive viewer. Moreover, it is evident that women often fall subjugate within a panopticon due to the male gaze. Women will make eye contact with men in order to appropriate their own behavior yet avert their gaze when the duration of such contact evolves into a stare. These actions demonstrate the obvious surveillance women feel they are under within the context of peer interaction. Thus, men claim dominance in such interactions by holding a greater ratio of looking while speaking to looking while listening, as women hold the converse. This is known as visual dominance. Within this panopticon, visual dominance signifies who is under surveillance and thus subordinated. In conclusion, Henley’s essay conveys Foucault’s idea effectively in the context of gender relations.

Sally, 11/06

Deconstruction, surveillance, and binary opposition made for some very interesting post-class thoughts. I thought the exercise in deconstruction of words to be extremely interesting and understandable. It was amazing how "scholar" deferred to "erudite," to "learned," and so on, until we found ourselves back at "erudite." That tautology was demonstrated effectively. Language, and the deconstruction of language, is always a fascinating topic!

Surveillance - it comes in so many different forms and is increasingly prevalent in our society. I just finished watching the local news and got a dose of Foucault's perspective: "Our society is one not of spectacle, but of surveillance." (101) I have to ask "how on earth did we get here as a society?" A news story featured kids being subjected to biometrics (fingerprinting for identification.) Hmmmmm....and, "Why might that be occuring?" the reasonable man asks. It appears that a local middle and/or elementary school has come up with an idea that will require students to be fingerprinted in order to eat lunch in the school cafeteria. Are you wondering how the two are related, like I am?

An authority figure from the school gently and "logically" explained that this is really for the parents. Of course!!! Hah! It seems the school is implementing this invasive procedure under the guise of helping parents to know what their kids are choosing to eat for lunch. That will be accomplished by fingerprinting the child, then the child has to be subject to the biometric process in order to get his/her lunch. Guess what the critics say? Yep, "they" feel this will cause the children to become accustomed to "big brotherism." Can't say I find fault with their logic!!

I recall in the early 80s, the invasion of privacy I felt when my newborn son was required to "apply" for a social security number. Prior to the 80s, applying for a ss# was a right of passage....usually, a teen would do it when he/she was working a first job. I knew parents who balked at the "new" social security requirement on principle (it was never intended to be used for identification and even reflects that premise in "blue" on the card!) Eventually, the system was yielded to for practical reasons, and both my sons had ss#s before they could talk or even walk. It would have been too difficult not to "be like everyone else." The fingerprints are an extension of this (potential) surveillance - well, actually, it is truly surveillance because the kids are being monitored as to their eating habits in the school cafeteria. Geez. As an individual, that is offensive to me! It defeats the whole purpose of encouraging our children to make wise choices and giving them the independence to do so! This other approach of surveillance "keeps everybody afraid" and, therefore, controlled - another theme of Foucault.

The last topic I'd like to comment on is binary opposition. I'm really glad Derrida opened the door to Foucault to explore this topic further. The first example I think of is what's happening in the arena of high school or college sports - any team sports, for that matter. You have the teams and you have fans. Teams compete. Fans cheer. And, that's all that is allowed anymore, it seems. Before a Stetson basketball game recently, I listened to a 3 minute spiel given by the announcer that advised "the crowd" that expressive cheering, jeering, or jubilation that caused you to rise from your seat, would not be tolerated. That is not verbatim, but in principle, it is exactly what was said - sit there, in other words...clap when appropriate. So, we have binary opposition with sports: a pumped up team, and a deflated, controlled fan base. What's that all about? Thank goodness not all institutions practice such a policy....yet. Georgia Southern University in Statesboro has special memories for our family and, thankfully, the students there know what it's like to be part of a great fan base....there is true school spirit! Jeers, intimidation, and cheers all occur. You root for your team whether it's football, basketball or volleyball....and EVERYBODY has a great time. From what I hear, the institution is following suit with its prohibitions against excessive fan enthusiasm, but so far, they've not been successful in quelling "fan spirit." That's what sports is supposed to be about - the players get adrenaline rushes, and so do the fans! Increasingly, we're seeing binary opposites showing up in our educational system. I'll end with the "hug story" featured on the national news today. Hugs are prohibited in particular schools to protect the school from sexual harrassment. I'm not talking about out-of-place PDA, but comforting, friendly hugs....I'll end this by asking, "do we really need to make school an emotionless environment that prohibits even "hugs?" Honestly, where are we headed as a society???? The binary opposition I see with the educational system is that it sounds a call for a more civil and caring society, but in practice, it is conditioning students to be "fearful" of expressing a basic human emotion in the form of an innocent hug. Saying it doesn't make sense is an understatement........I don't think I'll watch anymore news tonight.

Francesca, Foucault

Foucault’s argument of the progression towards emphasized expression of sexuality sheds light upon Freud’s psychoanalytic theory. As his theory was based upon the mechanisms of sexuality and their alleged causes, societies preoccupation with his thoughts convey a growing interest of the time. As conversation regarding such matters was previously taboo, the newfound freedom in discussing sex was met with consequential confusion. Being able to express one’s desires in the realm of free association created an additional desire to categorize such feelings. Sigmund Freud satiated this hunger for controlled chaos by presenting his psychoanalytic theory. His theory essentially maintained that all of our behaviors, desires, actions, etc. were related to successive stages of sexual development during childhood. By means of a verbal confession, patients could be absolved of their anxiety. This anxiety was only alleviated when the psychoanalyst discovered a related event from childhood that convincingly explicated their concern. In this context, correlation implies causality. As this substantiated psychoanalysis itself, empirical data supplanted scientific evidence as the infrastructure of the theory. Foucault writes, “the nineteenth century gave itself the possibility if causing the procedures of confession to operate within the regular formation of a scientific discourse.” Thus, psychoanalysis held that truth was derived from the subjectivity of the analyst’s interpretation. This method of deciphering what constitutes truth provides commentary on the era’s complete view of sex. There was a desire to categorize it by means of creating various discourses. In summation, Freud’s psychoanalytic theory serves as one demonstration of an entire era’s perspective, which Foucault deciphers.

Mike of Modernity (or post?)

"What is unnameable is the play that brings about the nominal effects, the relatively unitary or atomic structures we call names, or chains of substitutions for those names" Differance - Jacques Derrida

"'Discipline'...A technology" - Michel Foucault.

It is interesting when reading Derrida and Foucault in concert, for what appears is one man emobodying (Foucault) what the other is referring to. Derrida's ideas of "differance" as it differs from "difference" are an amazing and frustrating web of philosophy, carefully worded politics, and collapsing and contradictory theory. What appears from this web however is a keen observation of the massive complexity of language, their subtleties and paradoxes. When referring to the conception of naming, assigning a signifier to a signified, he speaks about the "chain of substitutions" that become attached to a particular signified object, or sign. Example: What was once simply called "jewelery" is now called "bling" in almost everyday parlance. It will doubtless evolve again, our signifier for precious metals and gems worn on the body to decorate it. (Bling sounds better.) He examines them as "atomic structures" as well, and this idea becomes translated into Foucault's work in "Discipline and Punish". Quite fond of lists, Mr Foucault is (a man after my own heart) as he shows how a single concept like "discipline" can be deconstructed. After an eerie and somewhat anti-establishment explanation of the plague era version of discipline, he shows has discipline and punishment have evolved into a more subtle art of the "Panopticon". At the end we see that Foucault sees discipline and it's underpinnings "Maybe identified neither with an institution nor with an apparatus; it is a type of power, a modality for exercise, comprising a whole set of instruments, techniques, procedures, levels of application, targets; it is a 'physics',or 'anatomy' of power, a technology. " Discipline, the one word, has a great many levels of meaning and interpretation. Even more so because as Derrida and Foucault know, there are as many ways to legitimize concepts like 'discipline', as there are ways to interpret it's meaning and effects. "Censorship" may mean safety for one person, and fascism to another. "Freindship", "love", "fate", the list could go on, but what unravels here in deconstruction is ther very idea that our constructs really "mean" anything; except what we assign to it.

Justin, post-class 10/30

A quote that we talked about from Adorno last class was valuable when I was listening to the host of a talk radio show the other day. They were sharing their opinions about a TV star that was all over the news because a tape of him using racial slurs was sold to tabloids by his son. The host adamantly defended the star, saying he should be able to say whatever he wants in his own home. I understand that it was a show, that the guy probably had different, more sensible opinions than he was saying on the radio, but it was very frustrating to listen to. The quote from Adorno was "No one has to answer officially for what he or she thinks." Now maybe the host will get into a little bit of trouble for what he way saying, but then again he probably won't. He didn't use the slur himself, he just argued in defense of someone that is clearly in the wrong, no matter which way you try to spin it. What made it even more frustrating was that they kept accepting calls from people that agreed with him, and they all sounded just as stupid. I was waiting to hear from an African-American caller that felt the same way as the host. Then, maybe I would give it a chance. But it didn't come. It was a fine example of entertainment coming through agreement. The show is directed towards a demographic of people that would surely at least have a few who would laugh in agreement. Others may disagree, but he wasn't exactly making his case to a group of non-believers. I just couldn't believe, on a major radio station, how much someone can get away with saying because of whom they are directing their conversation towards. The host himself was making a prejudiced argument, blanketing what ended up being a group of white men talking about when they can use the n-word with what is considered to be a news story. Should someone call in screaming at the host for being ignorant, it would be easy for him to cut them off and make fun of them for without giving them a chance to defend him or herself. It shows how little radio has changed democratically.

Pre_class, Derrida 11/6, Eric

While I was reading the textual brick wall that is Derrida's 'Differance,' several thoughts occurred to me. First and formost was that if there is this much word masturbation in the translation how much was there in the original french text? Seriously, if only salman rushdie and derrida could somehow fight each other with their own self-indulgent writing prowess it would cause hemmingway's mutilated corpse to eat buckshot AGAIN. And somewhere far away, Ayn Rand would clutch her precious gold but I digress.
I SHALL SPEAK, THEN, OF WHAT I WAS SAYING BEFORE MY DIGRESSION- The next thought which popped into my head was this loses a lot more than florid language in translation. I shall, however, resist the urge to digress on that matter. If this was written in english, I will be most amused. I considered saying some ridiculous statement like "I WOULD EAT MY HAT" but, since the idea of translating a tract that relies heavily on language is so ridiculously audacious and I don't think hats are very digestible, I did not. yes, I did say I wouldn't digress. I supposed I lied.
I must have read Derrida's statement about how differance was neither a word nor a concept at least twenty times because I just could not understand what exactly he was saying. it would seem to me that even if this 'differance' existed in a state in which is was not a word or concept, by writing it out and defining it, Derrida has, in the literal sense, made it both a word and a concept. He would argue that, differance is different from words and concepts. HAR HAR. Because, he says, differance is the phenomenon of how words and concepts express meaning. except he didn't say that, he spent an ineffable number of words trying to express that thought that while not making it seem in anyway that he was actually talking about anything at all, let alone, a concept or word. On page one hundered and thirty-three, he seems to quasi-recant his earlier statements by saying that we do indeed have a concept of differance. I would say that nothing meaningful can exist outside of language. If indeed there is a part of this something Derrida calls Differance that exists outside of our meaning, it may as well not exist for us at all. We cannot actually see black holes, we only see their effects surrounding space. it seems derrida is trying to say that differance is a little bit like that. However since differance lacks the ability to consume whole stars, it seems a bit less dangerous. I kan't really think of anything else to say except that some of this reminds me of the hilarious riff on "there are more things than are dreampt of in your philosophy horatio," that is Kant's critique of Pure Reason [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Critique_of_Pure_Reason[/url]

GM, pre-class 11/5: Seinfeld’s Kramer and the American Revolution

Adorno’s statement that “Countless people use words and expressions which they either have ceased to understand at all or use only…as trademarks” (70) reminds me of the Seinfeld episode when Kramer was trying to explain to Jerry that the United States Post Office would just “write-off” merchandise that was damaged by the post office during shipment.. Kramer was referring to a stereo system, if I recall that Jerry had purchased which wouldn’t work. There was no warranty on the stereo system and Kramer was attempting to come up with different ways to get it repaired for Jerry; hence, the post office scheme.
Kramer kept telling Jerry that they, the post office, would just “write-it-off” and finally Jerry asked Kramer “you have no idea what a ‘write-off’ is do you,” he asked, which Kramer responded to “no, do you?” to which Jerry responded “no I don’t.”
When I think about Adorno’s statement again “The defrauded masses today cling to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful” (50) this leads me to think about Adorno, Marx, and Althusser, “Ideology represents the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (44) and the American War for Independence from Great Britain and King George III in correlating terms. If you believe in the Bible and more particularly the quote from the book of Ecclesiastes 1:9 “and there is no new thing under the sun” and if you believe, as I do, that the dominant ideology of world is and has always been based upon wealth, for example, in the United States the top ten percent of the country’s most wealthiest pay the least in proportion of percentage of taxes, yet control a majority of the nations wealth. Marx, Althusser, and Adorno could just as easily been written about the elitists who didn’t want to pay their taxes to King George III. These elitists, therefore, subtly began a revolution.
I find Marx’s statement “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being which determines their consciousness (37) interesting here. Once the Brits and royal power was booted from the continent, it was free-reign for the elitists who had the capital to further acquire and control wealth. The cause of the American Revolution would be a perfect guise, a shift in ideology to complete this, according to Marx, “Within this class cleavage can even develop into a certain opposition and hostility between the two parts, but whenever a practical collision occurs in which the class itself is endangered they automatically vanish” (38).
It’s of further interest to note that nearly of all the United States’ Industrialists amassed their great wealth during the time frame from after the American Revolution, up through the American Civil War, and beyond. This industrial wealth would come in handy some “four score and seven years later” (Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address) when it was used to support yet another shift, or furtherance, in ideology to invade, concur, and subjugate the American South.

Anamnesis_ Foucault

In "Discipline and Punish" Foucault effectively gives a history of the penal system. He begins with a graphic description of the public execution of Damiens, an attempted regicide. his intention in this is to trace the disappearance of torture as a public spectacle and the transformation that occured in methods of punishment thereafter. In short, this transformation entails a move from the specific punishment of the body to the punishment of the mind and only partially the body with regard to restricted freedoms. Imprisonment thus became something psychological and the judgments which are imposed on the prisoners prior to their imprisonment is one concerning the nature of the criminal's very soul. The judge is no longer the soul proprieter of this judgment but is accompanied by a series of specialists who help in the final decision.

The panopticon is physically real (it was invented by Jeremy Bentham) but it is also an allegory for all of society. Foucalt believed that it benefits the ruling class to have prisons set up they way they are because it keeps a steady flow of dissidents going in and out of them, and creates generations of those prisoners who will hand their ideas down to others in their section of society and therefor never really pose an ideological threat to the ruling class. I don't think that Foucault believes that the modern methods of punishment and imprisonment are very effective, and actually I thinke believes that prisons only exacerbate crime by helping to create criminal milieus in which the culture inside the prison extends out into the families and friends of the criminals. A cycle.

Foucault is a great historian and he is a Nietzschean who believes that it is best to gravitate toward the primitive personage and gain pleasure in any way possible. He likes to trace the transformations and perceptions of marginal topics like madness and the reasons for institutions built for marginal figures. His theory of madness is especially interesting because he does not look upon it as a detrimental condition but rather as an enlightened condition. So he favors artist who have not been the spouses of history, like Artaud. I think the "new philosophers" like Guatarri and Deleuze embrace him because they can place his idea of schizophrenia into the fragmented, late capitalist systemm saying that everyone should just fall into spontaneity

GeekinthePink

"Why bother with a writer such as Derrida, who appears unable or unwilling to give a straight answer, to begin at the beginning, go on to the middle and end with the conclusion, explaining what he really means?" I disagree with this assertion of Derrida. I think he explains in detail what he really means. He is merely redefining the terms middle and end. He is deconstructing them and showing the "differance" between them. "Differance" is a combination of Sassure's and Macherey's ideas. He talks about the signifier and signified, and things outside of the text that give it meaning.

Sassure's ideas seem to match up with his. He goes into great detail about Sassure's "Course in General Linguistics" Derrida points out that words and signs cannot mean anything without other words. This goes directly with Sassure's idea that without knowing the dissimilar words for things, we could not know the meaning of any word. Sassure says "In language, there are only differences." Derrida takes this idea to a new level by applying it to all of writing and semiology. First, words are given meaning through differences, not through definition. Words exist through the existence of its opposites, and synonyms and words that mean slightly different things.

"For us, differance remains a metaphysical name; and all the names that it receives from our language are still, so far as they are names, metaphysical." Unlike Sassure, Derrida feels meaning, or "differance" comes not from words, but from more actual things--the unnamable, that which is not simply provisional. "What is unnamable is the play that brings about the nominal effects, the relatively unitary or atomic structures we call names, or chains of substitutions for names." In other words, our being puts this meaning into names and through this only are names given. But, since names are through being, they cannot be physical or named, but rather metaphysical and unnamed. Derrida uses Sassure's idea but puts the being into language. Sassure gives too much meaning to words, in Derrida's opinion, the question is in "...the marriage between speech and Being in the unique word, in the finally proper name."

GeekinthePink

“…every position on postmodernism in culture . . . [is] an implicitly or explicitly political stance on the nature of multinational capitalism today.” The issue of the post modern and position of capitalism is like the issue of terrorism in the media. If the media did not exist in the second age media Poster and Baudrillard describe, would America be suffering from terrorism in the same degree as we have been in the past 5 years? The reason, you see, for postmodern culture has to be the invent of capitalism. Accordingly, a position on postmodernity is a stance of mulitinational capitalism. To me, it's hard to tell how some of these theorists feel about capitalism. They speak of the breakdown of it, and they show the derogatory effects, but hard to tell if they would change it if they could. Except for Marx and Benjamin. I should think that was quite obvious.

Looking at the slides in class, the idea kind of struck me that Jameson would be on team Habermas were he to have to make a choice between Habermas or Lyotard. Habermas blames society (even though he does not agree it is a postmodern society but modernity that is an incomplete project) and calls it a hedonistic culture, desiring a revival via neoconservatism. With the slides, it is easy to see the desensitized society and what is deemed inappropriate. I would imagine Habermas nodding his head up and down to this. And then, we see him state one of Habermas' favorite phrases (in a more verbose way of course): "frantic economic urgency of producing fresh waves of ever more novel-seeming goods” In other words, we see the disease of the cult of the new: we always need the newer solutions, the better, the different. And through this viewpoint, sometimes we get real art and sometimes we get a toilet seat. Unfortunately, when we are in the "cult of the new mentality," we have to go with what the ruling class says is the new edge. Hopefully, though, that new edge doesn't reveal too much of the underbelly of culture. If it were to get to this point, we would find out the true meat behind the driver seat of culture--the ugliness of it, the "blood, torture, death, & horror"--which I think just translates to the superficiality of it; that actually, nothing of significance subsists behind it, just the inherent need for money and perversion to get it.

Anamnesis_post class adorno, horkie, jameson

In class I realized that Horkheimer and Adorno are giving a sort of manifesto like Benjamin's but theirs is much more broad in its focus, reaching into companies, government, the subject, Kant, film, literature, propaganda etc. All of it is conveniently found under the heading "culture industry," a term which gives a dubious outlook to the nature of modern culture. At points they are almost exactly like Benjamin, though, especially in their criticism of film, where they say "Far more strongly than the theatre of illusion, film denies its audience any dimension in which they might roam freely in imagination--contained by the film's framework but unsupervised by its precise actualities. It relates back to Benjamines idea that the original (in this case nature) has to be there, and that its meaning is diluted by film as a medium. the moviegoer "percieves the street outside as a continuation of the film he has just left." But like I said, Horkheimer and Adorno are more broad; for them "the whole world is passed through the filter of the culture industry." Even when consumers are not consuming, they are always being geared toward the next purchase. Kant's active contribution is negated by the culture industry and the schematism which once belonged to the brain and which allowed the subject to integrate great amounts of information (multiplicity) into everyday experience is inverted. Now, production prefigures the multiplicity for the subject and there is as a result no imaginative work to be done on behalf of him/her. A good postmodern example of this would be cell phones with their myriad functions, colors, services, and accessories. It looks as though the possibilites with cell phones are endless, but in reality there are only a limited number of choices. Erroniuously, the consumer takes these choices to be a kind a freedom and so the cell phone becomes as it were a symbol of imagination and adventure with texting, bluetoothing, gaming, tv watching, radio listening, image sharing, skins, holsters, chains, links ad nauseum--a whole world belonging to the cell phone, and yet it is not the world we imagine but that which companies imagine for us.

At one point, patronage supplied the arts with money, so artists were largely outside market influences, after the eighteenth century that changed, though, and works of art were bound up with economy in a way that had not happened before. There starts the the domino effect of art being diluted by reproduction and eventually by capitalism itself. Adnorno uses the example of Beethoven, who recognized a Walter Scoot novel as trash "this man writes for money" and yet Beethoven was apparently very savvy in getting his late string quartets out to the public. The difference, which Adnorno points out, between those works and the works of his time, is that the string quartets were works "representing the extreme repudiation of the market" and the works of 1944 that were taken seriously were those produced by artists who "succumb to ideology" and thus make art into that which is accepted by its sheer popularity rather than it's technical or imaginative merit. This is purposeless art, or even worse "purposiveness without purpose" or a ind of feigning of purpose. Jameson discusses this in another light with "Diamond Dust Shoes," a work which unlike the work before it consciously takes into account the market and makes it into its very aesthetic. Warhol understood fundamentally that today's works of art are "suitably packaged like political slogans and pressed on a reluctant public at reduced prices by the culture industry," so he established THE FACTORY to produce and reproduce his paintings. He had others do his silkscreens for him and often times was not even to be found on the premises. Is it not impossible today to speak with the leader owners of those products which we consume most often? One who eats 200 Macdonalds cheeseburgers in a year would never be able to speak to the owner of macdonalds. The documentary "Supersize Me" aptly points this out.

Overall I think Horkie and Adnorno have an abrasive and chastising tone. They are obviously angry with the conditions of society and highly skeptical of any new thing which might come onto the radar of culture. Ideology earns an especially dubious place within culture. It is troubling that they, in 1944, can talk about the "city center" with such disdain and to think about the precarious "town centers" that have now sprouted up in every major and minor city. These town centers would undoubtedly be th subject of a torrent of criticisms by this duo. I'm sure part of the premise might ask the question "what center?"

Eddie, Foucault

Foucault speaks of the Panopticom and its unseen supervisor watching over the many isolated cells – the miniature theatres – with no end to their display. He describes it as a ferocious vision of enslavement and a nightmare of extreme subjugation. Sad to say, Foucault’s vision of horror has become our bizarre reality today.

Is it possible that the kind of prison cell described by Foucault actually exist? One where prisoners are without doubt in their monitoring, yet are completely unaware of when or in what fashion they are being watched? Not only does such a sadistic place of entrapment exist today, imagine the reaction of Foucault if he were to learn that people are increasingly eager to subjugate themselves into it. We call the cells “blogs.”

At the risk of sounding zealously hostile against the modern internet, I believe that blogs are voluntary enslavement. It makes abut as much sense as delivering yourself to the doors of the prison in question. It is surrendering yourself to a perverse public exhibit where any and all of the faceless mass may come and view whatever you have to show. The writer never knows when they visit or how many eyes are present at any given moment. The best guess here is to simply assume that someone is watching through the shadows.

That assumption of someone always watching then changes the prisoner: we expect a fair bit of casual lying from the author of any personal blog. The person on display is not always the pure and honest representation of him or herself simply because he or she is aware of the audience. The alerted writer would make effort to lines him or herself with the expectations and tastes of the viewers. In the same sense, a prisoner of the Panopticon would also refuse to be a natural and pure subject of observation. Whether the prisoners ever see the supervisor or not is irrelevant since they know such a character exists, so the action is simply to refrain from activities that may draw attention and keep actions as unassuming as possible. If a prisoner does not know when to pretend and when not to, he or she will likely pretend every waking moment just in case. We know from the wisdom of sociologists that the mere knowledge of an observer or a monitor is enough to alter the behavior of the subject, so a component that should be added and considered in Foucault’s theory is the prisoner manipulation of the supervisor. What constitutes the prisoners’ choices and what they masquerade themselves as are of great interest, but is beyond the scope of this discussion.

What is relevant, I would add, is that blogs add a new form of isolation to the mix. The supervisors here are free to step in, comment and contribute to the performance. That is , the supervisors are free to step in and engage with the prisoner as much or as little as they like. Should they want to, they could disappear back into the anonymous shadows and severing further engagement. The blog writer’s responses would then be like casting stones into the darkness and praying for the sound of its landing. As an author and writer, bloggers are isolated in their own islands, but with people free to enter. The catch is that the blogger is completely stripped of control in the length and intimacy of each engagement from the unseen supervisors – or unseen editors.

Mike of Modernity (or post?)

To be entertained means to be in agreement." {Horkheimer and Adorno)

With the wealth of observations and Nostradamus-like predictions about the acceleration of postmodern culture by these two, this phrase seemed particularly interesting. It imparts some of the lessons of Saussure and the "unspoken contract" of language, The study of textual timesis by Barthes, the study of the cultural effects of simulation echoed by Baudrillard and Eco, and the Althusserian principles of ideology. Entertainment can be a powerful conduit to pass through whatever one chooses. As success is measured in mass, the most "successful" works of entertainment reach a large number of people. A blockbuster film can have a huge impact on its audience. Fashion and buying trends swing by the fulcrum of the next big marketing blitz. When we watch a film and "agree" that we are entertained, what is it exactly we agree on? Just enough explosions, laughs and sexual content to satisfy our thirst for it, or do we seek something more "sublime"? I enjoy the bubblegum fare like "Transformers" which taps into an icon of my childhood. I'm equally moved by films that entertain and provoke like "American Beauty". How can one discern the "quality" of one over another, as both are designed for a specific purpose. Ultimately, both provide us with the obligatory intrigue, drama and sexual imagery. But while the childhhod toy inspired "Transformers" provides a triumph for the audience to be a part of, American Beauty leaves its audience shocked and introspective. It would be difficult to accomplish the saem ends in on film.

Post-Class, Eric 11/5

the origin of eschatology probably ties in with in our inner struggle with the fact that we will die. We want a purpose to our life and most eschatological stories clearly tell us what the purpose of our existence is, in the terms of the meta-narrative that they belong to.
Several narratives throughout history including the modern favorites of Islam and Christianity postulate that at the end of days some kind of battle will take place that will decide the fate of the universe or something like that. Interestingly, they both seem to feel that at this point jesus will return and defeat the anti-christ. BOTH OF THEM. Other subscribers to the school of massive crazy battle at the end of time include the norsemen: who beleived that dying gloriously in battle in life would grant you an oppurtunity to fight for the aesir while piss-drunk.
Those of a Hebraic nature do not think that a war will be the end of the world they think that instead the coming of a messiah will bring and age of peace where the dead may or may not rise.
and then some crazy people think this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity
all I have to say is lol.

Adorno+Hork, Pre-Class, Eric

Adorno and Horkheimer say that "culture today is infecting the world with sameness" (57) While there is a lot of evidence that culture is indeed doing this, it is interesting to note that they wrote that statement well over half a century ago. Culture has, to some extent, driven the world towards sameness. Human beings often want to blend in with others and be accepted and specific cultural groups can be quite intolerant of other distinct groups. In addition to inter-cultural conflict, one only has to look to the annals of history to find an impending avalanche of evidence to the fact that most cultures are quite intolerant of other cultures. Times like the crusades and the age of imperialism are good examples of these.
That said I think that their idea has to be upgraded to fit with our time: the age of the internet, the age of the high-speed mutagenic narrative. A completely accurate rephrasing of their idea, if I may be so bold as to say so, is that culture today is infecting the world with different samenesses. This is in line with hebidge's Ideas about subcultures the world splits itself upinto different little groups the groups merge into the mainstream where they crosspollenate each other before dividing again into different groups.

GM 23 October, response to Francesca’s 10/30 Adorno

Your blanket statement concerning “white privilege” concerns me. More particularly your statement, “The myth of success is an ideal that minorities are conditioned to see as attractive in that it validates their labor in seeking to attain the successes white’s find with less struggle.” I would agree with this if you substituted “minorities” with anyone not included in the top ten percent of the wealthiest people in the United States, white, black, males, female, gay, straight, etc.
Granted, there are biases and prejudices in this country, both north and south. As an independent, white-male businessman who routinely does business with other business people throughout the country, I’ve witnessed it and have experienced it from others myself. I’ve been subjected to prejudices from whites, blacks, northerners, southerners and foreigners, males and female because I’m white, from the south, from Florida, because of my accent, and because of my looks.
But what I find interesting is that you have fallen into the ideological trap which keeps us all down, mired in the mud. You list the impeding factors to minorities not getting ahead as sex, sexual orientation, and race. Of course, racism remains an issue, as I’ve said; I’ve been a victim of prejudices, by whites and blacks. But the fact remains that the major impediments are government regulations and an unfair and burdensome tax system; which, only benefits the top ten percent of the countries wealthiest people. What ever their color happens to be.
Oh, we’re all free. We can jump into our automobiles and ride from one end of the country to another, we can fly anywhere in the world and we can pretty much say what we want. We can even have this conversation, but start bucking the system; or, in a postmodern way, start criticizing the totalizing-centered tax structure which benefits the elite, then you’ve become a subversive and may very well end becoming a martyr.

Sally, Foucault

Never did I think reading about prisons and quarantines would be so interesting! I found Foucault's essay, Discipline and Punish, to be engrossing and applicable to the world in which we live. I can now add to the phrase "big brother is watching", the term "panopticon." The term originated in the 1700's and was first used by Bentham. "The Panopticon is a marvellous machine which, whatever use one may wish to put it to, produces homogeneous effects of power."(99) Whether it is a surveillance camera mounted at an intersection or the architectural design of a prison employing the features that ensure "separated individualities." (98)

Elimination of the crowd - that compact mass - that can cause so much disruption is the desired benefit of panopticonism. If we speed through an intersection or run a red light, we are not one of the many cars on the street- we are isolated and become "the individual" who committed a traffic offense. That individual has no excuse, can't hide in the crowd employing the "going with the flow of traffic" excuse, but is required to take responsibility for his actions alone and pay the required fine, etc. Traffic violators are on a level playing field as a result of panopticonism.

Particularly fascinating is the concept ushered in by Bentham that "power should be visible and unverifiable."(98) Is that camera actually recording? Is the guard in the central tower or not? Is he watching or asleep? The result of such unverifiability is restraint within any society - an intentional by-product of such permanent visibility and unverifiability. In the acceptance of such measures, are the citizens of a free society giving up any rights of privacy? That's a complex issue, but my first reaction is yes, we are. However, Foucault presents the need and effect of panopticanism in such a non-sinister, matter-of-fact manner that it sounds reasonable. "Power has its principle not so much in a person as in a certain concerted distribution of bodies, surfaces, lights, gazes..." speaks of automation of power and that's rather disturbing on some level. For prisons it works, but in society, I'm not sure I'm comfortable with the concept. The individual "becomes the principle of his own subjection." True, our behavior as a society may improve because we think we're being watched, but it is at the price of perverting the concept of free-will in a free society. To behave because we HAVE to do so is not the same as behaving because we WANT to do so. There is a certain pride – American pride - in the latter. Fascinating concept - this Panopticon.

Eddie, 10/30

While “buy buy buy” is the staple of our modern consumerism-driven capitalist society, I for one do not find it an especially surprising phenomenon.

Assuming that the theory of evolution is at least a little correct, our ancestors lived in the wild. There, people had to forage. The more they gathered, the least likely they are to perish in the cold of the winter. Even if we avoid the contestable question that people could identify characteristics in mates who could forage more, there is still the simple fact that people who got less stuff died more often. Individuals, families and subsequently clans who won more necessities, thus, garnered more success in nature and became the majority in numbers. In other words, we are all genetically predisposed to piling up stuff.

Though if we are descendants of those food-hording cavemen, then why are we not inclined to take our paychecks to Publix and clean their isles of creamed corn and Wonderbread? Because such an idea is a gross extrapolation of the mechanism of foraging, We do not simply collect. We are driven to obtain items which are of value to us. Our instinct is to get things which are potentially valuable or functional to us in the future. It is that potential which intices mothers to keep empty shoeboxes and fathers to drag old machines home from the dumpster. Objects intrigue us, usually, because they hold a promise of some form of useful application and that promise is how companies make us “buy buy buy.”

But with the idea that usefulness makes us buy, we are introduced to the concept that some things are more useful than others. Otherwise, we would be reduced to randomly buying whatever we see and be hopelessly unable to decide what we ‘want’ to buy. This ability to discern the usefulness of items is natural selection in our modern society. We are all familiar with the concept of taste. While describing what is tasteful is dreadfully hard, we can all agree that people with taste, at the very least, seem more knowledgeable than someone without. A person who spends four thousand dollars at Walmart on cheese and ham sounds a lot less flattering than someone who knows how to build a capable home theater system with his four thousand. I, for one, would choose the Sennheiser guy as my friend and not the Kraft guy. It is this looming, arbitrary and shapeless notion of “taste” which causes some people to fit more into society than others. Those who are less adept to buying are familiar with Foucault’s description of marginalizing and isolation.

I wish to take this chance here to state my belief in the role and responsibility of one educated in theories of culture. If we now know and agree that we are inclined to buy and are defined by such a mode of consumption, it falls upon us to consider what is beyond buying. What is the alternative to consumerism? How might we exist outside of buying stuff and having people buy our stuff? Can we even choose to not want to buy? Pondering those questions, I came to the chilling realization that I do not, currently, know what is outside the box. That bothers me, and I hope it bothers you too. We are trapped in “buy buy buy.” We must free ourselves.

Francesca 10/30 Adorno

In discussing Adorno’s ideology, a particular concept resonated with the nature of white privilege. Adorno writes, “The defrauded masses today cling to the myth of success still more ardently than the successful.” This quote conveys the American myth of meritocracy. Our country represents an ideal of boundless success that can be attained through any person’s hard work. This ideal serves as the integrity of a capitalist economy. However, the integrity of such an economy is theoretical. When put into practice, the objectives of capitalism are either catalyzed or impeded by various factors. These factors include those of sex, sexual orientation, and most evidently, race. The notion of the American dream is presented to those of minority populations in order to substantiate their hard work. Yet, there is transparent racial discrimination that serves as subtle barriers to ultimate financial achievement. As the dominant culture, whites possess a collection of unearned assets that are unknowingly utilized daily. This concept is relative to that of the “invisible backpack”, ascribed by writer Peggy McIntosh. The myth of meritocracy in this country provides subjugated populations with the false hope that hard work renders the line between themselves and the dominant culture indistinguishable. Yet, as Peggy McIntosh maintains, white privilege can metaphorically be seen as a package of tools white’s unconsciously utilize to maintain their advantage in achieving the American dream. By being given preferential treatment in terms of job promotion, housing location, etc, whites have the upper-hand in acquiring optimum financial advancements. This is given at the expense of minorities whom remain subverted under the control of stereotypes. McIntosh’s invisible backpack provides evidence for the mythology of meritocratic achievement. Thus, Adorno’s argument that these subjugated people cling to such a myth more ardently than the dominant culture is manifested in white’s lack of recognition regarding their privilege. As whites do not recognize the assets they possess, it is only when a population fails to possess such assets that their utilization is of concern. The myth of success is an ideal that minorities are conditioned to see as attractive in that it validates their labor in seeking to attain the successes white’s find with less struggle.

Sally, 10/30

Reading/discussing Horkheimer and Adorno's essay: The Culture Industry: Elightenment as Mass Deception gives rise to some misconceptions/misgivings I have had about society, in general. Among my peers, there is a common sentiment that our society is out of touch with the valuable things in life and it has become transient and superficial. A throw-away society with permanence and meaning having lost their place as important characteristics of relationships and "things." I tended to agree with my friends' assessment, but, then, I read this essay - an essay that was written in 1944! At the end of the essay, this conclusion appears: "...personality means hardly more than dazzling white teeth and freedom from body odor and emotions. Consumers of cultural commodities which, at the same time, they recognize as false." (71) Again, let me underscore the fact that this was written in 1944, in Germany, near the end of WWII; i.e., life was difficult then. The amazing irony is that in the midst of a war, people actually were concerned with white teeth and having no body odor. What I find most amazing is the historical/contemporary application of this one quote. If that same quote had appeared in an article today, we wouldn't think twice about it; we (at least my friends and myself) would respond, "So, what else is new?" thinking the quote is describing the underbelly of our society. Yes, personality is still hardly more than white teeth and no body odor according to cultural standards. Magazine ads and tv commercials readily come to mind promoting just that. Have sparkling white teeth and YOU will be a sexy dynamo with a personality to match! It all hinges on the white teeth....amazing, amazing, amazing that this was an observable characteristic of Adorno's society in 1944.

The second aspect of the quote has to do with consumerism. I won't be as hard on our society after reading that non-meaningful (i.e., wasteful) spending has been around for decades; even so, there were a lot of societal successes in those later years. Adorno gives an example of a "telephone voice" as being pleasant and that it "bears witness to the fact that one is attempting to turn oneself into an apparatus meeting the requirements of success." It is an example of "the fake." Well, I can't find too much fault with that type of falseness because it speaks more of interacting as well-mannered adults. It is of concern, though, when we willingly seek such false "commodities" in our culture and think nothing of it. It feels good to us, so we do it. We pay money for it. I can't help but think of Disney in this regard. We pay for an experience that is free from worry, distress or worldly-concerns. I've done it....and probably will do so again in the future. But, I always KNOW the whole experience is fake and I am choosing to "go along for the ride," so to speak!

Adorno does a good job of illuminating culture and its hold on us....Dr. Casey summed it up succinctly when he said, "We're gonna buy, buy, buy although we know it's not real and it doesn't bring happiness."

Overall, I think I feel good knowing this has been a characteristic of societies for a long, long time. I won't be so hard on our society when I encounter the superficiality and "falseness" that is promoted as "real." Before, it irritated at times; now, I'll take solace in the fact that it's nothing new. We, the masses, seem to survive the superficial and the "false" in our lives; who knows, in the big scheme of things, it may play an important psychological role.

Francesca 10/30 Adorno

In reading Adorno, I found his concept of the cultural filter applicable to various postmodern mediums. The evolution of technology in terms of film and television has rendered our generation a reflection of fictional characters. This can be seen as a chicken and egg debate of life imitating art or vice versa yet the similarities are undeniable nonetheless. Many shows are targeted at specific audiences in order to assure favorable ratings. By means of presenting fictional characters that represent typical people, television networks secure audiences that are seeking to identify with a specific group. As these characters demonstrate idealized standards of attractiveness, the bar is set for viewers as to how they should look. In addition, the contrived problems presented in these shows attempt to convey situations that are plausible in real life yet with a dramatized twist. In other words, these shows are your life, only better. For instance, shows such as the O.C. portray teens with super-model allure and worst-case scenario daily problems. In turn, teenagers gravitate towards such shows as they serve as a guideline for how they should look, dress, act, and feel. Life imitates art in this respect. Yet, the astronomical ratings for such shows calls networks to reproduce art exorbitantly to supply an undeniable demand. Thus, art imitates life for profit. The cultural filter serves as the explication for capitalism’s role in shaping young people’s social identity. The need to associate oneself with a group for the sake of personal validation is not a new phenomenon, but the manner in which society renders profit from it is. In conclusion, the evolution of technology has enabled Adorno’s theory to be substantiated at the expense of our generation’s individuality.