Feminism and logic

The question of what is feminism or what makes someone a feminist is a unique and understandable difficult and complex question to answer. Dr. Mcguire stated it best when she said in class that she expects everyone in class to think of themselves as feminists. The idea of male feminism calls into question the idea of the male patriarchy and the manner in which feminism challenges the concept of male dominance and the patriarchal structure that we find ourselves in. The challenges that feminists face in trying to overcome the male patriarchy make the viewer think about what the ideals of femininity and masculinity are and how they function to make us think about the ways in which we are feminist or not. Dr. Krouse makes an interesting point with her ideas of the characteristics of feminism and how they contribute to the idea of the feminist struggle. The idea of the feminist struggle demonstrates that unless we as a society are able to restructure the language that we use to communicate we will inherently be bound by male dominance and the ways in which the patriarchal structure functions. The link between feminist action and theory is unique because feminists try to conform to masculine views of femininity through the use of sexuality in the third wave of feminism however, the whole ideal of feminism is to reject the patriarchal view of society and its functions. This is confusing because it is not clear through the first, second and third waves of feminism what feminists are striving for because they keep changing the ideas which they base their argument on. Anyway, those are just a few of my thoughts on the Dr. Krouse’s post and feminism in general.

Mantissa and the idea of obscenity in the id and superego

“ “All right. I may, heaven knows why, out of some misguided sense of responsibility, have inspired you with the mere gist of a notion of some new sort of meeting between us. But all I saw was an interesting little contemporary variation on an ancient them. Something for learned readers. Not that obscene…” She waves towards the head of the bed. “I thought at least you’d have the sense to consult a few classical texts, for a start”. Her finger traces obsessively up and down the swan’s neck of the golden-armed lyre. “It’s so unfair. I’m not a pig. And humiliating. If my wretched family gets to hear about it.” Her voice grows increasingly hurt. “They think it’s all a huge joke anyway. Just because I thought it was clever drawing love poetry when we picked lots in the beginning. Then getting stuck with the whole of fiction as well. I have to work ten times as hard as all the rest of them put together.” She broods over her wrongs. “Of course the whole genre is in a mess. Death of the novel, That’s a laugh. I wish to all my famous relations it was. And good riddance.” She pauses again. “It’s what I loathe about this rotten country. And America, that’s even worse. At least the French are doing their best to kill the whole stupid thing off for good.” (Mantissa, pg. 66).

This passage demonstrates quite poignantly the ideas that are imposed in the self other relationships and the ideas of the id, ego and superego in postmodern critical theory. This line was spoken by part of the muse as she is obviously upset about how greene is trying to write down the story that is unfolding before him. In the id and superego the idea of how one perceives oneself and the others around him are explained and to an extent tested through theory and critical thought. Fowles in this passage demonstrates how these ideas help the main character, Miles Greene, tries to comprehend the idea of trying to write down the story but in doing so may alienate the people around him. In this passage the muse is trying to help him to write down the story but she is becoming more and more irritated as she is trying to change it as she writes it and he does not want to go along with that. I think that this is somewhat similar to the idea of the treatment and how he resisted the doctor and the “treatment” as being obscene. One of the main ideas in this passage is how does the idea of the obscene play into the idea of the muse in the story and how does the muse play into the idea of the obscene so as to clarify one another. Can this even be done? The politicizing of art and aesthetics is a theme that runs rampant throughout the novel and I think that in this passage it is shown quite heavily in order to make the point that the muse is what have come to understand in texts of the cannon and the idea of obscenity is what is being debated throughout the story to provoke the imagination of the reader.

American Beauty and postmodernism-in practice, somewhat!!!

The idea of postmodernism is a unique and objective way of looking at a text like Mendes’ film American Beauty. The film tries to pick apart the idea of what beauty is and how it can function in a mundane setting such as the ordinary, everyday life of the average America. In my paper for this course I would like to try to pull apart some of the ideas that Mendes explains in the film and try to focus them using a variety of critical cultural and literary theories but mainly focusing on a postmodernist perspective.
In order to critique the movie with any effectiveness I think that I am going to need to try to further understand what postmodernism is and to try to understand it in both a literary and cinematic viewpoint. I am going to need to address the idea of cinema veritae and to try to explain why American beauty provides and exemplifies the this idea in a postmodernist, post-structuralist viewpoint.
Many cultural theorists including beaudrillard, lacan, and derrida have compelling arguments about what truth is and Mendes expands on these ideas in the film American Beauty. I think that getting to the idea of what truth is and how it functions is an important point to make in this paper as well as foucault’s idea of the author function and how who says the idea in question is very significant to the idea of truth and reality. The other idea that I would like to focus on in this paper is how does the film change our ideas and understanding of what is simulation, simulacra and the superreal in the context of everyday American life as we know it and the movie shows it. In the paper I would also like to tease out the idea using theory of how some of thoughts and actions in this movie may be considered area while in another context they would be thought of as profanity or obscenity and to examine the idea of what makes this movie aesthetically acceptable while in another setting it would not be and tie that idea into postmodernist thought and specifically the author function as Barthes and Fouccault describe it.
The paper will utilize the 6 to 8 sources that are required for the assignment as well as many more because, I would like to examine what scholars and theorists think about the ideas of postmodernist beauty and the film American beauty. Within these sources I will also use different types of theory like feminism and even liberal humanism to explain the concepts of beauty in American beauty.
These are some of the main points that I would like to explore in the paper and would like to show how postmodernist theory can be applied to contemporary texts and ideas to change our understanding of them and how they work.

Rufo's Ideas on beaudrillard

I find Ken Rufo’s ideas on Beaudrillard to be quite an insightful thought piece on the work of Beaudrillard as well as the postmodern critique in general. First of all I think that to state this outright would be the most important thing that I could do. I consider the post to basically be a postmodern critique of postmodernism. The idea that Ken is critiquing a postmodernist on the terms of something like Marxist criticism makes the post very entertaining to read and one that kept my attention. I did take some time and as I was reading the post I highlighted and put notes into the text with some of the ideas that I would like to express in this post and which I will do throughout this post at various points. Overall I found Ken Rufo’s ideas on Beaudrillard and his post modern critique to be quite interesting and engaging.
The first area of Professor Rufo’s post that I would like to address is that beaudrillard was a post modernist who as ken puts it “disavowed” being called a post modernist. I am not exactly sure what beaudrillard was trying to accomplish through his critique if he wants to talk about postmodernism without being a postmodernist because, I really do not see how it is possible for this to be done. That is, I do not think that would be possible for a postmodern critique to be done by someone who is not a postmodernist just as a Marxist critique cannot be done by someone who is not a Marxist. I think that some of the ideas that beaudrillard touched on in his critique could only be accomplished by a post modernist critic. That is one of the main problems that I have with beaudrillard’s critiques of postmodern theory.
I want to for this post focus exclusively on Professor Rufo’s ideas on Karl Marx and the ideas of communism versus capitalism. I think that Professor Rufo makes some interesting assertions in regards to Marxist theory (some of which I do not entirely agree with). I think that the idea of viewing something in terms of a sign (i.e. commodity) can be deceiving in a sense. I think that by viewing the commodity and who controls the means of production and consumption can cause the viewer to lose sight of the reason for the commodity being produced in the first place. We should constantly keep asking ourselves why are we producing what we produce? What does it do for us? I think that once we are able to understand the commodity and its purpose we can better begin to figure out and make an educated decision on who controls it. I think and this has ultimately been proven that by having one party control a commodity leads to power and abuse of power.
The next thing that struck me as I read this was the idea that beaudrillard discusses issues that would and probably should be though of more by a Marxist thinker rather than a postmodernist. The Marxist capitalist idea of “What an object represents or signifies is more important than how much it costs or how high quality is its construction”. This fundamental ideal of communism that I think would be best observed through a Marxist critique for the simple fact that a postmodernist is not really thought of to be a political thinker but rather a thinker of the arts. I find that having a postmodernist try to examine this topic really underscores what postmodernism as I have understood it since persuasive strategies is really all about.
I find Rufo’s ideas on how “focusing on sign value means that you have to focus on patterns of consumption rather than the modes of production”. Again, I believe this to be more along the lines of a Marxist thinker and probably better explained by a Marxist critic rather than someone who considers themselves to be a postmodernist thinker. To put it bluntly I think that the idea of Marxism may be a self fulfilling prophecy as has been stated by other critics.
These are some of my views on Professor Rufo’s post and his ideas on Marxist. I am wondering though how does the idea of Marxism and beaudrillard’s thoughts on it change the way that we view the non political text or is all text inherently political?

Thanks,
Brett

Foucault and the author function

In this week’s blog post I am going to try to decipher Foucault’s idea of an “author function” from my understanding of the text. I think that the “author function” as Foucault describes it is a very complex and in my uneducated opinion overly complicated view on what an author actually is and how it is different from a writer. Foucault in this article discusses how the author, writer and narrator can be physically the same person but, how they may each have an alter ego and can therefore act as different personas despite the fact that the ideas we interpret and words that we see written on a piece of paper are coming from the same entity. Foucault also suggests, according to my understanding of the article that we as the reader or even literary critic need to stop thinking about an author as a persona who is above us and who we look up to in a mythical or god like fashion but, that we need to separate the ideas from the persona and examine each as individual.
I personally believe that it is impossible from what I have read to separate the author as a person from the ideas which the author represents. I think that this goes back to the ideas that differentiate between the author and the writer and what makes each what it is. I think that the four parts of Foucault’s ideas on the author function make the idea of an author and a writer as one unified entity more or less obsolete and allow us to look at the author and the ideas individual and autonomous from one another. I think that like Foucault said that if we look at the author not in terms of a person but rather an entity that we can better understand the ideas and vice versa. Below are the four main concepts of Foucault’s “author function”. These four ideas make up the basis for what I understand an author in this context to be and the theory makes me look at authors not as people but as entities.
1. The "author function" is linked to the legal system and arises as a result of the need to punish those responsible for transgressive statements.
2. The "author function" does not affect all texts in the same way. For example, it doesn't seem to affect scientific texts as much as it affects literary texts. If a chemistry teacher is talking about the periodic table, you probably wouldn't stop her and say, "Wait a minute--who's the author of this table?" If I'm talking about a poem, however, you might very well stop me and ask me about its author.
3. The "author function" is more complex than it seems to be. This is one of the most difficult points in the essay, and in thinking about it, you might want to consider what Foucault says about the editorial problem of attribution-- the problem of deciding whether or not a given text should be attributed to a particular author.
This problem may seem rather trivial, since most of the literary texts that we study have already been reliably attributed to an author. Imagine, however, a case in which a scholar discovered a long-forgotten poem whose author was completely unknown. Imagine, furthermore, that the scholar had a hunch that the author of the poem was William Shakespeare. What would the scholar have to do, what rules would she have to observe, what standards would she have to meet, in order to convince everyone else that she was right?
A few years ago, this imaginary situation became a reality, when a scholar named Gary Taylor suddenly announced that he had rediscovered a long-long Shakespeare poem. Many, many people viewed Taylor's announcement with skepticism, and in arguing against Taylor, they did resort (without realizing it, of course) to the "criteria of authenticity" proposed by St. Jerome and listed by Foucault on page 111. They argued, for instance, that the poem wasn't good enough to have been authored by Shakespeare--on the assumption, I gather, that Shakespeare was somehow incapable of sinking below a certain level of literary excellence. It may help to keep this sort of situation in mind, as you try to make sense of this third characteristic of the "author function."
4. The term "author" doesn't refer purely and simply to a real individual. The "author" is much like the "narrator," Foucault suggests, in that he or she can be an "alter ego" for the actual flesh-and-blood "writer."
The second part of the assignment for this week was to find a blog from the internet on the idea of what an author is or what makes an author. I did some research and I think that I found one right from the main page of Dr. Mcguire’s blog. The blog is titled Rough Theory and I think that it provides some good insight on the idea of what an author is. I think that this blog makes some assumptions as to the ideas of what an author is and how it helps to shape our understanding of the “author function” and texts. This blog seems to hint through various posts that the author is more a work of fiction rather than acting as a function from which we can better understand the texts that we come across. I think that the idea of an author as fiction rather than function is equally as compelling as the “author function” that Foucault writes about in the article and that if we were to think about the author as a fictional element then we need to be careful not to bring it into the realm of the real and make it seem like it has a persona. These are just a few of my thoughts on what makes an author and whether or not the author serves as a function of the text or a fictional element of the text. I would like to point out that I find this concept to be very difficult to grasp and that I could and probably am wrong but, these are just a few of my thoughts on the ideas that Foucault presented in the article.

Differences between Lacan and Derrida

The statements by Derrida and Lacan show contrasting points of view on poststructuralist nature of human thought and literature. Lacan’s statement, “I think where I am not therefore, I am where I do not think” is an obvious take on the famous Freudian expression of “I think therefore I am” but this shows it in the opposite light and makes me think that Lacan is poststructuralist because, through this statement I think that he is trying to deconstruct a known center and trying to take an idea like the signifier and the signified and trying to put them into one category exactly where he thinks that poststructured center is in literary thought.
In connection to Lacan, Derrida’s statement of "And there where there is improvisation I am not able to see myself" shows would also argue that the decentered center of deconstructionism still exists but that we have not really tried to find it because, in a poststructuralist ideal we are no longer concerned with the structure and the center of the structure rather, we are more concerned with empirical ideals and the epistemological thought of those ideals. In Derrida’s point of view and from what I could understand from the movie he is more interested in poststructuralist epistemology and the ideas that it contains. This is not to say that he doesn’t care about structure but that he is less concerned with the ideas of Freud and his ideas. To put it briefly poststructuralists are interested in the text and not in what is behind or beyond it.
Lacanian and poststructuralist critics are also careful to distinguish between a metaphor and metonym. This is an important aspect because; one relies on empirical thought while the other is purely epistemological in nature. The differences between a metaphor and metonym are subtle but important because they to some extent allow us to distinguish between what we know and how we know it and what we think we know and why we think that way.
These are just some of my thoughts on the differences between Lacan and Derrida and why I think that they thought in the manner which they did.

Signifier and the signified

In this week’s blog post I am going to explain and try to further critique the quote by Saussure that “The bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary”. I believe that Saussure offers an interesting and unique look at the relationship between the signifier and the signified and provides some interesting insight on the relationship between the two. To start it is important to define the signifier and the signified. The signifier is the actually word that is used to describe something whereas the signified is the idea that is associated with the word. I think that Saussure is one hundred percent correct in saying the relationship between the two is arbitrary. A great example of this is one that was brought up in class a few classes back when someone said that the train they were looking for was not actually a train in the sense that we may think of it in contemporary English language. In the context that it was described train actually referred to a bus that was maybe being substituted for a train that we think of in the normative contemporary English. I think that this is a good example of how the signifier can be altered and change the meaning of the signified. The idea that there are also many different words for different objects or even places is also significant within this context. If you take for example, a car well, another world for a car is automobile. But, think for a second, a motorcycle is just as much an automobile as a car, isn’t it. Auto meaning automatic and mobile meaning moving therefore, it is automatically moving without human power (although this could also be up to interpretation. This is just another example of Saussure’s argument that the signifier and the signified are arbitrary because, they are interchangeable. I think that in order to understand this you need to think about what we talked about in class today about finding the center, although this may also be an impossible dream. Anyway these are just a few of my thoughts on Saussure’s argument that the signified and the signifier are interchangeable.