Smell Like a man, man.

This old spice commercial is appalling. This hetereosexual african-american man attempts to envoke jealousy in heterosexual females. Why should only regular old straight men use old spice body wash? "because it will make you smell super hot!"
So sexist. A standard homosexual male or female isnt allowed to enjoy the delightful smell that is Old Spice body wash? This complete oversexualization of body wash only attempts to speak at heterosexual couples, reinforcing the stated "natural" sexual orientation in society.

How dare Old Spice tell us what a man should be? This commercial simply works upon gender binaries by showing that this is how a man should be.
"Smell like a man, man"

This word choice thoroughly asserts Derridan linguistic tactics. He questions himself suggesting the actual answer, that using the body wash is a positive thing. He mentions the kitchen that your husband creates with his "bare hands" signifiying the idea of masculinity and thus desirability of the heterosexual male back to the female.

Clearly this bricoleur makes use of various devices to grab the attention of straight women everywhere into making their men seem completely inferior. He wants them to believe that he can represent every good thing in life she wants, making something out of essentially nothing.

It seems the Old Spice guy has a case of serious scopophilia.. he is way too happy about showing himself off and having others want to smell like him. He embodies Freudian ideals and that of symbolic imagery using himself as the subject of desire.

This man is also repressing the feminine. He asks how the ladies are doing, but says "fantastic" before any viewer could even think or believe he actually cared!

To Queer or not to Queer.. that is the question.

            

           The word “queer” sounds … queer. I’ve only ever heard this word used randomly and usually as derogatory term. Actually, I was told it was offensive to say this word by one of my teachers in sixth grade. He didn’t give a reason, but I’m guessing he associated the word “queer” with something like the word “faggot”. When you look up “queer” on dictionary.com , there is an overwhelming amount of definitions that pretty much  are all negative. For a noun, the definition is “ a homosexual, esp. a male homosexual”. Apparently it also means counterfeit money! As an adjective, queer can mean unusually different, shady, deranged, or unmanly. 

            Butler defines the word “queer” as a verb; to queer something. She uses it as making something off center, and to reveal the true queerness. The way Butler defines queer makes me think of an eternal state of being. At one point Butler says, "to appear under the sign of lesbian, but that I would like to have it permanently unclear what precisely that sign signifies," (308). I like to imagine her posing the question before she goes out somewhere, "to queer today or not to queer?" 

            Queer Theory is a type of theory that is used to deconstruct the heteronormative texts we see every singly day. The definition of “queer” in terms of queer theory is less about a single definition, but is more of an embodied analysis. The basis of the theory is the discussion about whether gender and sexuality come naturally to each person, or if they are socially constructed.

Butler thinks that gender and sexuality are both a “repeated stylization of the body, a set of repeated acts that produce the appearance of substance, of a natural sort of being”. Queer theory is a response to the “naturalness” that heterosexuality implies. Being homosexual has been and will be considered by most people a deviation from what is normal and natural. The theory is in response to heterosexism, the discrimination based upon the ideals that normal equals heterosexual which equals superiority. Queer theory is encased in the idea that the clarity of one’s gender produces the idea that heterosexuality ideals. Butler says that there is a general problematic gesture of identifying homosexuality. The very word “homosexual” is a part of a homophobic discourse.

Identity politics is something Butler talks about quite a lot. The meaning is that a person bases their politics or beliefs in categories that take hold of their identity. Some examples are woman, lesbian, middle class. Butler dislikes identity politics because they attempt to normalize people. She states that there is an “identity category disease” that attempt to “regulate instruments of regimes, when used as rallying points”. These rallying points are affirmations, like one saying to oneself, “I am a woman”, and “I am a lesbian”. Butler feels that an assumption of an identity for a political reason means to join the oppressed, and to be colonized, which is to assume the identity of someone else.

The idea of identifying with a certain group seems powerful to me at first, but in Butler’s terms, it’s troublesome. By conceding to a particular group, I am normalizing myself into that label, and I am being reclaimed with another whole identity that I did not even realize I was assuming. Is it really possible to not be recolonized at all? At some point in our lives, everyone goes through identity politics. Butler herself does; saying that sometimes she goes to events “as a lesbian”. 

Here is a link to Entertainment Weekly's "Landmark moments in Gay Hollywood". It starts off with 1959, when cross-dressing was the most honest Hollywood got about LGBT people. Reading through the list, and seeing how "queerness" operates and has changed in popular culture, I've realized that gayness has become a lot more sexualized. A little over ten years ago, when Ellen Degeneres came out on her own television show, some networks refused to air it. It amazes me that that was such a short time ago. However, the fact that gay marriage still is not legal is a reflection of the fact that a majority of society is stuck on the problem of "queer".

If Judith Butler gets pleasure from the instability of the category of "being a lesbian", she will feel that way for a long time. I think she says it best; "If I claim to be a lesbian, I 'come out' only to produce a new and different closet," (309). We have these social constructs, and a certain amount of the population is trying to get rid of heterosexism. A big part of the world also unfortunately encourages this discrimination. 

Sexism In The City

Helene Cixous and Judith Butler are both feminists, but share many similarities and differences. They both are post-structuralists, share an appreciation for Derrida, and discuss gender and sexuality in length.

Helene Cixous

Cixous is a French feminist who is influenced by both Derrida and Lacan. She is a Lacanian based on Essentialism. Cixous strongly believes that gender and sexuality are a function of language. Cixous is noted for writing in a particular format referred to as ecriture feminine. Ecriture feminine is when one writes through the female body. This way of writing provides a different way to think about sexuality. Mary Klages stated, 


"Cixous also discusses writing on both a metaphoric and literal level. She aligns writing with masturbation, something that for women is supposed to be secret, shameful, or silly, something not quite adult, something that will be renounced in order to achieve adulthood...For women to write themselves, Cixous says, they must (re)claim a female-centered sexuality. If men write with their penises...then Cixous says before women can write they have to discover where their pleasure is located." 


It promotes her theory that writing is a performance and is very emotional. Through her writing hierarchal oppositions are formed that form binaries. Her writing outlines many perspectives. In the deconstruction of binaries, the binary of man and woman is violent and chaotic in Cixous' perspective. The binaries are unequal. They come back to raw sexuality. She notes that sexual differences are seen as good if they are expressed or closeted. To Cixous, bisexuality is the embodied recognition of both male and female that bridge this binary. Cixous writes in a difficult and disconnected way that contains strong points, but is challenging for a reader. 

Judith Butler

Butler on the other hand is very different from Cixous and her beliefs. Butler believes that gender itself is a performance. Butler discusses in detail the concept and action on dressing in drag. Heterosexuality works to stabilize gender as a whole. Within the gender norms there is instability in the roles of the heterosexuals. Butler emphasizes that although one is dressing in drag and trying to defy normalities, you are still identifying as one gender or the other when in drag. Yes, you are disrupting the binary, but you are not changing them. Klages said, "All gender is a form of "drag," according to Butler; there is no "real" core gender to refer to...gender is not just a social construct, but rather a kind of performance, a show we put on, a set of signs we wear, as costume or disguise".


Butler fundamentally believes that there is a natural connection between sex and gender. Sex is defined as something biological, it is between a male/female. Klages stated, 


"In feminist theory, "woman" is universal category, which thus excludes ideas of differences among women (differences of race, class, or sexuality, for example). Both types of theory--psychoanalytic and feminist--rely on a notion of "woman" as referring to an essence, a fact, a biological given, hence a universal." 


Gender is culturally constructed behaviors that are associated with sex. These are between male/female, boy/girl, and masculine/feminine. Heterosexuality depends on the binary between masculine and feminine. Butler states in "Subjectivity and Gender", 


"It is important to emphasize that although heterosexuality operates in part through the stabilization of gender norms, gender designates a dense site of significations that contain and exceed the heterosexual matrix. Although forms of sexuality do not unilaterally determine gender, a non-causal and non reductive connection between sexuality and gender is nevertheless crucial to maintain" (page 248). 


Gender then desires sexuality. Sexuality is defined as how we express sexual desire in the direction of a gendered person. Sexuality can be defined as gay, straight, or bisexual. Butler addresses the reader in a very blunt and easy to understand format. 


When looking through feminist images (on the wonderful Google images), we found this cartoon. After reading and discussing feminist theory, in particular Cixous and Butler. It reaffirmed a lot of the connotations women have about feminists and what it is to actually be a feminist. 

We also found the blog, Postmodern Culture that discusses the Cixous and Butler. If you are interested, take a peak!

The real for the real

Rufo makes many vaild points about Baudrillard’s sometimes contradictory writings.

Baudrillard realizes that the “sign-value” must be incorporated into analysis because of the limitations of structural Marxism. This simple idea of what an object signifies being more important than the cost or the quality of its construction is a widely acceptable idea. This idea seems to be used in current everyday markets. Rufo gave a great example of Tommy Hilfiger where people buy the brand because of the brand, but it is made for cheap in a sweatshop. Most well-known brands today are the same way, people only seem to value the name of which they are getting and not necessarily the actual product. “focusing on sign-value meants that you have to focus on patterns of consumption rather than modes of production” claimed Baudrillard, which still seems to be true in some aspects today.

Rufo points out that Baudrillard has contradicted himself. He has explained that commodity is a sign itself but goes on to say how the sign is understood as a form of commodity. He used to attempt to add sign-value to the commodity but went on to say how sign-value is how commodity can be analyzed at all. Baudrillard is stating how the two are interrelated and need each other to exist and analyze, although seemingly contradictory.

Saussure’s idea of sign is similar to that of Marxist commodity, as Rufo discusses. The signifier and signified are replaced with use-value and exchange value. Laborers create an item and then it is sold for an amount of money, at which point the use-value is lost sight of and it is thought of the exchange-value, or money. These values are interdependent. Baudrillard convincingly argues for this in his writing.

It seems simple enough that we buy things and stop thinking about their use value or the reason they were built, made or put together for in the first place but start only thinking of their exchange-value because we are interested in their price.

Rufo goes on to mention an interesting point that the relationship between the signifier and signified relates to the logic of commodity. The relationship exchange allows the logic of signification to dominate the production of meaning. 

Baudrillard recognizes that these theories prove themselves over time. “One just follows the analytical formula, deploying the right terms or concepts when needed, and voila, you’ve got yourself some good criticism.” (Rufo) This is true with anything, where one could assume they are going to do bad on a test thus setting themselves up for failure. So, thinking in terms of a specific theory or system of exchange-values allows implementation of such ideas.

It seems that Baudrillard is somewhat afraid of capitalism. He thinks it is a problem to focus on production. He discusses capitalism as worrying only about the constant production of things because it is about consumption of those things. He goes on to argue how Marx’s theories help support capitalism and not oppose it because Marx’s ideas are the naturalization of use-value is capitalism and not the sign-values which was previously thought.

Since all of these theories, Baudrillard went on to identify the three main orders of simulation. I enjoy the way that Rufo explains simulation through his example of exchanging this to represent other things. Using icons is the first order of simulation which is using something, not the actual thing, to represent the actual thing. The second order is when you use something in exchange for something but it does not have to actually represent the actual thing anymore. The third order is not a simulation stage but a simulacral stage. Baudrillard describes it by saying "The territory no longer precedes the map, nor does it survive it. It is nevertheless the map that precedes the territory—precession of simulacra—that engenders the territory."

“It is no longer a question of imitation, nor duplication, nor even parody. It is a question of substituting the signs of the real for the real” (http://www.cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/postmodernism/modules/baudlldsimultnmainframe.html)

Rufo describes what Baudrillard refers to as the hyper as “the simulational stuff is so pervasive that you filter your real experiences through the simulation of that reality”. You are relating to the real because of the simulation so there is no way out of it, as the real that you see will just be an effect of that simulation.

The fourth stage Baudrillard later brings up seems a little too intense. The “integral reality” where simulation is everywhere makes for a seemingly fake life. If everything is simulation, there is no reality. 

I think Rufo did a good job at explaining thoroughly Baudrillard’s ideas and used relatable examples to understand his theories. The guest blog allowed me to further understand the idea of the hyperreal and the relation between commodity and Sassure along with Baudrillard’s relation to Marxism.

I Know Why This Caged Bird Sings

After reading Foucault's "What is an Author?", the author is interested in language, power, and pleasure. He dissects the relationship between the text and the author. The author’s function is a result from legal and institutional systems, the way the text was written, and the process of the design of the text. As readers we use the author to interpret the text and it is the way we use the author to do this that the text actually determines the author.

Maya Angelou is a highly celebrated author who allows her personal stories and life influence her work. In her interview for The Paris Review, by George Plimpton, she enlightened me with her personal writing process and her connection to texts. We learn about how she rents a room in a hotel for months that she writes in. All of the wall art must be taken down and she must have a supply of sherry. She was mute for five years after being raped and thinking her voice killed the man, not her brother. Angelou’s life is fascinating , but to her it is a simple life.

The interview dissects Angelou’s writing process and factors that contribute greatly to her writing subjects through the questions he asks. Angelou explains that she focuses on the rhythm and the language. She states how, “I want to hear how English sounds; how Edna St. Vincent Millay heard English. I want to hear it, so I read it aloud. It is not so that I can then imitate it. It is to remind me what a glorious language it is. Then, I try to be particular and even original.”

To Angelou her work is the culmination of her life and her love of language, which is clearly evident in the interview. With writing autobiographies Angelou feels as though she is following in a sacred tradition, similar to Frederick Douglass. She states the best part of writing for her is, “when the language lends itself to me, when it comes and submits, when it surrenders and says, I am yours, darling—that’s the best part.” A lot of her work is connected to her personal experiences that have had an effect on her as a person.

Through the questions, the interviewer poses most that are interrogating of her own work, but then some that are pointed more at the nature of a writer in general. An example of this is when he asks, “Aren’t you tempted to lie? Novelists lie, don’t they?”.

Angelou focuses heavily in this interview on the senses of writing and the movement. She discusses the movement and pliability of language. The interviewer asked,

INTERVIEWER

If you had to endow a writer with the most necessary pieces of equipment, other than, of course, yellow legal pads, what would these be?  

ANGELOU

Ears. Ears. To hear the language. But there’s no one piece of equipment that is most necessary. Courage, first.

She is so focused on the nature of writing: the sound and the feeling.

In Angelou’s writing, she is the audience. Angelou states,

“When I’m writing, I am trying to find out who I am, who we are, what we’re capable of, how we feel, how we lose and stand up, and go on from darkness into darkness. I’m trying for that. But I’m also trying for the language. I’m trying to see how it can really sound. I really love language. I love it for what it does for us, how it allows us to explain the pain and the glory, the nuances and the delicacies of our existence. And then it allows us to laugh, allows us to show wit. Real wit is shown in language. We need language.“

Take a Death Drive and Delay The Search

Professor Shelden’s blog on psychoanalysis sheds a new light on psychoanalytic theory.  She makes many valid and interesting points throughout her blog and I wish I had the time to talk about all of them in detail, but that would take far too long, so I have picked three that stood out the most to me.  The first would be the idea of “slippage”.  Secondly is the relationship between desire and language.  Finally is the concept of the “death drive”.  These three ideas allowed me to understand psychoanalytic theory in a new way.

This idea of slippage is very interesting.  To understand it one must realize that Lacan has changed Saussure’s theory of the signified.  In Saussure’s theory the signified is the privileged term, but in Lacan’s theory the signifier becomes the privileged term.  Lacan is suggesting that language just gives the illusion of words having meaning.  All language is doing is referring one signifier to the next and so on and so forth.  Slippage is just that; passing one signifier to the next, with no end it sight.  Slippage is the illusion of meaning.  When slippage and metonymy come together we are thrown into a search for meaning that will never end.  This meaning becomes a missing puzzle piece in the human body and we, as humans, interpret it as desire.

Every human exist within language without language no human would exist.  Within language there is an absence and that  is desire.  An example that Ashley used which helped me was the idea of language being a puzzle and desire was the missing piece that is needed to complete the puzzle.  In order for one to exist within language one must continually circle the absence trying to fill the hole or desire.  Lacan sees language and desire as the same thing.  We are constantly trying to find the meaning of language but we can’t find it; just like how we constantly desire new things, like shoes, computers, or vacation.  Just like in the search for meaning once we achieve what we desire we are not satisfied, and we start the search all over again.  We can only approach the object which we desire we can never reach it because once you reach the object you will find that it is not as good as you thought. 

Death Drive is contradictory to Lacan’s whole theory.  There are many phrases and words for death drive but the most common is orgasm.  The death drive allows you to abandon the search for meaning and identity for a short time.  This is possible because in order to reach orgasm one must completely let go of everything. The death drive strives to preserve the void in the puzzle.  “The death drive thus directs human subjects away from Symbolic and Imaginary coherence and towards the single goal of sexual satisfaction.”  This means that sexuality has nothing to do with identity.  The thought of “sexual identity” is actually false.  There is no sexual identity since they are so different.

What I have concluded from Professor’s Shelden’s blog that psychoanalytic theory sees life as a circle.  Humans are always on the search for meaning and can only escape the search when on a “death drive”.  Also there is no meaning to language that each signifier just slips to the next signifier.  In my opinion psychoanalytic theory is a large circle.

Dear Derrida, We miss you.

Derrida implies the irony of himself being filmed from the beginning of the film, referring to cinema verite.  Derrida and the film crew both realize that what they are capturing is not the truth, and not a real documentation of Derrida’s real life. Derrida does not believe in one “true” self-image. He points out several times the cameras, and how they are a mockery and not projecting what is the truth. The directors realize the irony of the film, and how what is being shot is not the truth. This is best seen when Derrida is talking about how if the film crew were not there, he would stay in his pajamas, as he does most days until he actually leaves the house. In an ideal documentary, the directors would want him to stay in the pajamas all day to show a sense of reality and authenticity. The directors probably wished they could capture that normalness of Derrida. However, he knows that the whole thing is a kind of misrepresentation, so he decides to get dressed for the filming. 

            The format of the biography is so that you are aware of the falseness of the movie. The editors could have cut out all of the time Derrida brings attention to the fakeness of the cameras, but they chose to leave it in, furthering the very idea of Derrida. The style and the layout of the film definitely brings forth an acknowledgement of Derrida’s ideas. First of all, it is a bit disconcerting, with all the subtitles, voiceovers, and shaky camera shots. Jacques Derrida’s ideas are always revolving and progressing, and a little bit confusing, much like the tone of the movie. I think the best word to describe the tone of the movie is deviation. One minute, we see Derrida lighting a pipe, strolling across a street playfully. The next minute, we hear this voiceover of a monotone woman quoting him, whose voice makes me want to fall asleep. I think this layout of the movie intends to make us think that there is no one true “self” version of Derrida; he is both the joyful little Frenchman and also the voice behind the thoughtful words.

            As I said before, there are two very distinct versions of Derrida we see in the film. There is the one who, if I can be blunt, is the coolest old guy I’ve ever seen. He walks down the street smoking a pipe, recklessly crosses traffic, and bumbles around his house. I can relate to him. I think that this is why the film works so well. Who would have thought an amazing philosopher could be so normal and cool? Then, through the film we see the intellectual side of Derrida. One way is through the voiceovers, which quote him directly.  Another is through the interviews with the film crew, which show a more hands-on, personal point of view. These parts are my favorite, because we can see him thinking in action. Then, we also see him interacting with others, like at lectures. The intellectual side to him is obviously brilliant, and I like when we can see him talking his way through his ideas the best.

            Derrida seems quite resistant to the interviewing process. To be honest, I found it entertaining when Derrida would laugh and scoff at the interviewer’s questions. Derrida does not seem to want to waste time with questions that are dull to him, like when Amy asked him his opinion on love. I think that if you asked anyone, not only a brilliant philosopher to describe love, they would not really be able to. At times like this, Derrida looks as though he is over the interview process, but then he will come back with a brilliant answer, like his opinion on love, and how we love either a “who” or “what”.

            Derrida has a strong grasp on the philosophy of life, but when he is introduced to our current cultural mediums he struggles in understanding the correlation we have with media. When the sitcom, Seinfeld, is addressed in the documentary, Derrida comments to read and do your homework. He feels that there is little to no need for the popular media we are accustomed to. In today’s world we use media and cultural phenomena to help us grasp ideas. We use it to understand more complex thoughts.

This Youtube video is an extra from the dvd. He discusses the way Americans will see the film, and how his image will be distorted according to them. Chillingly, he also says "the film will survive me". The video shows Derrida's wisdom, and overall affectionate side, which I have come to adore throughout the movie!     http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otV7OHgrO4A

Extra Credit:

Scritti Politti started out as a left-wing British rock group. Over time, their genre changed to pop. Green Gartside, the lead singer, was extremely influenced by readings in the field of deconstruction. The lyrics of their songs, in particular Jacques Derrida, address political and cultural messages based on deconstructive readings. The lyrics of the song, “Jacques Derrida”, by Scritti Politti, are part of a love song.

I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida

Read a page and know what I need to

Take apart my baby's heart

I'm in love

I'm in love with a Jacques Derrida

Read a page and know what I need to

Take apart my baby's heart

I'm in love

It is about loving someone, and trying to figure out their feelings. This verse is specifically talking about Derrida. Literally, it is saying that the writer read Derrida’s work, and he now knows how to deconstruct and win over the girl’s heart. By deconstructing this structure of the heart, he has found true meaning. I googled the lyrics and found an anecdote about how after Derrida heard the song, he invited the lead singer, Green Gartside to dinner in Paris. I would love to have heard their conversation!

The Words We Use

The quote I am going to look at is " in language there is only differences without positive terms". I feel that Saussure was saying language and different words mean different things to everyone. Also I feel that all those three statements are interconnected meaning that they related to one another. I feel with language, people can get confused when talking about the same thing. For example, both people are talking about soda, but one person calls it tonic and the other person calls it pop. There could be a miscommunication with language because people grew up with different terms for the same things. From Saussure's writing, you can tell he is a smart man. I see the point he is trying to make with his writing. Another point I would like to make is that people can still come up with different images for abstract ideas. My image of what love is could vary very much from what another person's image of love.  This is all I can come up with for now, I hope everyone likes it!

Marxism at your local mall, if you can afford it.

When someone says “Marxism”, I automatically think “badass”, “rebel”, and “hipster”. Those are just the words that pop into my head. Sure, when I was in fifth grade learning about how communism equals bad and capitalism equals good, I thought of Communism/ Marxism as a sac religious kind of lifestyle. How horrible that people in Cuba had to be oppressed by this odd style of government and way of thinking!

Now, I am not entirely sure how the thought of a “cool badass” pops into my head when I start to think about Marxism. I know that I have learned more about the woes of a capitalist society, and how it leaves the working class in the dust. I know that, as being part of that class, I do not totally love the idea that the rich are getting richer at the expense of us regular Joe’s. However, I’m not so completely enraged and I do not wish to move to North Korea.

When reading Chris Craig’s blog about the copy of Communist’s Manifesto being positioned on a table to offset some jeans, I completely knew what he was describing. Every hip store you go into, they are silently trying to get you to rise against the authority. Urban Outfitters, Anthropologie, Forever 21, and even Target all seem to have these T-Shirts that by buying, suggest that you would love to live in a Marxist community, or even just rebel against whatever is holding you back. I think that this idea of breaking free is definitely aimed more towards women and teenagers. Out clothes make a bigger impression on us. If I were to wear a shirt that said, “I’m So Green”, I would probably really believe that for the day, and so would a bunch of people that saw me wearing it. It’s kind of frightening how a statement in fashion makes us believe more than we should.

Chris Craig hit the nail on the head when he said that I imagine myself to be someone of a “fashion revolutionary” by buying that Che Guevara t-shirt. But I really shouldn’t. I totally agree with this idea of “cultural capital”. When I see people who are wearing the best clothes, that have been bought exclusively from one of these hipster, rebellious stores, I do think of them as having a level of distinction and authority. When I can afford to buy one of those pairs of jeans from the table with the Communist Manifesto on it, I feel better about myself and making a conscious decision to buy these crazy, not your average person jeans.

 So, who makes all of these trendy t-shirts? That’s right, the people who are one hundred percent against anything that is not Capitalism.  Actually, some kids in Guatemala probably actually made the shirts. But I am just feeding the giant, capitalist machine. I think I’m being crazy and rebelling, but I’m not. The authority, or ruling class has instilled the ideology in me, without me even noticing it. They think that if I can feel rebellious buying a t-shirt linked to Marxism, I’ll be satisfied with all of my rebellious urges. This is scarily true. This ideology is embedded so deep in my mind, it took an English class blog for me to realize it!

In response to Chris Craig’s point about the news and how it really is geared for the upper class moneymakers, not the wage earners, I have an anecdote. My roommate and I decided to watch the original Wall Street movie the other day. At first it was cool, seeing Charlie Sheen having a tough time as a buyer on Wall Street. Then, he went to see Gordon Gekko, and they started talking money, business, and stocks. That was right around the time we lost interest in the movie. Two twenty year olds in college could really care less about buying and trading, and watching this millionaire guy get even richer. We stopped watching, and discussed how irrelevant all of that stuff seemed to us, average wage-makers.

I agree that literature is absolutely full of ideological ideals, whether intentionally or unintentionally placed in the text. How can text really not be? We are all impressed upon by the society, and where we are positioned in the society. If I was a billionaire, or even just higher up in society than most, almost every element of my life and the way I write would probably be different than that of a factory worker who makes $8.00 per hour. 

The last book I read was Eat, Pray, Love. While this book is not really a huge social commentary, it did provide the author’s point of view and she did include her own, privileged ideological ideas. Elizabeth Gilbert is a wealthy New Yorker in her thirties, and she has a lot of money to throw around. With this status, she clearly has her own set of rules and sets up the rules expected of someone like herself.  In a novel like Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities, where social commentary is evident and busting at the seams, it still appears that he is influenced by the social standards and the environment and ideological values instill upon him.

Thinking about how Shakespeare is taught in school was enlightening for me. I’ve taken a class about Shakespeare for almost six years straight. Even at a college level, I would always think of William Shakespeare as a privileged author who wrote privileged text. Even in college courses, we would talk about how he captures “human nature” more than anything. I’ve always known he was somewhat putting ideological ideas into the subtext, but have never really considered that in terms of Marxism. It’s exciting to see the subtext in a whole new way.

All in all, Marxist theory can be exhausting. I think there are class- based ideological values instilled in everything we see and hear, from a television commercial for beer to the hottest new Oprah book club selection. Marxist theory certainly does point out the fact that we are in a way oppressing ourselves; through thinking we are rebelling on a smaller scale.  We cannot escape the cycle of capitalism and its ideological values, whether it is through buying a pair of jeans, or by reading a classic novel.

Grotesque or Gorgeous? A question about the relationship between terror and art.

Terrorism is the systematic use of terror especially as a meas of coercion; or the forcing of people to behave in an involuntary manner.  Could the terrorist act of 9/11 be considered art?  If yes then why did Karlheinz Stockenhausen face so much ridicule after his comment that 9/11 was the "greatest work of art that is possible in the whole cosmos" and if it wasn't then what possessed him to say it was?

Although this quote can be interpreted different ways it is still fundamentally offensive upon the first read through. After thinking about it more critically it can be manipulated into certain artistic perspectives. Stockhausen was a composer and therefore viewed things in different ways then the average person does. To him everything is a work of art. It has a purpose, meaning, made people think, and caused a spectacle.

Although to many this quote was distasteful it was a change from the norm and allowed another view to enter the public mindset.  This quote was in a way a good thing for the public, since the media was just showing the same footage repeatedly;  Stockenhausen gave the public the ability to express their anger in a new way and allowed another outlet for the countries outrage.  

Previous to Stockenhausens' statement the media had a very tight hold on the tragedies publicity.  With this quote Stockenhausen single handily took down the media control.  To many this allowed fervent expression of patriotism which caused this quote to hit the core of America in such a personal way.  People took it as a personal attack and not as an individuals work of art.

Some would argue that this quote is a work of art others would say it is a monstrosity.  In  our group we feel that this quote represents both parties, it can be considered a work of art after careful debate but when first introduced to it, it is seen as irresponsible.

Hello

Just trying out a test blog!