Foucault Style

I’m unsure who Foucault is trying to point the finger at. Is it our own fault that we are such a ‘perverse’ nation or society? Is he talking about just the United States? His argument seems greatly concerned with the sexuality of men. Is man to blame? There are only a few instances in which he refers to the sexuality of women. I guess it had to be that way in order to make his argument. Foucault says that it was our study of sex that gave it its power.  Is there anyone to blame? He states that research never enforced codes of discourse nor abandoned them.

I have yet to digest the text and it seems as though his argument runs in circles and he knows it. Foucault says that coining the concept perversion accomplished nothing to destroy it, but to further its existence. The creation of laws and penalties, and medicine and regimentation only added to the language of perversion. I liked how he described it as a recurrent danger, destined to fail and begin again (1659). I also found it interesting how he described the birth of perversion through church confessions (1659). Maybe I’m reading it wrong but the way I interpreted it was that confessing one’s deepest ant most secret indulgences led to the spread of this disease. It makes sense. If someone hears another’s secrets and finds that they are not so dissimilar from their own, doesn’t that give them a sense of normalcy? And, if that sensation persists why not explore it? I am not an atheist, but I do love to point out how and when the exploitation of given power goes wrong.

Foucault also states that the discourse of sex and the creation of the pervert created different species of sexes. The homosexual was created via the hermaphroditic soul. Disparunist women became lesbians I’m guessing. But my favorite, the one that amuses me most, is the presbyophile: Men who have the hots for nuns. Wow! Our ancestors were messed up! This gives a whole new insight into the morals of The Sound of Music and father VanTrapp.

I believe that this new sex theory will open doors to interpreting texts. It is somewhat Derridian in nature in that there are many subsets of sex within the idea of sex itself. Each person has their own sexual center that breaks down with the formation of relationships on a day to day basis. It’s kind of like the example of religion and denominations if you want to draw that comparison. I don’t know if this is a stretch or not, but, if Jameson were to be applied to Foucault’s development of the sexual species what could he say? Homosexuality is the pastiche of hermaphroditism?

Being Disgraceful

I am having difficulty applying one theorist to the end of the novel.  The pregnancy is the result of the exchange for Lucy’sindependence.  But, she is pregnant with the seed of the rising power.  The rising power needing to make an identity.  If the child is white, he/she will still be defined as having a black father.  Who’s last name will Lucy give the child?  Her name?  Her father’s name?  Pollux’s? Or, Petrus’s?  Here I think we have the meeting of the minds of Rubin and Fanon.  Fanon lacks in speaking for all that are victimized.  He fails to see how a woman’s identity or state of being can and is prescribed by an oppressor; man.  Rubin’s theory fails if we look at her rape as a means to ascribe an identity.  The once oppressed do not wish to keep Lucy, they are looking to redefine her race.   I feel like I could run around in circles with this because each theory goes hand in hand.  Everything is everything.  When I talk about Fanon and Negritude I can’t not talk about white men.  When I talk about Rubin and feminism, I can’t not talk about men.  This sounds like a Derridian trip to me. 

We didn’t get to talk about Superman hanging his head while Lois Lane berated him.  Why is this important?  Superman tries to act for the greater good by ignoring his passion;  Lois Lane.  In turn, Lois is heart broken time and time again.  It is the same story for other super heroes that don’t want to put their significant others in harm’s way.  But, is that what she is berating him for?  Leaving her?  What else would she berate him for?  I don’t think that Rubin would enjoy the poster.  Maybe she would see it in a different light.  I think Superman is a feminist.

I need to ponder this more.  To be cont…. 

Disgrace #2

I’m running out of catchy titles. Maybe one will strike me at the end of this piece. I fear that I have too much or too little to talk about. There are a couple of problems I foresee in starting this piece. We had to read about one hundred pages, although very fascinating, very hard to concentrate into a blog entry of my intended length. Secondly, I feel that I have looked too hard, maybe found too much or created too much that may not truly fall into the structures of certain theories. Even though I took notes, it’s hard to remember the exact, exactly how, the exactness of my brain waves at that time. Using a flashlight I scoured the text looking for anything I thought would support our current theorists’ ideas.

I know that Fanon is mainly concerned about the identity of the black man. Are we aloud to use his ideas of identity outside the realm of skin color? For instance, and maybe this is more of a road built for Rubin, on page 157 Lucy says, “You are concerned for my sake, which I appreciate, you think you understand, but finally you don’t. Because you can’t”. I think she is trying to say that you can’t understand a rape victim (and we’re 90% sure that’s what happened). David doesn’t understand why she doesn’t tell the police about the heinous crime or even try to pursue the monsters. She defined as a rape victim because of a man. The black man is defined by a white man. A man has made her what she is. Now, using a feminist lense, how do I interpret this scene? I am a man. Can a man take on this type of critical perspective? What did the thieves get out of this? They went there because they knew she was there. Stealing came second. Where is the exchange of women here? Lucy thinks that because she is a woman, and because she puts herself int this kind of danger, she is subject to events like this. Is that the exchange? If you are going to put yourself out there expect consequences as a woman? If you want a life like this expect that? There is a stretch for you. Pg. 98 “There must be some niche in the system for women and what happens to them.”

I am not a huge fan of Sassure. The distaste derives from the lack of understanding I have about the whole sign, signifier, signified thingy. I understand a little, enough to realize when his theory is speaking up. David (71) is talking about how he gave a lecture on the word drink and the phrase drink up. He compares it to burned and burnt, and then says “I live, I have lived, I lived.”

He says that this is “signifying an action carried through to its conclusion.” If someone wanted to break that down for me I’d be most appreciative. What this has to do with the rest of the book is beyond me. It seems abstract to the whole purpose of the novel to stop, and look at the smallest unit of meaning, the word(s), to make sense out of anything. Everything becomes the same if we look at it too closely. David later talks about English not being the truth? Excuse me, he meant that it wasn’t a good medium for truth. Does he mean because they are in South Africa? There are a lot of words spelled oddly in the book, i.e. tyre. I’m sure I missed out on a lot truth in Sassure’s piece because it was translated from French.

I am sooo tired I can barely keep my eyes open. I had intentions of going further but I have to count sheep. That’s what sheep do. That is what they are worth. They don’t own their lives. I do. I count them and they exist for me to count. I am the repressive apparatus.

Concentrated Disgrace

What is a single fifty year old man to do?  And, when he’s caught being a dirty old man what do you do with him?  So far I am finding the novel quite interesting.  David certainly lacks no confidence.  He’s self absorbed.  I know that his actions are wrong, but why do I feel sorry for him.  Why do I want to see him succeed?  Maybe it’s a gender thing.   Thinking back though, I hated it when girls my age went for older men.  I guess I haven’t really made up my mind to whether i like him or not.

The trial is very right winged (I sometimes mix up my right and left).  It reminds me of Jonathon Edwards, the father of the first Great Awakening.  Edwards said that anyone who truly possessed faith needed to make a public announcement of it  If they sinned then forgiveness must be asked for in public forum.  If you didn’t want to be out-casted out labelled as daemonic, possibly killed then you outwardly professed your love for God.  Here, David is being asked to do the same thing to save his job.  The board wants an insincere declaration of his remorse.  What bothers me is that he knew he was wrong.  He had doubt from the beginning.  The look on Melanie’s face told him everything.  So why is he being so stubborn.  Is he trying to hide his guilt by putting up a strong wall of defense.  Did he feel like he was saving the girl?  Saving her from possibly abusive relationship by having sex with her?  He wants to bypass the facts during the hearing maybe because he knows he’s wrong.  It’s so foul that he doesn’t care about the consequences enough to go through the scrutiny.  It’s hard to tell whether  David is sincere about anything.  He is a player, and a bit narcissistic.  He is a sex addict.   

So, how am I going to apply any amount of theory to what we’ve read so far?  What would Rubin say here?  It depends on what whether or not David feels like he did anything wrong.  I think he feels like he is less wrong now that he is being accused.  The situation could’ve been handled in private, but he wasn’t about to do that, much less initiate it.  Now that he is the one being wronged, the man is being wronged, it needs to be squashed.

If I were to write anymore I’d be diluting my content.  I don’t need to talk you all in circles like David did. 

The Fanon

I remember the week before vacation when we took on the Rubin.  Generally, feminism is a controversial topic.  Fanon’s piece fits same category.  In an unprejudiced world it shouldn’t.  To speak freely on the topic would be a wonderful accomplishment.  I feel that everytime I enter these types of waters I fall to deep.  I hate having to be careful.  I don’t have a need to be careful, but like anything that comes out of my mouth the interpretation of it is based on the listeners reaction.  The black man is black in the eyes of the white man.  The white man is white in the eyes of the black man.  I believe that this converse relationship exists, jaded as it is.  It exists only on the surface level and that’s what makes the relationship unequal.  The black man’s definition of himself is based on a white base.  The white man does not find his roots in the black man.  So, what are the black men to do?  Remember the antelope?  I was thinking about this in class and remembering our animal instincts.  Animals lack the ability to control an entire species.  The most powerful animal (not mentioning humankind at the moment) does not sit on top of the rest of a kingdom.  They try, but they are not successful.  We try and we are successful.  We are animals.  The point is is that it is in our blood to find the weak and dominate.  Here is where I must be careful.  It is not just racism, but sexism or any other kind of prejudice out there.  Fanon makes a great point when he uses the anti-semite example to draw comparison to an anti-negro.  It is the same, because prejudice exists.  And, it’s not the same because of the fact that blackness is distinct.  It’s difficult not to recognize someone who is black.  It is a valid argument.  Again, what is the black man to do?  What is the answer?  Define him separately, give him identity, distinguish him from the white man, and then what?  Will it end now that a very distinct line is drawn?  Or, will everyone take notice?  Who will rejoice and who won’t? 

March Madness Baby

Praise the Lord!  We are halfway done!  Spring fever has its grip on my soul and golf is right around the corner.  The new season has made me reflect on what’s important;  whether or not my current career path is the one for me.  I sincerely enjoy this class.   Understanding theory was not a concept that I thought would be possible.  I apply the ideas of Jameson and Derrida in almost every other class I have.  It’s a psychological assessment I use to categorize people, or other authors.  I feel like I can understand people a bit better using these tools.  At the same time I am a bit offended by the way that they’ve molded my mind.  Sassure-  sometimes I wish I could just look at a word and not try to read it, not interpret it, just to prove the point that it can be done.  I’ve developed a habit of  searching for concrete examples to fortify my understandings of each author.  I dwell in uncertainty.  The concrete example does not exist, or it does.  It’s great though.  I like the intellectual exploration my thought processes are taking.  It gives me common ground to speak with other English scholars. 

I think that the readings are actually a bit easier.  It’s hard for me to judge whether or not my comprehension skills are improving or if authors’ writings are clearer.  If anything, I know that I am becoming well versed in my own language.  The more I have it in front of me the more fluent my understanding of it will come.  As difficult as some of it is,it feels great to get through a heavy text with atleast some understanding.  It’s like working out (not that I have any great personal experience with this one) in that at the end I feel good about myself for getting through it.  This class is like theory class boot camp. 

In order for me to better understand what I’m working with I need to argue with it.  I argue everything.  It’s not that I always think that I’m right, it’s just the way I test things.  I value something that has the ability to sway my thoughts, because I know that sometimes I can be stubborn and/or narrow-minded.  My writing will always reflect the ‘devil’s advocate’.  I’ve found that this has hurt me some areas.  1.)  If I don’t know what my author’s point is it is hard to make an argument, and 2.)  If I do chose to argue their point, I’d better have something more substantial to throw out on the table.  In some cases I become cynical.  The fear of  misunderstanding breeds anxiety and confrontation.  I do like to take the Jesus approach (and in no way do I mean to be blasphemous) by asking the reading questions.  I try to interview the author, to catch him/her off guard.  If I’ve done that the day mine!  On a different matter, it’s hard to gain an understanding of how my writing is affecting my grade in the course.  I know I’ve addressed this in class and I know from what Dr. M (that’s kind of funny) has said that I’m on target with the content, but I have no other feedback than from you, my classmates (no offense).  If someone wants to tell me I have an A that would be lovely.

Our class conversations have been most helpful.  A lot of my understanding comes from what I can pull from in class participation.  I get frustrated quickly and at times had declared an oath of silence before class to save myself humility.  I can’t help it though (participating).  I honestly don’t feel that way all the time because I deal with it.  School is my time to be selfish. I need to take the adantage of using time in this class to make sure I understand it.  I use everyone in class to my benefit.  Resourcing the intellect of everyone else to bolster my own is my objective.  I don’t think it’s as sinful as it sounds.   

Hurm,…Group work.  Well, we haven’t really hit that point in our group yet where crunch time has presented itself.  Has it?  I don’t know.  Am I supposed to be doing something yet.  If this shows a lack of communication then I am guilty.  If the communication isn’t supposed to exist yet then we are right on track.  I am nervous, but am sure that we can come together just as beautifully as group one did. 

So tomorrow is the beginning of the end of the semester.  I have learned so much so far and I now feel as though I am leaning away from teaching and a degree in English altogether.  This does not come from anything new, but my ever present inability to commit.  I have so many extra credits that I will still graduate on time with whatever I take.  What is important to me is to feel confident in my work so that I can perform it to the best of my ability.