Final Thoughts...

After a semester of studying theory i can confidently admit that there is plenty that i now understand and even more that confuses me. From liberal humanism to postcolonialism, all of the ideas and theories had been mentioned to me once before, but never this in depth. Particularly i found the theorists behind each theory to be most interesting to learn about, because who and why would these people come up with these theories? It's most interesting to see the passion behind the ideas. The most interesting topics covered i found to be Marxism, Postmodernism, Deconstruction, and Feminism. I think its because they seemed to be the most straightforward theories. What still seems confusing to me is Poststructuralism and psychoanalysis. Overall i learned something new with every theory and along with some confusion, there was a constant interest, and need to then analyze the world around me.

Tonya Krouse on Feminism- Guest Lecture

Until this point i would have never considered myself to be a feminist. In my mind a 'feminist' would be referring to someone who is actively making changes in the world. After some discussion in class, and defining a feminist to be someone who believes that women should have equal rights, of course I agree with this completely so i would now consider myself to be a feminist. In my own life i view the term feminist to be a very strong and empowering characterization. Feminism in my mind is always putting women first, whether that be greater than or equal to anything regarding men. Thinking about it now, i seemed to think of feminism as a strictly man versus woman mindset. After reading more about the views and goals of feminism i understand there is more depth to it then that.

Guest Lecture, Ashley Sheldon on Lacan Response

I found it most interesting to hear from Ashley Sheldon in regards to the contrasting ideas between Fowles and Lacan on theorizing sexuality and identity. After reading the novel Mantissa it is apparent to me that the author, Fowles, is trying to create his theories on discovering ones identity through discovering ones sexuality. Whereas Lacan's theories prove the discovery of ones sexuality is to undo the discovery of ones identity. This is most interesting to me because as disturbing as the novel can be Fowles really gets his reader thinking as to what certain aspects of sexuality can recall of a persons character. Although this makes perfect sense to me after reading Mantissa, Ashley lectured a good argument on behalf of Lacan's theory and i can also somewhat understand his alternative views on the subject- "sexuality, which contemporary culture associates most closely with one's true self, has nothing at all to do with one's self at all". Lacan believes sexual satisfaction and identity to be seen as completely contradictory. The idea of discovering ones identity is based on a completly linguistic structure, where as the sexual has nothing to do with a linguistic structure, as Lacan sees it you are no longer even thinking.

Mantissa

As a whole i found reading the text of Mantissa to be very interesting especially after learning more about theory. At first i wasn't sure why this book would be used for class because of its risque text, but after some discussion of the book i am able to make the connections between the text and theories. Such connections i have found were based off of a feminist reading.
In a feminist reading of Mantissa the lead female character, Erato, is portrayed as less of a character than the lead male character, Miles Green, because of her gender role. At the beginning of the novel Erato stands for what she believes in, as does Miles, but once sex is involved Erato becomes less of a powerful character simply giving in to whatever will please Miles. This can be seen at the end of the book when Miles Green and Erato are discussing The Odessey and the character Penelope. Miles Green openly views Penelope to be a waste of a character, only created for the hopless romantic female readers.

Ken Rufo on Baudrillard

This weeks post was most interesting thanks to Ken Rufo and his lecture on Baudrillard. I had heard the name before but did not know much in regaurds to Baudrillard and his theories. From discussion in class and the online lecture i now have a better understanding of Baudrillard. I found it most interesting when Ken Rufo discussed comparisons and contrasts of Marx and Baudrillard's theories. For myself, when the theories are somehow connected it helps make the learning process a bit easier especially on such intense material.

Another part of the lecture i found most interesting was when Ken Rufo explained Baudrillard's interest in simulation in two basic themes. I found his first explanation of the theory easy to relate to, especially in todays media centered world. It is true for people of all ages that television and all media make the unreal seem real. The second part of his explanation was more confusing , but the idea is that theories function as a critical simulation making meanings appear as if they are real when they are simply producing more simulation. Simulation seems to be constant and all around us, and to me it seems in our culture there is no way to avoid it. So all we can do is aknowledge that it is there and try to live the best we can within the real.

"The Death of the Author"

After reading Rolan Barthes "Death of the Author" I found the overall topic of discussion to be really interesting, but specifially the parts in which he talked about Proust and Marllarme who were of the first writers to insist on letting the language speak, not the author. In no way were either men trying to dismiss the author or the author's thoughts, but instead reinforcing the importance of letting the language act instead of the author. Essentially the point made by a good majority of writing is to sway an audience to think a certain way, a good amount of writers have since tried to keep as neutral as possible on their writing subjects, but there is also a good amount that still are so much involved in their writing. The removal of the author is seen important to these men because these men see the author no more than the emptiness of the enunciation.

The major influence of the author, although at times refuted, can still be seen in todays world. It was difficult to find a post that specifically talked about this topic, but on the topic of author influence I came across this blog. Authorship is being discussed throughout this blog entry as a kind of peruasion particularly on young and impressionable minds with a focus on politics in periodicals. It is interesting to make the the disctinctions between what Proust and Marllarme were working towards in the literary world and the kind of literature that is being produced today.

What is love?

After finishing the documentary of Derrida I found the most interesting part to be when Derrida was asked to talk about "love". He immediatly refuses to do so and says he has nothing to say about "love" because that topic is too general. He explains he has an "empty head of love", and the reason why so many philosophers speak of it is because of all the confusion that comes from it. This is when Derrida explains his perspective on the subject. He cannot decide whether we love someone for who they are, or because of the certain characteristics that make up that someone. He says he is divided between "the who and the what". However, he then explains that there are narcissists, people who are in love with themselves. For most it is as you mature from child to adulthood that you slowly change your narcissitic ways and realize the importance of a good balance between the love and attention you give yourself and others. But when we have fallen in love with another person is it that person as a whole that we have fallen in love with or is it our narcissitic ways that make us love just certain aspects?