blog # 5

I think finding "authentic" and "inauthentic" in an artists context all depends on the way the artist comes across as a person and the presentation of his work. A lot of people copy or remake things in the art industry but it depends on the way they give tribute to the person or people before them that created the whole idea. Yea theres always going to be the art of Createivity and a great orgional, but there are only so many ideas that a person can have, things are inevediably going to be remade or alike on purpose or not. with any type of art, if it truely came from a sincere, motivated talented person, even if they did do something that might take the art of someones elses' then jthey would still most likely be excepted and appriciated. like in music, many people remake and redue beats, notes and lyrics, but its all in the context of how it is presented that will make it excepteable. having the right and permission and the skill to understand that another art is being use is what key, then making it into your own and making it an artwork that will always be remembereed. On the other hanjd their are artist that take others art and just make it theirs without the knowledge of what it was and meant to other bpeople before hand. that to me is wrong and not a true artist. for instancv andy worehall was looked at as this great enovator and great artist, when most of his work was of soup cans and very obvious random things, but no one can really explain why he chose to opdo things like he did. nevertheless, he still did many things that were different and were knew, but he is left as a person in history who will always be interpreted in man different directions because of the lack of knowledge some people have about what was really goin on his mind, and what made him do things that were out of the ordinary of very common things. thinking outside the box of what is normal. context in this is very important because t's all in the mind of the artist and how he/she presents theirseleves and how the world sees them. like who is humble and who is fake.

pop culture, as written by "minnie mouse bag" girl <3

I totally admit I’m obsessed with Disney, even though I’ve (supposedly) grown-up. It's my school bag, a significant portion of my DVD collection, and my username on this bog, my e-mail and slowly eating up wall space in my apartment. And it's not just limited to Disney. It's Marilyn Monroe, Audrey Hepburn, fashion magazines, Mae West, James Dean, Marlene Dietrich, Liza Minnelli and even this odd calendar devoted to ads from the '50s (I thought it was cute) are part of the pop-stew that is part of me. I admit I more then "engage" in pop culture. I might even be considered an "addict" by some (though not myself). My friends make fun of me for it.

"What fashion magazine is it this time, Bella?” "Bella knows everything about 'The Lion King'"; "Can you really quote 'Cabaret'?"

And that brings me to the first part of the question on #pgs. 69-70 If something is or becomes "popular", does that necessarily mean that it has diminished "meaning" or "value"? I would say no. So something's popular? So what? Quentin Tarantino's "Pulp Fiction" was made on credit cards and-before becoming enormously popular-almost drove made him bankrupt. But is Pulp Fiction's overall "value" or "meaning" diminished? No. Despite the overt violence, "Pulp Fiction" isn't just a cheesy, blockbuster with no substance or plot. It's just fun. Everything fun doesn't have to be empty calories.
Perhaps, that's why people liked it so much. And that's another reason why I'd argue that popularity doesn't diminish value or meaning, as we've pointed out before in class who assigns meaning? Or value?
Another example: "Brokeback Mountain" was #1 at the box-office and up (though, ultimately, unfairly snubbed) for picture of the year, certainly it was "popular" and it has become a part of pop culture (mainly because it is one a handful of mainstream queer films that was heavily advertised and the message made clear to straights) but I, and everyone else in the theater, cried when I saw it. The beauty and message-or "meaning"/"value"- of that film wasn't negated at all by being popular.
This is why it's so frustrating to hear so-called high culture "experts" (read snobs), stick their noses up at everything pop culture, because just because it isn't in some dusty book written a thousands of years ago by some guy I can't even understand anymore doesn't mean it isn't valuable in some way (not knocking books, I like to read).
Let's switch to music. Ever increasingly more and more musicians (via Myspace and the internet in general) are becoming rapidly popular faster. That's good in some ways good and bad for various reasons, but what has finally stopped-to a certain extent- is people calling previously unknown acts "selling out" because they've gained some notoriety, mainly because so many bands have garnered new fans in, what is seen as, an organic/grassroots way. The goal of all musicians (all artists) is to live off what they do and in order to do that you have to make money off of what you do. Nothing's completely altruistic. The question is how to go about this?
As shown in previous chapters, artists are never in complete control of meanings or the way their art is received. Supposedly, the misunderstanding of his art and image was the reason Kurt Cobain killed himself and, one, I would suffice to say continues to be misused. It's one of the pitfalls of putting art out there for the public to see and certainly a causality of being popular.
The best way for an artist to go about being popular is to become popular doing what you already do, versus trying to appeal to the masses (which, Ironically, almost never works anyway). That's the best way, I’d say, to distinguish between high and low culture. If it's well-put together in an unique or creative way then it's more "high" culture or enjoyable versus just cheaply slapping together something quickly and uninspiring.
But it's all so arbitrary, there are high-culture snoots that'd claim that anyone who watches Marilyn Monroe films or enjoys Madonna is "low culture" or "low class" in some way but those people miss the deeper meanings that can be found in (some) forms of pop culture.
Even in Pop culture there is a distinct difference between higher quality things versus pure trash (Some like it Hot! vs. Deuce Bigalow: European Gigolo) and (most) people can tell the difference between the two, completely throwing out the argument that people are complete subjects to mass culture.

Blog #5 p. 69-70 TT

I have no idea how to organize my thoughts on all this- hopefully it is comprehensible in the end. This chapter really made me think. Yeah, an artist produces art, and it is up to the people to decide if they find it trashy or tasteful. I got that it depends on the context in which it is received. As for the whole moral transcendental values idea, but I didn't really like what Jeffrey Hart had to say about what classes are quality and what you just might be wasting your money on (he mentioned film... i'm a film major).
I don't think the artist is ever in control of the context in which people use or recieve their art. Sometimes you'd think that a musician might write a song with a certain type of people in mind as an audience but then there are the other people who listen to the song and hate it because they aren't interested in what it has to say. I don't think that is bad though. I think it documents the culture--yes, today a lot of the things people entertain themselves with is considered trash compared to the mona lisa, but it still represents our time. A lot of art that we now consider to be great wasn't appreciated until much past its own time. Who is to say that our "trash" entertainment, what is popular, won't be viewed as great 1000 years from now? The fashion style of the 70-80's took a little break until now it is suddenly considered fashionable again.
The only way that I can think of REALLY knowing whether something is an original or not is it being something so different from anything you've ever seen before. But, then again, what is original now a days? I've seen things in movies and then watched old movies in my History of cinema classes and thought to myself, "Wow, so that's where Tim Burton probably got his inspiration!" I don't think that by Tim Burton possibly getting inspiration from The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari deems The Nightmare Before Christmas pop culture trash, because he used this possible inspiration in his own way. So that is where I suppose the line is drawn.

Blog #4, TT p 69-70

If something becomes popular, that does not mean that it's "meaning" or "value" has diminished. Something is "valuable" if it has a great effect on a person. "Will & Grace" can be a valuable piece of culture if it gave a teenager the courage to come out to his parents. While a sitcom is incomparable to a Wagner opera or a Shakespeare sonnet, if it can mean something to someone, then it is worthwhile.
The artist has no control over how the public receives his work. A musician can be seen as the next Bob Dylan, the poet of his generation, but as soon as he gains some fame, he is deemed a "sell-out" and his music is now being influenced too heavily by record execs and un-artistic managers. An artist may in fact be much happier to remain unknown and obscure, making the music he wants to make and influencing the people he wants to influence. With fame comes the ability to reach a much larger audience, but it also makes it much easier to be panned by reviewers and categorized by record labels.
One way to distinguish the worthwhile "high culture" from the trashy and useless "popular culture" is to look at its originality and authenticity. If something is truly unique and individual, it will have much more meaningful and beneficial to society than something that has been done and done and done again. There have been hundreds of reality TV shows from choosing dates to living in close quarters with annoying people, and because they have been done a million times, there are unoriginal and lack any worth to society.

Popular?

I've come to think that I am not a very active part of popular culture. I watch practically no TV. The music I listen to is by no means popular. For better or worse, people often accuse me of being in "my own little world." I would feel like when studying popular culture I would not be studying the most essential parts of my own life. I learn about popular culture mainly through secondary sources (my friends) who tend to tell me what is "hot or not." And some are quick to point out if the clothes I'm wearing or the music I'm listening to in the car is just not "in." There is one question posed by the "working question" that made me curious. If something becomes popular does its value become diminished? It happens that in my search new music that I hope to like, that I'll come across a current hit song, but I won't always know if it's a hit, or who the artist is at first. I treat my new discovery as something without any "pop culture" strings attached. So in my life, discovering a song, movie, idea, that has come popular before my discovery doesn't diminish my liking for it at all, because it holds no strings attached. I am hopefully finding the meaning that the artist/artists intended behind their project because I choose to keep some distance between myself and the TV. I don't not watch TV because I have anything against watching TV. I'm just not so entertained by watching most shows, including the nightly news. However, I'm would guess that Viacom, GE, News Corp. and Disney and their affiliations with other world corporations are intentionally projecting ideas and opinions that best represent their desire to succeed as organizations, and keep viewers of all types coming back, using a myriad of tactics. I tend to get any current event updates online. I like this because I can focus on the news that interests me the most and dig deeper into a story if I find it compelling. I also search for music and movies online. I like thinking that there is not a more focused control of the information that is available on the internet. I would hope that some internet sources of history, news, and art, would actually be more "authentic" sources.

Pop Culture

For some reason, I am so fascinated about why when something becomes popular, it doesn't deserve some poeples' attention. It is hard to take some current things seriouly that seem to define our culture and mainly our generation like Abercrombie, Myspace, emo, hating Bush. Which makes me think that in 100 years, is our current way of life going to be gold? Is it going to be gold because "our" pop culture is going to shape the ways of the year 21007? I don't know if other peoples' high schools were like this, but during my senior year there was a knitting craze. One day in class, this girl across the room starting knitting and I thought to myself "Alright. I guess that's kind of cool" and left it as something that girl did because she liked it. Within two weeks, by the same girls that excessively go tanning and wear gouchos everyday, they all started knitting! It was crazy! It started out with one girl doing it and it being weird, then people saw it and it became cute, and then everyone did it and it was popular. I don't mean to make myself seem above this, but I lost all desire to learn how to knit from my grandma that summer. I do think Kurt Cobain would've been happier if they had just stayed in Seattle. This is just like with what happened with the Sex Pistols. It started as underground and then morphed into underground becoming "cool because it's different" and then it was everywhere. It started being about fashion and not the music and that's how Kurt and the Sex Pistols died, so to speak. I love love love this one quote from the book because it's perfect, "High culture is often seen to be good, good for you...wheras popular culture is often dismissed as irrelevant trash..."

We No Longer Live in Public

Some uninspired googling left me with this last piece:

http://nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/internet/5418/

Be sure to note what Auerbach named his new company. . .

Being Subject or Unique

This story related to this thought, of being subject to culture, and trying to avoid the cycle. The way; that this story and subject of culture relates is the dictatorship. In culture, it seems to be no excape, and many of us feel we are beyond the scale, In life it seems we try to define our purpose, based on our definition on uniqueness. One of the most frequent questions, is how do I stand out from the rest of the crowd, but the truth is even during our efforts of isolation, we still fall under a certain category. In this story, the man pleads with the gatekeeper, to allow him to enter. He tried many times, with so many different approaches, but it all boiled down to the same point, which was he had not been any different from those who attempted prior to him. In society, we have alot of different ethnicities, with alot of different cultures. Most of us define, our very existence, based upon a certain category that has been derived bfrom our culture. A result of this, are some people who want to stand out, but in the end it still places them in a certain category. The way this relates to the story is simple, one man tries to enter a gate with strategically, but doesnt get in. People in general, struggle all of their lives, just to be considered someone unique, and its usuall defined by people. In the end it doesnt really amount, to anything other than culture.

Blog #4

This weeks reading really had me thinking. From how we put a label on many things to the simple idea that we do have a choice about everything that happens in our lives. I feel that society today has gotten into the habit of really categorizing individuals with the way the they choose to look or carry themselves as a person living in our society today. I also believe that the rules and standards that society has made really affects the way people choose to live their lives. Some may disagree with me on that note, however An arguement that always seems to come up is that if a person chooses to be "different" from what the society today sees as the norm, that it is their personal choice and they have to live with the consequences of their personal decision that they made in their life. I believe that everyboday has the choice to express themselves and to do what they want to make them happy and content with their own lives even if it is choosing the more difficult task such as, in our reading this week a man is given a choice to do what he wanted to do or wait until he received full permission to actually enter. He decided to wait by the door guy. I feel maybe he was afraid of the consequences that he would face if he were to enter, therefore he waited patiently. He never did what he wanted to do because he basically was not allowed to and did not want to break a rule and face the consequences of his actions. Today laws really affect the way that people act in our society today. I think that this is a both bad and good thing. Bad because some people may not be content and happy with their life because they can not do everything that they really want to do, however I believe that laws are a good thing as well because it keeps society safe and organized. All in all, you may not realize it but laws really do affect your everyday decisions in your everyday life, considering what consequences you are willing to take, brings you a step closer in making your final decision

Blog #4 Pg. 50

This little story says the countryman is the subject and the doorkeeper is the self. The countryman is being subject to the Law. He carries a certain anonymous sense. He is called the countryman and he thinks the Law should be accessible at all times and to everyone. The doorkeeper is unique or untouched by social factors. The doorkeeper wears a fur coat, has a big sharp nose and long, thin, black Tartar beard. He is powerful and only the least of the doorkeepers. Each doorkeeper is more powerful than the last. The third doorkeeper is so terrible that he cannot bear to look at him. The countryman is always responding to the dictates of the Law. The countryman decides that it is better to wait until he gets permission to enter. It costs the rest of his life to keep safe from the influence of the Law. Yes, he is determined by the Law in some way because he is beneath the Law; not allowed to enter. The doorkeeper says, “No one else could ever be admitted here, since the gate was made only for you. This says that the self (doorkeeper) will not allow him to enter because he is not worthy or qualified to be accepted by the Law. I think Kafka suggests that such a self is a necessary category because we as a people want to be different and unique. We are untouched by cultural influences or social factors. We will stand out from a crowd to get attention. If being a little different that makes us special.

Blog 4

Subject and self are intertwined. The subject appears as a result of circumstance whereas the self is preexisting yet at times is altered by subjectivity.
The countryman is representative of the cultural subject, always responding to the cultural dictates of the Law. Even in his avoiding the Law, through shielding himself from any rebuff possibly brought about by taking a stand, he is ultimately defeated by the dictates of the Law. Had he acted as a unique self, the countryman would have seen beyond the eminent threat of the law in order to be the threat himself.
It costs the countryman his life to keep safe from the influence of the law, as opposed to challenging it. The countryman is determined by the law in that the law is the reason for his stagnation and narrow minded approach to entering the gate.
Kafka suggests that self is a necessary category. In the story when the countryman has come to his end he asks why no one but him has tried to get passed this gate to which the gatekeeper tells him that the gate was made only for him. This detail shows the importance of self because beyond what we are subject to be, the outcome depends on who we are.

Blog #4 Pg. 50

In this short story by Franz Kafka, I feel the main character is representative of both the self and the subject. The countryman, by his own free will, approaches the gatekeeper, and this leads me to believe the self is present. But, at the same time, when the countryman is told to wait, and does, the countryman has already subjected himself to the law, even before “reaching” it. The self cannot do whatever the self wants, but the individual has the choice whether or not he wants to sit on a stool his whole life. I feel Kafka is telling us through this story that as soon as we are born, we are original, or we have a specific gate to each of us. But also at the same time, as soon as we are born, we are “destined” so to speak, to be subjected to the gatekeeper, or the invisible powers that surround our laws.

Before the Law.

This story of the "doorkeeper and the countryman" poses some really interesting ideas in my mind. I have a lot of questions that are connected to the ideas of self, authority, freedom, and fear of the law. It seems that in this story, the "Law" was not representing a force that enforces freedom. Instead, it seemed like if the countryman could pass the initial doorkeeper he would eventually gain freedom. (A Wizard of Oz kind of deal) The "Law" itself seemed to be a very mysterious object, holding a Wizard of Oz kind of aura itself. It holds powerful ideas, and what seems to be a powerful message. One which the countryman wants to change. Something that is important to remember is that the doorkeeper never denies the countryman access from entering, he advises "If you are so drawn to it, just try to go in despite my veto. But take note: I am powerful. And I am only the least of the doorkeepers." It seems that the doorkeeper is suggesting that the countryman should take action, and go in. If we can accept this, the biggest question seems to be, "Why didn't the countryman actually go in?" In my mind there are many reasons for this. The first one that came to mid was that maybe he just didn't have enough courage to do it. The countryman couldn't just sit there on his stool and wait for the doors to open. That would never happen. Another reason that I thought of is that it appears that the countryman didn't know of anyone, or know how to find anyone that had entered the doors in the past. He had no guidance, no map to help through what he thought he would have to face. The last reason that I concluded would be that the countryman's own sense of proper etiquette. The doorkeeper only holds power because of the countryman's sense of self, and his inclination to act with proper etiquette. The countryman's conception of his "self," tortures him over the idea of whether or not he will enter. Is it worth sacrificing his proper behavior to try and make a difference. He was certainly afraid of sacrifice and afraid of change. I haven't come to any conclusions in my mind about the meanings of this story, I'm just left with some questions about what is the "Law," and why is it something that seems to be naturally feared?

"We are all just a car crash or a slip away from being a different person."

A lot of you are responding with some very natural surprise with the subject of this section- and who can blame you? We'll (obviously) be going over this tomorrow, but in the meantime, try this on for size:

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/season1_2005.html

This is an early episode of Radio Lab out of WNYC Public Radio in New York, discussing how our notions of self and mind are formed. They're looking at it from a biologically determined stance, so it doesn't exactly relate to what we're working with, but, it's an unsettling perspective at the very least. I figured as long as you were all feeling a bit wierd about being subjects, maybe I could throw in the fact we're all also bio-robots as well. . .

Blog #4, TT p. 50

Kafka's countryman represents both the "subject" and the "self". He is obviously subject to the Law, and all that the Law entails, which is not limited to the laws and statutes written down that govern a society. The Law represents both the literal laws of the land, and also the cultural laws of a society-- who is allowed to take part in forming those laws and why, who has power and why, how the countryman is viewed and why and how he views others and why. The countryman is subjects to these laws just like everyone else in every society and culture. But the countryman is also very much the "self". When the doorkeeper announces that he will close the door because the countryman is dying, we realize that the Law and the gates to it were all specific to the countryman. It was not a gate in the middle of town where anybody could walk by and decide that they were going to wait with the countryman and see the Law as well. It was a gate that only the countryman could wait at, but each and every person has their own gate.
Because we all strive to be unique, and strive to be ourselves (whatever that means), we all want to reach the laws that govern society and culture and manipulate them to be what we believe they should be. Our entire lives are spent trying to prove to others that we're our own, individual "selves" which is something impossible to reach. We cannot "prove" ourselves to others without the Law, and we cannot be unique without the Law. So of course it is completely futile to try to reach the Law, and change it for the better. And what does it cost us to waste our entire lives waiting outside a gate we can never enter? For the countryman, it cost him his most valuable possessions and, we assume, whatever home life he had. But for us, it costs our idea of individuality. We eventually realize that by trying to be so unique, we are utilizing those same laws we are trying to break. But because this is a realization that occurs to everybody, everywhere, it doesn't seem a very large sacrifice. It is a rite of passage for our society--to know that "resistance is useless".

p.48-50

The problem with the countryman in Kafka's "Before the Law" is that he is not enough "self." Though he doesn't give up, he doesn't fight enough for what he believes. He sits back and waits for things to happen instead of taking the initiative and unfortunately his great revelation occurs on the verge of death. Even if there is no such thing as a pure, untouched "self," the notion is inevitable. It seems like so many people are so caught up with trying to find out who they are, what their purpose is, trying to identify and distinguish this "self."

As the "subject," the countryman is easily intimidated by the enigmatic Law, and the doorman (seemingly a metaphor for culture). The doorman, as culture, asserts his power and the countryman, as the "subject," steps down and is so easily influenced. The doorman apathetically interviews the countryman to hint at some sense of "self," but the countryman doesn't catch on. After all, culture is what gives us reason to think that we can be unique. There's a niche carved out for the unique to occupy, and it is always full. The same goes for every other label.

Before the Law

The countryman is influenced by the law and does not try to get in to the law because he is scared into thinking that even if he gets past the first guard it is hopeless because he has two more bigger gatekeepers to get by. In another way he is free from the law because he actually never reaches it in the first place. He also is not influenced by the law when he realizes that no other person has tried to get into the Law.

The countryman can be considered a subject of the Law, not because he gained admittance, but because he never attempted to gain entry excepted when he asked. The countryman can be considered free from the influence of the Law and also can be considered influenced by the law. The countryman is forced mentally by the Law to stay outside of the gate, but because he never enters the Law he is free from influence. No matter what the situation is, he pays the ultimate price to be free from the influence of the Law. The man is a "passenger" and is influenced the entire way until his death, where he finally makes the connection of what has happened, but the connection is useless, because his life is over.

before the law....

This weeks reading made me think a lot about all the labels and identity's that people always put on themselves and on other people. People always want to make sure that there is a "title" for something or someone, and even if a person hates the idea of that, it has to be. Thats the point of a languge, to identify things as how we see them, want to see them or how they naturally are, being right or wrong. As for laws, and cultural rules, I think they are made up a lot on how the person making them, sees the world and others as well as the period in time and what is majority fit as an idea in a society. And the people who have to live by them or chose not to, it's all with in their choices. We as people can make our own dicisions for the most part, and even if they decide to be "different" its their choice. It is your self. And at the end of the day the decisions tht you make, right or wrong, you have to live with them and think about the things and ideas that you do and put out there. For the story in the book, the guy chose to wait by that doorkeeper for all the rest of his life, and only sked if he could be let in. Even though the door keeper gave him the choice to "go in despite his Veto", the man still decided to wait patientiantly until the door keeper let him in, and in the end the man ended up waiting til his death to get in. He didnt even try to go pass maybe becasue he was scared of the other door keepers to come. I think it shows how much laws and rules can have affect on peoples lives and how they react to them. I thin only a certain amount of people are willing to be the ones who question and fight what they are put against. Like protestors or people who go to jail to fight a cause or to prove a point. While the rest are either to lazy or with their lack of knowledge and care chose to go with the flow and not to question things or even tlak about things and others but dont do anything to change it, which is what i think the man in the story was like. There are also those who believe in the law so much that it doesnt matter what people do they think everything is right. I think it all depends on the people we are and the time period we are in and what right and wrong are concidered to be and how labels can actually effect who we are and where we come from

blog.4.beforethelaw

I found this week's reading to be somewhat depressing, if not entirely so and it really is scary to think about how much control we really have over our own selves. Especially being a student at an art school where everyone seems to be pursuing there own "uniqueness"- it's hard to confront the issue of "how unique are we?" really? It's like we look down on people who conform to "normal" things- people who go along with the popular culture, but how much different is it for another person to be different, just for the sake of being different? It is just like what the book said about labels, and how even someone stating that they "hate labels" doesn't really mean that they're abandoning labels at all, they just like the way a different label sounds- "Prep" vs. "unique"

So, looking at Kafka's Before the Law, what does it have to say about self vs. subject? I believe that the countryman, though he conceives himself to be a strong person- not ever giving up and standing his ground, has completely become subject to the Law without ever realizing it. He became subject to the Law, not even by the Law itself but by the gatekeeper as soon as he decided to wait for permission instead of trying to move past the first gatekeeper when he stepped aside. The gatekeeper even questioned why the countryman didn't try to move past him, but followed that question with an intimidating description of the following gatekeepers to come. He controlled the countryman with fear.

Through his waiting and waiting, the countryman has lost his valuables- trying to bribe the doorkeeper, and even his pride (I would say) coming to the point of begging the fleas in the doorkeeper's collar for their help to change the doorkeeper's mind.

I would not say that the unique and untouched self is a dangerous delusion, because I do believe that there are things that make us unique and own person (even though I might not be able to pinpoint those things), but I do think that Kafka is in a way saying that striving to be unique and "untouched" will only lead to a lost life.

-angelapestano-

blog #4

As the book suggests, as much as we like to think of ourselves as completely independent, nonconformist beings (or most of us do anyway) we can't escape the long arm of culture. It's just like the first day of class when we discussed brushing our teeth as a social norm. Who ever thinks of not brushing their teeth? I've even seen homeless people using there fingers and a public drinking fountains to brush their teeth.

I think that the countryman in "Before the law" is both a representation of "self" and "subject".
On one hand, he's very subversive to the doorman and yet he remains out of reach of the doorman's influence.
In other words, while he spends the better part of his life waiting for admitance from the doorman (the subject of), he doesn't go out of his way to get the doorman's approval (self).

The countryman can be seen as a example of "self" but the cost of a "unique and untouched" state, as Kafka illustrates, is solitude and the abandonment of all earthly possessions. Moreover, what's the point of the countryman's sacrafice? He got nothing out of it in the end and he was basically under the doorman's control via influence even if he is outwardly seeking it.

I think that we as people are the same way, we think of ourselves as independent, "nonconformist" beings but-as the book states- what's the point of being unique if no one knows it? We're always seeking approval even if we don't outwardly go looking for it, like the countryman and the doorman.

Blog # 4

I found this week’s reading to be very interesting, yet confusing, at the same time. The book states that we tend to think of the "self" as being primary and untouched by cultural influences. In contrast, we tend to think of the "subject" as, "anything but unique or untouched by social factors." The "self" is the internal core, while the "subject" is outwardly generated by social laws and codes.

It seems to me that the countryman is supposed to represent both the subject and the self. The countryman is kept subject to the Gatekeeper as he continues to refuse to let the countryman have access to the Law. However, I do believe that the countryman is in some way the "self", as he has remained untouched by the Law. Essentially, it costs the countryman his entire life and all of his worldly possessions to keep safe from the influence of the Law.

It seems to me that what the reading is trying to get across to us is that there really is no such thing as the completely "unique" and "untouched" self. While the countryman may not have ever achieved success in reaching the Law, his entire life and all of his possessions have been consumed by his desire to reach the Law.

Blog 4

The man in the story seems to be portrayed as both the subject and the self. In the beginning as we read he is obviously just a subject of the law unable to get access to "Law": abiding the rules, biding his time, and ultimately wasting his life. The "Gatekeeper" keeps him subject by acting as the first string of the "Law". By the end of the story, however, we see that all along the self was evident due to the fact the the door the "countryman" was trying to enter was specifically designed for him and there was no other like it; making it undeniably unique and catering to the self of the "countryman". Plus, the entire effort that he made was very very self-satisfying.

The "countryman" is acting as a representation of a subject of the law...he is literally given the opportunity to break it by the gatekeeper. The gatekeeper does warn him that there are more and more gatekeepers as he gets closer and even more powerful than he. This warning makes the countryman concede immediately. He responded to what the gatekeeper (of the law) warned. Yet! He is unique in that he notices that no one else has even attempted to be admitted into the law and he notes that upon dying. As a reader, I found that unique because I wasn't presented with any evidence of other people trying to do what he was doing and consequently giving his life up for. But no matter how unique he is, he is not "untouched" by the law. It turns out that he cannot escape it nor receive privilege no matter how daring he is.

As it turns out, we see that this man has given up his worldly possessions and most importantly his time. This is evidence of his determination. He spends years waiting and doesn't give up even though it's a fruitless endeavor and he most likely didn't change the mind of the gatekeeper. What this says about his "unique" and "untouched" self is that the countryman is still autonomous and curious. He is simply teasing a gator, poking a stick at it but keeping a nice distance away. This shows that he still thinks for himself and comes up with his own ideas, nevertheless nonconstructive. We saw that his waiting was all on his own accord and no one was forcing him to do anything. His endeavor was untouched and self-motivating, thus making him unique in that we, like I previously mentioned, were shown no evidence of others trying to attempt to infiltrate the law.

Since the story ended so badly it seems as though Kafka definitely intended his protagonist to be deluded...but it's not a necessarily dangerous delusion because the countryman is a human with unlimited access into that realm of curiosity! We have all participated in an effort like this, I'm sure, only to find out that we were in fact totally deluded. Most of us don't give up our lives (in such a manner as the countryman) for such a futile effort though! It makes each of us comparable to one another but our ambitions of curiosity probably differ greatly from each other which does show uniqueness.

Curiosity is quite a risk, as we read with the countryman, but it reflects our sacred inquisitive selves and should be deemed a "necessary category" because what we're all curious about individually varies greatly and would lead to people doing very different things to fulfill our inquiring minds. Like I said, that reflects an exclusive and different self for each of us despite how similar we might be in most aspects of self.

blog number four

I have never been so confused by a reading before. I was so confused because I first thought everything was a metaphor but then it wasn't and then it was again. I may be really off but I am honestly trying to understand this. I think that the countryman was subject to the law; I think he was secondary and didn't matter as much as the law did. But in a way, he was also "self" because no one else could get into his gate and that shows his personhood and uniqueness and the qualities that made him himself. I do believe he is determined by the law though because he obviously avoids it and that says more about the law than it does him. I'm trying to figure out if I know what I'm talking about because what I want to say, I don't know if it is connected to this question but I'll say it anyways. I think that people, in general, are subject to the law. We are "selves" as individuals but as a whole we are subjects. I think it is so hard to be untouched by the law because in order to avoid it, it has touched you. This reminds me of the goth kids in high school. They dress all in black and go out of their way to look "different" from everybody else, but they end up looking just like every other goth kid. It kind of reminded me of the countryman because he is trying so hard to not touch something that has such a grasp on him.

Blog #4 p. 48-50 TT

Wow. I had to re-read the information earlier in the chapter a few times over to really get this story. This is the way that I see it. This story illustrates that there really is no "self." I felt that the countryman was representative of the cultural "subject" always responding to the dictates of the Law. Earlier in the chapter, it mentioned that "The authority of the police calls upon you to stop and respond, to identify yourself before the law," also mentioning that people willfully surrender--I thought this was mirrored when the countryman always surrendered himself to the doorkeeper, thus never proceeding into the gates. He could have easily ignored the guy and walked right in. He later finds that these gates were just for him, which symbolized the whole idea of "self" and every person's desire to be unique. I don't think that the other scenario fit quite as well, mostly because the countryman wanted to go through the gates, when the scenario suggested that the unique person avoids the Law, and think he is untouched. It cost the countryman everything he had to keep safe from the influence of the Law, and I think that was symbolic of the idea the chapter was trying to get across--That if we were completely untouched by the law and our culture, what would we be? We would have nothing to ourselves. We would lose all of the events, the memories, the history, the people and so much more that shape the person that we are.
Also, the countryman is still determined by the law because he avoids it- he is still controlled by it, to not challenge it because of his fear of what might happen. Of the "unique" and "untouched" self, this says that it is impossible because the Law is unavoidable. I don't think he is suggesting that such a self is necessary or even dangerous, I think he's saying that all people view themselves as unique and untouched when in all actuality, they are not. I don't know--that part of the question was something I wasn't so sure about.

Blog #4 - Subjectivity

After reading this chapter, I saw myself grow a bit annoyed only to become completely convinced with what this entire reading was about. Though I do not full believe with the idea that no human being is unique at all, for people have the special ability to surpise you at any moment, I do share the idea that we are, for the most part, subjects rather than true selfs in our lives. I always used to laugh at those types that were always yelling proudly that they were the "different" people and they were not going to conform to anybodies rules or expectations. I never understood why I thought these people were funny, I guess I just thought they were tools. But after reading this chapter I now better understand what was funny. They were all conforming to NOT conforming, and as this chapter points out by not allowing yourself to be dictated by the laws of everyone else, you are unknowingly still be influenced by something, thus still conforming. I guess there are no true rebels out there, and I guess I was right... those people were tools.

The story at the end is an interesting one in that it can be looked at in a few different ways. I am going to go with the one that I first thought of after reading it, and I think it is the one that stands out the most. The countryman seems to be the subject as he not only is having his life dictated by the doorman, but also the law. Though the law is effecting his life indirectly, he does not have to stay there, the countryman feels that he must. And with that belief in the law he then gives into the doorman's request and sits there until his death. The doors are even wide open before him and he is even told of the consequences for his entry, and he still does nothing other than what he is told. The countryman is never a unique self and his whole life has been determined by this current moment in his life. This is what Kafka was talking about, and one of the points that upsetted me the most in this chapter. The thought of a true self is a delusion, there is no such thing as being completely out with your society to the point that you are a total unique person.

So to Kafka we are all passengers in the car that has been guiding all of humans since the beginning. We have no control over who or what in life that is going to be the dictators in our life. There has to be a driver though, right? I mean humans have created and given meaning to everything that we know, so in a way we have shapped and paved our own roads. Not "our own" roads in the sense that it was actually you or me, but "our own" as in the human race. That being the case, I believe at any moment, during any era, we could change, and pave a new road for us to be the passengers in.

The dangerours approach.

It seems as if, from reading this text that the author brings alot of stability; to a learning enviroment overall. The way he or she does that, is by establishing a certain position for an author; based upon his status. This gives the author crediblity, in ways that it is hard to challenge any of their work. The author of this text in Theory Toolbox, speaks about natural fact and how they are interpreted. Where there are actual evidence for a specific idea, it seems to be still based on theory. Then he goes further along, to explain that theories; although they may seem to be faulty at times, seems to be hard to challenge without falling in its category. This alone applies to the concept of authors, and how we view their opinions as a reliable source. Discourse find its way right along this section, since it seems to deal with alot of exchanged ideas that amounts to not just debates, but different views overlaped on the other. Discourse could be dangerous to those who want to maintain control, and when I say control; I mean in charge of a cycle that we may consider to be legit information. In this course we have been recently speaking, about those we consider to be Literary Critics. These are the group of people, that decides what have meaning or not. The following group of individual could fall under this category and they are, Scholars, Experts, Teachers, Academia, The Goverment, and The Media. What discourse does, is challenge that authority, by bringing in new ideas; that was further developed during the process of analyzing previous work.

It is obvious that 50 years has slowly changed the meanings and context in which we use the words "dyke" and "queer" however it is still a very "on the fence" subject for most people i think. Although it has come half a century and these words have been adapted by gay and lesbian commmunities, there is still a very awful contation that can come from these words. I personally hate hearing either word, in the bulk of contexts i hear them in. However i accept that they do not always have negative meanings. Ive heard these words spoken casually amongst the gay/lesbian communities as both a negative and a positive/common word and it seems in a lot of cases today that these words are in the same position as the disgusting term "nigger" has been in for quite some time. People still use this term to describe african americans which is really really sad however it has evoleved with the help of cultural change in to a common word amongst its own race. This doenst change the fact that the word is VERY prevelant as an antagonistic word and something people can use to describe something that they hate or feel better than. "Dyke" and "queer" are in the same exact place, however they are "newer" terms that many people have had to be indoctrined or adjusted to with the emergence and change of the gay community. Its now, that really for the first time, most people from the ages 10 and up know these words and there meanings however dependant on the conotation you were lead to understand. At the same time its incredible that these words can be completely ignored now because of how common they are. Continuous exposure to these words does not rid them of any hate they might contain, but adjusts people and they way they think about them. Unfoutunalty you cant change a word and they way people percieve it just by using a lot and making it public instead of something small. I still feel like these words are very mucha grey area that is left up to the context and speaker to determine how they will be placed and both the context/speaker could be explaning a lot of different ideas/feelings/morals with these same words, being used in the same way. I dlike to see how hte evolve in 50 more years

Blog for p 32-33, TT

As a poetry nut, I immediately decided on this question. And although it seems a little tougher than the other options, I couldn't resist a chance to analyze poetry. The first four stanzas are talking about how something can be read a million different ways--when one chooses to start analyzing something, there seems to be an endless variety of interpretations that can be either very literal or figurative. In the first stanza, the author looks at how a line can be construed to mean something it doesn't obviously suggest--but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong. "This is old song/ That will not declare itself..." suggests that it is much more difficult to arrive at these abstract meanings than a more concrete one, like the one that follows. By simply repeating the line "Twenty men crossing a bridge,/ Into a village," the author suggests that the line is literal and simply means what it looks like it means. And while this meaning "will not declare itself" either, it "is certain as meaning..." because how can one possibly be wrong in the meaning when that is simply what it says? A yellow house is a yellow house. The first stanza represents metaphor, when something literal comes to represent something more abstract and figurative, while in the third stanza both ideas are concrete and represent metonymy. This also contains shadows of context, in that depending on what context you read the piece about the twenty men might control how you interpret them. If the line is found in a lofty, intellectual story or poem, it can be counted on that the meaning probably won't be a literal as if the line were found in a first-person narrative on World War I, where it would mean exactly what it looks like it means.

The ellipses represent the endless variety of ways that a line can be interpreted, whether wrong or right. Yet the line "So the meaning escapes." seems very forlorn and hopeless, that without the author or some authoritative power, no one can truly understand what anything means. Who is to say it is literal or figurative, if not the author? And the fragmentary images at the end leave us with a sense of hopelessness, that nothing can be completely understood and absolutely correctly interpreted. Yet we still ponder them endlessly, trying our darndest to squeeze meaning out of them.

Blog #3, Page 28

All words, and there meanings are contextual. This is because language is constructed by societies, for use in that particular society. Words are meaningless, or one could say, have unlimited meanings, until society attaches a meaning, and gives a context for them. Take for example, The Kama Sutra. In western society, or more specifically, the society of Grand Rapids, Mi, if one asked the question, “What is the Kama Sutra?”, the answer would be along the lines of, “a book on sexual positions”. But to anyone who has read the Kama Sutra, from an academic standpoint, will give you a very different explanation.
Although the Kama Sutra has sections pertaining to sexual activity, sections on the three aims of life, Virtue (dharma), Prosperity (artha), and love (Kama), encompass a majority of the book. To societies with Hindu beliefs, the Kama Sutra is an important commentary on older works, and an essential text in Hinduism. To my hometown of GR, the words Karma Sutra bring up thoughts of pornography. With that contextual difference in the two societies, those two words are both hated and respected.

So in reference to the term “Queer”, I think we see the same problem of context. When a homosexual individual speaks the word queer, I have seen it used in both a positive and negative way through the use of context. Similarly, with the author function in mind, if the people hearing or reading a straight person’s thoughts have prior knowledge of the writer’s or speaker’s views on homosexuality, meaning is partly constructed on that that alone. In terms of how one may use the term Queer, especially if one is not such, I enjoy Michel Foucault’s ideas about exclusion within a discourse. “In a society such as our own we all know the rules of exclusion. The most obvious and familiar of these concerns what is prohibited. We know perfectly well that we are not free to say just anything, that we cannot simply speak of anything, when we like or where we like; not just anyone, finally, may speak of anything. We have three types of prohibition, covering objects, ritual with its surrounding circumstances, the privileged or exclusive right to speak of a particular subject; these prohibitions interrelate, reinforce and complement each other, forming a complex web, continually subject to modification.” (The Archaeology of Knowledge, Michel Foucault, pg. 216)

So how does a word become reappropriated? I feel it is through a change in the general outlook of a society. A lot has changed since the 50’s in the realm of civil rights. With the African American and woman’s movements, ideas about other types of cultures within our country where revisited in stride.

blog.3.pg.28

Looking at the words “queer” and ”dyke,” my opinion is that they can be hateful words to be avoided, or affirmations to be celebrated, and even terms of endearment- all depending on the context of the situation. They did start out as words with negative connotations, but now we can hear it among the homosexual community like everyday, “normal” words. I have also heard it used as what may sound like an insult or derogatory comment, but because it was used between two homosexuals, it became a joke and something to laugh at. I think that these words, “queer” and dyke,” were adapted by the homosexual community because instead of continuing to let society use these words in negative lighting, they took the initiative to control the meanings of these words, at least to some extent. Even though these words have had other meanings added to them, that does not mean that the negativity associated with these words has been erased. I probably could count for days the number of times I have heard or even used phrases like, “That’s gay,” or “What a queer/dyke.” And I do think that you do have to be careful when using these words (that is, if you care about the feelings of others) if you are not a part of the homosexual community- because the fact that you aren’t a homosexual changes your context and means that there are other possible meanings behind these words when you specifically use them. I do know homosexuals who don’t like the words at all, even being part of the homosexual community.

-angela

I'm a dyke.

I am queer. I am a woman. I am a dyke. I'm homosexual. Which is the right word to choose (if I must choose one to call myself)? And which is the correct term for anyone else to title me by? Should someone from the homo family have more of the right to call me a dyke versus someone of the heterosexual lifestyle? No. Personally, a word is a word. No matter what anyone calls anyone else, I feel that it is more than just the definition that defines the word in which they are titling. It depends on the TONE that the person implies. You can look any word up in the dictionary and have a definition. You can't look up the tone or the way the person is implying. And you definitely can not find the context of the situation. Tone of word is important. It's why Word Choice is one of the six or so English Contents you learn when you're in 6th grade. Anyone can use any word and have it be okay. What makes a word derogatory is the tone that the person sets.

I remember a few times when I was younger where one of my older sisters and I would get into an argument and it would end with her screaming at me calling me a "stupid dyke". Thankfully, she has grown out of this, realized and apologized but it is instances like these that make me wonder if people who are not homosexual value their life better or more normal. I mean, yes, 50 years ago, being heterosexual was the RIGHT and NORMAL thing to do. But still, you hear people throwing around the words gay, fag, dyke, queer, and homo as slanders to either degrade an actual homosexual or even to tease and/or describe a normal (ha ha ha, I had to throw this in there) heterosexual, thing, object, event, etc (whatever they are describing). Why are these descriptions used to taunt? Yes, of course homosexuals are much, much more accepted these days but is that really valid? Or is this just what everyone wants to think? Is it an obligation to society? The tone of the word queer and dyke haven't altered much, but, those words have gained a positive tone, at least. Anyone can use any word they like, they just need to make sure to use it in the right tone in the right context.

Ch. 3, p. 28

The historically derogatory terms, "queer" and "dyke," have evolved in the last 50 or so years to a more ambiguous state. In certain situations they are used in the 1950s sense, but they have also been adopted by the homosexual community, for less hateful uses.

As with any word, any, there are factors to be considered in their interpretation. Since there is no eternal association between the signifier and the signified, the acceptable usage of "queer" or "dyke" is determined not only by the person who utters the word, but everyone who witnesses the usage, and develops an interpretation. Under these circumstances, any word, including "queer" or "dyke," can be hateful or an affirmation to be celebrated, regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, etc. I've never understood the idea that a person can only acceptably use a certain derogatory word if they are the offended, the victim.

Despite the fact that "queer" and "dyke" are generally not seen as the hateful terms they once were, the social tide can push them back into that position, or on the other end, could bring them out of the subcultures and into mainstream usage.

Blog #3

It is without question that the meaning behind words such as "queer" and "dyke" has evolved since the 1950’s. I believe that time has allowed those words to become less taboo. In the 1950’s, if you were labeled as a "queer," that meant you were strange, unnatural, or of questionable nature. These days, it seems like everyone is coming out of the closet…and more power to ‘em! It seems as though society is more accepting of the gay community than ever before.

In my opinion, "queer" and "dyke" can be hateful words, but because of American culture today, they can also be positive affirmations. My older brother came out during his senior year of high school, and I can’t even begin to tell you how disgusted I would be if I ever heard someone hatefully called him a "queer." So many people have been brutalized or even killed behind words like "fag" or "queer" that it is very difficult to see them as anything but hateful.

However, those words can still be seen in a positive light, depending upon the circumstances in which they are used. New terms like "queer theory" or "queer politics" are affirmations that being gay is becoming more culturally acceptable, and that feeling of acceptance is something that everyone wants to feel (like it or not).

It is also interesting to note the cultural stigma that goes along with gay men and women. If you’re a gay man, many people assume you’re very feminine. Most people who meet my brother (who is a handsome, physically fit, police officer) would never have assumed he was gay. Likewise, many people put lesbians in the category of "butch" which is hardly the case for many lesbians.

I believe it is true that if you do not identify yourself as being gay, you must be careful when using the words "queer" or "dyke." If there is any question in your mind as to whether or not you should be saying them, then don’t! You never know who you could be offending.

Integrating Derogatory Terms Into Society

It can be hard these days questioning the acceptability of what are considered "Derogatory Words." I tend not to use any words that apply any derogatory connotation at all. It is an interesting phenomenon to me how the reigns are loosened up over time on words like nigger, queer, and dyke. From the little history that I know of these words, they appear to be very derogatory or at least degrading to a certain extent. I don't like any word being applied to me that has a history of holding a degrading connotation. I like to think of myself as things that have good histories, and apply only good denotations. Some may argue that these words can serve as a unifier for a subculture or counter-culture, and provide a symbol of unity. This works very well to secure the separation of counter-cultures from the mainstream, however, when applied to bigger subcultures, I don't think all members want to enforce such a strong separation from the mainstream. We all fit into certain subcultures in one way or another. I really like this about the society we live in today. There are so many groups of people doing so many different things. Specifically, creating so much art. I think it is amazing. I know that not every group of people will not always identify with every other group of people, but I think if we can stop perpetuating the use of any derogatory words, people everywhere might just become a little more peaceful.

Blog #3

First off in order for a word like queer change from derogatory to mainstream use, you need a lot of time, which is why it took 50 years for the word to be used proudly by gays. It is odd that a word used to belittle someone, could latter be used as a word to demonstrate gay pride. This change is caused by time, time to stop the word from being used as a derogative term, and then more time so that the word can be picked, and used as a positive word. Time is so important because people forget the original meaning of the term so they change it for a positive one. Words that aren't strongly connected to history should be affirmations that need to be celebrated, but when it comes to a word that is strongly connected to history such as the N word, then those words should be avoided. Because no matter what it is connected to that event and you cannot escape the meaning. When using the word queer it is important to watch out if you don't identify yourself one, because you may offend someone. Even if the majority thinks that word is a positive, there still may be some people who see it as a negative word. In general the word meaning is dependent on the reader, the word may be viewed as many things, but it is what the mainstream audience thinks is what is going to be true.

Blog #3 (or oh my god, I was just watching Queer as folk!)

I definately agree that the meaning of "queer" and "dyke" has changed significantly since the 1950s (I mean what hasn't?). My gay friends and I call ourselves queers all the time and we never think of it as a deragatory term (although i never use dyke as a descripter of myself because I think of that as a more butch type of girl). Is it neccesarily bad? No, I prefer queer to GLBT because it's more of an umbrella term that covers everybody (such as pansexuals & asexuals).
How this happen is probably the same way in which "nigger" became affrimated (with mixed results) in the african-american community. The previous generation shunned it as hateful, but another "reclaimed" it as part of the history in their own right without letting the original oppressors (in this case, whites) take over it's use once more, re-reading if you will. Same with gays, most of whom vemontly despise straight people using "gay" as anything but a gay individual.
So are "queer" and "dyke" affrimations or hateful speech? To me, I believe, that it depends on the reading of the situation. If a straight person were to call me a queer or a dyke, it would be meant (in my eyes) with malicious intent and would offend me. Personally, I'm offended when straight people use words like "dyke", "fag" (and their non-british), "queer" or "gay" when reffering to a certain person whose not gay, situation or (and here's the kicker) an inaminated object because then what their really saying is "that's/it's/he/she is stupid" and I take personal offence to people using words of which I use to empower and identify myself with as "stupid". Conversely, if a person in on North Halstead called me a queer or dyke it wouldn't (it might even be used affectionately) because it (I would assume) is without maliciousness involved.
I hoped that anwsered the question set forth, I never know with these things.

Blog #3 - Words

As cultures change, those things in that culture that are socially acceptable become more and more vast. Just by asking my paretns the words and phrases they used to say, I could tell just how much our language has changed in the last 30 years. And as the 21st centry begins its frim hold on us we see that the words we use, in this case "queer" and 'dyke", are changing. And honesttly, I do not think that this is a bad thing. Words change meaning all the time, and new words are made up for those old words that have lost there original meaning. This is evolution, we can not stop it. If we did then we would only be putting a shell on ourselves.

And I do not the changing of these particular words is out of hate. Yes, I think at times they are used in a hateful way, but I think that comes down to the individual using it. In the end these are just words, and though when these words are said with hatred behind them they can be hurtful, they are still just words, and people have the power and meaning behind those words. We changed them, we can change them again and I am sure that will happen as we wee the next stage of word evolution.

Blog #3, p. 28 in TT

Over time, meanings for the words like "queer" or "dyke" or I would even say hateful words like the "N" word change. There are several words that in the past were considered downright terrible to say, like the word "bitch." It was considered the most offending word a woman could be called. Now, it is still offensive, but it still gets thrown around loosely. As for why this happens-- sometimes culture's ideas about words or discourses change over time. Nowadays, it is seemingly appropriate for African Americans to call each other the "N" word because to them it is some sort of brotherhood friendship thing (i think, hah). To them, the meaning or interpretation has changed. It is a similar situation with the people who refer to themselves as "queer" -- The show Queer Eye for the Straight Guy keeps popping up in my head. It is like they have developed a pride in it. In these sorts of situations, words like those CAN be affirmations to celebrated. But, when someone crosses the line and uses those words in a different hateful context, that is when those words should be avoided. The answer DOES deeply depend on the reading of the situation to figure out the case. I always feel like I have to watch myself when I use such words for fear of it being interpreted wrongly, if I use them at all. But then again, it is the truth for me to watch what I say period because there's always at least one person will find a way to twist it and use it against me.

the real blog #3

I'm sorry. I spaced out and did the wrong blog, so ignore that postsructuralism one. Only 100 pages off. I think that "queer" and "dyke" once had a very strong power but not so much anymore. I think that the social effects have changed, not so much the word itself. Like it says on page 27, "It's the consequences that are good or bad." I'm sure that if the word "queer" or "dyke" came up in conversation at the dinner table in 1950 it would be a much bigger deal than if it came up today. I think that our generation has specifically been taught to accept everyone and everything and not be judgmental or hateful towards anyone. It is why we no longer have Christmas trees; they're "Holiday" trees. But there are certainly people who use it derogatorily and there are people who will get offended by it because of it's context. I do think reading is an open-ended process and depending on the context, I can understand how those words can be hateful. This reminds me though about how girls with their friends always call eachother "slut" and "whore" but if someone outside the group were to say that to the girl, that would definitely not be okay. I think it's the same with "queer" and "dyke", if you are not socially accepted by one of the groups, you really need to be careful of the usage of the word. I don't think it's the "queer" group as a whole that you need to watch out for the context of the word "queer" that you're using, but you either need to not use it or make sure the individuals that make up the group don't think it's a big deal. I think that it is so easy to get offended at almost anything these days that it's hard to speak about certain things with out someone getting offended. These words are out there though and people can either pretend like they don't exist or they can accept it. I also think it's a great defense mechanism if you are gay to not take the word to heart because it is a rather "common" word.

blog #3 Poststructuralism

The problem that I think that poststructuralism has with the Big Bang Theory would be that it is the accepted reason for the birth of the universe. Poststructuralism doesn't agree with the idea of having only one reason or one answer to something. I think that it questions the "truths" about the world and it is why the Big Bang Theory is suspicious because it is too concrete for a poststructuralist. From my understanding, a poststructuralist has to be able to take in account all different perspectives about something. They have to not just believe that the Big Bang Theory started the universe; they have to apply all the perspectives or ideas or theories in the world even if they all don't agree with eachother.

Why Cultural Studies. By: Tom Holmes

When I first signed up for Intro To Cultural Studies; I had no idea what I was getting myself into. The reason why I chose the class; was simply because it was more credit hours on my list, but as time went on I started to do research on certain topics dealing with culture. This class is the perfect way for me to understand not only about culture, but it is also an introduction to a long line of informative paths that offer the purpose of culture and its origings. I believe it is important to study culture, because were all affected by in some way. For example, alot of us wear certain clothes, dance certain ways, or listen to certain genres of music because it is part of our culture.
What this class offers in my opinion; are the necessary tools we need to be observant, dealing with these type of issues. We may live in a country that has alot of different ethnicities, but we cannot understand why we are brought up the way we are. Being in Columbia for a year has taught me alot of things, but what sticks out the most; is being a critical thinker. Not just being a part of an on going cycle; seems to be the motive of columbia. This is where Intro To Cultural Studies come in. Here is a class that offers information about culture, but the goal is not to just take it at face value, but to observe and think critically, and that is what I like about this class so far.

Blog 2

Foucault has clearly described the production of discourse, with its three external rules of exclusion: prohibition, division and rejection, will to truth. The five internal rules that which a discourse is controlled by: the events and chance happenings, the author, disciplines, rarefaction among speakers, and the fellowships of discourse. But Foucault leaves an interesting note after all of the rules have been explained. “It is in these taboos, these barriers, thresholds, and limits were deliberately disposed in order, at least partly, to master and control the great proliferation of discourse, in such a way as to relieve its richness of its most dangerous element; to organize its disorder so as to skate round its most uncontrollable aspects. It is as though people had wanted to efface all trace of its irruption into the activity of our thought and language.”

The depth of Foucault’s research into discourse may show how fundamentality important the concept of the production of discourse is if one wants to get a better understanding of themselves. But before one can gain any grasp of who they are, Foucault shows that one must also know the history, as he uses the word, of discourse to better understand why the rules of discourse exists as they do. Also important then, is the understanding of one’s relationship with discourse and how rules of discourse have, in many ways shaped who we are.

Discourse and Evolution

The topic of discourse and its affect on many levels of life was one of the ideas I tried to focus on in my latest album of music, "Everything at Once... But Nothing at All." This is an excerpt of what I wrote about the album after it was completed in mid 2006.

"Learning to accept and thrive within conflict is the common thread of my latest album and of our lives. When a person realizes that they are a necessary part of processes that are so huge, that understanding the great value of their own impact would be impossible, is an interesting and amazing awakening. Everyone matters. Everything matters. We cannot separateourselves from what seems to be in tune with the positive and negative energies of the universe. This is "Everything at Once." We instinctually and independently interpret beauty, love, and processes that bring about good feelings. We intuitively discern the opposite. We are all participants in evolution, and without the conflicting forces exerted by nature, evolution will cease to exist."

My favorite part of this writing talks about how no one can truly separate themselves from the discourses that are happening everywhere. Simply being exposed to discourse makes one involved in the discourse itself. Decisions are made every second in your own body concerning what actions best suit the survival and thriving of itself. Most of these decisions happen purely by instinct and are simple non-conflicted decisions.

However, as one builds up relationships, and a collection of life experiences around them, decisions about what is good and bad can become much more complicated, creating internal discourse. Thus one's internal discourse is reflected outward showing a sense of not always knowing what the "right" thing is to do.

This is where I think the best discourse thrives, because not everyone knows everything. We all have our bits and pieces of memory and value that we bring to the table, and we exchanged information and experience. Things do not always agree. People have motives and agendas that they wish to put in place for their own benefit. Big governments are some of the most complex machines ever created by man. They don't give the people all the information that they know. Discourse thrives in this situation as well. When you can't truly know something, it can only be debated and theorized without the sufficient evidence needed to prove something, anything.

I'll finish with a hopeful quote from president Kennedy, talking about how important it is for knowledge to spread, for the benefit of the American people. He states just how necessary discourse is, and why it is essential to the fair functioning of our American Government.

"It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed."

Blog #2

Discourse is defined by Dictionary.com as, "communication of thought." However, speaking from a social science standpoint, discourse is considered to be a social boundary, or a standardized way of thinking. Discourses effect society’s views on all aspects of life and because of that discourse can be quite powerful. A discourse can influence an entire country to revolt against tyranny. However, it can also be powerful and dangerous enough to influence a society to literally hate a certain group of people.

An example of dangerous discourse can be seen in the Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines (RTLM). This was a Rwandan radio station whose discourse played an extremely significant role in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994. It was a self-proclaimed "Hutu Power" radio station that urged fellow Hutus to do things like "save bullets and use machetes on the worthless Tutsi cockroaches." History has proven time and time again that discourse can be powerful enough and dangerous enough to make people kill.

Much of the discourse that heavily influences society is communicated through people we consider to be "experts." How do these people even attain the title of "expert" to begin with? Often, those who cannot think for themselves rely on someone who has been dubbed an "expert" to govern their own lives. Discourse surrounds us constantly and it is up to us to sift through the junk and decide for ourselves what is true.

Blog #2

Discourse or conversation is "powerful" because it can create new ideas or different views on topics. Conversations between people from different backgrounds can provide inspiration for making their own life better. It can help make the world a better place. Discourse can also be "dangerous" because it can create chaos. New or old ideas are used to make bad choices towards another group of people. This makes the world better in their eyes. The media are the means of controlling the effects of certain discourses. The news on television gives their point of view; the view they want you to trust and believe. Another news network will tell and show you a different perspective on that topic. Discourse from rival news channels will differ on what they believe is true. When labels like "political" or "unpatriotic" or "emotional" are attached to discourse, it gives people an idea of what is going on. There are words that the media uses to convey a direct meaning of the story. When people hear "political" they think politics, Congress, the President etc. "Unpatriotic" gives the viewers a bad impression of an individual or a place. "Emotional" makes the viewer feel for the people who are experiencing a mishap or accident. Words create feeling which causes concern of what is happening around them.

Authority Governs Discourse

There was a question in the text that asked how do you get from being a writer to an author (p11). Clearly it's asking how do you gain the authority to be labeled as an author. But is authority necessary to have the tite as an author? Frankly, I believe that "author" is often thrown around pretentiously. In my Fiction Writing class we were asked to name off our favorite authors. Students named off authors that have been studied in school, ones that are popular and ones that have the most well known books. Many people do not understand that anyone is really an author. Whether they've authored a book or a building, they've authored something. How they gain the title as an author, well, that apparently lies into the amount of authority they carry. And authority governs. But who decides who gets that authority?

Discourse is very powerful. Mostly people listen, believe and agree with authority. People follow without reason. As long as the authority is on their side, they agree and understand. And also, there are people that disagree with discourse, which obviously is an okay and normal thing to do. Discourse can be dangerous because it can formulate different meanings than intended. The meaning is up to the reader or listener, but generally follows along the meaning the authority has given. Authority governs. People often do not have ideas of their own and latch on to discourse. People often do not question and just agree because since the discourse has authority, it is correct. Discourse is dangerous but it is up to each person to listen and agree or disagree before or after they investigate further... if they investigate further. Discourse is dangerous, powerful but necessary.

Blog #2 - Discourse

Is discourse a good thing? Of course it is, how else are we supposed to figure out what is right for us? We need those few people that get feed up, or get pushed around to their boiling points, to try and convience others that a change is needed. We need these shepherds, because for the most part we are all sheep. And that is fine, there is nothing wrong with following someones idea (blindly sometimes) and benefit from that... until we don't, then some other girl/guy needs to get feed up or broke down to their boiling points so we can follow them.

That is how humans work. We are never going to fully be on the same page with one another, so we will go on and banter with one another to try and see what will benefit the wrong people until the ones getting screwed become the screwers and then they will find themselves at the mercy of the screwies in time. I dunno if that made sense, and I don't know if I even know what I am trying to say.

Discourse is a powerful tool that can is both great/horrible at the same time. We just need to remember to question what is being said about the things that not only effect us, but our world, and not be easily influenced by discourse...

Blog #2

Discourse has the ability to be powerful, because it can birth ideas, or act as a catalysts for many different kinds of movements. Discourse can also be construed as dangerous when it acts as a catalysts for movements such as the rise of the Nazi party, but it also should be considered sensible when it is applied to movements such as women's rights or civil rights movement. Discourse is usually controlled by the media, and powerful figures. For example if an American soldier is killed in combat that person is show by the media as a patriot and a hero, and the attacker is considered a terrorist. On the other end of the spectrum he is viewed as an invader, and the terrorist is a freedom fighter and hero. It is because of the ability to control discourse rather easily by labels such as "unpatriotic", most people are funneled to believe one side of discourse, and to be blind to the other side of it. Because of this fact entire countries believed people like Hitler or Joseph McCarthy.

Q. 3, pg. 20

What makes someone an expert anyway? I read alot of books and magazines, watch alot of films and listen to lots of diffrent kinds of music and occasionally I write about it on blog on myspace does that make me an "expert"? I don't feel like one, although I know a few things if you ask me. I wouldn't call myself an expert but if a bunch of people started reading those blogs and agreeing with me I still wouldn't think that. Afterall, what do I know?
So why do people like Ebert win awards for their opinons. How are his so much more important then mine?
I know what the text says about cannoncity but that to me seems so suspicious. So if you did get alot of people reading my blogs and they were considered wonderful i'd have to wait around for other more important people to say "hey! Listen to her! She's smart!". What do they know?
People are just people, they all have their follies and make mistakes. Micheal Jordan's high school couach (him being in a position of authority and therefore the "expert" in this scenario) cut him from the team and said he'd never make it. Shows what he knows. Obviously Jordan's couch was cannonized or anything but his opinon wouldn't have been any diffrent if he was because jordan became one of the most popular basketball players ever.
Experts said the same about Van Gogh and Picasso but there works sell for millions of dollars and hang in the most prestigious art museums around the world.
I'm not saying that all "experts" are complete idiots. If I wanted to know how to make vegan carrot cake, I'd buy a vegan cookbook because I want to learn HOW and I don't want to burn down my apartment doing it. Or if i wanted to fix a leak or find a good sub place I would hope the infromation coming to me would be reliable and they knew what they were talking about.
I'm one of those who questions everything to a certain degree. As the text says "everything is suspicious" so I think that while your reading anyting, whether it be a novel or a magazine article you should be asking yourself "do I agree with this? what does it mean to me? why should I even care?". I thought that all the time when I read my textbooks in high school-which were all written from the straight, white, male poin-of-view- I'd think "Yeah right."
I think that alot when I watch films, there are films that the critics pan but I don't see them as being that bad or vice versa there's films that the public at large thinks are great that I think are awful.
It comes with the territory of being a thinking individual with opinons and diffrent tastes.
And that's also why it's important to have a discourse with not only diffrent forms of media but with diffrent people. What's the point in being around others if all we're going to do is nod our heads at the same time and say "Yes, you're absoultely right". Even within a group of like-minded people it's important to have that because no matter how like-minded you all are there's diffrences and opinons.
I think a discourse becomes powerful when this exchange of ideas and opinons opens minds to things they've never thought about before. "Stepping into another persons's shoes" per se.
Also, a discourse also becomes powerful when it goes beyond discoursing and becomes action. That's how the civil rights movement happend. Some one spoke and then another and another, they organized and used their collective thoughts to change a nation for good.
However it becomes dangerous when the actions from the discourse become violent, intolerant, hateful or non-progressive. Remember the same steps that lead to the civil rights movement also lead to Nazi Germany, except instead of changing the nation for the good, they ended up killing six million jews and countless others. Another example of a violent discourse is the Ku Klix Klan which preachs hate and violence against those that are diffrent.
That's why censorship is such a hot issue because, whether we take them for granted or not, words are powerful, especially words followed by actions.
As a wise (non-real) man once said, "With great power comes great responsibilty."

Blog #2

I don't really understand why anyone who writes a book can't be called an author when all along the same vein anyone who designs blueprints can easily be called an author. It is a very pretentious notion that a writer has to reach a certain pinnacle or a group of people have to just happen upon the work and become really intrigued by it and give it gravity in order for this person to achieve an "authority stance". But I guess that is what gives discourse any power that it does possess.

Someone writes an excruciatingly intelligent book that is whole and well-written and as it gets passed along everyone agrees on it and its merit continues along with it. Now the person who wrote it, the author, is able to come into himself and really feel completed and taken seriously. Whatever it does (the book), it might make a person feel something, it could blow someone's mind, or link somebody's unfinished puzzle. Discourse could be relative and that is a way that it loses its power and force. Mein Kampf surely was admired by some but naturally lost its discourse by others. I think that the motive behind the book is pretty terrible and I am against it and regardless of how intelligent it sounds, how well-written, or whatever I know that it has a pretty bad motive and served as a catalyst for some of the worst parts of history.

Expertise governs who can be an "authority" on any information at hand. If someone is able to articulate and express this information in a confident, professional, and convincing manner than I would have to decide who I would listen to based on the context of my situation. If another person is trying to tell me something in any less of a manner then I would be more hard-pressed to believe him or her. The only room a person lacking expertise would have is to make an intelligent comment or put forth a well-thought out question. I think it is very important that we make sure that we're getting reliable information and regardless of how good someone sounds we should always double-check and find other sources. I probably wouldn't want to go to a doctor that wasn't an expert. I would not want to obtain even petty information that is incorrect or half-correct. I have a tendency to pass on anything I learn and I would really hate to have to be embarrassed on account of not being vigilant with what I put into my head.

Blog Numero Dos! P20. Q3.

Discourse itself is "powerful" in many ways. What one does to communicate can effect or influence anyone and everyone if the intentions are there. I think discourse can be be "powerful" in the sense of being very influential or persuasive. It depends on who is communicating and who is listening. I think "powerful" discourse can articulate a point of view that leads to an assigned meaningful destination. Anything is possible with "powerful" discourse; positive, negative, peaceful and dangerous outcomes can occur with or without intentions.

Discourse can become "dangerous" when it effects other's well being. I think... for it to be "dangerous" it effects others in a negative or harmful way. The production of discourse with intention to harm can raise concerns. Words or any form of communication is "powerful" and can be "dangerous" if not used appropriately, but who are we to know what's appropriate and what's not appropriate. Hitler was a powerful man. His words, his presence, his world was effective enough to persuade others to coincide with him. His intentions were wrong, but his words were effective and that makes this "dangerous".

Attaching labels to discourse can be construed as separating the many topics we choose to conquer. Using the labels "political" or "unpatriotic" or "emotional" to discourse can derive insight. It serves a purpose by controlling what one wants to know. Control is all about the higher being who contains it; hearing what one wants to hear or saying what one wants to say.

blog.2.pg.20.TT

In my opinion, discourse can be powerful in the sense that a certain piece can have great effectiveness and influence. I think that discourse can have the power to bring groups of people together who may support the same opinion or meaning or idea, and a discourse may be construed as "dangerous" if these opinions or meanings or ideas go against that of the government or majority of society- conflict on a small or big scale. Discourse can also be powerful and/or dangerous when it is used specifically to try and change the thinking of the intended reader. For example, I remember learning in one of my history classes that Hitler had the antagonist characters in all children's books changed so that they were described as Jewish. Granted, Hitler did not actually write the stories in entirety but simply having a few words and sentences changed had a big impact on the minds of these little children, who would now connect Jewish people to the traits and doings of antagonists from their fairy tale stories.
Ascribing meaning to a discourse is one way to control the effects of it, and Hitler was, for a period of time, successful with the workings of his many forms of propaganda. I also think that the amount of press that a certain discourse may attain can also control the effects of it. If the Harry Potter books were never publicized or hyped up in the way that were, if J.K. Rowling's rags to riches story was never told, it could be said that her books would not be as nearly popular as they are now. There might not even have been more than one. How many authors have books that are bought, just because they may have another best seller? "Best-seller" can be looked at like another label along with "emotional" or "unpatriotic" or "political" because all these labels control the amount and kinds of readers, therefore controlling the effects of the discourse.

blog #1 eventhough it's late

I am taking this class because all throughout high school I fell in love with all the sociology classes. Especially sociology of gender. It was the first time ever in my high school career that I actually wanted to learn more about it and I saw so many things I learend in class outside of class. On my own time! I saw evidence of socialization everywhere and I cared about it and never got bored. I have also always been more of nurture person when it comes to nature vs. nurture. I believe almost everything is taught to us and all the little things we learn about on how to live is what culture is. Even the way we eat, what we eat, how we dress, what our friends think, what the media says, and how we even cross the street is culture. I went to San Diego this summer with my friends and we stayed in this hotel and the lady at the desk stopped us and asked us all if we were from Chicago. We asked her how she knew that and she said "None of you wait for the walk signal and all you guys wear is black, grey, or brown." I thought it was funny because that's our little Chicago culture I guess.

blog #2 page 20

Discourse is can be seen as powerful in the sense that it can plant seeds of ideas in peoples' heads. It can be especially powerful if the consumer was unclear before reading or talking about something and now believe that the new information is "right". I think that this is when something can become dangerous. This may be a bad example, but whenever I watch the movie "Goodfellas" for the next hour or so I feel cool, for lack of a better word. I feel like I understand mobsters and have a sudden feeling like I could get away with robbing an airport. I do however understand that I am a suburban teenage girl that has no organized crime experience and that I am not a cool, suave Italian man. But this same feeling I get could be the same feeling that somebody else could get when they read The Anarchists Cookbook. It can be dangerous if it gets in the wrong hands and that person begins to feel like they are a part of something.
I once saw this photographer talk about her work. Everyone there loved her work and all the time she put in to each photograph and everyone had their own ideas about what it all meant. It was funny though because when the photographer told us what it meant, no body really cared. Everyone cared about what it meant to them and the last person everyone wanted to look to for it was the artist. People want their own meaning. Another way to control discourse would be censorship or just plain leaving things out. Like, it is easy to be on the Big Bad Wolf's side if you knew what it was like to be a wolf and see Little Red skip through the woods alone.
I do not believe that expertise should decide who can speak on certain issues. Anyone can speak about anything even if that results in putting your foot in your mouth. If you do want substance to what you're saying, it doesn help to have some education in that field. Fortunately though, there is no law for making a fool of yourself.

Blog for p.20, #3 in TT

Any discourse can be "powerful", depending on the sense of the word. If "powerful" is taken to mean "moving" or "emotional", then a romantic film like Love Story can be a powerful discourse. But if "powerful" means "having control or influence over people and events", then much fewer discourses can be deemed "powerful". A powerful discourse (in the latter sense) is one that has the ability to change large numbers of minds. If a piece has power, it can cause a great number of people to take a certain opinion, to modify their beliefs, to even take action, as suggested by the author. For example, Martin Luther King, Jr.'s speech, "I Have a Dream", is an incredibly powerful discourse because it asks, and causes, many people to change their minds about race issues and to take action against segregation and racism. This however, is not a dangerous discourse. Dangerous discourses are those with power that ask its audiences to believe in or do something that is harmful to others, or goes against the moral status quo of a society.

As Foucault stated, society does its part to inhibit powerful and even dangerous discourses, such as Hitler's Mein Kampf or Powell's The Anarchist Cookbook. While both of these publications are in great circulation and are easily accessed, society does its part to hinder their negative effects, such as the indoctrination of children to know that Hitler was a terrible man and that genocide is wrong, and to know that building bombs is something that normal people just don't do. But besides labeling discourses, and teaching children that "dangerous discourses" should be ignored, society can take more drastic measures to inhibit the effects of discourses. In Germany, for example, Mein Kampf is banned in most places. Because that dangerous discourse has such a strong relationship with that country, society has taken upon itself the task of breaking that bond and attempting to sever itself from such a dangerous discourse. Banning books and other discourses is just one way that a society can protect itself from the ravages of dangerous discourses.

As the book suggests, another way of containing the effects of a discourse is to have an "expert" declare it void of social value. An "expert" is a person that society declares to have sufficient knowledge of a subject to make decisions for the rest of society. A doctor is an expert in medicine, and can therefore tell society to take daily vitamins and the public will take it as truth. But an academic expert is slightly harder to pin down. In my opinion, a single person cannot make such a drastic decision as to declare a novel worthy or unworthy of study in the undergraduate curricula. It takes a consensus among "experts" to make such a decision. And society allows experts to make these decisions for them because the majority of people are not well educated and believe that since they lack the education of the experts, they are not qualified to have a say in these matters. Therefore, society allows its educated experts to declare what is fit for study and what is worthwhile.

Other labels besides "dangerous" and "powerful" put onto discourses can also control their effects. When words like "political", "unpatriotic" and "emotional" are connected to a discourse, society reads certain connotations, depending on one's own opinions and beliefs. To a veteran, "unpatriotic" may mean uninformed and anarchistic, while to an antiwar protester it can mean truthful and honest. An "emotional" film may sound like a sappy chick flick to a teenage boy, but middle-aged women may flock to the theatre because of its title as "emotional". Discourses are "sold" to certain audiences or kept confined from society completely by the tags that experts put on them.