Oh, Silly Mankind

I was very interested in Eagleton's comments about the difference between our ability to change culture and Nature. He clearly demonstrates how unwilling we are to alter our culture. We, as a people, have seemingly had more luck changing the fabric of the world around us than we have had in making changes to the culture in which we live. He claims that,

It has proved a lot easier to level mountains than to change patriarchal values. Cloning sheep is child’s play compared to persuading chauvinists out of their prejudices. Cultural beliefs, not least the fundamentalist variety which are bound up with fears for one’s identity, are far harder to uproot than forests (50).

Eagleton believes, and I would tend to agree, that we are more likely to try to completely reorder the world around us than admit that we as individuals need to change who we are or what we believe. We are more willing to destroy those who disagree with us than to change our own perspective. Rather than attempting to see the world as it is, we try to reshape it in the fashion that we believe it should exist. We have no problem spending piles of money and years of effort to find a solution to a problem that could easily be resolved by slightly altering what we believe to be true.

The Others

I am very interested in the idea of the Other. It seems to me that this is one of the central issues in the field of queer and lesbian theory. I am not sure if this need to define who we are by who we are not is something that is inherent in our genes or if it is a social construct that has become so ingrained in our culture as human beings that it only seems to have been ever-present. This is by no means an attempt to make an excuse for the behavior that would exclude those who are different. We need the other in order to survive. There must be diversity in a species in order for it to thrive. By trying to deny the Other, or by trying to make it seem inferior, those in control only doom themselves. One way or another, as history has shown us, those who are pushed to the side because they are different from those with the power will find a way to be heard and eventually reckoned with. We can only exclude the Other as long as they remain unaware of the strength they possess. Once the illusion of the status quo is longer able to hold back the tide, they will come crashing down upon “Us” with a vengeance. The Other is not some subculture who need us to survive. Without the Other, we are only a group of different “Others” that could just as easily be pushed aside if we are deemed unworthy.

Just Call Me Linus

I was very interested in the ideas behind New Historicism. It seems to me that this is one of the more logical theories that we have looked at. It is not concerned with identifying the intention of the author being examined, but rather the relations between the literary texts of a time period on those texts that are seen as not having a valued literary merit. This makes a lot of sense to me. I don’t believe that you can ever separate a text from its context, and the introduction of the idea of the co-text takes that a step further. We can never truly understand an author’s intention, even an author writing within our own time period. It seems like a futile exercise to try and find meaning only in the words of a piece of literature. It makes more sense that we would try to create a network of written record from a given time period in order to identify the larger world of the text. The use of non-fiction pieces of literature can provide a different perspective on a literary work. By incorporating different genres of literature, theorists can provide a far-reaching lens with which to view a primary text. Of course, there is the questions of which pieces are used to create this lens. There is always going to be a bias brought to a piece when individuals are allowed to choose the particular stance from which to view it. The co-texts can be chosen in order to support one view over another. The fact that theorists use individual passages from texts in order to illustrate a particular point only adds to this sense of bias. It seems to me though, that all of the theories we have explored this far have at least some level of bias integrated into them. It is just a matter of finding the bias you are comfortable with and making it your own. I feel pretty comfortable with slanted lens. I may have found my theory security blanket.

Dang It! I am the Man

I was particularly taken by Bourdieu’s thoughts on the role of the education system, and by extension, the roles of teachers in the development of “legitimate” language. I have never seen myself in this role before. According to Bourdieu, I am just another cog in the machine of the dominant culture. The problem is, I don’t know if I can argue with that. While I do strive to teach my students how to think for themselves and try to give them the skills to see the world for themselves, I limit them in the ways that they can express these thoughts and views. I expect them all to write, and speak about their ideas in standard English. By doing this, I limit the ways that they can truly understand the world. I have become, without being fully aware of the transition, a “teacher of thinking” (49). In my attempts to create a standard for my student’s communication, I have pushed them to, “see and feel things in the same way” (49). The only justification that I can offer is that these students will need to be able to speak, read and write in the dominant language in order to succeed in the world. In my attempt to prepare my students to gain an advantage in the world, I have actually done my part to continue a system set against the majority of them. I am not helping them grow up and change the world, I am programming them to accept the world as it is. Every time I dismiss their most comfortable modes of communication as, “slang and gibberish, “ (49) I push them one step closer to conforming with the rest of the culture. Suck!