Rubin

Trying to figure out theorists high on cough and cold medicine is not easy, but I tried. I found Rubin’s piece to be very interesting, although I didn’t quite fully understand it. I did notice that she talks a lot about labor and reproduction much like Althusser did. I liked how she talked about in terms of women and housework. On page 1665 Rubin says “a number of articles have tried to…locate the oppression of women in the heart of the capitalist dynamic by pointing to the relationship between housework and the reproduction of labor.” Rubin then goes on to say that in order to figure out the relationship between housework and the reproduction of labor, women must be placed “squarely in the definition of capitalism, the process in which capital is produced by the extraction of surplus value from labor by capital” (1665). Okay, so this kind of made sense to me. I understand that in order to figure out the connection between that two, you must first define it, but housework does not involved getting paid, so how would you figure out the correlation between the two? When I read on, I just got more confused. Does Rubin mean that because women do not get paid for doing housework then they are oppressed by it? Or is it just a different form of oppression?

Another thing that I found interesting was the whole ‘sex/gender system” and the “gender-stratified systems.” Rubin says that “it is important…to maintain a distinction between the human capacity and necessity to create a sexual world, and the empirically oppressive ways in which sexual worlds have been organized” (1669). When I first read this I was like “WHAT?!?” It just didn’t click with me on what she was trying to say here. Maybe it was just the meds, but the main example that came to mind was the babies in China. I learned in high school that if a family has more than one female, then they either kill her or give her away and the boys are kept no matter what. Males are the dominant figures and are highly valued for the country. When I first heard this is made me sick. I really could not believe what I was hearing. It didn’t make sense to me that people were actually ok with doing this and had no remorse afterward, but I think that is what Rubin was trying to get across here.

Wikipedia says that “Kinship is the most basic principle of organizing individuals into social groups, roles, and categories. It was originally thought to be determined by biological descent, a view that was challenged by David M. Schneider in his work on Symbolic Kinship (1984, A Critique of The Study of Kinship). The crux of his argument was that anthropologists had founded the domain of “kinship” on the notions of human reproduction and the biologically defined relatedness of their own Euro-American culture. Human reproduction and notions of biological relatedness cannot be presumed to structure people’s social relationships in other cultural contexts.” Okay, so I had to look this one up here because I just didn’t understand it in the terms that Rubin was explaining it. The “elementary structures” thing didn’t work so well either. What I think she means is that kinship is basically roles and structures that one’s culture has, but if women are the target in oppression in one’s culture, then does it mean that it is just part of the structure of the “system” or does every culture have a different definition of what kinship should be?

Although I didn’t fully understand this article, I did enjoy reading it. I find the whole “women oppression” thing to be very interesting. I just can’t get over the fact that it is still occurring today and our society is suppose to have grown? Now I’m not really into the whole feminist thing, but this just doesn’t make sense to me. Oppression of women is just hard for me to understand when we are suppose to have a “free” and “equal” nation. I realize that it is worse across the world in other countries, but it still bothers me that it is happening here and it is still present in our country today.

Althusser

Welcome back theorists!! I’m happy that they have returned, but I do miss the pictures!! Anyway, I actually enjoyed reading Althusser, well what I understood of it. I did enjoy his overall reading and I thought a lot of his ideas were very interesting and did make some sense to me.

One thing that I thought was interesting was on page 1486. Althusser says “Their index of effectively (or determination), as determined by the determination in the last instance of the base, is thought by the Marxist tradition in two ways: (1) there is a ‘relative autonomy’ of the superstructure with respect to the base; (2) there is a ‘reciprocal action’ of the superstructure on the base.” When I first read this I was like “what?!?” I really had no clue what it meant. After reading it a few more times, I think I got some of it. I think what Althusser means is that there are rules according or in accordance to the “base.” Althusser goes on to say on page 1487 that “…the Marxistopography  of the spacial metaphor of the edifice…..is crucial, that it reveals that it is the base which in the last instance determines the whole edifice.” So, what I think this means is that Marxistopography is extremely important in naming or determining the base, which is crucial to the whole “superstructure.”

I also thought the “Ideology Has No History” part was quite interesting. I like how he starts the section off with “one word first of all to expound the reason in principle which seems to me to found, or at least to justify, the project of a theory of ideology in general and not a theory of particular ideologies, which, whatever their form (religious, ethical, legal, political), always express class positions.” I think this does make sense. Class positions seems to wrap everything up into one. I think I agree with him in that it does explain more than one thing, whether the religion, political or whatever has an influence on it. It can be explained though class positions. For example, our society today is still considered to have different class positions, which explain our jobs and really positions in life. It makes sense for class positions to explain different concepts and ideologies too.

The end of Watchmen

I have to admit that I am glad that this novel is over. It was a nice change to have a break from our other authors, but for some reason Watchmen just didn’t do it for me. Maybe it’s because I had an extremely hard time relating it to the pieces we have read so far. I’m also not a huge fan of comic books either, so I guess that could be why. Either way, I’m ready to get back in the old swing of things and tackle some new authors.

 A lot of things happened at the end of this novel. I, like some others, just can’t get over the fact that Laurie ends up with Dan. I mean, I did see it coming, because I do think their flirting among other things was quite obvious but I can’t help but feel bad for Jon. And him walking in on them after they engaed in “sexual relations” didn’t help the situation either. I kind of wanted Laurie to be with Jon, especially after everything that went on between the two.

Another thing that I found interseting was the whole sitiuation with Rorschach. Maybe I’m a softy, but I feel bad that he is dead now. I did like that he sends his journal away though. I think it’s a piece of him that will live on, even though he is gone now. I was a bit confused as to who was going to receive the journal, but then when I found out he was sending it to the newspaper I liked it even better. Having the entire world read you thoughts it the untimate to “live on” even after your death. Way to go Rorschach!

Throughout this novel we kept seeing those damn “Nostaglia” bottles popping up everywhere. By the end, the name “Nostaglia” has changed to “Millenium.” I didn’t really understand why this happened. The only thing that I could think of is that maybe the name changed because the situations with the characters changed so much? I’m not really sure, but I’m sure we’ll go over this in class since a few people have written about it so far.

As for the connections to other authors, I think that I’m going to stick to the Deleuze and Guattari theory of chaos. I feel that this could fit the novel best. Living in a world with chaos like the charatcers in this novel, superheros are obviosly going to be needed. But, unlike reality, happy ending don’t always happen at the end. I think I like the “fairy tale” world better. It’s a nice break from the real world and what’s happening around us.

Watchmen 2……I hate snow

Okay, so I officially hate New York and all the snow that comes with it. I’ve been living here since I was born and I still can’t get over the gross amount of snow we get! It’s so annoying! Anyway, because of the glorious life stopping snow, I had plenty of time to read the Watchmen while I was snowed in, drinking my hot chocolate. I’ve never really been into the comics and I’m really having a hard time getting into this one. I feel that, especially after these chapters, that there is just so much information to digest that I can’t keep it all straight. I think I actually might be a little better at trying to figure out stuff like Saussure or Deleuze and Guattari, but a comic was a nice break, but needless to say I happy it’s almost over.

Through out these chapters a lot happened. Like many others, I really enjoyed hearing Dr. Manhattan’s back-story on his life. It was so sad and I feel that he feels helpless. I couldn’t even imagine knowing the future and not being able to do anything to stop the bad events the were going to occur. Dr. Manhattan does have the power to change things, yes, but if he does he could possibly set off a course of events that could be even worse than what was going to happen in the first place. This may be a stretch, but I kind of thought of the president and his job in relation to Dr. Manhattan and his.  Many people do think that “We are puppets” and I do believe that this is true, but I think that we partly allow ourselves to be.  I think it’s because we are afraid to know what’s going to happen or what might happen, so people like Bush and Dr. Manhattan have to decide things for us. Don’t get me wrong, I do have some strong words that I would love to say to Bush if I ever had the chance, but his job is difficult if you think about it. It’s like he does know some of the future and what’s going to happen. One mistake, like 911, turned our world up-side-down. I think Dr. Manhattan has the same problems with which issues to touch and which ones to leave a lone. You never quite know what’s going to happen with each decision that you make.

Like others, I too noticed the strategically placed Nostalgia bottles. I wasn’t exactly sure what they meant. I guess the bottles spilling could mean a loss of the past. Maybe it’s that we are suppose to not forget the past, but push it aside so that we can live here in the present and also prepare ourselves for the future.  I’m not really sure, but I’m sure we will discuss it in class today, which will help me clear up a few things.

Watchmen

Ok, so after trying to post this stupid thing and being unsuccessful because twice because of internet issues in my house, here goes a third time! I really enjoyed reading Watchmen so far. I had no clue that it was going to be a comic book. I was really quite surprised and happy at the same time. I had never really been into the comics, but like others have posted, I found this very interesting. I felt it was very difficult to find a connection to the authors we’ve read in class so far. I wasn’t really sure if a connection even existed, but here goes.

I felt that Deleuze and Guattari’s chaos theory could be somewhat connected. If you think about it, it does make sense. With all the destruction, all the chaos that is taking place in the “super hero” world, I truly thought it was set in the future. I, like other classmates, was very surprised to see the time it was actually set in. I guess every era has had destruction and chaos. Basically since the dawn of time, our earth has had chaos so it does make sense that the time it was set in also has chaos.

After reading some other posts, especially Elizabeth’s, I felt that there was also a connection between Saussure and Watchmen. Saussure talks about the idea of speech and language and how they don’t exactly have to be taken in their literal form. I think that the pictures in Watchmen are an example of this. Pictures are a way of communicating ideas without words, which makes a topic easier to understand. Obviously there are a great deal of pictures in Watchmen because it is a comic, but think about it if there were none. I think it would be much more difficult to understand what was happening and also the course of events. Although I do think that pictures do sometimes take away from the readers imagination, I think that they help out a great deal in understanding and also communicating ideas.

I thought that the third chapter was a bit confusing, but like I said pictures did help in understanding it as a whole. So far, I really like this novel. Even though I did think it was difficult to relate it to our readers, I do believe that I can learn from it.

Jameson….getting warmer

Halaloua!! I felt that Jameson’s piece was the easiest to understand so far. He was much more straight forward than other authors that we have read. I love that he doesn’t use big annoying words to dance around his one simple point. I think this is one of the main reasons that allowed me to actually understand this. Some of the other author’s words just got in the way, which lead to a lack of understanding what exactly they were trying to say. Props to Jameson!

I thought a lot of this article was very interesting, perhaps this was because it actually made some sense to me. I really like his whole section on “The Death of the Subject”. I especially liked his explanation of “dead individualism”. On page 1964 Jameson says “The great modernisms were, as we have said, predicted on the invention of a personal, private style, as unmistakable as your fingerprint, as incomparable as your own body. But this means that the modernist aesthetic is in some ways organically linked to the conception of a unique self and private identity, a unique personality and individuality, which can be expected to generate its own unique vision of the world and to forge its own unique, unmistakable style.” I thought that he hit the nail right on the head here. I feel that all authors want to have a sense of individualism in their works. It makes sense that it is linked to their own self identity and personality. I feel like an author should have a piece of themselves in their work in order to make in more real for their readers.

Jameson goes on to say in the next couple of paragraphs that indiviualism is basically dead and that it is now an “unspoken” thing or a thing of the past. He says that there are two positions on this theory. He says that the first is “content to say: yes, once upon a time, in the classic age of competitive capitalism, in the heyday of the nuclear family and the emergence of the bourgeoisie as the hegemonic social class, there was such a thing as individualism, as individual subjects……today, that older bourgeois individual subject no longer exists.” Jameson says that the second position is the more radical of the two. He says that “not only is the bourgeois individual subject a thing of the past, it is also a myth; it never really existed in the first place; there have never been autonomous subjects of that type.” Although I understood these points, I don’t nessaceraliy agree with them.

I don’t think that it is possible to write a piece of work and not have a piece of you attached to it. I’m going to try to explain what I mean by this without completely confusing all of you, so here goes. I understand that it is hard to write about something that someone else has not already written about, but I still believe that the piece can still be considered a part of “individualism”. Whenever I write something, whether it’s fiction or fact, I always realize that I’ve something or another about myself. Whether it’s an opinion or something else, a piece of me is there. I think it’s silly to say that individualism is a myth or a thing of the past. Although a piece may not be completely written “individually”, I still think that no matter what the subject, a piece of the writer can be found somewhere in it. 

Derrida

Just when I thought I had this whole lit crit theory thing down from the last reading, I read Derrida. After Wednesday’s class, I suddenly had this extra boost of confidence because I thought I understood so much of Saussure and then Derrida comes along. Through most of this reading I was so confused. I feel like he contradicts himself a lot in this piece. I’m not really sure what he means by a lot of the things he says, but I’m going to try to analyze this so here goes.

Okay, I thought the beginning of this wasn’t too bad. That is until he started talked about the whole “center” thing.  After talking about structure and the “center” Derrida says (p. 915) ”Thus it has always been thought that the center, which is by definition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which governs the structure which escaping structurality.” What!?! I honestly have no clue what he means here, I think he lost me at “Thus.” I think he is using way too many words here and he needs to just say what he means. Stumbling over words like structurality makes me frustrated and I lose interest in the piece, which is the reason why I don’t get sentences like these.

I feel like the whole example of Levi-Strauss went right over my head. Was it just me, or did this entire thing not make sense? If it did make sense, then what exactly was the point? I feel like I did understand it a bit more when Derrida gives a few key points on page 921, but it didn’t really help me understand the article as a whole. One thing I felt was interesting, but did not completely understand was also on page 921. Derrida says “Everything begins with the structure, the configuration, the relationship. The discourse on this acentric structure, the myth, that is, cannot itself have an absolute subject or absolute center. In order to not shortchange the form and the movement of the myth, that violence which consists in centering a language which is describing an acentric structure must be avoided.” If you think about this, it does make sense. I think what he means by this is that there cannot be a definite center or subject in a myth. It needs to be left open in order for others to understand it. Once it has an absolute center, then it is final and leaves no room for imagination for the reader.

Another point that I thought was very interesting was on page 925. Derrida says “Freeplay is always an interplay of absence and presence, but if it is to be radically conceived, freeplay must be conceived of before the alternative of presence and absence; being must be conceived of as presence or absence beginning with the possibility of freeplay and not the other way around.” It sounds like a lot here to comprehend, but I think I got some of it. I think what he is trying to say is that freeplay exists because there is an absence of something. The fact that it can exist must be recognized before it happens on order to avoid it or use it for good.

I feel like I had a better grasp on my previous point when it was in my head. When I try to explain things like this in my blogs or in class it just doesn’t come out right. I wish there were a device that allowed everyone to peak inside your head and just get what you’re trying to say. That would just make it so much easier! As for Derrida, I think that he is just using too many words in order to get his point across. I think if he used fewer words, then it would be easier to understand what he is actually trying to say.