Haraway

 

I feel really silly. I read the essays that were suppose to be for the next assignment and posted on them instead of Haraway. You could imagine my surprise when I realized this in class. I guess I’ll have to re-post now. Since we went over Haraway before I read it, I felt that I would have an advantage on the subject, but I was wrong again. I had a hard rime deciphering the whole piece and I just wound up getting frustrated with it. I can tell you right now, just by looking at this piece, I would not have understood any of it if we had not gone over it in class. All the talk about “cyborgs” had my head spinning. I decided to Wikipedia it. Wikipedia says that:“A cyborg is a cybernetic organism (i.e. an organism that is “steered” using biofeedback). The term was coined in 1960 when Manfred Clynes and Nathan Kline used it to describe a self-regulating human-machine system in outer space.^[1] Ever since then, it has been a creature that complicates traditional boundaries between mind (or spirit) and matter: D. S. Halacy’s Cyborg: Evolution of the Superman in 1965 featured an introduction by Manfred Clynes, who wrote of a “new frontier” that was “not merely space, but more profoundly the relationship between ‘inner space’ to ‘outer space’ -a bridge…between mind and matter.”^[2] The cyborg is often seen today merely as an organism that has enhanced abilities due to technology,^[3] but this perhaps oversimplifies the category of feedback. Fictional cyborgs are portrayed as a synthesis of organic and synthetic parts, and frequently pose the question of difference between human and machine as one concerned with morality, free will, and emphathy. Fictional cyborgs may be represented as visibly mechanical (e.g. the Borg in the Star Trek franchise or the Cylons from the 1978 TV series, Battlestar Galactica); or as almost indistinguishable from humans (e.g. the Cylons from the re-imagining of Battlestar Galactica). These fictional portrayals often register our society’s discomfort with its seemingly increasing reliance upon technology, particularly when used for war, and when used in ways that seem to threaten free will. Real cyborgs are more frequently people who use cybernetic technology to repair or overcome the physical and mental constraints of their bodies.”

Ok, so now that I understand what that is, maybe I can figure out some of what she is saying. On page 2269 Haraway writes: Contemporary science fiction is full of cyborgs-creatures simultaneously animal and machine, who populate worlds ambiguously natural and crafted.” She goes on to talk about modern medicine as being full of cyborgs as well as sex and how “cyborg replication is uncoupled from organic reproduction.” I thought about these few short sentences and I think they kind of make some sense to me. Now that I know what a cyborg is, I can pick them out in things I see in my everyday life. Take the movie The Terminator (1984). The whole time I was reading this; this is what I was thinking of. Is there really machine type people walking around today? I just think that would be insane, but then I realized it’s not exactly impossible. They create mechanical limbs for people who lost them. Like Annie had mentioned in class, there are machines that keep people alive today, so I thought it’s not that bizarre to think of our society having Terminators walking around, although I think that would cause some other problems.

On page 2272 Haraway says: “basically machines were not self-moving, self-designing, autonomous. They could not achieve man’s dream, only mock it. They were not man, an author to himself, but only a caricature of that masculinist reproductive dream. To think they were otherwise was paranoid. Now we are not so sure.” I think that she is right here. I believe that someday, maybe next week, maybe even years from now, that machine will take over. No, I’m not talking about it in “Terminator terms.” What I mean is that I think that machines will basically run our world and there will really be no use for humans. If you think back to pre-machine time, there was no need for them. Hell, the Egyptians build the pyramids with out a mechanical machine. They used good old wheel barrels and their hands. Before cars, people use to walk, before hospitals, people used to fix themselves, before ovens there was fire. The list just goes on and on. I really think that people are just lazy nowadays. We truly don’t need machines, but I don’t think that they will ever go away. I think that they were first meant for entertainment and to make life easier, but I think that we have gone a bit over board in the past decade or so. I mean come one, I just heard on the news that cell phones are killing all of the bumble bees in the world. Einstein predicted that it all the bumble bees die, then the world dies in about 4 years. So, maybe the whole terminator thing isn’t exactly that crazy. Maybe machines will destroy our world, but just in a different way, and we won’t even know it until it happens.

Baudrillard

I apologize for this being late!! Ok, so did anyone understand Jean Baudrillard at all? I actually thought that this piece was up there with the really difficult ones. I read a few other posts and I see that I’m not the only one. I really could not tell his stand point on entertainment. I couldn’t tell if he liked it or not?? He did bash a few things and then it seemed like he liked a few others. I’m going to have to bring this one up on Wednesday.

 

Although I really didn’t fully understand this piece, I did find a few things that were interesting. On page 1732 Baudrillard says “Abstraction today is no longer that of the map, the double, the mirror or the concept. Simulation is no longer that of a territory, a referential being or a substance. It is the generation by models of a real without origin or reality: a hyperreal.” When I first read this, I was so confused. I had to Wikipedia. Wikipedia says that: 

“In semiotics and postmodern philosophy, the term hyperreality characterizes the inability of consciousness to distinguish reality from fantasy, especially in technologically advanced postmodern cultures. Hyperreality is a means of characterizing the way consciousness defines what is actually “real” in a world where a multitude of media can radically shape and filter the original event or experience being depicted. Some famous theorists of hyperreality include Jean Baudrillard, Albert Borgmann, Daniel Boorstin, and Umberto Eco.” So, according to the definition of “hyperreal,” Baudrillard is saying that abstraction cannot be defined. It is hard to distinguish abstraction from reality and fantasy. It has no “map” or “mirror” to help you figure out what exactly it means. I think that he is trying to say that abstraction’s “value” or what you get from it all depends on the individual and what they think. There is no set idea or concept on what it should be or should not be.

Another thing that I found interesting was on page 1736. Baudrillard says “When the real is no longer what it used to be, nostalgia assumes its full meaning.” I think that he means that when something is no longer “real” or does not have a definition or no longer exists, then it is nostalgia (or remembering) that takes its place.

 

I think I pretty much got lost when he started talking about religion. I really have no clue what he means?? I’ll have to bring this one up in class as well.

Horkeimer and Adorno

Ok, so after working on the theory carnival assignment for God know how long, my brain is a bit fried. Please bare with me through this blog post! So, I thought that Horkeimer and Adorno’s piece was interesting. I thought that they made a lot of good points, although, I didn’t fully understand it.

On page 1226 they say that “the whole world is made to pass through the filter of the culture industry. The old experience of the movie-goer, who sees the world outside as an extension of the film he has just left (because the latter is intent upon reproducing the world of everyday perceptions), is now the producer’s guidelines.” I thought this was very interesting, but true. If you think about it, we do see everything through a filter. Everything we do or even say is censored and we are basically taught to deal with it. I took a Media Ethics class and it explained all of this. We are basically told what to see, we don’t really have a choice. The “higher ups” decide this according to our culture, as well as what they think the people can “handle.” It’s all about guidelines today and what they think is right or wrong to show. I do feel that it is kind of taking away our personal freedoms, but, in the end, we can’t control it.

On page 1236 it says “in the culture industry the individual is an illusion not merely because of the standardized of the means of production. He is tolerated only so long as his complete identification with the generality is unquestioned.” I had a problem with this sentence. This didn’t really make sense to me. What I think this means is that an individual really doesn’t exist in the means of production and that “his” complete identity is based on what everyone else’s is within the company. So, if this is true, then does it mean that no one has his or her own identity if they work for a company? This whole thing make me think of Jameson’s Death of a subject section where the individual does not exist. If I remember clearly, Jameson talked about an individual as a myth and that it never can exist becasue there is always someone else that has done whatever you are trying to do before you. I might just be streching this, but I think that he would agree with this sentence, at least in the sense of the individual not exisiting.

To me, it seemed like Horkeimer and Adorno just did not like the movies. I couldn’t really even imagine someone hating the movies since it is such a huge part of our culture today. I don’t think I’ve ever met anyone who said they hate going to the movies, since it is suppose to be relaxing and time off from the real world. I just feel that they are a source of entertainment and nothing more. Yes, some do serve as symbols or even have subliminal messages, but I think that everyone has their own mind and will think what they want to think. I think that books serve as the same type of thing. It’s all basically for either educational or entertainment purposes, so why bash it? It’s basically just one more thing that we do have to keep us sane in this world!

Margaret Cho

Before I even started watching “I’m the One that I Want,” I had to do some research on who she actually was since I had no idea. I “googled” her and found that she had her own website, http://www.margaretcho.com/, which did have a lot of interesting things in it. I found an entire bio on her, as well as reviews on her work. I thought that she was a very interesting person, so I knew this movie would be good.

I just have to say that I really could not stop laughing through this whole thing. I liked how she talked about “sensitive” or “serious” subjects and made it funny so that everyone could understand. The one thing that I noticed and that was quite prominent in this film was her mentioning of homosexuals and homosexuality. I thought that, yes a bit weird at times, but this was very entertaining. The part about her liking gay men in gay porn was interesting. I was watching a documentary one time about gay porn and how not all the men that perform in them are gay. It is, in a way, a stereotype for others to think that they are. It just made me think about Butler and Monday’s class. Butler’s whole idea of “drag” as a mask for gender or actually an expression of gender can be connected to the whole gay porn thing. Since not all of the males are gay, it is like they are pretending or “covering” their true gender identity, which is basically what we discussed in class.

I thought that it was very interesting how she said it was much easier for women to talk to gay men than straight men. I thought for a moment and the only reason that I could think of was maybe it is because gay men are more like women? Yes, this is again a stereotype, but going back to Butler, we are suppose to act a certain way with our genders. So, if this is true, then what about men who are not gay and are easy to talk to? They do exist, trust me on this one girls! So, if being a “good” listener is a female quality and some males have it, then does this mean that they are straying from their gender identity?

I thought that Margaret Cho was absolutely hilarious. I really did not expect this to come from this movie. I think that this was definitely the best assignment yet. I’m glad we had the chance to view it and I’m so happy that my Theory Carnival group is able to use it! It should be interesting to connect her to Butler and Foucault because she is obviously the funniest of them all. I think that it will make our project entertaining!

Butler

Ok, so after reading Judith Butler’s From Gender Trouble, I have to admit that I am a bit confused. I honestly thought that it was going to be a simple read, but I was wrong again. I feel like she, in a way, dances around her point that she wants to make. Although I didn’t fully understand what she was saying here, I did fins a few things that were interesting to me.

On page 2489 Butler writes that “serious as the medicalization of women’s bodies is, the term is also laughable, and laughter in the face of serious categories is indispensable for feminism.” I really have no idea what this means, but I’m going to give it a shot. I think what she is trying to say is that as important as women are to our society or as “important” as their actual bodies are (because they can give birth), they are not really taken that serious in the eyes of others. Feminism is laughed off or ridiculed because women are not suppose to have strong view points or ideas. I think that our society is stuck in the “back then” point of view where women are only allowed to cook and clean and stay home and take care of the children. God forbid if they have a mind!

Ok, so another thing that I found interesting was on page 2490 she says “categories of true sex, discrete gander, and specific sexuality have constituted the stable point of reference for a great deal of feminist theory and politics. These constructs of identity serve as the points of epistemic departure from which theory emerges and politics itself is shaped.” I thought that she made a very good point here. If you think about it, she is right. These “identities” as she calls them are truly what shapes are world today. Think about the whole Bush and gay marriage subject. Obviously, because of his religion, Bush does not want gay people to get married. But why? I think that it is not only because of the religion aspect, but it is because of the sex issues that go along with this subject. In reality, everyone should be able to do as they please because this is supposed to be a “free” country, right? But, because it is not “sexually right,” gay people are not allowed to marry in New York. I think that it is completely ridiculous. We are all human!! I think that Bush is basically afraid of that naming or defining him as the “president that let gays get married.” I honestly don’t think that it is based on religion.

Ok, so after reading this, I still have a few questions. They probably won’t be answered, but it’s worth a shot. I still don’t understand why sex has to shape our society as Butler says. Why is it so important? I know it’s a hard question to answer and it probably won’t ever have an answer, but it’s just so confusing to me?