Final Presentation

 

For our final group presentation my group and I decided to focus on the movie White Chicks. In this movie, two black cops decide to go undercover as white women to try to solve a kidnapping case. We looked at a few clips and we realized that we could apply a few different theorists and their ideas to parts of the movie and well as the movie as a whole. The clip that I chose to interpret is called “This is Our Jam.” In this clip you will see that the two cops are riding in a car with three of their new girl friends. The driver of the car is switching the radio stations and stops on a song entitled “A Thousand Miles” by Vanessa Carlton. The girls get excited and the driver says “this is our song!” It is then that all of the girls start to sing along to the song, dancing and motioning to the words. All of them recognize it and know every word very well. The two cops do not know it and try to pretend to sing along until one of the girls tell them to “take it” meaning for them to sing a part of the song solo. The cops try, but the girls are surprised that they do not know the words and roll their eyes in disgust since it is typically a “girl song” and they should know the words. The driver gets fed up with their lack of knowledge of an obvious song that a girl should know and decided to change the station. The next song that comes on is called “Get Low” by the Ying Yang Twins. This song is typically a “male song” and of course, since the cops are undercover females, they do know the song and start singing and dancing as the girls look at them is disbelief. I thought that this clip related to Judith Butler and her idea of gender performativity vs. its expression.

Butler’s goal is to try to “uncover the assumptions that ‘restrict the meaning of gender to received notions of masculinity and femininity’” (Norton Anthology 2485). Butler says “Hence, as a strategy of survival within compulsory systems, gender is a performance with clearly punitive consequences. Discrete genders are part of what “humanizes” individuals within contemporary culture; indeed we regularly punish those who fail to do their gender right. Because there is neither an “essence” that gender expresses or externalizes nor an objective ideal to which gender aspires, and because gender is not a fact, the various acts of gender create the idea of gender, and without those acts, there would be no gender at all” (Norton Anthology 2500). In other words, Butler is basically saying that in order to perform gender appropriately, one must perform sexuality appropriately. She is also saying that having a gender “humanizes” a person and if they do not act in the certain way that their gender is suppose to, then they may be punished for it. Because gender is “not a fact” and has not definition, the ways in which a person acts or performs their gender makes gender exist. Butler also says “that gender reality is created through sustained social performances means that the very notions of an essential sex and a true or abiding masculinity or femininity are also constituted as part of the strategy that conceals gender’s performative character and the performative possibilities for proliferating gender configurations outside the restricting frames of masculinist domination and compulsory heterosexuality” (Norton Anthology 2501). This means that gender is created by “sustained social performances” which determines if a person is masculine or feminine and if they are performing their “gender duty” depending on their sex. Butler basically believes that gender in society is a constant show and that in order to fit in, one must perform the correct way.

The “This is Our Jam” clip can be explained in Butler’s terms. The girls in the car are performing their correct gender role. They are singing along to a “girl song” and know all of the words. They are dancing and motioning to each word and expressing themselves in what one would call a “feminine” manner. The two cops, since they are males, do not know the “girl song” lyrics, which would normally be considered okay because males would not know the words to a song that is more likely to attract female fans. Since they are males dressed up like females, the girls in the car expect them to know the lyrics. When the girls realize that the cops are obviously oblivious to the lyrics, the girls roll their eyes and turn the station. This could be seen as a form of out casting the cops, or punishing them for not knowing the lyrics, which defies their gender role. When the driver of the car switches the station and a “male song” comes on, the two cops do know the words and excitedly start to sing along as the girls look at them oddly. The girls recognize it is unusual for a “female” to get excited about a male song and also for a “female” to know the lyrics to a male song and not a female song. The girls rolling their eyes and giving them a dirty look again is a way “punish” the cops because they are straying from their typical female gender norm.

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?

A quick question…..

Does anyone know how to set the date on this thing? I just realized that all of my posts are dated a day ahead of when I actually posted them. For example, I just posted one today which is 3-29, but it says that it was posted 3-30. It’s the same for all of these which makes it look like I was a day late when posting every single one of these posts. This was not the case!! I was always on time and I don’t know how to fix this!! Ok, I’m done venting, can anyone help? Thanks!!

-Cara

The English Department Symposium in connection to Jameson

Relating a theorist to our English Department Symposium was not easy. I attended Hollis Seamon’s section in which students read pieces of their short stories or micros that they had created for the class. I also am a student of this Writing Fiction class and I also read a portion of one of my stories. I was looking through all of the theorists that we have studies so far and I realized that I had no clue on how to relate anything they had said to students reading pieces of their stories. I found a few things that I thought might work so I’m just going to wing it so here goes. I was looking back through my notes and I remember reading Jameson’s individual/aesthetic part of his piece. I actually had forgotten what exactly “aesthetic” had meant, so of course I had to “Google” it. Wikipedia says that aesthetic is “a branch of philosophy called value theory or axiology, which is the study of sensoryor sensori-emotional values, sometimes called judgments of sentiment and taste. Aesthetics is closely associated with the philosophy of art.” I read a little bit further and found that there was something called The Aesthetic movement. The Aesthetic movement “is a loosely defined movement in art and literature in later nineteenth-century Britain. Generally speaking, it represents the same tendencies that Symbolism or Decadence stood for in France, and may be considered the British branch of the same movement. It belongs to the anti-Victorian reaction and had post-Romantic roots. It took place in the late Victorian period from around 1868 to 1901, and is generally considered to have ended with the trial of Oscar Wilde. I thought that this was extremely interesting and I thought that I could try to relate this movement to Jameson, as well as the readers at the symposium.

 I read a bit more on this and I found that the artists and writers of the Aesthetic movement “tended to hold that the Arts should provide refined sensuous pleasure, rather than convey moral or sentimental messages.” Thinking about this statement, I realized that the students today were doing the same thing. Yes, they were reading stories that were mandatory to complete the class, but they all volunteered to read them aloud to others. In a sense, they were all getting some type of pleasure from sharing them with other people, I know because I did this. Reading a story that you yourself have written and having images and thoughts that were once in your mind conveyed to others is an amazing feeling. Of course you are nervous once you get up in front of a room full of people, but it is the aftermath that is truly worth while. Just seeing the looks of satisfaction on people’s faces and knowing that you shared a piece of yourself with them is the real pleasure. Wikipedia also said that “the main characteristics of the movement were: suggestion rather than statement, sensuality, massive use of symbols, and synaesthetic effects—that is, correspondence between words, colors and music.” I realized that this is exactly what the students had done. They had used so many different techniques and each of their stories were different from the others. They all have used different symbols in their stories ranging from an apple to a smile. The flow of the stories almost seemed musical, and certainly full of colorful images and descriptions. All of these stories were created in order to get the pleasure of reading them, which is exactly what The Aesthetic Movement was all about.

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 figured that this statement can also be related to the students that read today. If you think about it, all of the students today were obviously individuals and it was prominent in the stories that they had read. No two stories were a like and each had their own unique sense of self that was portrayed throughout them. They all have unique personalities and their own personal styles that showed through their readings. From a homeless woman sitting on a bus to a crazed man slaughtering innocent victims, each of these students clearly showed their own identity through their story. It is their imaginations and their different techniques of each story that makes them individuals. Whether their stories were factual or not, each of them did have an “unmistakable style” that could clearly be seen.

Now that I’ve explained the “easy part” (in a sense) of this theory, it’s time for the “so what?” Honestly, I really have no idea about this part. I guess what it really all comes down to is the fact that each of these students were brave enough to read these pieces. In doing this, thoughts and emotions that were held inside their minds were aloud to break free, in a sense, as they were shared with others. I personally think that this is one of the key points in literature. What is the point of writing something, whether it is something small and “insignificant” or a something that some would call a masterpiece if it is not shared with others? It is the sharing and conveying of writings that truly makes them valuable. By valuable I do not mean in a money sense. What I mean is valuable in a sense that this information that is shared could possibly change or even corrupt the views and thoughts of others. It could possibly go either way, but no matter what, when you read something, it will definitely make you think about it; even it is for a brief moment after. I think that this is what theory is really all about. Sharing different views with others and then picking them apart brings people closer together. Not to sound like a flower child or anything, but I do believe that English, as well as writings of any kind can do this. It is truly the individualism and originality of each of the reading that were performed today that bonds these students. It doesn’t matter how different each of their stories were. It is the recognition of their individuality that connects them to Jameson’s theory. They all had a common purpose to be there today, which was to share and hopefully aloud others to reflect on their works. After all, this is truly what literature is all about.

Foucault

Back to the old drawing board! I thought that Foucault’s piece was very interesting. When I first started reading it, I was a bit confused. I had to read it twice to actually understand some of things that were said in here. After doing this, I realized that this was not the hard to comprehend. Maybe this was because it was a slightly more interesting and attention grabbing subject? Either way, I’m happy that I at least understood a few things here.

On page 1648 Foucault says: “…but more important was the multiplication of discourses concerning sex in the field of exercise of power itself: an institutional incitement to speak about it, and to do so more and more; a determination on the part of the agencies of power to hear it spoken about, and to cause it to speak through explicit articulation and endlessly accumulated detail.” There is a lot to digest in these few sentences above. What I think Foucault is trying to say here is that sex and anything spoken about it is mostly about power. Even controlling when it is spoken about, who speaks about it and actually who performs it is an act of power. Who has more power over who depends on the subject that is being debated and who has the upper hand on controlling it.

Foucault says on page 1653 that “it had long been asserted that a country had to be populated if it hoped to be rich and powerful; but this was the first time that a society had affirmed, in a constant way, that its future and its fortune were tied not only to the number and the uprightness of it citizens, to their marriage rules and family organizations, but to the manner in which each individual made use of his sex.” Again, this all goes back to “power” and who holds it. This made me think of society today. I think that sex holds a lot of power today. If you think about it, everything is about sex nowadays. Our society tends to be a bit more promiscuous that is was “back then.” It seems like it is not the person who holds the power of sex, it is sex that holds the power itself. Yes, people do make their own decisions on what to do with their lives, but I believe that sex is defiantly one of the factors that leads people to choose certain decisions in their lives.

I really liked his ending sentence. Foucault says that “never have there existed more canters of power; never more attention manifested and verbalized; never more circular contacts and linkages; never more sites where the intensity of pleasures and the persistency of power catch hold, only to spread elsewhere” (1666). I thought that this was a very strong sentence to end with. I liked how he basically summed up everything that he had just said and it makes more sense to me if you read it like this. I think that he is right. Sex=power, especially today. Along with money, it is basically the “controller” of our world today. I think it is everyone’s personal choice on if they let it control their lives, or if they control them themselves.

The end of Disgrace

I have to say that I really enjoyed reading this novel. I think that I like this one the best so far. I really like that fact that David changed so much. I thought it was nearly impossible for such a sex crazed man to actually have feelings about something or someone that did not involve him gaining something from it. I think we started to see that he actually cared about someone other than himself when Lucy told him she was raped. He was actually more upset over it than she was. I personally would think that the victim would be more upset, but I think that David was because he realized that it is his daughter that was raped, not some prostitute that he “visits.” I think that because it was his daughter that was raped, he felt like he need revenge, which is why he turned his ways around.

There’s no surprise that Lucy was pregnant. I kind of figured it out from the last section that we read. Plus, Lucy and David also had a chat about pregnancy and women giving birth on page 63. David basically describes it as a gift, which is true. I think that Lucy deciding to keep it surprised David so much because it was a product of rape. I don’t think that Lucy sees it this way. I think that she too sees it as a gift, a life and this is why she decides to keep it instead of aborting it. I think that David, although he does not understand this at first, understands this later on when they start to develop a relationship.

One thing that I found kind of odd was the fact that Lucy herself did not want revenge for her rape. I think that because she is a lesbian, in a way, she “expects” this from a male. I think that this is why she doesn’t even care what Pollux, the man who raped her, does. Even when he’s sort of creeping around her and playing “peeping Tom,” I think that she just doesn’t care because he is a male.

Although I do think that David has changed in some ways, I do believe that a lot of the “old David” is still present. We can see this when he goes to stay with Melanie’s family. He wants her younger sister!! Come on now!! How low can this guy get? I just don’t get him!! Even after he returns, I still think that, although he cares about Lucy and kind of starts to act like a father, he still is the same person inside.

I am a bit confused about the ending though. Is Lucy going to actually allow Petrus to marry her? I wasn’t exactly sure about that part. I kind of wish that there was a book two or something to this novel. I am curious to know what will happen to theses characters. My guess would be that David, no matter how much he wants to change, will not change. As for the relationship between him and Lucy, I’m not exactly sure? What can you say to your sex-crazed father that hasn’t been around for almost your whole life? Can there really be a relationship here? I just don’t know?