A Semester in Theory

Blog Summation :-)

In retrospect, I have really enjoyed this semester of study in theory. And in practice as well. (lol) But seriously, it has been an illuminating experience, to say the least. As an undergrad, I received no background in Theory at all. OK, we read a bit of Stanley Fish in my Milton class. But that was really all. And at the time, it did not even occur to me that it was theory…ah, to be young and naïve again. So, I was understandably a bit nervous about this class, and concerned that I would be horribly behind my classmates. Luckily, though, we all had our moments of complete bewilderment, and I took comfort in that. I think my perspective as a theory ‘virgin’ had a noticeable effect on my blogs, though. I have decided to reflect on how I felt about the blogging for a page or so, then actually go back and look at them and contemplate further, just for a fun little exercise. So, from the beginning of this process, I have found myself reading the works assigned, highliter in hand, trying to find some little recognizable nugget to hold onto, kind of a way in, if you will, to incorporate each way of thinking.






This process is interesting to me. To digress a bit, I often wonder about the process of highlighting while reading. My theory book is a previously used copy (who could surrender such a collection of wisdom?) and I am drawn to the passages highlighted by the previous owner, only to wonder, after I read the whole passage myself, “why did they highlight that part? Didn’t they notice that the important part is a few sentences later?” Personally, I found my own behavior with regard to this to be curious, as well. I discovered that, over the course of the semester, I grew more and more dependant on the process of marking out my theoretical territory with pink and blue pens. Somehow, this process made it my own, I digested the reading in this manner. It became so ingrained, I could not do my reading for theory without a hilighter. And I really tried. My fingers just itched uncomfortably to draw attention to arguments I needed to come back to…or disagreed with…or found to be particularly resonant. I even developed a carefully organized method of highlighting, simetimes just putting parenthesis around something, sometimes block parenthesis [] like so to indicate further study, sometimes I would underline something with a highlighter, if it was leading up to something, and then big broad marks for a main point, particularly if it was one with which I agreed. (big pink exclamation points next to such passages are likely, as well.) I have not had this experience with any other kind of reading, certainly not to this degree. I wonder why that is…perhaps something to do with the complex, and, lets face it, rather alien nature of the material…
OK, digression over. So, there I am, highlighter in hand, looking for some crumb of the familiar to latch on to. This will certainly be reflected in my blogs. When I look back, I expect to find a lot of statements like “I liked” “I really agreed with” or “____ really resonated with me” These are the nuggets I found, the gratifying little morsels of theory that I could actually relate to. Then there were the other bits, the ones I expect to look back and see described as “interesting” in my posts. The interesting bits are the ones that challenged me, that made me examine my views that I took for granted, and revise, or re-assert why I believe what I do.
OK, I have now gone back and looked at all of my past Blogs. I have to say, tracing my ideas on theory they have not been as simple as I thought they would be. I did see a lot of “interesting” and “liked”, ad even more “hmmm”. (this is apparently what I say when I am still formulating, and have no words yet :-P ) I think I have changed my perspective on a lot of ideas, though, and I honestly did not expect to find that. For example, earlier in the semester, when we read Marx, I talked about how “comforting” I found the idea that there is something deeper being behind literature, like social code or ideology. Maybe this was a rebellion against new criticism, or temporary insanity, but now I can’t help but say to myself: “what the hell were you thinking?” My final weekly entry on Eagleton’s Marxist look at literature is just the opposite, discomfort and rebellion against saddling literature with such a prosaic and conformist agenda. It is disturbing. There is nothing comforting about it. What an idiot.
Now then, to be easier on myself, I also noticed a running theme concerned with the enjoyment and appreciation of literature and reading. The theorists I go on about and fawn over are those like Pater, Poulet, Baudelaire, and Fish, and I rebel most strongly against Freud, Bourdieu, Eagleton, even Corneille; the theorists that try to put limits on, or identify some sort of agenda for literature. There is no agenda for literature, for beauty. It simply is. It does not exist to impose order or social control, to work through collective castration anxiety, or any of that. I remain insistent, perhaps even more so than before, that art and literature exist for the pure pleasure and enjoyment, appreciation, if you will; or perhaps, to quote Pater one more time, “The critic should posess...the power of being deeply moved by the presence of beautiful objects …the service of philosophy, of speculative culture, toward the human spirit, is to rouse, to startle it to a life or constant and eager observation.”

Literature = the opiate of the masses?
OK, one last weekly blog. I am once again troubled by this week’s readings, and have been avoiding writing about it too long, so time to confront my fears. I am bothered by Eagleton’s assertions equating religion and literature, and even more troubled by the report that the undergraduate theory class found this to be a positive development. I guess I just don’t like to think of Literature having any kind of agenda, conscious or otherwise. It is inevitable, I suppose, that the political climate of the day will affect what people write. But using literature as a tool of social control, and worse, implying that it is a natural fit to derive political or social ideology from literature, is one against which I cannot help but rebel. I was discussing this with someone (Courtney?), and I remember she said something like “I can’t put my finger on it, but he’s just wrong.” I find myself agreeing. It is hard to identify a flaw in his logic, but I just cannot believe this. His writing seemed also to be deliberately inflammatory, insisting one moment that English Literature was a study ideally suited for women early in the discipline, since “English was an untaxing sort of affair…a convenient sort of non-subject”…and about the lower classes: “If the masses are not thrown a few novels, they may react by throwing up a few barricades”. Eagleton is not the first to make these assertions, indeed, he is documenting history, I am sure he would argue, but the manner in which he is doing so makes my brow furrow in disquiet. Damn you, Terry Eagleton, you’re just wrong. I don’t know how, but I know you are.
On a happier closing note, I really thought the Gloria Anzaldua article this week was great. The whole idea of being part of an excluded (or marginalized, if you will) part of society actually opening things up to make you part of a larger whole is a wonderfully deconstructive way of looking at binaries of social constructs. I found it to be so beautifully inclusive, it really made an impression on me. In fact, let’s close with a few words from Anzaldua:
“As a mestiza, I have no country, my homeland casts me out; yet all countries are mine because I am every woman’s sister or potential lover (As a lesbian I have no race, my own people disclaim me; but I am all races, because there is the queer of me in all races.) I am cultureless because, as a feminist, I challenge the collective cultural/religious male-derived beliefs of Indo Hispanics and Anglos, yet I am cultured because I am participating in the creation of yet another culture, a new story to explain the world and our participation in it, a new value system with images and symbols that connect us to each other in the planet.”

Merry Christmas Everyone!

Kiera Knightley as Elizabeth Bennett

female body

OK, here goes. I am deeply troubled by this week's readings, I guess they bring up things that I don't like to think about...like anorexia, and the ridiculous cultural standards in this country for women's bodies, and the idea that men and masculinity are the "norm" the "standard", and femeninity is, by definition, what masculinity is not...I just hate all of that crap. So, I am going to try to forget about all of that, and make some kind of insightful comment anyway...sigh!
I found it difficult to disagree with much of what Bordo asserts, which makes it more distressing. I do think the idea that the anorexic girl becomes more "male" as she loses weight is a little strange. Especially since just a few pages ago it was pointed out that the male ideal of beauty right now is bulky and muscular...so, if the anorexic is becoming male, she is therefore unsucessful at acheiving male beauty (which makes it even more depressing). OK, I don't have anything more to say about that right now. Except that, I wonder, on a slightly different note,
what to think of the Pride and Prejudice director's comment about Kiera Knightley being boyish, and therefore "un" beautiful enough to play Elizabeth Bennett. In light of the whole boyish/anorexic/female power thing...hmmm...and yet, her boyishness is what made her less attractive...hmmm.
Talking in class about drag queens and drag kings made me think a bit afterwards. It is interesting that men are more difficult to parody. I really don't want to agree with the justification that men are the "norm", or the standard, or whatever, so they have no obvious physical constructs to parody. It is odd, though, that the phenomenon of "drag kings" has not been as pervasive as that of queens. why is that? I guess the first thing that comes to my mind is the fact that most women wear mens, or at least gender ambiguous clothes often, but the same is not true for men. A discussion I had over the break comes to mind. A friend of mine from high school has two little boys, about the same age as my kids. She was expressing thanks that she had two kids of the same sex, so that they could share clothes, and I told her that I do that too, even though Bree is a girl, I often dress her in Matthew's old clothes. Then we had a laugh about what if it had been the other way around, we agreed that we would never dress a boy in girls clothes. Why not, though? Why do I see no problem with cross dressing my baby girl (and I put her in things that are obviously boyish) but agree that dressing a male infant in a pink sleeper, not to mention a dress, would be obviously deviant and downright unfathomable? Why is it such a big deal? Anyway, it made me wonder...is it because the boy clothes are not just for boys, but simply "normal" clothes? it makes womanhood seem so artificial...maybe Virginia had it right, we just all need to move toward androgyny.