Holder of the World

I've been reading the other blogs to get an idea of what to write and have noticed that a lot of them focus on space and time and value. There is another important theme in this book, however, which is the relationship between the signified and the signifier. The book mentions the english alphabet many times in the story - people being branded with letters, letters being carved to represent certain things - sinner, adulterer, etc. But we discussed in class that it is not only the letters that are carrying multiple meanings, but Hannah herself. She begins as a widows daughter in the forest, and then (after her mother's death) turns into a poor orphan child. She grows up to be a strange maiden who is hidden away in the house but then is taken as Legge's wife and shipped of to England. From American to English, she has already experienced so many different changes to what her name signifies. While in India it changes even drastically. From Legge's wife, to a pirates wife, to a pirates widdow, and then finally to the Salem Bibi, Hannah undergoes so many changes that I'm sure her head must have been spinning. And all of these signifieds (here comes the connection!) are a product of space and time. There is a quote in the book that says:
"In other words, at the age of thirty, Hanna was a pure product of her time and place, her marriage and her training, exposed to a range of experience that would be extreme even in today's world, but none of it, consciously, had sunk in or affected her outer behavior."
This was before she became Salem Bibi, but the author is saying that, no matter how many times her signified changed, she was always the same signifier - Hannah - on the outside. Now, when that signifier changed to Salem Bibi, she allowed that outer behavior to change as well because she was no longer tied down to White Town or Gabriel or the New Salem - she was a new person in a new space.

Tactics & Strategies

Last night I watched Slumdog Millionaire for the first time.

First of all, I just have to say that I finally realized why it won so many awards - great movie! Now, I think it's pretty clear from the get go that Jamal's main strategy for entering Who Wants to be a Millionaire isn't the money. In fact, Who Wants to be a Millionaire is a mere tactic for his main strategy: finding Latika:

Ever since Jamal loses Latika for the first time, his strategy always is to get her back. First he gets a job back where they lost her in the first place and tracks her down in a bad part of town. His tactic is to find one of the beggars that he used to run with as a child and to have him lead Jamal to Latika. After they escape, Latika disappears again, this time with his brother Salim. Now Jamal's tactic is to track Salim down with help from his telephone company, somehow hoping to find Latika with his brother as well.

Salim has a different strategy, however: Money.

Salim will do whatever tactic it takes to accomplish his goal of gaining money: murder, theft, abduction. Two brothers with two entirely different strategies, both with their own tactics, and only one outcome: Jamal and Latika.

Overall, there are tactics and strategies almost anywhere you look, this movie was only one great example of them.

Spaces

All of this time and I still haven't found an awe-inspiring connection with spaces in my life. In her book, Juffer brings in this quote from Doreen Massey:

Instead, then, of thinking of places as areas with boundaries around, they can be imagined as articulated moments in networks of social relations and understandings, but where a large proportion of those relations, experiences, and understandings are constructed on a far larger scale than what we happen to define for that moment as the place itself, whether that be a street, or a region, or even continent. And this in turn allows a sense of place which is extroverted, which includes a consciousness of its links with the wider world, which integrates in a positive way the global and the local.

I like that Massey uses the word 'moment' because I find it so much more fitting than 'place' when talking about spaces. I started to think of my 'space' here on St. Ben's and then started to think of a "Bennie" in general. Why is it that so many people are proud to call themselves a Bennie if it just represents a college? This space that we exist in is more than just ... a physical space. The College of Saint Benedict, in logical terms, is an institution. A collection of buildings - made of cement, stone, wood, etc - inhabited by us students.

But a space, in Juffer's terms, is not entirely logical. Like Klein would say, it's the differences that construct the space. That is what makes a Benny proud of their name - differences. Our 'second campus' - St. John's - is part of that difference. Although someone from St. Ben's may rightfully feel like a part of St. John's, it's still different. St. Ben's is where they sleep, where they 'live', where they first met some of their closest friends. Those tiny differences help to make up their own "sphere" of what it means to be a Benny. Maybe it's the fact that they're proud of being "different", aka rivals, than St. Thomas. Or maybe their being different by being the first generation in their family to go to college.

Whatever it is, there are different spheres that connect to form the 'space' of being a Benny, different...differences... that either bring people together, or leave others to their own spaces. To each his or her own little moment in time that is constantly changing as the world constantly becomes different.

Gilmore Girls

Today in class we were talking about the different examples of single parents in the media. We touched on Full House and Mama Mia but we didn't talk about one of the most obvious examples of a single mother surviving in today's society: Gilmore Girls.

Lorelai Gilmore and her daughter Rory have a slightly unrealistic relationship for most of the show - not all mothers and daughters get along that well - but I feel that Lorelai depicts the 'ideal' single mom.

Unlike some of the media mothers who recieve an enormous ammount of money that assists them in raising their children, Lorelai works her way to the top of the totem pole. She starts off as the maid of a hotel that she will spend the majority of her Rory's early years working at. She's able to save up enough to buy a house and becomes the manager of that very hotel she had been cleaning in the beginning. This is a much more realistic (although not always attainable) goal for single mothers today who don't recieve the majority of someone's money in their will. Gilmore Girls does a good job of showing the organizing that Juffer talks about in Single Mother. Although she does receive help from her extremely rich parents with Rory's schooling, she still insists on being self sufficient with her home and her bills.

Another thing we talked about in class was the support of a community. Lorelai and Rory have exactly that. Stars Hollow is a very small town and they have all known - and helped raise - Rory since birth. With their help, Lorelai is able to balance being a mom and also being able to have relationships (there are a few men on the show that become steady boyfriends).

Overall, Loralei is a self sufficient, independant woman who, with the help of her community, has figured out the juggling act of being a single mom. I think Jane Juffer would be proud.

Not So Innocent

I can't believe I'm actually writing about this, but my inspiration for this blog actually came from yesterday's episode of Gossip Girl. In it, the students are doing the play "The Age of Innocence" which is based on the novel by Edith Wharton. Now, just as some quick background information, "The Age of Innocence" is based on New York's rich society in the 1800's. Gossip Girl is based on today's rich society of New York. Anyways, "The Age of Innocence" is full of scandal and...of course...gossip. So, while the students are performing, there is drama of their own going on back scene. To make the story short, drama erupts on the stage and the students end up taking their frustrations out on eachother while still in the spotlight. Now, one of the known critics in the audience comes up to the director after the play and says: "I loved it." He states that the juxtaposition of the kids' drama onto the play's drama was perfect and that the deconstruction of the second scene was brilliant. Now, I've been trying to figure out just exactly how the kids' explosion of teenage angst was in fact the deconstruction of "The Age of Innocence" and I've come to the conclusion that the critic in the play didn't have a clue either. A modern representation of the rich 1800's society may make it more relatable to the teen audience, but, if I've grasped at least a little of deconstruction, which I hope I have, that doesn't succeed in deconstructing the text. I was trying to come up with binary oppositions for "The Age of Innocence" and please tell me if these are wrong.
Rich Poor
Scandalous Proper
Betrayal Loyalty
Secrets Openness (?)
Fake Real

Now, if we look at "The Age of Innocence" vs. Gossip Girl we get this:
Rich Rich
Scandalous Scandalous
Betrayal Betrayal
Secrets Secrets
Fake Fake

Hmm... not very good oppositions. The problem I do see, however, is that in these binary oppositions the rich are always associated with scandal, betrayal, and dangerous secrets while the poor get off as always being the good, loyal, and proper people. However, rich is seen as "postive" in today's world while poor would be "negative." This seems a little messed up to me. In both Gossip Girl and "The Age of Innocence" the rich society is all about putting up a front of being everything they're portrayed as not being (loyal, proper, honest, ect.). And this is where I get stuck. Apparently this front the rich are putting on in both 'texts' is exactly how the poor are portrayed. Like we said with the J-Lo song: the rich are "protesting" a little to much how good of people they are. But what's lacking then? A conscious? The ability to think of others besides just themselves? I think perhaps it's an absense of reality. They put up a front in the story because they're actors, they're above the "real world" that the poor are experiencing every day.

I hope that that made some sense...please comment on this because I think I changed my mind about 10 times when writing this!

No Free Will

It took me awhile to connect what we were talking about with the unconscious in class to anything. But I started thinking about the definition of the unconscious and was reminded of a unit that we went over in my philosophy class last sememster. We discussed how, if the unconscious has its own logic, then who's to say that it isn't controlling our decision making? Choosing to eat american cheese over swiss may seem like a simple decision, but isn't it possible that everything we do is determined by past experiences and the impact that has on our unconscious? Is it possible that, if our unconscious does have its own logic, we have no free will? Repressed memories and feelings from experiences in the past that are in our unconscious could be governing everything we do, whether we think it's a conscious decision or not.
Being determined is a scary thought, but if you think about it, every action has a reaction, even if that reaction is formed by our unconscious. Where do our likes and dislikes come from? We don't determine them ourselves when we're born. We can't tell ourselves that rap music is our soul music when in fact it makes us want to kill ourselves. Is there a gene that determines whether or not we like rap music? Not one that I've heard of so far.
So where does this come from? If not our conscious, and not our genealogy, isn't it possible that it is part of our unconsciousness's logic? I'm not sure if we'll ever know, but it seems like a good enough explanation to me! We don't consciously remember every single thing that's happened to us during our life time - it's not all in our working memory. But maybe it's still in our unconcsious. Choosing to go to St. Ben's, although I'm still not sure what the deciding factor was, could have been because of other choices I've made in the past and the effect that they had on me. Even if I didn't think about that when making my college choice, perhaps my unconscious was for me. Kind of scary, huh? Thinking that a different part of us is determining what choices we'll make in the future?

Just something to think about...

Significantly Different Signifieds

This is one of the most infamous referents in history:

Looks a little different, though, doesn't it? I'm sure that that didn't stop you from immediately thinking of the Nazi Swastika. The evil event that the swastika represents will be forever associated with it.

I was thinking about signifiers and signified and a video that I watched in middle school during our Holocaust period came into my mind. With a little help from Wikipedia I was able to find out a little more about the symbol before the Holocaust.

Before Hitler corrupted it and turned it into what we understand the swastika to be today, it was part of many religions. In the Buddhist religion, the swastika was a sign of love and harmony. In Hinduism, it stood for the creation of the universe. Some celtic religions also used it as a symbol for the sun god and used it for their coat of arms in prestigious families. It's amazing how an image that was once considered so lucky and peaceful has, through one man, become a symbol of hurt and evil. It's the same referent, the same signifier, just a different signified. Society has the power to change a signified just by associating it with something strong and powerful. Whether it's making a rainbow mean God's covenant or turning a pumpkin with a face in it into a national symbol of Halloween. Either way, a pumpkin is just a pumpkin. Or is it?

Demistifying the Wizzard

So I was a little confused with Ideology at first, but I think that it finally clicked for me. If it didn't, and my example is completely wrong, then someone PLEASE tell me!
I was pondering what Steve said about an author being the diamond/pearl in Marx's excerpt of Capital. It's true that we do make the author into this valuable, almost royal, person who magically produces wondrous works of literature. When we first started to read about how an author shouldn't matter, I really did have to take a step back and consider that.
Anyways, back to diamonds and pearls. Marx says that there is no natural value in these things, but that we create an exchange-value for them. Even now I sit here and think about what used to be considered worthy as being used as exchange: shells, beaver pelts, linen, gold. They have nothing in common, nothing that's built into them. It's all about what we establish as being "valuable."
Now, there's no telling how this brought me to my next conclusion but Marx's idea of commodity and value suddenly had me thinking of the Wizard of Oz. That's right, good 'ol "lions and tigers and bears, oh my!" Almost the entire movie is spent seeking out the great and powerful wizard (aka the diamond, the pearl, the gold): This 'wizard' is basically the 'author' of the whole entire Emerald City. The citizens have made him into this valuable source of knowledge and magic. But of course we all know what happens next...he turns out to be this guy:

Oops...
The point is, just like a diamond, the 'great and powerful wizard' isn't born with this incredible power and value. Society gave him his importance and value over others. Does any of the ring a bell? With the word...author, perhaps? I guess what I'm trying to say is 'great and powerful wizard' = author. Their value is created, but if you look past that ideology, you can see that they really don't hold any special value over the rest of us.

It's All in the Timing

So our topic in class this week was Readers & Subjects. Last week we focused on whether or not the author really mattered, and this week the spotlight was aimed at the reader. If the author doesn't determine the meaning of his work, who does? Certainly not the reader. If the reader created the meaning on their own, we would never know who was right or wrong.
On Thursday we focused a lot on William Carlos Williams's poem, "This is just to say." I have to admit that the first time I read it I laughed out loud. I thought that it couldn't possibly be a poem. There was no rhyming, no structure; and as we pointed out in class there was no meter or thesis/antithesis like a sonnet would have. So...what made it a poem? I'll get to that in a second. First, I got really interested in what really does make a poem a poem and I found this mini-lecture by Charles Bernstein on Google Video that I thought fit in a bit with what we were talking about:


Bernstein says that timing is what makes a poem a poem. Now, I'm not sure if he meant the same timing that I am thinking of, but time is what I was going to talk about. If the reader isn't creating a work's 'right' meaning, and the author isn't as well, who is? Society. Me and you, essays, critics, newspaper articles, reviews. All of these things influence what we think is the 'right' meaning of something. "This is just to say" could have been considered a horrible poem in another time. The words aren't extraordinary, nothing rhymes, and there is no solid meter. What, then, made it a poem? Our fascination with it did. Like Steve said in class, Williams is messing with our heads. It's a poem because we treat it like a poem, not because it fits any of this time's standards.
It's like what Stanley Fish said: The reader makes the meaning...but the meaning makes the reader. When a reader creates a meaning for a poem, for example, that meaning was already instilled in them by their past and by society today. When Fish's class took six names and turned them all into religious symbols, they thought they were reading a poem and so they approached it the way they were taught to.
Time. That's the key word. Whether a meaning has "stood the test of time," or whether it's affected by the society in this day in time, it's still time.

What's in an author?

"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."
Shakespeare presents something here in Romeo and Juliet that we have been discussing in class for the last week. Does it really matter if we know who the author is? Juliet seems to disagree. If Romeo and Juliet had been written by any other starving artist, it would have been just as famous. Barthes and Juliet would have gotten along because he proposes the same idea.
Barthes argues that who the author is should have no relation to what the text means to a reader. Should there really be one meaning to everything we read or every piece of art we examine? Does having an author limit our personal interpretations? Yes, it does. If we go into an author's background while reading his work, it's easy to see what we are 'supposed' to take away from the reading. Even Foucault admits that an author is a limitation to the reader, although he considers that a good thing.
Maybe we should all think a little more like Juliet. The author is expressing their freedom of speech by publishing their work; shouldn't the reader have freedom of interpretation? Yes, it is only fair that someone recieve credit for their work, but sooner or later the author's name stops being simply the person who wrote it. Shakespeare isn't just the playwright who introduced Romeo and Juliet to the world, he's now a literary genious. Like we talked about in class, one piece of famous work doesn't make everything an author writes an instant masterpiece. So, what really is in a name? If we took away the author's limiting influence from their work, how much more could we get out of it? How many more possibilities and ideas could be formed and explored without being criticized as not being what the author had intended? There would be limitless discoveries to be made in the famous texts whose meanings have been drilled into our minds since middle school.
"What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet."

What's in an author?