I love love LOVE Chris's story about seeing the Communist Manifesto sitting next to a pair of this seasons trendy low-rise denim. How rebellious! Its a great example of how our society really commodifies EVERYTHING. I think its humorous to see how many Americans believe they are sticking it to the man by purchasing a pair of these jeans, or buying a t-shirt with Guevara's picture on it, when in actuality they are just contributing to the very thing they are trying to go up against (aka, hegemony in its purest form).
I'd also like to thank Chris for helping me really grasp the meaning of ideology. This word is one that I find a lot of people misunderstand, myself included. The idea that one particular group's (usually seen as the "upper-class") ideas, morals, values, interests, etc. are portrayed as universal to all classes is crazyyyy. I can't help but feel worried and uneasy about this, because when I think about it, what ISN'T contributing to the ideology of our capitalist country? Everything we purchase contributes to some sort of institutionalized power, whether it be a t-shirt, a pair of jeans, a book, or a movie. But what can we do? I feel trapped now, so I'm going to end it here with ideology.
The last thing I'd like to bring up is the media and its role in hegemony within society using Chris's example of the stock market. I remember taking a class with him last semester where he briefly discussed this, and since then I've looked at the news reports of the stocks going down in a totally different light. This is just another way the media contributes to moral panics in a society, and pushes upper class ideology onto others. I was going to stop talking about ideology but apparently its still on my mind. I don't have stocks, I don't know anyone who is involved in the stock exchange...so why should I be worried about the stocks falling or rising or doing anything? Its hard to think this way when the media reports this news the way they do. For example, when the stocks fall you always see/hear "WALL STREET PANIC" or "DANGER ON WALL STREET" some sort of panic stricken rhetoric that gets people (even those not affected, or affected in a good way) panicking about what's happening on wall street.
I'm sort of just rambling on but that's to be expected with my blog title. I'm sorry if I don't make much sense, but I'm hoping that at some point I'll be able to tie my thoughts up in a more efficient way.
9/17/08
Marxy Marx
Marxist thought and (more specifically) literary theory provides what seems to be an entirely different way of looking at literature than that of liberal humanism. Liberal humanism tends to focus on the work of literature and nothing more, whereas Marxist theory does essentially the exact opposite, focusing on outside factors (specifically the economic structure) at the time the author(s) wrote/produced a text.
After reading about Marx and his theories, I got the impression that he thought people are pretty much defined by the era they live in as well as that era's economic , but that everyone was equal no matter what class they were. Liberal humanism complicates this idea by giving us a different view, as discussed in one of the ten tenants we reviewed in class. This tenant states that human nature is unchanging, and that we have a "one true self". This would mean that a person living today would have the same basic human nature as a person who lived in 1249. 1800. 1932. Also, would liberal humanists say that no matter what the economy is like, we're all equal? I'm not sure if I agree with either of these ideas wholeheartedly.
A filthy rich, upper-class, white male writing in 2008 is going to produce a text entirely different than that of a working-class, female writing in 2008. Same as if two texts were written by two very different people and in 1895. I don't think it would be fair to lump them together in the same category and not even consider their social and economic differences. (Mind you, I have absolutely no clue what the economy was like in 1895, but I think you get my point, right?)
I guess what I'm getting at here is I understand the ideas for both Marx and liberal humanism, but I'm not sure if I could read a text and fully apply one of these theories without drifting from it...
When I read literature, I like getting a background about the author, the time period in which it was written, and major events that occurred during this time (for instance, who was in power politically, what social/moral panics were taking place, etc.) It makes more sense reading certain books when you know that background information. So I could say, a more Marxist approach would work best for me.
After reading about Marx and his theories, I got the impression that he thought people are pretty much defined by the era they live in as well as that era's economic , but that everyone was equal no matter what class they were. Liberal humanism complicates this idea by giving us a different view, as discussed in one of the ten tenants we reviewed in class. This tenant states that human nature is unchanging, and that we have a "one true self". This would mean that a person living today would have the same basic human nature as a person who lived in 1249. 1800. 1932. Also, would liberal humanists say that no matter what the economy is like, we're all equal? I'm not sure if I agree with either of these ideas wholeheartedly.
A filthy rich, upper-class, white male writing in 2008 is going to produce a text entirely different than that of a working-class, female writing in 2008. Same as if two texts were written by two very different people and in 1895. I don't think it would be fair to lump them together in the same category and not even consider their social and economic differences. (Mind you, I have absolutely no clue what the economy was like in 1895, but I think you get my point, right?)
I guess what I'm getting at here is I understand the ideas for both Marx and liberal humanism, but I'm not sure if I could read a text and fully apply one of these theories without drifting from it...
When I read literature, I like getting a background about the author, the time period in which it was written, and major events that occurred during this time (for instance, who was in power politically, what social/moral panics were taking place, etc.) It makes more sense reading certain books when you know that background information. So I could say, a more Marxist approach would work best for me.
9/4/08
First Post
Welcome to my blog!
I'm somewhat familiar with what theory is...I guess. But, if you sat down with me and asked me to name and explain psychoanalytic or post-structuralist theory I'd never be able to. I've got a lot to learn about it. That's why I'm here though, just trying to test the theoretical waters.
I'm somewhat familiar with what theory is...I guess. But, if you sat down with me and asked me to name and explain psychoanalytic or post-structuralist theory I'd never be able to. I've got a lot to learn about it. That's why I'm here though, just trying to test the theoretical waters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
