Thoughts on postcolonial theory

Ah yes, postcolonial theory. Whenever I think of that phrase I then think of that cartoon with Britain having its tentacles all over the rest of the world. I am pretty sure that was drawn in the early 1900s. I also think of the dark history of Belgian's King leopard II and his "Congo Free State." As much as I absolutely hate that way of thinking, it is interesting to think of it as a literary criticism. There is even quite a bit of this tied into Wilder`s "Long Christmas dinner." Since it takes place over 90 years, there is plenty of settler vs non settler and industrialization making its way into other countries. Like the aluminum business in China for instance. I didn't actually realize there was so much colonization/settler vs non settler until our director explained it to us.

Intertwined

This week the two theories we went over go rather well together. In "Shooting an Elephant" the main character is so obsesed with how he portrays himself infront of the crowd that he lowers himself into doing something he doesn't want to do. All because he doesn't want to be ridiculed any more than he already has. All throughout history there are accounts of people living in places where they are the outlier to live with people who do not want them there. Most of it being because of colonization or to 'tame the uncultured' because they think they're better than everyone else. I think Race theory coincides with this really well because different races have been oppressed throughout time, causing discord among people. The lack of recognition towards people left behind is slowly growing smaller, and I do think it has improved, but we are still a long way off from being completely unbiased between races.

I gave up on a picture

lengthy_post.docx

I've been trying to figure out why I was relatively silent throughout our critical race theory day compared to postcolonial theory day.
Sure, I admit that I struggled with toeing the line between political debate and literary application, which may have deterred me from speaking my mind (this being an English class). Maybe I felt unmoored and unsure of where to even begin to tackle the enormous issue. Though I've made no conclusions, I think it may be because I thought of it as an ISSUE rather than a THEORY.

The following is not a criticism of Dr. MB's curriculum, but perhaps more of a critique of the literary curriculum at large:
I feel like we do a disservice to these various identity theories by limiting them to a day's worth of discussion. Merely acquainting ourselves with the "tip of the iceberg" isn't enough for such universal theoretical lenses; identity theories pervade nearly every culture around the world, and deserve to be applied to literature as thoroughly as close reading or deconstruction. Qualifying them as academic theories makes them less scary than if they were social issues.

I know there is only so much time to learn in one semester, but I guess what I'm trying to say is by limiting time spent on these social/identity-based theories we risk relegating them to a) uncomfortable topics or b) that weird place in-between discomfort and willingness to discuss (read: political issues) rather than different ways to analyze literature.

This is me trying to figure out what the hell I'm trying to say:

Maybe I'm better at Q&Q than Paragraphs

Source:https://i.redd.it/j51a17rxq7801.gif

Well This Has Been An Eventful Week

Ok, so I'm gonna start off saying that covering two theories in one week made my head spin a little and I wish we had more time to spend on each one separately but oh well. I really found race theory interesting and I find that way of looking at a text not only interesting but insightful. I think it's useful for everybody to try to look at a text from different view points every one in a while. If we don't I feel like society won't really make much progress. How can we possibly know what another person is feeling? It's never possible but it means something to at least try. I have learned so much from this class by looking at texts, particularly the one I've been using for the critical reading papers, from the view of other theories and this theory is not different. There were some things I didn't really think much about before. I would love to explore this more, and I'm also really excited to learn more identity theories next week.

Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/tangled-rapunzel-12YXYjcczmQENy

Backlash From Greediness

What I thought was a big take away from Silent Soring is how easily we can take advantage of nature. It is kind of selfish, or careless, to do something (such as spray DDT) without knowing the implications of it. It seems like nature and all the animals and insects that inhabit nature were just an afterthought, if even that. The story can lead you to believe that no one seemed to even think about how DDT can effect nature until birds started to due at alarming rates. Nature should not be the Guinea pigs in testing whether DDT causes any implications to others. In addition, as the killing makes its way through the food chain, what does that mean for us? We are at that top of the food chain. In reality, it does seem like we can let our own greediness and strong want for money to be more important that our own safety and health concerns.

                                                                  Romaine Lettuce

https://get.google.com/albumarchive/117817050372834841987/album/AF1QipNokgI3FI0Zd6ZqLr2tgpNUHcL-y4s7PMyxMkIq/AF1QipOdK1zvKERTDfILbRlSCFwQaQ8fVVvM7EArf43u  

Recalls have been prevalent lately, with 2 different products currently being recalled (eggs and romaine lettuce). Sanitary measures were not correctly followed, for it is more important to these companies to produce products fast to make a lot of money. Our health is deemed less important.

Who knows, maybe recalls would not be so prevalent if we weren't so focused on mass producing products for financial gains. The monopolizing of these businesses to have thier products everywhere is part of the problem. Instead of people getting sick in multiple areas (I believe it is something like 11 different states that are effected), the sickness would be contained to one area if this product just remained in the state where is was manufactured.

In which I get too deep about my relationship with nature

So I’ve been thinking about Dr. Gottfried’s question of when we were last in nature, and I’m not sure where nature “is”. My initial thought was the hike I took with my sister over spring break in the mountains, where we slugged through mud and snow, and talked for hours. Spending time with my sister seems completely natural, yet I felt out of place there on the mountain. I don’t hike often, and that was her home not mine. I was just a visitor on that wooded path—I was an outsider, admiring the beauty of it all. I’m not out in nature very often, so maybe I’m just not used to the quiet or calm or warped sense of time. Don’t get me wrong though, it was beautiful and I enjoyed myself but more for the company than the place. It’s almost like I was uncomfortable in nature. I felt like I was trespassing on something so much greater than myself, and that seemed wrong. But I also think maybe these are times where most people aren’t comfortable out in nature because we’re not used to it. Or maybe it’s just me.

I also realized I was kind of out in nature Wednesday afternoon. I got out of class early and the sun was shining, so I went for a walk. I ambled around downtown and the park, then I found a bench and sat with my eyes closed and face turned toward the sun. I love that feeling (and now have sunburn) but does that count as nature? It’s a manmade park with neatly cut grass and it’s right next to a road and neighborhood. Does my little slice of sun merit being considered “nature”? Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t, but it feels more nature-y to me because I feel at home in it.

Nature is Talking, and We're Not Listening

If I understand ecocriticism correctly, then it is about how nature is portrayed in literature/media, how it's used as a setting, a plot device, what have you, and even about bringing attention to the environment that surrounds us. We as humans don't pay enough attention to nature, and, as was mentioned on Wednesday, it's trying to tell us something. Every time we don't listen, and every time nature gets angrier. Something that comes to mind when thinking about how humans as a whole disregard nature and their impact on it is the movie Wall-E. Hopefully, we all know the story behind Wall-E. Humans trashed their planet to the point that they could no longer live on it, and were forced to move into space. They left behind only robots to clean up their trash, and periodically sent drones down to see if the planet has become habitable yet. A lot happens between that idea and the end of the movie, but you get the gist. It's very blatantly saying that if we don't respect the planet, at some point there won't be a planet left to live on.

https://giphy.com/gifs/disneypixar-disney-pixar-zqXnds4QxHRZK

Don't let the planet get to the point that this tiny, tiny plant is a beyond-rare find.

The Earth and You (and Literature)

      I have always been enraptured by and appreciative of the environment, so this theory fits well with me on multiple levels. And I realized that this theory showcases literature's unheralded hero: setting. I once had an assignment in high school that forced me to focus on place, and how it influences the story, almost becoming a character in its own right (the assignment was officially coined "talking about place"). Ecocriticism works not only to defend the environment, but to call attention to the various ways it's used in literature. Of course, there are stories/poems that utilize it more than others, but I believe this criticism provides a wonderful perspective that helps us understand the way humans tell and have always told stories, in that it's not just about the words and actions of the characters, but of the environment they are surrounded by. Whether we acknowledge it or not, we live and breathe and grow with the earth, and our literature reflects that living and dying.

      Overall, Ecocriticism strongly reminds me of New Historicism, Cultural Studies, and Marxism because of its reliance on observing the world surrounding the writing (such as peoples' responses and views about the planet). I feel like this criticism blends well with the others we've studied throughout the semester, proving that all of these schools of thought intertwine in fascinating, and sometimes subtle, ways.

Plaque says: "Symbiotic relationships mean creative partnerships. The earth is to be seen neither as an ecosystem to be preserved unchanged nor as a quarry to be exploited for selfish and short-range economic reasons, but as a garden to be cultivated for the development of its own potentialities of the human adventure. The goal of this relationship is not the maintenance of the status quo, but the emergence of new phenomena and new values."

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/5e/2c/2d/5e2c2dfa5d7bf833814d7d3237732819--epcot-the-land.jpg

My Brain Has Been Deconstructed

Well, this has been an interesting week...I’ve just learned that words are technically meaningless and cannot express meaning. Everything seemed like a fog last class so just when I thought I was understanding some of Derrida’s language and ideas, I was sucked back into the thoughts of “Huh?...”

 I love the French language, but not necessarily the aggravating philosophers of the 1950s. Maybe it is just the translation to English, but I just get so confused. It seems like he wants to fool with you in his writing. They also claim a text “can be read as something quite different from what it appears to be saying” that means the text can prevent its purpose and betray itself.


That being said, I've looked up pictures of Derrida and was surprised to find this

It's true.

Confused, anyone?

So most weeks I can understand the material fairly well but with deconstruction/ post-structuralism I am at a loss. The way that Derrida writes is a style that I would not read for fun on my own time, but I suppose that is the point. As Professor MB said (don't quote me on it) this sort of criticism is exclusionary.
There was a point that did catch my attention. In Barry's book on page 65 second half of number 4 where he says it "distrusts the very notion of reason," and in Baudrillard on page 368 phase 4. "It bears no relation to reality whatever: it is its own pure simulacrum." (I know this is from last week)
This way of thinking and criticizing works makes me think of Salvidor Dali's paintings. His works have elements of the world but they create their own.
This is the way I have somewhat interpreted this criticism, and it's not much.

https://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0969/9128/products/Ship_with_butterfly_sails_667b9a7f-1d66-4f25-8c0e-6c7ae77aca96.jpg?v%3D1479734856&imgrefurl=https://www.tallengestore.com/products/ship-with-butterfly-sails-art-by-salvador-dali-art-prints&h=1201&w=1500&tbnid=BzFQ1lyMsY275M:&tbnh=201&tbnw=251&usg=__igcWHRcCiUQkygGqZBFp4ASRK3o%3D&vet=1&docid=rYMxAWdupL5eUM&hl=en-us

Generic Deconstruction Complaint Post

When someone tells me how much they love deconstruction literary theory:

Getting abrasive with my memes, sorry sqwad

Source: https://childrenoftheforce.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/yoda-wonderful.gif?w=634

I don't enjoy my literary skepticism, believe me. And I don't think deconstruction or post-modernism deserve our total scorn, either. They're great ideas. But in terms of practicality???

I grasp and appreciate both theories on a conceptual level: the mere concept of realities existing only through our representations of things nonexistent is staggeringly cool and plausible, and the fluidity and inherent meaningless of language is worthy of discourse. But do both seemingly philosophical discussions warrant application to literature?
.....
Well, yes, apparently. But this skeptic just doesn't get the hype. At some point both disciplines just become exercises in imagination—who can wring the most creative interpretation out of a given text, whether it be a word, sentence, phrase, or stanza?

But maybe that's just the Political Science Guy in me preferring my philosophy as philosophy and my literature as literature, and NO CROSSOVERS. All I can say is we've gotta be careful if we do so, guys, bad things can happen.....

I swear I'm not as cranky as this diatribe sounds you guys, honest

Source: https://media.giphy.com/media/3o72FiKtrMAjIb0Rhu/giphy.gif

Mindblown, When Understood... I Think

One thing that stuck in my mind from deconstruction was that there are no outside texts, rather everything is a text. In other theories you stick to what is strictly mentioned in the text or refer to "outside texts" but if everything that is considered "outside" is really part of the main text, there are many more possibilities when exploring meaning. But what also stuck with me is the idea of trying to explain a word without using the opposite of it or the word itself. Something that blew my mind when I finally understood what was being said, with both things that stuck with me. It was an "aha" moment.

This is all still a bit confusing to me, but I think I get a general understanding of the theory. Maybe today will help any questions I may still have, even if I don't know what exactly those questions might be.



https://giphy.com/gifs/neil-patrick-harris-vegas-sin-city-msriR5ybSpQgo

Feminist Literary Theory, I'm a little confused

I really enjoyed Dr. Kolmerten's unit, if she still taught here I would love to have taken a course with her.

Her essay "My Life in Theory" read like a good novel. I was invested in her as a character and I couldn't wait to see what happened to her next in the essay. She embodies the spirit of feminist criticism not just in her teaching but also in the way she lives her life.  

If there was one thing I have liked a little more it would have been to spend more time of practicing the technical components of how t analyze a text as a literary feminist critic. Maybe it was just me having a hard time understanding The Yellow Wallpaper because it my first go around with it, and because of that I missed the process of how I was supposed to look at it. But I at the end of this unit I feel like I would have a hard time analyzing a text using feminist criticism. Maybe someone who got it better could help me understand? 

Does it Have To be Just One Way or Another? Why Not Both?

In the article "Monumental Feminism and Literature's Ancestral House: Another Look at 'The Yellow Wallpaper,'" I found the idea of "binary oppositions" to be very intriguing (Haney - Peritz). The workings of opposing forces within "The Yellow Wallpaper," such as "sick and well, the real and the fanciful, order and anarchy, self and other, and make and female," can be seen as strict guidelines or ideas that have no overlap. It is interpreted from this article that if you do not represent one, you must be the other. For example, the main character in "The Yellow Wallpaper" was seen as not doing well or experiencing unusual behaviors, which is how she described herself from her own view in her writings, as well as from her husband's perspective. Instead of defining her as maybe having anxiety or going through a difficult time in life (background information would lead to a more accurate explanation), she is seen as sick. There is really no in between.      

                                           Day or Night?

This is a picture I took yesterday of part of Hodson and Whitaker. The time of day is not clearly identified as day or night, since the sun is setting; therefore, it would be considered dusk. In addition, the weather we are currently experiencing can be seen as neither winter nor spring, but as kind of a transitional period between them. In comparison to the binary oppositions idea for the yellow wallpaper, the world is not quite as clear cut. 

In relation to this idea, I found this quote that I thought pairs really well. I took this picture from the poster displayed on the second floor of Whitaker, right outside of Student life. I believe it was created in part by the Feminist Student Union. Sorry it is kind of blurry, but the quote reads:

"It is time that we see all gender as a spectrum instead of two sets of opposing ideals. We should stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by who we are" (Emma Watson).

I thought the idea of a "spectrum" was interesting. Not every person is considered to be boxed in to a stereotypical identity, but that there's fluidity between these stereotypes for how we define ourselves.

Lastly, I just wanted to bring up this news article I just came across this week that is quite fitting to this topic. The article is "In Sweden's Preschools, Boys Learn to Dance and Girls Learn to Yell." Thier main goal is to make government funded preschools in Sweden gender neutral. Since "1998, Sweden added new language to its national curriculum requiring that all preschools 'counteract traditional gender roles and gender patterns.'" I just thought this non-traditional technique implemented in schools was interesting to learn about. I also wonder that if teachers are still telling students how to behave, even if the typical roles are reversed, doesn't that still impede on the student's ability to find thier own identity? What if girls in this preschool want to be more outspoken, which is what they are taught, but they still want to learn how to dance? Wouldn't an integration of various behaviors and activities for all students be more beneficial for the creation of thier own identity?
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/24/world/europe/sweden-gender-neutral-preschools.html 

There Must Be Compromise

On Wednesday, I was talking to Natalie and Luke before class about Feminist Theory. I don't remember if it was me or Natalie who said this (probably Natalie), but it was brought up that hearing Dr. Kolmerten's journey to becoming a feminist theorist brought in feelings of frustration and anger at just hearing what some people have to go through. Luke then said that you have to be careful not to look at this theory or feminism in general as revenge, which I think is a very good point. It would be very easy for one to become a feminist in search of revenge against the "enemy" with a "us against them" mentality. Often times, not even just in the context of feminism, this is the easiest and most natural mentality to fall into.

It's crucial to remember that feminism outside of the context of literature is not an us against them situation, and there are many more layers to it. This is comparable to the part in Dr. Kolmerten's story where she and other theorists butted heads about whether gender or language was more important when analyzing literature, when in the end it was a definite combination of both. There must be compromise in order for there to be agreement and unity, and this applies to both life and literature.

https://www.buzzfeed.com/jennaguillaume/feminist-killjoy

Around and Around and Around We Go in the Attic

      Rereading both Jane Eyre and The Yellow Wallpaper recently have helped to me to ponder deeply on women in literature, and how they are written in stories. I can agree with Gilbert and Gubar's idea that, especially during the nineteenth century and before, female authors typically wrote a type of  "paraphernalia of confinement, like the gate at the head of the stairs, instruments that definitively indicate[d] her imprisonment" (120). Both of these works of literature include symbols and stories of women locked away, driven to madness for reasons half obscured, half obvious. The author made their story intertwine with tragedy and isolation, making a gloomy house or attic a physical symbol of their confinement and restlessness, feelings that cannot be spoken aloud.
      Feminist theory raises good questions about how women are approached in literature - and about who writes them and for what purpose. What's interesting is how feminist theory seemed to solidify for me how much all the theories we've looked at in class can blend together in order to create an interesting approach to a text. How we choose to approach a text is up to us, and so is the question of whether any theory holds the most merit (or, at least, depending on the text we’re using the theory on).

https://i.pinimg.com/736x/d1/77/9c/d1779cea28c9feab07f3f78cc9f250a9--bronte-sisters-charlotte-bronte.jpg

I know this is super late but here it goes.

I found Marxism to be very one- dimensional because of the fact that everything was concerned with social structure and what is tangible. (Or maybe that was just materialism, I'm not completely sure.) But there was one thing that confused me. Marx started out a very wealthy man but as he pursued his ideals he ended up in extreme poverty. So would thst restrict his own credibility based on his social level if marxists claim that intelligence is based on social class? Maybe I missed something but I honestly do not know.

In which Natalie rambles on about what art even is really, because Marxism..?

I found this reading really round about and confusing, so I figured the "picture" (let's be honest I only ever use quotes) I would use for this should be something straight to the point and simple. 

Perhaps this is a bit trivial, but art has come up quite a bit in our discussion and reading of Marxist criticism and I found it pretty interesting.  Warning: this is about to get philosophical fast. 

The thought has crossed my mind before, but the Benjamin reading (especially VII) talks about whether or not photography and film are art and it really bothers me.  Defining something like art is pretty much impossible, but does the intention behind a photograph it make it art? And if it does, is the subject of the photo art as well? Where do we draw the line? If I accidentally take a picture (i.e. one taken without intention) can it still be art? Does there need to be a degree of separation between what is and the art we turn it into? Is a lens all it takes to elevate the mundane to classification as art? These are just the thoughts running through my head after reading this, because it's paragraph week. Alas, I am all questions and no answers.  I'm not sure this super relates back to Marxist theory but it's all about economics, which is all about choices, and I think art is a choice and labeling something as such definitely constitutes a choice... So basically economics is everything and we should consider it when reading and analyzing literature. Yay Marxist criticism!

Do Economics Influence All?

In Beginning Theory, Barry states that the, "simplest Marxist mode of society sees it as constituted by a base... and a superstructure, which is the 'cultural' world of ideas, art, religion, law and so on... are not 'innocent', but are 'determined'...by the nature of the economic base." (160-161) I think he's partially right.

I don't think that all art, law, religion, etc. are based on and determined by the economic base. Some can be, and is. Yet, to say that all of it is, is simply untrue. It would akin to saying that a fashion designer only designs from a single fabric. Art can be determined and influenced by anything and everything, not just the economic base.

But then again, I'm still a bit confused by the whole idea, mainly because we haven't spent much time on this topic in class.



Source: https://giphy.com/gifs/obama-michelle-obama-3otPoyyLkZFsAofO0M

What IS the Approach?

Though I read Benjamin’s article I am still slightly confused about the Marxism approach to literature. Is it like viewing a piece of work (literature or artwork) as a product of the period? Or, as a product of revolt against certain institutions or class differentials that the artist has experienced and created in response? Or is Marxist view a very rigid type of looking at literature through a view of pro-communist views? I fully understood the section about the cult surrounding an object and giving it a certain life, but is that also a product of the time of publishing or does this come after the works creation?

This is like when someone talks about "The Cloud"

Source: https://www.reddit.com/r/reactiongifs/comments/5hr54q/mrw_someone_asks_me_why_i_dont_like_a_christmas/