My Final Post

At the beginning of the semester liberal humanism made a lot of sense to me; after all, it's the way I learned how to study literature my whole life. I had studied Marx and Freud before, but did not know that there are critical theories based on their work. Studying Marxist criticism was a good way to begin the semester because, in my opinion, it's the most obvious and the easiest to grasp. Of course the society we live in shapes who we are, and of course there is hegemony going on; although, I don't think that societal forces control everything (nurture plays a major role, but so does nature).

Structuralism was interesting because it made me analyze language in a deeper way than I ever had before, and made me realize that meaning comes from difference between signs. And Post-structuralism was probably my favorite theory. Derrida made me conceive of the world in new ways. The idea of supplementation of the absent center made perfect sense once I thought about it; everything is in constant process of continual change, so it makes sense that this process is a supplementation of identity after identity.

This also ties into psychoanalystic theory, namely Lacan's mirror stage, where a child falsely acknowledges his/her own unified self as distinct from the 'other.' Since that mirror stage point, a child goes through life conceiving of him/herself as an 'I' but is really a plurality of egos, as Foucault talks about in his discussion of the Author Function. A writer assumes a role, a specific ego, and functions as an author, though the writer is not writing as him/herself (since there is no central essence, no self). As Barthes says, the author is dead and meaning from a text comes from the interpretations of readers. Though each interpretation is a fleeting thing, because of the supplementation of reality (though the writer, or 'scriptor' as Barthes says, has no say once the text is completed, and the reading/interpretation process will continue for as long as the text is around).

Even though this makes sense to me, I have trouble with the idea of the writer not actually writing the text. As a writer, I want to believe that what is produced by my author function had at least something to do with my conscious choices. Despite the limitations of a writer, I still think that a writer has some control over what he/she writes. After all, with control comes responsibility -- so how can I be held responsible if this post sucks, if it is not really me that is writing it? Or, if it happens to be good, how can I be praised for it? I don't deserve praise for something that I had no control over (what is the point of writing a research paper if we are not really writing it?).

So, I guess my beliefs about writing fall somewhere in the middle: a lot of what comes out through writing is unconscious, yet with conscious effort a writer can edit, revise, and shape the text, ultimately determining how it turns out. However, it can always be argued that the source of the writer's desires to consciously revise a text in specific ways came from unconscious desires before entering into consciousness. Yet, it still does not matter because the writer is able to consciously choose which desires to act upon (though the choices may be limited, the choices that are there are our only true freedom).

I enjoyed learning about feminism and post-colonialism, since they apply the theories we studied in specific ways, and opened up questions about theory vs. practice. If we know that women and colonized cultures have been are are still being oppressed, then how and when do we make change? Of course, it's not that easy. In my opinion, we must solve the problems of Capitalism in order to end these types of oppression, or perhaps find a new form of government that works better (as one of my professors said in class yesterday, all forms of government that have ever been put in place have failed; people think that capitalism will last forever, but it too will eventually fail). The most important questions to ask are where do we go from here? How do we make change for the better? How do we achieve equality and leave room for freedom, as well as not leaving room for corruption? These are perhaps the most difficult questions our society faces, but we must address them and we must find answers. Humanity is a history of adaptation; and the problems we face now are greater than ever before...we must rise to the occasion and adapt once again.

Metaphor and Reality

I am writing my research paper about metaphor. I am arguing that metaphor creates new understandings of reality, which thus evolves language. For example, the metaphor that dog is “man’s best friend” gives the signified ‘dog’ characteristics that separate ‘dog’ from 'cat' or ‘cow’ or any other animal. 'Dog' is now understood, because of this metaphor (which has become cliché through time), as the ideal animal companion. This is a connotation of 'dog' that did not always exist, which means that this metaphor has created a new conception of reality (of dog as an ideal pet), which has become so popular in our culture that our signifieds, our understandings of the signifier 'dog,' has changed. This is how, on a broader level, metaphor evolves language as a whole.

There are countless examples of metaphors that have become adopted into literal language because they provide the only way to understand something. One example (from Metaphors We Live By by Lakoff and Johnson) is Love is Magic: "She cast her spell over me. The magic is gone. I was spellbound. She had me hypnotized. I was entranced by him. I'm charmed by her." Another example is Life is a Container: "I've had a full life. Life is empty for him. There's not much left for him in life. Her life is crammed with activities. Live your life to the fullest." You get the point. Without these metaphors we wouldn't be able to put these thoughts into words. Metaphor creates new ways of understanding, new ways of conceiving reality.

Capitalism finds a new way to exploit gender stereotypes...virtual Barbie dolls

"Digital-Doll Sites Capture Interest of Young Girls"

There is a new online market, targeted towards preteen and teenage girls, that expoits and promotes gender differentiation. Companies such as Cartoon Doll Emporium and Stardoll (and pretty soon Barbie and Bratz), have websites where girls can spend hours dressing up two-dimensional, virtual dolls. "I go on there every day," eleven-year-old Hannah Reichert says. Stardoll has about 6.4 million members, 94% female. "Guys are welcome, but they really just don't get it," said Mattias Miksche, the site's chief executive. They don't get it because our culture has ingrained in our heads that girls play with dolls and boys play sports. We should be heading away from these gender stereotypes rather than embracing them. So why are these companies doing this? Obviously, because they can make a profit from it: "Stardoll has received more than $10 million in venture funding from Sequoia Capital and Index Ventures." And Cartoon Doll Emporium "collects about $30,000 a month in advertising revenue." Both companies also charge money for special dolls or outfits.

These companies are making money by expoiting gender, by reaffirming that girls should play with dolls. In fact, the audience isn't just young girls: "Ms. Stanger, a 38-year-old in Salt Lake City...spend[s] about 12 to 15 hours a week, and about $30 a month, on her own creations." So if grown women are also buying into this, where will it end? And if companies like Barbie and Bratz are about to jump on the bandwagon and make online doll-dressing even more popular, how will girls learn that there's more out there than dolls? How will girls learn that they can also play sports, or play with G.I. Joes....or do something creative where they actually use their imaginations rather than conforming to the gendered labels that culture has and is constructing? I blame capitalism. Consumption, consumption, consumption. If the mentality in this country was other than to maximize profit by maximizing consumption, maybe kids (and adults!) would have more freedom to identify with universal ideas instead of gendered conceptions of what he/she is supposed to be.

Simulation and Self

There is so much in Ken's post to think about, but I want to focus on Baudrillard's idea of simulation. Ken explains, "simulation stands in for reality, this is the order of the counterfeit or of forgery...simulation hides the absence of reality...simulation produces its own reality, as if reality was the consequence of a model that makes possible its production."

As I stated in a comment to Ken's post, I get excited when I see similarities between critical theory and scientific theory (because I'm one of those people who wants them to be compatible), and I think Baudrillard's ideas of simulation are quite similar to those of evolutionary theory and neurophilosophy -- where the general claim is that the brain creates simulations of the environment (both outside and inside the body), and a person interprets these simulations in consciousness as reality.

So for example, let me try to tackle explaining "the self." I'm not sure about Baudrillard specifically, but the other theorists we've been reading (Derrida, Barthes, Foucault, Freud, Lacan, etc.) oppose the idea of a unified, centered self; they oppose Descartes' mind-body dualism (the "ghost in the machine" idea). Instead, they promote this idea of a constructed, decentered, supplemental, plurality of egos.

Applying Baudrillard's ideas of simulation to this concept of self gives us a model for how the "I" gets created: we simulate ("model, replicate, duplicate the behavior, appearance or properties of") our unconsciousness, as well as the environment around us (we use our senses to take in information from the outside), and create a model of who we are and where we are in relation to what's going on. This model of who we are is in constant flux, in constant process of subsitution (since everything around and within us is in constant flux).

However, we perceive this model of self as being the same through time; we have this idea of "I" that is the same "I" now as it was ten years ago. This is an illusion. According to the philosopher Daniel Dennett, it's an illusion created by our brains, a simulation, a story told in which we are the narrator. The reason our brains create this story of an "I" serves evolutionary functions (survival, reproduction, social communication, and overall thriving in an environment).

So it seems that critical theory and scientific/philosophical theory are compatible in this sense. And it makes "me" wonder what I or anything else looks like from a perspective outside the confines of my body...or is perception only possible with a brain and senses? Is simulation the only possible mode of perceiving reality? If so, what is reality? And how much of it is out there (and in here) that we can't perceive.