As Conley pointed out in our first reading assignment, authority to speak is an ancient concept. Pierre Bourdieu's text Language & Symbolic Power delves into the complexities of this authority through a discussion of what linguistics does and does not accomplish; as a science scrutinizing the power and structure of language.
While Bourdieu examines the intricacies of a dominant language and the social, cultural, and economic layers that evolve from such capital, he dismisses "the ambiguity of Marxist theory" (243) of class. His text states the obvious, those who do no speak the dominant language do not benefit from the capital spin-off. Couched in Marxist vocabulary (product, class, capital, etc.) Bourdieu structures his argument that class struggle is more than just an economic phenomenon.
Religious, educational, political, and economic structures are some of the ways in which domination is perpetuated by the manipulation of language through exclusion guaranteeing a lack of success (attaining capital) of those dominated. For example, educational systems (structures) serve "to impose recognition of the legitimate language" (49). This practice devalues dialects and those who speak them. Bordieu identifies mastering the dominant language as "linguistic capital". The educational systems established to educate, commit in Bordieu's words, "acts of violence" against those who speak dialect, reducing to silence those who fail its mastery.
My English friend, Maureen, tells of being hit with a ruler in school whenever she slipped into the Geordie dialect of Northumberland and stopped speaking "the Queen's English". As noted by Bordieu, most of the students in this structure would drop out of school. "The competence adequate to produce sentences that are likely to be understood may be quite inadequate to produce sentences that are likely to be listened to" (55)-not much use for the Queen's English in the coal mines and ship yards. Thus, the dominated Geordies became "accomplices" in their own lack of success by failing to obtain linguistic capital in a system designed to reaffirm the superiority of the dominant language.
I witnessed the Queen opening a sports center in Newcastle-Upon-Tyne. Resplendent in a pastel suit and matching broad-rimmed hat, shoes and purse,the gloved Elizabeth cashed in her symbolic capital as the Geordie children curtsied and presented bouquets. The standard bearer of regal authority spoke "the Queen's English" and committed her act of violence on the cheering crowd who became her devalued accomplices.
Saturday, October 31, 2009
Saturday, October 24, 2009
Lights, Camera, Illusion
Terry Eagleton states that "history is the ultimate signifier of literature, as it is the ultimate signified" (172). He presents the example of Dickens's Bleak House as the "imaginary London...that signifies not 'Victorian England' as such , but certain of Victorian England's ways of signifying itself" (172).
Forty years earlier, Walter Benjamin delved into a discussion of film as a signifier. Through a circuitous narrative, he arrives at the center of his argument that "The audience's identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera" (1240). Technology affords illusion. From the mechanical equipment, to the cutting room floor, reality has taken on new dimensions. What is being signified is not trustworthy.
While Benjamin deplores film for "What matters is that the part is acted not for an audience but for a mechanical contrivance" (1240); interestingly, he has no problem with, "Some of the players whom we meet in Russian films are not actors in our sense but people who portray themselves --- and primarily in their own work process" (1243). The camera and mechanical equipment in this case seem to play no role as a historical signifier.
Benjamin implies that there is a basic corruption in Western Europe's "capitalistic exploitation" to which the modern man is subjected through the film industry's scheme to "spur the interest of the masses through illusion-promoting spectacles and dubious speculations" (1243).
Using Eagleton's premise that history is the ultimate signifier of literature, we might turn this observation to film. For there is a written script to film, which can be critiqued as a historical signifier-including Russian workers portraying themselves.
Forty years earlier, Walter Benjamin delved into a discussion of film as a signifier. Through a circuitous narrative, he arrives at the center of his argument that "The audience's identification with the actor is really an identification with the camera" (1240). Technology affords illusion. From the mechanical equipment, to the cutting room floor, reality has taken on new dimensions. What is being signified is not trustworthy.
While Benjamin deplores film for "What matters is that the part is acted not for an audience but for a mechanical contrivance" (1240); interestingly, he has no problem with, "Some of the players whom we meet in Russian films are not actors in our sense but people who portray themselves --- and primarily in their own work process" (1243). The camera and mechanical equipment in this case seem to play no role as a historical signifier.
Benjamin implies that there is a basic corruption in Western Europe's "capitalistic exploitation" to which the modern man is subjected through the film industry's scheme to "spur the interest of the masses through illusion-promoting spectacles and dubious speculations" (1243).
Using Eagleton's premise that history is the ultimate signifier of literature, we might turn this observation to film. For there is a written script to film, which can be critiqued as a historical signifier-including Russian workers portraying themselves.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Girls just wanna' have fun?
Bell Hooks' Feminism is for Everybody is an easily accessible read that explores the roots of the feminist movement during the 60's. As a young woman entering college during the mid-60's, Iwitnessed a time of radical social upheaval. Men couldn't figure out why women were so angry, and a good number of women couldn't figure out why their "sisters" were so angry, either. Unfortunately, as Hooks points out in her introduction, "Mostly they think feminism is a bunch of angry women who want to be like men (xiii). Hooks takes the reader through a history of the movement from the 60's to publication in 2000, which for me was a real eye-opener.
Feminist theory is gender based, yet, contains the familiar elements of Marxist theory. Class struggle within the ranks of the women's movement was lost on me. That was a failing of the movement and an explaination of why after half a century, sexist thinking isn't exclusive to males-"females could be sexist as well" (3).
The implications for women were enormous. There was not a cohesive focus of all women benefitting from the movement as priviledged white women earned career equality to the men in their class. Those women perpetuated the sexist system by hiring minority women for domestic duties. As Hooks points out the early feminist movement "did not make economic self-sufficiency for women its primary goal" (54).
Hooks failed to connect the impact of women entering the work force in huge numbers, replacing men during World War II. Much of the feminist discontent came from these disillusioned middle-aged women during the 60's. As young women in the 40's they had economic independence and freedom. When the men returned, things never went back to "normal".
As Hooks points out "Everything we do in life is rooted in theory...there is also an underlying system shaping thought and practice" (19).
The sexual revolution was a backlash to male sexual domination but many women have discovered they weren't having much fun. They were rebelling against the symptoms, not the cause. A system in which both men and women tackle sexist thinking should be the focus of feminist theory.
Feminist theory is gender based, yet, contains the familiar elements of Marxist theory. Class struggle within the ranks of the women's movement was lost on me. That was a failing of the movement and an explaination of why after half a century, sexist thinking isn't exclusive to males-"females could be sexist as well" (3).
The implications for women were enormous. There was not a cohesive focus of all women benefitting from the movement as priviledged white women earned career equality to the men in their class. Those women perpetuated the sexist system by hiring minority women for domestic duties. As Hooks points out the early feminist movement "did not make economic self-sufficiency for women its primary goal" (54).
Hooks failed to connect the impact of women entering the work force in huge numbers, replacing men during World War II. Much of the feminist discontent came from these disillusioned middle-aged women during the 60's. As young women in the 40's they had economic independence and freedom. When the men returned, things never went back to "normal".
As Hooks points out "Everything we do in life is rooted in theory...there is also an underlying system shaping thought and practice" (19).
The sexual revolution was a backlash to male sexual domination but many women have discovered they weren't having much fun. They were rebelling against the symptoms, not the cause. A system in which both men and women tackle sexist thinking should be the focus of feminist theory.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
A Class Act
Each week as we delve into the competing and contradictory theories of literary criticism, it has become apparent that a general consensus may exist among a given group of critics, but there are many "takes" on that consensus. Marxist Criticism is no exception as Williams, Jameson, Barry, and Althusser vie for dominance. Each presents his case as to what effect Marxist theory had on society and historical interpretation. Althusser, like Derrida, was difficult to follow but writes that "ideology do not have an ideal or spiritual existence, but a material existence" (1265). Ideology is a word that, for me, equates with Marxism. While Jameson argues "If everything were transparent, then no ideology would be possible, and no domination either" (184). Williams clarifies his interpretation by stating "Ideology, in its normal senses, is a relatively formal and articulated system of meanings, values, and beliefs, of a kind that can be abstractd as a 'world-view' or 'class outlook'" (1277). Barry's refreshing, clear style lays out for us a broad overview of Marxist Criticism and states that "Ideology is a key term" (157) for all Marxists.
For me personally, Marxist ideology was equated with Communism. Growing up in the 50's and 60's, the noble class struggles that propelled the socialist movements fostered by the writings of Marx and Engles, had evolved into the anxiety of the Cold War. U.S.S.R. ideology impacted my world. Civil defense pamphlets complete with instructions on how to build and stock a fall-out shelter, missle silos in North Dakota, nuclear annihilation, and the school-yard chant "Better dead than Red" were the reality of a foreign ideology.
Williams in-depth discussion of hegemony as it relates to Marxism "of rule or domination to realtions between social classes, and especially to definitions of a ruling class" (1276) made me think again of my youth. While class struggle became synonymous with Communism, the relations between social classes in this steel town was obvious. Barry states that "Marxist literary criticism maintains that a writer's social class, and its prevailing 'ideology' ... have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class" (152). As a child of a first generation Italian steel worker who went on strike with frightening regularity, I would have to agree.
For me personally, Marxist ideology was equated with Communism. Growing up in the 50's and 60's, the noble class struggles that propelled the socialist movements fostered by the writings of Marx and Engles, had evolved into the anxiety of the Cold War. U.S.S.R. ideology impacted my world. Civil defense pamphlets complete with instructions on how to build and stock a fall-out shelter, missle silos in North Dakota, nuclear annihilation, and the school-yard chant "Better dead than Red" were the reality of a foreign ideology.
Williams in-depth discussion of hegemony as it relates to Marxism "of rule or domination to realtions between social classes, and especially to definitions of a ruling class" (1276) made me think again of my youth. While class struggle became synonymous with Communism, the relations between social classes in this steel town was obvious. Barry states that "Marxist literary criticism maintains that a writer's social class, and its prevailing 'ideology' ... have a major bearing on what is written by a member of that class" (152). As a child of a first generation Italian steel worker who went on strike with frightening regularity, I would have to agree.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
The Family Tree
Genealogy has taken on new meaning in Michel Foucault's thought-provoking article. Tracing the vulnerability of the 60s "A certain fragility has been discovered in the very bedrock of existence" (129). His lecture delivered in 1976 points out that the most familiar is now instable. Foucault argues that only "historical contents" offer a point of revelation. Scholarly knowledge in union with popular knowledge (local popular knowledge) allows criticsm to perform its work of uncovering the "historical knowledge of struggles" (131). This leads to viewing power through a unique lens which in turn attempts to decipher the role of power in economics, concluding that power not only represses, but power leads to hostile engagements. These actions can only be interpreted through the term genealogy "to the union of erudite knowledge and local memories" (131). It is only through this approach that history of conflict can be interpreted.
Jameson's article written in 1981 regarding the interpretation of literature as a socially symbolic act declares that it is the political interpretation of literary texts that is "the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation" (181).
Capitalism, politics, and history are some of the parameters that define postmodernism according to these critics. Jameson takes a strong stance that the anxieties of modernism are now replaced in the postmodern era with not only a liberation from anxiety but "a liberation from every other kind of feeling as well" (274).
As contemporaries, perhaps Foucault and Jameson have anticipated the detachment enhanced by the saturated technology of the twenty-first century. A technology that allows each generation to be engaged in multiple levels of communication without having to connect from the "self". Is it possible to experience a sense of "local memory" at this level of disconnect? How will our historical legacy be interpreted?
Jameson's article written in 1981 regarding the interpretation of literature as a socially symbolic act declares that it is the political interpretation of literary texts that is "the absolute horizon of all reading and all interpretation" (181).
Capitalism, politics, and history are some of the parameters that define postmodernism according to these critics. Jameson takes a strong stance that the anxieties of modernism are now replaced in the postmodern era with not only a liberation from anxiety but "a liberation from every other kind of feeling as well" (274).
As contemporaries, perhaps Foucault and Jameson have anticipated the detachment enhanced by the saturated technology of the twenty-first century. A technology that allows each generation to be engaged in multiple levels of communication without having to connect from the "self". Is it possible to experience a sense of "local memory" at this level of disconnect? How will our historical legacy be interpreted?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
