At one point or another, everyone has woken up from a crazy dream and thought “what the heck was that about?” Well, according to Sigmund Freud, there is, in fact, a significant meaning behind all dreams, so that crazy dream definitely implied something. All dreams are based on our unconscious thoughts. Our likes, dislikes, emotions, and experiences all factor into how a dream is formulated and executed. All ot these things are reflected in our dreams despite dreams being short for the most part. Freud explains that our dreams consist of manifest content and latent content. Manifest content is typically the part that one remembers when they wake up from a dream. It is typically repressed and encoded. This is also the “old school” way of thinking about dreams. On the other hand, we have latent content. Latent content is psychoanalytic and consists of  “dream-thoughts”. Freud said, “We have introduced a new class of psychical material between the manifest content of dreams and the conclusions of our enquiry: namely, their latent content, or (as we say” the ‘dream thoughts’, arrived at by means of our procedure” (Freud 818).

Freud touches upon three aspects of the “dream-work”: condensation, displacement, and representation. Condensation occurs after two or more incidents of displacement. It is encoded into a message we can unravel and unpack later on. Many different ideas are condensed into one singular idea. Displacement, also known as dream distortion, is when something substitutes an illusion for something real and substantial. It is a shift of focus from something important to something less important. Representation refers to when a thought from a dream is transformed into a visual element.

In terms finding the meaning of a dream, a dream can be decoded by having a thought triggered. Typically, latent content is disguised symbolically because latent content contains things that one tries to purposefully repress, like trauma, sadness, and aggression. According to Freud, the latent content is translated through repressed thoughts. Freud’s thought process makes me wonder what exactly sweet dreams are made of.

According to Antonio Gramsci, everyone is an intellectual in one way or another. Each individual uniquely contributes to society. Each person fulfills a certain social function of intellectuals, but not all intellectuals are the same, so in what category does each intellectual belong? Gramsci categorizes intellectuals into two groupss: organic intellectuals and traditional intellectuals. Organic intellectuals are naturally occurring and are all connected in a way. A good example of an organic intellectual would be an artist. Artists have many roles in society, from personal pleasure to therapeutic measures. However, for Gramsci, this group represents people who have been “excluded” from society, since they don’t follow the stereotypical path that people are typically pushed towards. Traditional intellectuals (espirit de corps) are individuals whose role and occupation directly benefit society. For instance, the purpose of being an educator is to dispense knowledge to others and the purpose of being a lawyer is to remain loyal to the bar and to make sure justice is served. Gramsci discusses traditional intellectuals, “…their uninterrupted historical continuity and their special qualification, they thus put themselves forward as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group” (Gramsci 1003).
After explaining to the reader the different categories of intellectuals, he then goes on to explain how difficult it is to put stark criterion on the word “intellectuals”. He argues that these activities are so different that it is almost weird to put them in the sama category. Gramsci condemns looking for distinction in the intrinsic nature of intellectual activities, calling this, “The most widespread error of method…” (Gramsci 1004). Gramsci then goes on to explain the clear difference between being an intellectual and serving as an intellectual, “All men are intellectuals, one could therefore say: but not all men have in society the function of intellectuals” (Gramsci 1004). This means that anyone could fit the description of an intellectual, but that does not matter. What really matters is how a given intellectual uses their skill to contribute to society’s well being. One can have the skills of an intellectual, but only a true intellectual will provide their expertise to the public. Gramsci describes the way that social groups are formed, “They are formed in connection with all social groups, but especially in connection with the more important, and they undergo more extensive and complex elaboration in connection with the dominant social group” (Gramsci 1005). Each social intellectual must be actively participating in the upkeep of civilization.

Here are the instructions for the final exam:

1. Download this template and follow the instructions on it carefully.
2. Upload the completed exam by Wednesday at midnight via the correct link for your section. Submit here for sec 3 and here for sec 4
3. Feel free to email a copy if you’re concerned that the Dropbox upload didn’t work.
4. If you hear nothing on Thursday morning, all is well. If I don’t get an exam from you, I will let you know.
5. For feedback, refer to your Dropbox Paper feedback sheets: it’ll take me until early next week, but feel free to email me a week from Wednesday if you don’t see anything or can’t find your feedback sheet link.

Good luck and have a great summer!

Walter Benjamin uses Marxist theory to detail the concept of myth in art and literature, and the author’s need to side with the proletariat as a moralistic fight between capitalism and the proletariat in the context of Russian journalism. Benjamin concludes that the main demand is the writer’s demand to think with respect to the production process. Benjamin argued that ‘even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element: Its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. The essay deals with the change of aesthetic values that supposedly occurred as a result of the emergence of means of mechanical reproduction. According to Benjamin, the fact that works of art can be reproduced in large quantities devaluates their artistic standards. He introduces the concept of aura. Aura is subtle and has an elusive vibe attained by a work of art as a result of its creation and serving as a basis for the feelings of awe and divine inspiration experienced upon exposure to a masterpiece. Since the primary artistic value of the works of art throughout history was cultic in origin – serving to sustain the belief  and being in fear of the supernatural, aura can be considered the essence of any artwork. However, once an object is duplicated, the aura is not transferred to the copy, stripping it of its artistic and/or ritual merits. Benjamin provides several arguments that confirm the recognition and the reaction to the phenomenon in modern times. Specifically, he argues that the tendency of the modern art movements to distance themselves from the mundane and their goal of becoming detached from the society can be considered a form of self-preservation that aims at the same outcome as the early religious organizations.

Butler is interested in this idea of a performative utterance, and uses it to explain how gender works.
What Butler wants to explain about gender is not that it is a performance, but that gender is something that is made by doing. Butlers idea is that gender comes to exist as it exist because it is done a certain way. For example when a women wears a skirt, the skirt is made feminine. This feminization doesn’t happen because women are naturally made to wear skirts or because male anatomy is more conspicuous when a skirt is worn, but because according to Butler the female body already belongs to a specific social category, which gives it the power to assign its prescribed meaning to the things that it does. So when a women wears a skirt, she marks it as feminine, or when a women allows a man to open the door for her that is also a feminine act. These behaviors marked in that way are then actualized as components or symbols to a larger category of femininity, but these things are made symbols of that category but not because of some appointed meaning given to them. But through a body which passes on its larger categorical meaning to the thing that it does. So when a man wears a skirt he does not automatically
make it feminine, as the skirt is still associated with the female body. But he also isn’t denied the power to make the skirt masculine, or to expand the boundary of what is allowed under the label masculinity. His body, just like the female body, has the power to inscribe and can change what the object means. But the object, carrying
a label, also has the ability to affect what his body
means, and here in lies the trouble. The supposedly
solid categories of masculine and feminine are not solid categories which never touch one another. These categories are always being expanded by the way in which people perform, or do their gender. Gender is not a solid state, or an inflexible category, but instead a category that expands and contracts, and runs into other categories. It is not a category that can be made stable and specific. But on the other hand how most people do the category matters a great deal as this determines how much a category can change. So even though some
men might wear skirts, and challenge the supposedly stable categories of masculinity and femininity the fact that mostly women wear skirts prevents the establishment of a new normalized understanding of skirts. To elaborate even further from the book, “the performance of drag plays upon the distinction between the anatomy of the performer and the gender that is being performed. But we are actually in the presence of three contingent dimensions of significant corporeality: anatomical sex, gender etc. If the anatomy of the performer is already distinct from the gender of the performer, and both of those are distinct from the gender of the performance, then the performance suggest a dissonance not only between sex and performance, but sex and gender, and gender and performance .” (p. 2549-2550)

In Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner’s essay titled, “Sex in Public”, the discussion of the LGBTQ+ community comes into play while talking about the heteronormative society. Right off the bat to start the second paragraph of this piece they write, “The aim of the essay is to describe what we want to promote as the radical aspirations of queer culture building: not just a safe zone for queer sex, but the changed possibilities of identity, intelligibility, publics, culture, and sex that appear when the heterosexual couple is no longer the referent or privileged example of sex culture”, which pretty much sets the baseline for this reading. The need to push the idea that heterosexuals are not the only way of life anymore and it needs to be embraced. Not only for queer people but for society as a whole to have an understanding that this is not always the “normal”. In scene one of their essays, the writers discuss a Time magazine cover in which the girl on it didn’t appear as the typical white female. She had a “new face”. They used this to appeal to the fact that we should no longer associate the typical “nuclear family” as the norm. We need to accept the fact that we are growing as a society so why would we reject people who don’t fit into this ideology that a white dominated society created? and why would we scrutinize anyone who wanted to do so even if we did not? The second scene was about when NYC Council passed the Zoning Text Amendment that “…covers adult book and video stores, eat and drinking establishments, theaters, and other businesses”. This meant that now people of the queer community now had their safe spaces almost completely taken from them which resulted in dangerous circumstances for them. So while trying to reconstruct the city, to make what they think is safer or better for all, they were actually destructing a community who had to fight for safe sex practices even before it was passed. People should be free to express themselves especially their sexuality, have the right to do that safely, and whether it be in private or public that is all the power to them. Remember to explore and be open to the possibilities outside the “normal” lives we have set up for ourselves because whether you know it or not, our intimate lives are out there in everyday life. 

Spiller begins her essay with the specific names she has been called due to the color of her skin such as “brown sugar” and “aunty”. She commentates on the meaning of being a “marked woman” in society. She is marked because the world will define her and black women without knowing anything about them. She is confined to societal stereotypes and categorized. Spiller remarks on the word choice and grammar used. The usage of distinct and particular  language is symbolic because it carries the past along with it. Spiller notes this language has heavy roots to the discrimination people of color have faced before her. Along with discrimination, these microagrressions carry the history of those before. This opening compares with Fanon’s from earlier in the term because Fanon also notes the forced placement black people in society have in relation to white people. Fanon explains how the world expects black people to emulate white people and perform. Both Spiller and Fanon notice the alienation people of color receive in a world constantly reminding them they are unwelcomed. In both Spiller’s and Fanon’s writing, their is a feeling of self versus what is expected or perceived. This conflict is one that people of color face. It is about figuring out your self worth even though the world treats you like you have none. Both writings address the humiliation when these nicknames or microaggressions take place. 

Language and word association has a big part in society. There is this subconscious bias in which the world’s people use to elude their true intentions and biases. “Peaches’ ‘ and  “brown sugar” are names of food and its dehumanizing. The nicknames remind me of foundation colors at makeup stores. Even now, the shade colors for darker tones are food items such as almond, chocolate, mocha, and  hazelnut. The same can not be said for the lighter ones as they are usually pearl, golden, nude, warm, and neutral. Microaggressions continue the oppression and antagonizing of people of color. Spiller’s essay “Mama’s baby Papa’s maybe” examines how language further adds to the categorization and dehumanizing nature society imparts to women of color. 

Coming from a mixed family, I have seen how people treat my siblings who are part black versus me who is part latina. In particular, my older sister has received unsolicited nicknames pertaining to her skin color since we were kids. She navigates this world with more hardship than I do and is categorized and expected to comply in silence to this injustice.

In “The Work of Art in the Age of its Technical Reproducibility”, Walter Benjamin describes aura as the work’s uniqueness, originality, and authenticity. The factor that produces said aura is how rare the piece is but also it’s creation from an artist.. Another factor that increases aura is if the piece is also only able to be viewed by a select few. This aura is created due to it being “one of a kind”. The social and cultural factors that create this “aura” is the exclusivity. Art throughout time has been restricted to the wealthy and distributed between them. Due to the wealthy being a small percentage, art that is not accessible retains this exclusivity and uniqueness with its aura. Aura is less prevalent in modernity, roughly since the mid 19th century, due to mass production and mechanical reproducitiblity. Mass production and mechanical reproducibility strip away aura because now many people have the work since it is reprintable. The uniqueness disappears and it’s mark is lessened as well as its essence. Benjamin states “It might be stated as a general formula that the technology of reproduction detaches the reproduced object from the sphere of tradition. By replicating the work many times over, it substitutes a mass existence for a unique existence.”​ The mass existence of the piece no longer has that aged and sole touch. A shiny perfectly preserved yet identical to millions piece  is now available instead of one hand touched by the artist that has survived the many years. This historical appreciation gets mentioned by Benjamin with him commenting that “Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art·is lacking in one element: its presence in time and space, its unique existence at the place where it happens to be. This unique existence of the work of art determined the history to which it was subject throughout the time of its existence. This includes the changes which it may have suffered in physical condition over the years as well as the various changes in its ownership.” This attributes time, ownership, and condition to the definition of aura. As time passes, the work gets passed through many hands. Its previous owner adding to the cultural value. The aura gets added to. In our world today, the internet allows for art to be shared and reproduced in a second culminating in millions of copies of one image. NFTs are one way people are trying to bring aura back. The problem however remains the same as only the rich are able to buy them due to their price.

The Mirror Stage as Formative of the I Function by Jacques Lacan describes the mirror stage that occurs in child development. The “Ideal-I” or “the mirror stage” takes place between the age of eight months to sixteen months. This is the point where the child now is able to recognize themselves in the mirror and in a symbolic sense. The child starts to have a sense of identity with themself and who they are and how they fit into the world. This fundamental period is when children become aware of their presence and thus control their bodies and movements. Before this stage, infants were dependent on the nuturings of their parents. The guardian and child were a united and co functioning pair. Once the age of eight months is reached however, this symbiotic bond is lessened as the child now has a sense and recognition of “I”. Their reflection in the mirror and their reflection of themselves through the caregiver allows the child to form their own mental image of themselves. The mirror stage is a big deal and a critical part in the child’s development because no longer is the child’s view of itself a cluster of parts and fragmented. Now, the child can see itself as whole and in some sense “real” in an imaginary state. This state of being perceived in the “imaginary” is developed because “The mirror stage is a drama whose internal thrust is precipitated from insufficiency to anticipation – and which manufactures for the subject, caught up in the lure of spatial identification”(1166). This imaginary image that a child seeks more of during the age of eight to sixteen months is similar to what adults experience. This experience encompasses trying to be more like specific role models or emulating celebrity figures who are looked up to. This emulation occurs due to a constructed mirror image we create. This stage as described by Lacan correlates with Frued’s theories because the child’s image is entirely constructed through layers of itself and thus the ego is manifested. Freud would attribute this stage as a form of narcissism. The love of oneself is formed during this stage as the fascination with one’s own reflection is formed and sought after. This all establishes the imaginary order of the world and how the child fits into it. Once the imaginary order ends, the child will enter the symbolic order and they will further examine their place in the world.

Lauren Berlant and Michael Warner’s theory that sexuality constantly appears in society often confuses the public realm. When an individual thinks of engaging with sexual activities, a local park or a subway cart does not come to mind. Sexual endeavors occur in the bedroom; a space where surveillance cannot survive. Since sex occurs in a private space and society has not normalized public discussions of sex, how can sexuality effortlessly seep its way into daily life? Heteronormativity drives the social structures of societies. Heteronormativity- which pulls its ideas from heterosexual relations, “produces in almost every aspect of the forms and arrangements of social life” (Berlant and Warner 2605). Heteronormativity translates itself into the public realm through high school prom posters that encourage boys to ask girls to the dance, normalized “compliments” such as “that boy is going to break so many girls’ hearts when he grows up,” and mainstream television shows that depict a comedic nuclear family. People consume these outlets and begin to believe that they also must engage with heterosexual behavior.

Furthermore, sexuality manifests itself through the presentation of families in the public realm. By picking apart the literal components of a family, marriage between a man and a woman exemplifies a heterosexual public pairing. Now advancing from marriage to a couple having children, their children are literal evidence of sexual activities that have taken place. Additionally, “familialism signifies belonging to society” (Berlant and Warner 2605). Nuclear families will always have space in society because they are contributing to the heteronormative ideals of society. The operations of a family like: parents saving money for their future, parents placing their children in school, and parents executing their taxes differently because of their children, all point to the display of sexuality.

“Heteronormative conventions of intimacy create issues because it blocks the building of nonnormative sexual cultures” (Berlant and Warner 2604). Since society has created rigid parameters for people to experience sexuality, queer individuals do not have the space to participate in the public realm. The solution to this problem would be the creation of a queer counter public that facilitated queer ideas. However, in the 1990s, “the New York City Council passed a new zoning law that shut down the adult businesses that populated Christopher Street” (Berlant and Warner 2602). As a result, “gay men were forced to find spaces on the outskirts of the city where they had a great chance of being attacked” (Berlant and Warner 2603). Though alternative realms were created so queer individuals could engage in sex, discuss sex, and figure out the safety components of their sexual desires, society restricted the parameters of these environments. Heteronormativity prevents other sexual expressions from creating their own realms.