In English classes, we have traditionally (for 100 years at least) invested our attention overwhelmingly on THE TEXT, meaning special kinds of writing that are deemed especially beautiful/innovative/profound/relevant/resistant. What is changing, both in the discipline and the technological ecology in which we practice it, to refocus our attention? Who or what are we supposed to be paying attention to, if not (say) Bartleby, the Scrivener? What are some ways that this course itself moves in the direction Liu alludes to?

With the introduction of technology the value of the text has changed. No longer will we be focusing on how beautiful/innovative/profound/relevant/resistant a text my be. Technology has made it so that everyone may become an author and everyone may be involved in the creation of THE TEXT. The modern use of technology i.e. Twitter, Facebook, Vine, etc. thrives on the voice of the people. Its success comes from everyone being able to comment and give an opinion about issues and hot topics. Our focus then changes from the quality of the text and instead just focuses on the bases of the texts. As Alan Liu mentioned in his article, technology is moving a direction where the lines between author and reader are non existent. We are evolving so that a text becomes more of a dialogue or communication between groups rather than a simple text with an author and reader.

I’ve always found it very unusual to witness people posing for photographs, and especially in public.
When I get to observe this kind of thing, I want to note that it generally involves more than one person. The act of the selfie deserves extensive mention, but I’m going to skip over it here. Instead, I’d like to paint the image of a group of people huddled proximate to one another; there is that second or two of motion as every makes their last minute adjustments, bodies shift, faces moving. If you let your eyes fall slack on this act of preparation, you can feel it in the momentary delerium as the image tightens up, focuses, and becomes Correct.

The weird feeling arises out of an understanding that I am participating in a voyeuristic double act, watching someone prepare themselves for visual consumption. That isn’t to say there is anything weird about wanting to look a certain way in the photographs you take. At the same time, the reflexivity present in posing is one that has marred the whole span of my life, as I recall every instance of squinting and squirming among family members at some restaurant gathering (to appease a grandfather, whom out of a simple filial love, I allow to undergo another present act of photographic geneology). But to be on the outside of this whole shenanigan inflects the act with a peculiar kind of mental funk.

This whole event is even weirder when we think of the selfie as the new dominant mode of self-photography. The lens has seldom ever been turned onto us in the way that it is now. In antiquity, one would pose in front of it (the lens, the gaze). But now, with the selfie, photography is not just the gaze turned inward but the mirror too, in whose reflection constitute our selves; Lacan, I think, would have a field day.

What I think makes this more interesting is when we bring in the work of Walter Benjamin, the 20th century media critic, whose seminal text, “The Work of Art in the Age of Technological Reproduction”, struggled with the implications of what it meant for images to be easily reproduced and disseminated in the media after the advent of photography and film. Beyond Benjamin’s world is the one we live in now, where technological reproduction has been accelerated to breakneck velocities and the concept of Virality is precisely a gauge of that sort of thing. Our Infosphere, where people can release their image into this arena and watch it spore, leaves me wondering how that affects our conception of ourselves, where we no longer deliberate our image as a singular instance outside of ourselves, but as one specifically manufactured for an anticipated level of reproduction, distribution, and consumption.

When “homosexual” first became a term in 1870 that one was defined by. It gave a name to sexual desires, labelling what one “is” instead of what one “does.” To Foucault, sexuality is entrenched in power and politics. Although the Victorian era is today seen as sexually repressed, according to Foucault it was anything but. In this era, around the time when the term “homosexual” first came into use, there seemed to have been a painstaking attempt to turn sex into discourse. The church started shaping and pushing the discourse of sexuality in a new direction, attempting to turn the banal, passing thought into a sin that must be confessed. Foucault sees this as a state apparatus attempting to control thought and power.

In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, more laws were passed limiting sexual behavior and criminalizing “devious” sexual acts. What once lived in the realm of fantasy, now became something that was intimately connected to who and what one was, and thus, must be governed. Because of the increasing discourse being discussed around sexuality, fringe sexuality was turned into the discourse. Science began quantifying it, the government began to study it, and categories were constructed based upon one’s sexual behavior. Naming this behavior turned a thought into a thing.

By structuralizing and codifying the once-mundane, our thoughts are named and turned into measurable structuralized categories: homosexual, heterosexual, transsexual, transgendered, bisexual, cis-gender, queer, etc. It is if by uttering our thoughts, we essentially box ourselves into a category from which there is no getting out of. Speaking these thoughts, then, gives away our free agency to someone more powerful than us, like the government, a priest, or the analyst. We are turned into a number, or assigned a role, rather than seen as individual. Further, as we confess and give this information away to others, we are also gaining a deeper understanding of ourselves. This perhaps leads to self-censorship and self-restriction, at the behest of state apparatuses seeking to control our behavior.

In her book Epistemology of the Closet, Eve Sedgwick delineates the difference between sex, gender and sexuality. Often, many of us confuse these terms and use them interchangeably, for example, particularly in the use of “sex” and “gender,” which are then inherently linked to sexuality. This is not so. For Sedgwick, while sex, gender, and sexuality are related, they are three separate parts of our identity. Sex, as she explains, references “chromosomal sex” and is differentiated by the XX and XY chromosomes, as well as the genetic traits that come with each—genitalia, bodily hair distribution, hormonal distribution, etc. (2470). Gender, is more fully “dichotomized,” and socially constructed, as social roles are often defined based on our chromosomal sex. Sexuality, Sedgwick says, relies on desire, and is inextricably linked to gender, because “each can only be expressed in terms of one another” (2478), and sexuality is often linked to gender—if one is a male he/she, under a heteronormative viewpoint, should be attracted to women and vice-versa. Because gender is often thought of as the male/female binary, this binary gives way to other binaries that effect sexuality like heterosexual and homosexual. Out of the three, sexuality is most constructed by social norms, and can be defined as “the array of acts, expectations, narratives, pleasures, identity-formations, and knowledges, in both women and men, that tends to cluster most densely around certain genital sensations but is not adequately defined by them.” All three, when spoken of together, become the basis of identity not just for the self but for the outside world, who seeks to name the individual.

When we think about these binaries, it is important to think of those that fall outside of them, like transgendered individuals or others who consider both their gender and sexuality to be fluid. These people are neither homosexual/heterosexual nor are they gendered as male or female. This is especially true of intersexed individuals who cannot readily be identified along the XX/XY, male/female or homosexual/heterosexual binaries. An intersex individual is one that is born with genitals that are ambiguous and unable be identified as male or female at birth, which creates a problem for the child. Because of our societal notion that a child must be defined as male or female both chromosomally as well as in a gendered sense, the parent or doctors decide whether that child will be male or female. The child has no say in this, as they cannot tell their parents if they feel more masculine or feminine, or what sex they identify as. Because of this, many doctors and parents make the decision at birth to surgically alter the child to fit the image of a male or female. Hormones are then often given to these children to ensure their growth into their decided sex.

Because of their genitalia and our societal definitions regarding gender, the binary that they are forced to fit into is both constricting and destructive to the individual. As the intersexed child grows, he or she may feel decidedly more male or female, or perhaps may feel both male and female. However, they will never be able to explore either side of their sexuality because they have been pigeonholed into sex/gender/sexuality binaries without their consent. Oppression and power, then, as we can see, springs out of the need to force the individual into these boxes and binaries in order to control what may fall outside of the heteronormative point-of-view.

In excerpts from her book, Gender Trouble, Judith Butler discusses “gender performativity” and the relationship between performativity and sexuality. She also implies that gender should not be seen as binary, but rather as fluid. She states that genitals need not apply when speaking about gender and sexuality as one should not, and do not, have anything to do with one another. The dominant ideology, or heterosexual illusion, is that someone with a penis, will cause one to sexually identify as a man and will cause one to be sexually attracted to women.

Butler questions this assertion, asking if this really is the “natural” structure of our environment, or whether sexual identity is socially constructed based upon our genitalia as a way of classification and restriction. To her, our sex and sexual desires are not linked, and do not comprise our identity. The falsity of this link can be seen when we examine other cultures and historical eras, when sex and sexuality were not inevitably interrelated (like Roman, Greeks, etc.) like they are in today’s western society.

Butler essentially undermines the distinction between gender and sexuality, arguing that gender is not an “inner truth” or a core part of our identity. Rather gender is a construction borne out of a “stylish repetition of actions,” or in other words, a performance. This performance includes acting out our everyday behaviors: the way we walk, talk, move, dress, and act both publicly and privately. This behavior “congeals” over time, making us think that the gender effect is an inner-truth or part of our identity, when it is in fact a by-product of social construction. Gender is not inevitable, then. It is fluid and free-flowing, and we can change the way we perceive it by “reclassification.”

Judith Jack Halberstam describes an interesting phenomena in their essay “Female Masculinity,” in which, in a de-industrialized age, many men perceive their masculinity as fragile and powerless. As the perception of “manliness” changes due to a rise of women in the workplace, or a rise in the acceptance of homosexuality, a desire is produced in many males to reaffirm his “maleness,” or straight-white-male dominance, over the female body. When we look at this “crisis of masculinity” in the real-terms, we can see how it applies to our social and political world.

If we watch the news, or pay attention at all to politics, we’ll often hear the term “war on women.” This is a term that refers to an effort to restrict women’s rights, particularly in regards to her health decisions, her workplace, her sex-life, and her sexuality. Abortion, seems to be an especially divisive subject, in which many people either lean towards the “pro-life” or “pro-choice” side. In regards to political viewpoints and politicians, and while both sides are ultimately pandering to their base, democrats are often on the side of “choice,” stating that women should be able to choose whether or not to have children. Republicans—a party that is primarily represented by older white men in congress—on the other hand, are often “anti-choice,” stating that the life of the unborn child is their primary concern. It is curious, however, that the life of the mother is never a part of the Republican conversation about access (or lack thereof) to abortion. They never speak of whether or not a child would harm the woman physically or mentally; or whether the woman wants a child; whether she has goals and dreams that a child may interrupt; whether she’s been raped or sexually assaulted. In these discussions, her role is relegated to that of an incubator, and her life is unacknowledged and unappreciated.

By not addressing these issues, Republicans prove that their goal isn’t to save babies or promote Christian values, it’s to control the woman and keep her in her traditional role—to that of the housewife and mother. When women are kept in their traditional roles, men are kept in theirs. Their maleness is kept intact, crisis averted. Further, if their true goal were to save babies, one would think that contraception would be used as an answer to prevent an unwanted pregnancy. However, this is not the case. Many of those who seek to restrict abortion access also seek to restrict contraceptive access, a further attempt to control women’s bodies. We can see this with Congress’ attempt to repeal the Obamacare mandate that insurance companies provide free birth control to all women, as well as the recent Supreme Court ruling in favor of Hobby Lobby, who sued to prevent birth control coverage for their female employees because of the company’s religious beliefs (never mind that corporations cannot, by definition, have religious beliefs). A few years ago, when congress called a “religious freedom” hearing to talk about contraception and the Obamacare mandate, not one woman was called to testify.

Contraception and abortion threatens the male in the way that women are able to, without their partner’s input, decide when they wish to have children. Prior to unrestricted access to contraception and abortion, men were able to dictate when the woman got pregnant, how many children they would have, etc., effectively choosing when a woman’s independent life would end. She would be confined to the home with little choice in the matter, as her only job was to bear children and take care of her husband. This made her dependent upon the male, and women were chattel, in this way. Men not only had social control over the female body, but economic control as well.

With the advent of contraception and legal abortion, women were finally able to make their own choices. It seems as if many men in power idealize this era—they wish for a woman’s place to be in the home, and for their power to go unchallenged and unsurpassed. So it is unsurprising, then, that attempts to restrict abortion and contraception access has been experiencing a resurgence in recent years. It seems as if it is almost a last ditch effort of a dying generation, who experienced the sexual revolution and the de-industrialization of labor, to reassert their male dominance over an entirely new generation of women. They are still experiencing a crisis of masculinity, their fear attempting to dictate our bodies.

As English majors, we are used to critically examining text by doing a “close reading.” Close reading refers to the act of reading a text, then examining a passage, usually a very brief one and interpreting it. I cannot count how many times I’ve been asked to write a six to seven page paper, while tediously and painfully dissecting two lines of a poem or a paragraph of prose. In the arts and humanities, at least, close-reading is incredibly pervasive and a highly preferred method of thinking and/or writing about a text. However, while it is often an effective way of exploring main ideas and larger themes of a novel or poem, it does have its drawbacks. Perhaps, the humanities would do well to openly embrace another critical method—distant reading, a method which takes a step back and examines a text through a socio-political-historical viewpoint, taking other works and genres into account. Distant reading is a healthy balance to the constricted approach of close reading.

The numerous times I’ve been asked to write a paper using close reading, both in college and high school, I often feel as if I am trying to conjure something out of thin air. It is difficult to take one sentence, quote, or even punctuation point and pull meaning out of it. Additionally, as a student of English, it is hard to do close readings and not try to guess what the professor is thinking. For example, when reading a poem, my interpretation might be entirely different than that of my professor’s. However, I know what the professor (really) wants (though they may deny this), from my close reading is to read the text as he/she would. Thus, my close reading is identical to that of my professor’s and my classmates, rendering any original thought and perspective useless. Close reading is unreliable if it is only full of singular thought on an outdated canon, and it is alienating to those who think differently. Further, it often misses the fuller concept of a text’s plot in favor of a more focused approach, which concentrates on one particular character or symbol. Close reading overlooks the pure joy derived from literature.

Of course, close reading is still effective—we can view the author’s use of cadence and imagery in a more precise light, we can see the complexity in a single sentence, we can view larger issues through the use of a single phrase or paragraph. However, there must be a balance. There is a different way to examine these texts, without parsing syllables and phrases and constructing meaning out of nothing. If nothing else, distant reading offers an alternative to close reading, which, as stated, is riddled with inconsistency and complications. Distant reading “zooms out” of the novel to examine the larger socio-economic or historical themes in a genre, unlike close reading which “zooms in” on a particular point or idea within the text. We can use distant reading to view the rise and fall of a particular genre, or see where the rise of a genre stems from in relation to a historical timeframe.

Because distant reading is scientific, and uses a massive amount of data compiled from thousands of books to come up with theses and conclusions, it is objective rather than subjective and leads to quantitative rather than qualitative truths. The method is data-driven—literature is fed through a computer, and novels are seen as raw numbers, thus our personal biases do not cloud our judgement, because the information is clear. Using distant reading, one can clearly understand how a novel might compare to the rest of its contemporaries through its use of words, phrases, genre or theme. Additionally, we are able to formulate new theories, ideas, and interpretations about literature-at-large because there is a much more substantial body of work to choose from. Rather than comparing the five novels a professor might assign, distant reading compares thousands. Further, distant reading is especially useful for cultural studies and multi-ethnic literature as we are able to interpret novels on a global scale, rather than only analyze the traditional western canon that most English students are exposed to. We can view, scientifically, when the rise of the novel began in each country, and can compare African literature to Chinese literature to South American literature, etc. The canon, then (which some may say is outdated and exclusionary), is simultaneously expanded and abolished using distant reading.

I’d like to be clear that while I do not believe that distant reading should supplant close reading, it should certainly supplement it. It would do the humanities, particularly English departments, well to at least examine some of the benefits that distant reading has to offer. While close reading is certainly effective and beneficial, our view of literature needs to be expanded. There needs to be another way to read, and interpret, literature.

I was listening to the NPR podcast Planet Money the other day and thought of you guys and your exams. The episode concerns the way ISIS funds itself (it’s #667) and how it runs its budget. Basically, they spend a ton of cash on what Althusser calls RSAs: soldiers, weapons, “direct domination.” And as brutal as this practice is, it would give one hope that they have no pathway to shift from repressive to ideological apparatuses as the central mode of reproducing their movement: as Althusser says in a nutshell (and Gramsci says more subtly for my money), winning hearts and minds is in the long run much cheaper and more scalable!

In looking into the Zizek’s work on courtly love, to really understand it I tried to think of the examples I had grown up with and have become familiar with over time, which can account for similar patterns of this concept. In doing so, I realized how we, women and men alike, may have been conditioned to have expectations on love, or rather the ideal lover, beginning with the tales we are told. If not learned from a Disney movie, then perhaps from another fictional tale, serving as a reference for idealization. I hint at the word tale to say that though we should not believe, we never truly question is there really ever a happy ever after? Is he really saving her or is he distracting her from her self?

We can visualize this through story of the Trojan War. In the Greek myth, love is expressed as the salvation of a damsel in distress. Helen, born of Zeus and Leda is inevitably the most beautiful woman to be known and becomes the object of desire for eligible bachelors, or “suitors”. She is the ideal, solely because of her beauty and nothing of what she may have to offer. All other conceptualizations of an ideal woman are thrown out because of her ability to mesmerize. The “abduction” of Helen by Paris (as depicted in Homer’s telling), initiates the obstacle of a war that her suitors must overcome. However, it becomes evident through this tale that the goal of the suitors is not truly to obtain Helen, but rather to receive the glories of war – the gifts, the praise, etc. This fictional idealization becomes all of their downfalls. Not much is told of the marriage between Helen and her savior Menelaus thereafter. Is she, then, saved from Paris or saved from her self?

Then, I began to recount the numerous Disney movies on the lives of princesses I had loved growing up. All include the same sort of damsel in distress theme. The Lady who needs a Knight to become her husband in order to save her from some miserable situation. Take Cinderella for example. She marries a prince who has options of women to marry. Cinderella, for that night, becomes the most beautiful of them all. However, one must think, would he have loved her the same had she showed up in her raggedy clothing, eliminating the ideal picture? And why must they go in search for the one who fits the shoe? Does he not remember her face? Clearly the answer leads to that fact that Cinderella is the idealized object of desire and since he cannot match a face, his obstacle becomes his search for the foot that fits. This is also an obstacle for Cinderella, who has to try and conceal the secret from her angry step mother and step sisters. He finds her, they get married and she is away from her step-family, but what happens after?

This also leads me to the idea that perhaps women have their own idealizations of “the knight in shining armor”. He must be unique, handsome, strong, and heroic. She to him must be beautiful and ditzy, unable to get out of her own situation alone. Courtly love is not only of the lady to whom the knight desires. It is also of the knight to whom the lady herself desires. This type of structured love will never work because of the strive for perfectionism. Truly a flaw we encounter today with the concept of love. In other words, it cannot be structured like a movie. It’s never real when it’s ideal.

Blog #7

Masculinity 2.0

Sexual orientation and gender roles have undergone many changes and the ‘norm’ is changing and even widely accepted by society at large. This is not to say its easy and everyone supports the individuals right to chose who, where and how they function in society. The individual is born male or female, according to the XY chromosomes, genitalia etc. this cant be argues really, it’s a fact. However, the psyche of the individual may think and desire things that are not prescribed to their gender and sexual preferences. Where as the acceptance to be ‘other’ has come along way the growth and progress of female masculinity has remained stagnant.

The two movies examined in Halberstams theory of heterosexual conversion narratives prove two major points regarding glorifying male masculinity. The first is the hetero male is attractive and well liked despite the unethical and repulsive traits he exhibits. The second is the hetero male is never challenged by the alternative male to preserve his precious masculine traits (will get to this in later point). The male’s heroic attributes are left in tact and the woman’s desire to love subjects her to a life of compromise. Since the man is incapable of providing the love she desires at its entirety. The woman is forced to compromise-in order to fulfill her desire to reproduce. In the Hollywood version of the story, the woman often chooses a man who is the minority and able to provide her with the love she desires as well as the tools it takes to reproduce. This minority man never challenges the leading man and his masculinity. The woman’s choice to compromise does not resign ate with a masculine female. Female’s traits of masculinity are typically undesirable-a butch lesbian who is hairy and repulsive.

Masculinity has developed and evolved in the sphere of men and their role but remains stagnant for women. The future requires work in the examination and enhancement of female masculinity in a positive light rather than the undesired image of a “butch dyke” one has come to visualize with the term masculine female.

Even the gay man’s embodiment of the properly masculine male in contemporary film has taken the place of the formerly stereotyped feminine male. This is adding more fuel to the already blazing fire of male masculinity.

Femininity needs to revamp its image. Males, regardless of their sexual orientation should happily and proudly display traits derived from a stereotypical fem female, as most women today are proud to be compared to a “masculine” male, considering that it is a sign of strength and resilience.

A man could never understand the strength of the female. The restrictions we still face today. The voice of our desires silenced for so long sound outrageous to the voice of the brave soul who shares the stories. The power-handed down from man to man to man to man is finally beginning to share a tiny sliver of its platform to the female voice. We must fight to make femininity a desirable trait associated with strength, resilience and power!