bell hooks, not Bell Hooks

Ethnography: the study and systematic recording of human cultures; this term is also used to describe any work produced from this research

“Play with a puppy he’ll lick you in the mouth:” emphasizes the importance of distance; about the danger of falsely assuming familiarity and presuming to have knowledge of matters that had not been revealed (328)
In relation to cultural studies and race, this saying could be about an African-American assuming to be on the same level as a white person, but the white person treats the African American with contempt, thereby emphasizing “difference” and “otherness.”

As bell hooks reads works of literary and cultural studies that focus on race, she finds that white writers often assume the position that they are aware of the African-American views and write outside of white supremacy, but white writers do write as if shaped and informed by the context of white supremacy. She adds that these white writers don’t think they should address the fact that they write within the context of white supremacy. She then adds that scholars (who belong to groups who dominate, exploit and oppress) should be able to look through their work to find areas that imply the context of supremacy without being afraid or feeling guilty (328-329).

In the essay, hooks asserts that cultural studies is the area that seems most willing to include the race issue because it is more contemporary, and many scholars are focusing on “otherness,” post-colonialism, and also feminism (329).

The feminist movement is important in bell hook’s view because it brought about race as a political issue with which she attributes powerful African-American women (329).

She also tells that she is disheartened with the prestige and acclaim denied African-American studies. She is also upset with the way cultural studies programs are run by white men, as some of these programs are beginning to replace African-American studies and women’s studies. Immediately after these statements, bell says that cultural studies is exciting because it calls attention to race and gives academic legitimacy (329).

Later, bell asserts that scholars in the academy resist awkward or uncomfortable situations of diversity. She agrees with Cornel West in his suggestion that the domain of the academy should not highlight “otherness” because it marginalizes those people (330).

She is unhappy with a book (Writing Culture: The Poetics and Politics of Ethnography) that admits to giving little attention to new realms of ethnography and with the idea that African-American scholars are not being counted in the field of ethnography as though no one has realized the importance of difference of experience (330).

In bell’s view, the picture in the beginning of the post shows the white male as authority and writer and the passive black or brown man.

Questions to think about:
Can the cover undermine radical writing (331)?

Is bell just venting?

Why doesn't she ever mention the things she thinks should be heard?

Why does she use absolutes?

Do you agree with her opinions about the cover?

Do you think white writers write about African-American issues blindly?

Do white writers intentionally deny African-Americans the same privileges.

*Note: Instead of merely using her given name, bell hooks (a pseudonym) uproots the ability of others to define her by creating her own identity. Furthermore, and here is where she goes further down the path to linguistic equality, bell hooks does not capitalize the initial letters in the new name: a convention so fundamentally accepted that only ee cummings comes to mind as having also cast it to the proverbial curb. This simple defamiliarization is a constant reminder to take nothing for granted. Is the "b" really more important than either "l"? Or, more significantly, should a name stand above all else in a narcisistic uplifting? (PS I checked for some more info but didn't come across any)

The Differences Between Men and Women

I wanted to reflect on my personal reactions to Flynn's article on feminism, specifically the idea that morality of boys and girls differ even though they are usually both raised primarily by the female figure of the family. Lexi relayed on her blog post that women view morality as "conflicting responsibilities" and their solution is "contextual and narrative." She also posted that men think of morality in terms of "rights and rules."

This is so true and so mind-boggling! I don't have sibling so I can't say I see this first-hand, but to go to a close example, my godfather has a boy and a girl. They were raised mostly by their mom because she was home during the day and volunteered at school as they got older. Before reading this article, I would assume that my cousins would develop the same system of morality since they were raised the same way. Flynn says differently and I think in many situations, she is right. Women tend to be very emotionally driven with a strong sense of justice and fairness, but men tend to make quicker judgements supported by previous or given knowledge.

I think it would be interesting to poll a group of law students or lawyers about their feelings on controversial court cases. Do you think women would be more likely to look at the predisposition of the criminals and be sympthetic for their actions, which may have been caused by circumstances outside of the criminal's control? And would men be more likely to look the other way when a women robs a bank to feed her starving children because it is still against the law?

Continental Criticism: Deconstructionist or Marxist?

The deconstructionist and Marxist methods of criticism really grabbed my attention from all the readings for today's class. I want to reflect on each of them a bit.

I didn't know there was a name for critics who are specifically intrigued by the use of words. Well, that's me. I think I am deconstructionist in my critiquing and my writing. In my opinion, these deconstructionists are rebel-rousers. I linked then in my own mind to English Nazis (you know, those people who impulsively correct any verbal grammar mistakes you accidentally make). Again, that's me. I learned in one of my English classes to write with deliberate words in support of your argument. I think this lesson has in turn motivated me to pay more attention to the meanings of words in my formal arguments.
I also love the fact that the deconstructionist "accepts no utterance at face value and instead examines a text for what they find interesting, whether or not it coincides with the author's intended interpretation" (315). The issue of finding the author's meaning versus finding your own has been on my mind since early in high school. The way I see it, a lot of writers have long died and didn't necessarily leave behind a SparkNotes outline so that readers know exactly what they were trying to get at in their works. So many novels don't have one message or one symbolic interpretation or one whatever to be absorbed from reading the book. If a reader gets some extraordinary message out of a novel that wasn't intended to be there, who cares? If you tell the reader he was wrong, it only destroys his message.

So as for Marxist critics, I have to say that I'm probably not one when it comes to literary critques but when it comes to cultural and especially political critiques, I am at least part Marxist. It may be my liberal minded political science teachers that have molded me into a little Marxist, but I do tend to question motives of actions in relation to monetary gain for the elite. It is fairly easy to find sources to criticize for using rhetoric to advance the elitist. Turn on the TV; wait five minutes. I think that a lot of the economic factors that the Marxists harp on are also social factors. Even the way a person speaks could have to do with their economic class. (The stereotype of Harvard frat boys.. similar to a Mr. Carlton Banks a la The Fresh Prince) But I think this criticism is very pessimistic of the government even though I think good points are made with Marxist criticism. It would be sad to devote yourself to Marxist criticism only.

Political Criticism, Doing Rhetorical Criticism, The Nature of Rhetorical Criticism

The problem with departments of literature being the ‘place’ for our dissent and debate is that while no one will tell you WHAT to believe, the dept. of lit. tell us HOW to use language in ‘acceptable’ ways. What we think is constrained by specific rules of discourse.

This idea came from Leah's post on Eagleton's article, and I think it is an interesting topic for discussion. I actually agree and disagree with these statements at the same time. It is true that there are certain ways of grammar and argument that you learn in school. For the most part (at least until MLA decides they need more money) grammar stays the same, and you will learn the same rules throughout middle school, high school, and college. But the idea of learning how to use words and argument in a successful way differs with each teacher. (Side note: From personal experience I know that Jesuit and Dominican in New Orleans teach different methods of writing. I went to Dominican and proofread many a Jesuit paper. I usually had problems with the organization of the arguments and techniques used, but in the end that method got the Jesuit boy and A, while my totally different method also got me an A.) In college I was taught by a professor to argue a point by repeating key words over and over in order not to confuse the reader with synonyms and vague words. I grew attached to this technique, but when I applied it in another class I got a big fat C on my paper. So to get to my point, I think each professor or teacher has a different idea of what he or she considers a good argument with good rhetorical techniques and the smart student will find those echniques and use them to get the grade. But outside of class, I don't think people care how you write even when they critique or choose works to be considered in the canon. Conrad's Heart of Darkness hardly follows the use of any established technique as he resorts to the difficult to follow stream-of-consciousness. Emily Dickenson's poetry is widely loved but is also greatly awkward in its fragmentation. Also, many words have turned into parts of speech that are not acknowledged by Oxford (mostly slang like sketchy, facebooked, etc.). So I guess my final point for everyone to think about is "Do you feel constrained by rules of discourse?" I don't.. but maybe I've been brainwashed not to realize it.

CC Conclusion: The Grand Finale

Consumers are considering some media channels as "lifelines." Is this a bad thing that consumers are becoming so dependent upon these media channels?

I want to respond to Leah's question above. I think the jobs and lifestyles of each particular consumer has to do with their reliability on certain media channels. You can't judge whether or not it is a bad thing until the consumers' jobs and lifestyles are considered. For example, students in elementary school, middle school, and high school spend most of their time in school, doing extracurricular activities, and doing homework. These students are learning the basics and should not be dependant on media channels while they are learning the basics of education. If these students are so focused on television or text-messaging, they may miss out on the basics. To take this example to the next step with college students, I think it is okay to depend on some media channels because these students have already learned the basics of education and communication without media channels or with limited access to media channels (at least for my age group and older). Adults should be able to depend on media channels to manage their time with their jobs. Blackberries can be used to take advantage of long car rides and get some work done (especially for party planners or jobs with similar requirements). Other types of jobs like babysitting do not require the use of media channels as much and it would be adverse for those people to depend on media channels because it would distract them from their jobs.

Links for CC6

YouTube - Ben's Oreo TrueMajority.org
TrueMajority
YouTube - Donald Trump Fires President Bush
Anti-Obama Designs for tshirts and household items
The Anti Hillary Clinton Store : Shop The Right Conservative Republican & Christian : CafePress.com
Stop Her Now: homepage
JoeTrippi.com
FreakingNews.com - News Photoshop Pictures Contests - home page

CC6: Blog or Die

Main concept: Politics Meets Popular Culture
Minor concepts: Shift from Viewers to Participators, Joe Trippi Helps Shape New Politics, Blogging “Spoils” Government

The main idea in this chapter is that people have become more focused on popular culture and less interested in politics, so in order to generate more interest in politics, the two must meet. One example of how this has been attempted is the action of the True Majority Group. Ben Cohen of Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream founded this organization to increase voter participation and rally support behind a progressive agenda and advertised by producing an anti-Bush spoof of The Apprentice on the Internet (206). An important consideration of this video and other similar attempts are to get the ideas into the broadest possible circulation (207).

Previous media communicated from one to many, but new media involves participation, reciprocity, and peer-to-peer interaction (208). As the previous media shifts to new media, citizens will shift from sitting on the couch watching political debates to watching debates, commentaries, and spoofs and then following online watching more information, accessing data, and participating in polls and debates. This community will participate more and rely less on official experts (209).

Joe Trippi, Howard Dean’s campaign manager, wanted to harness emerging grassroots power and looked to the Internet in a time of digital culture (209). He used meetup.com to organize rallies and blogging to make the campaign more personal. Trippi argues that the Internet makes us smarter, more involved, and better informed, while TV left us dumb, disengaged, and disconnected (210).

Blogging “spoils” the American government as bloggers pool information, go to each other as experts, debate and scrutinize information (215). Bloggers track down information that has already occurred, but unlike spoilers, bloggers also attempt to shape future events (216). Blogging is also used as an outlet for bloggers to express their discontent with news media and politics. Blogging also brings about a political division in that people with similar ideas tend to visit like blogs, so that political debate doesn’t occur to the optimum of Internet capabilities (216).

Ideas to think about: Does popular culture when combined with politics really motivate people to vote? Which media source reaches the most viewers: TV or the Internet? Why did Trippi’s digital political revolution fail? Are political blogs useful if they only attract like-minded bloggers?

CC5: Harry Who?

I'm glad that Lexi pointed out that the fan fiction websites are non-threatening. I think this is an important factor people need to know about these websites. The fact that they are non-threatening brings many more possibilities to the site. This means that the fan fiction website is not a place where children can be coerced into meeting creepy older men who pretend to be twelve year old friends. This also means that children can have an outlet for writing that parents will approve. Parents will not have a reason to tell their children that the site is dangerous if it protects the identity of the child, and after reading CC5 it seems like these websites don't require a real name (I also like this part because then kids- or adults- can create a make-believe name).

I was not aware of the fan fiction realm of the web until reading this book, but I have to say that I think it is a great idea. I think that if there was an opportunity like this when I was younger and had more free time (and I realized it) I would have participated. It is hard to believe that the corporations would want to limit the creativity of children, if they really understood fan fiction. It seems so obvious to me to let it go as long as no profits are involved. I'm not sure if the corporations saw their characters being used and automatically went to the lawyers about copyright infringement or actually took the time to understand the process and still persecuted kids for being creative. Let's give them the benefit of the doubt, eh?