Liberal Humanism is the idea that we read literature to learn its messages (the truths about human nature). I feel that the 10 tenets of liberal humanism and the 5 recurrent ideas of theory effectively supported the theory and provided a solid grasp onn all of its components.

Marxism involves assessing and analyzing a literary work in terms of ideology while questioning and/or supporting that ideology to promote hegemony. This hegemonic power is conveyed through the dominant and dominated in terms of literature.

Structuralism is a theory that says that language is a system that works in specific ways and this language is arbitrary. This theory goes against liberal humanism. It says that meaning is not essential, but reality is meaningful. Signs are read within a literary text with the signifier and the signified. The signifier is represented as a sound or image and the signified is represented as a concept. The equation of the signifier and the signified resulting in the sign is arbitrary. This aspect of the theory especially stuck with me because of the example that was used in class. With the example of the tree, I could visualize what was trying to be conveyed and use that as a reminder of what structuralism says. Structuralism looks at the instability of a text and gives meaning to things based on the differences that surface.

Post-structuralism deconstructs the text to find controversies and conflict. It says that meanings are at odds with eachother to produce new meanings. Derrida is interested in decentering texts and challenging Strauss's Structuralist theory that the study of reality is a tangible presence. Derrida wants to know know why being and presence exist together as the center.

Pyschoanalytic criticism is a language of differences with no positive terms, but gives meaning to "I" within symbolic network. Its simple and straightforward, but we cannot know the unconscious; it affects us but we have no access to it because its unknowable. The center of your being in the unconscious and the subconscious is where dreams happen. The subject is divided into 3 fragmented parts: the imaginary, the symbolic, and the real. In terms of literature, the focus of the text is an expression of the unconscious; an answer can be found regardless of the complexity of a dream.

The theories that I mentioned are the ones that I feel posed the most questions. Whether it was me questioning everything about the theory or it was me questioning why some things about the theory are the way they are, these are the points that made me think. But overall, I really enjoyed reading Mantissa. It was a good book to read because of the engaging and interesting plot, which also made it easier to analyze in terms of literary criticism. The novel includes many of the areas that we discussed in class, such as jouissance and psychoanalysis. I would say that reading the novel was one of my favorite components to the class, I think that it was very helpful for me personally to be able to relate the theories to a text.

Hasta luego,
La Sonrisita

At this point in the semester, I will say that the guest posts have been incredibly helpful. This post was no different! Dr. Krouse, thank you so much for you insight!

When we often think of the term ‘feminist’, there are definitely some negative connotations that surface that seem to fuel the fire of stereotypes. I admit it, it too have found myself jumping to the common stereotypes that can be heard at any given time. But I also don’t think I’ve really ever given it much thought to create new terms, in my mind at least. I've heard people refer to feminists as man-hating butch lesbians who are hairy and unattractive and are more masculine than feminine. Some assume that all lesbians are feminists and are furthermore simply failed heterosexuals. Honestly one term that immediately comes to mind when i hear the word 'feminist' is extremist. I think of someone who is willing to protest very vocally in an attempt to praise women and show that women should be valued for who they are, not for who they are not (men). But like I said, I never really gave it much thought to expand my opinions to any other degree.

After reading Barry's comments on feminism along with our class discussion and the guest blog post, I will say that there is much more to feminism than I really expected. Its more than just yelling and demanding for women to be thought of as the omniscient species of the human race. Feminism is the belief that women should have equal rights as men. And the fact that women in our history have fought for the rights of all women makes me both proud to call myself a women and ashamed that any women would ever have to feel that she needed to make it an effort to be thought of as valued. I also had no idea that there is no law in the United States that says that women are to have equal rights as men; I just assumed it was a given!

Dr. Krouse's post on feminism not only provided me with insightful information about feminist theoretical perspectives, but also about how I personally define feminism. I can gladly say that my definition is now expanded, or at least more educated and supported!

Hasta luego,
La Sonrisita

First and foremost, thank you to Ashley for providing us with your thoughts and theories on Lacan and psychoanalytic theory. Your comparisons to Saussure and using Mantissa as an example helped tie everything together very nicely and cleared up psychoanalysis as a whole!

When reading the first section of Mantissa, the readers can consider the force of the death drive and jouissance and determine if the two can be traced together or separately throughout the book. The death drive, according to Lacan, is something that “occupies each of us; it is within each of us from the start.” Jouissance is defined as the “orgasmic shattering of the self for which the death drive aims.” It makes sense, to me anyways, that each of these terms is needed in order to complete the other. The jouissance is sparked by the death drive, and the death drive has a purpose because of the jouissance.

However, Lacanian theory states that only one of the two terms can be present at a given time. In Mantissa, Fowles therefore is refuting Lacanian Theory and shows that both the death drive and jouissance have a common objective of fulfilling a character’s personality. This is clear in Miles Green; his identity and his sexual desires go hand in hand, and even though he may not realize through the first section of the novel, Fowles created his character as such. Fowles wrote Miles Green’s character the way he did because that’s how he wanted his main character to be represented. He is showing the readers that one’s identity can help discover his or her sexual needs. One contributes to the other, despite Lacan’s best wishes.

Thank you again, Ashley! I feel like I have a solid grasp on Lacan and psychoanalysis, or at least I hope so!

La Sonrisita

Mantissa

When I began reading Mantissa, I continually got the feeling that I would not really know what to expect from the text next. At first glance, Fowles took me by surprise in his writing style and in the plotline of his novel. However, after getting a feel for the book and coming to terms with the fact that anything, literally anything, could happen at any given time, I really enjoy the direction that Fowles takes.

One of the more obvious theories that I initially related the book to is psychoanalytic theory. Fowles makes it a point to discuss the conscious and the unconscious of Miles, his main character who is located in a hospital and being treated for amnesia. The use of psychoanalysis helped me understand that the characters of the book and the scenery that are mentioned are being represented by some sort of sexual tension. The trick that Fowles snuck in there lies in the representation of the conscious and the unconscious in terms of the characters. For example, Miles’ wife stands in as his unconscious; he views her as a cliché woman of the times by stating that she is essentially the image of what a man would want, although her image is something that he really doesn’t want. On the other hand, Miles’ conscious lets him consider the nurse to be classy and desirable.

Similarly, Fowles incorporates the setting in terms of the unconscious and conscious. Certain things in the novel represent Miles’ feelings. The clock, for example, is a symbol of annoyance for him which he considers as “an incongruous reminder of all he could not remember” (p 11). He is upset that he is basically being outsmarted by the inanimate object of a clock which proves to be his reality.

With that being said, I feel as though it’s quite evident that psychoanalytic theory can be seen as controlling Miles throughout the portion of that novel that I have read. His thoughts are at stake, and I suppose it’s just a matter of time until we see if this theory can be traced throughout the remainder of the novel.

Hasta luego,
La Sonrisita

Thanks to Ken Rufo...

Not going to lie, when I first started to dive into Baudrillard, I was a little bit confused by his thoughts on simulation in general. But, I will admit that reading Ken Rufo’s post and hearing it explained again in class, it has become quite clear. I feel like I have a better grasp on Baudrillard’s ideas of simulation, simulacra, and the hyper-real and the distinctions between them.

Disney is probably the best way to explain something to me; I can relate to Disney and understand it in terms of a bigger picture, such as Baudrillard. Rufo remarks that Disneyland is a representation of other things. Take Epcot for example. The sites in Epcot are recreated to imitate something else. The ride “It’s a Small World” it meant to replicate a variety of countries around the world and give visitors an accurate sense of each country’s culture and what special characteristics it may or may not possess. Sure, Disney is pretty good at fabricating a thing or two, specifically the people that are seen in “It’s a Small World” and the set that the people live in within the ride. The tricky thing about that fabrication, however, is that people make actually believe what Disney is representing because they may not know anything different. Rufo refers to this attempt to make visitors believe something that may not be exactly accurate as fake.

Disneyland is a simulation, and with simulation there is no secure reference or connection to reality. Instead, simulation stands in for reality, then hides the absence of reality, produces its own reality, and finally reaches a fractal stage in which simulation no longer needs models. Take another one of Rufo’s examples: money. He brings up the point that a credit or debit card is in fact a simulation of actual money. In today’s society, I would have to say that one of the major methods of payment when purchasing anything is with a piece of plastic. Whether it is in a store or online, people resort to credit or debit cards so as not to pay for items up front. It’s basically like we have money, or is it? Is it just that credit cards are a symbol for fake money that may or may not be actually available? In this sense, credit cards are simulating a representation of reality. The funds act as the hyper-real as they are mediated through simulation.

Mr. Rufo, thank you! I greatly appreciate your insights on Baudrillard and furthermore putting it in terms that I can comprehend.

Gracias un otra vez!
Liz

After reading “The Death of an Author”, I found that one point that Barthes brings up that is of great interest to me is that language itself speaks, not the author. Rather than have the author speak to the readers and more or less tell them what to think or understand, the language itself has the capability to sway the perceptions of the readers by allowing them to interpret it in whatever way seems appropriate. Removing the author enables the readers to feel more in tune with what language is dictating, and therefore supports the readers being able to think for themselves. Barthes also suggests that the author is not the source of meaning in the text; but rather the reader is the source of meaning for the text. With the death of the author, the reader is born.

This link speaks of the impact of the death of the author. One post on the blog brings up Focault's statements that the author's remarks are still valid and should be considered, however it also touches on the fact that with the death of the author, the opportunities for the readers to live with the text are present. Another post in response to the original comments on the blog suggests that perhaps Barthes is attempting to decenter the author of the language by installing the readers to interpret that language.

Between the blog posts that I stumbled upon and my own thoughts on Barthes and his comments in "The Death of an Author", I feel that the opinions on allowing the reader to get the most out of a text through personal interpretation of that text is empowering to the reader. The author can be thought of as a catalyst of sorts for motivating readers to interpret their text however they wish. If that comes at the death of the author, at least the readers can experience a sense of rebirth through texts.

Hasta Luego,
La Sonrisita

all you need is love...

In the documentary, Derrida discusses the importance of love and the impact it has on our lives. He questions why people love others and proposes that there is a difference between being in love with someone and loving someone. Are we more attracted to the qualities and personality traits that a person posses, are we more attracted to their physical attributes, or is it a mixture of both?

Throughout the film I gathered that Derrida had some specific thoughts on the topic of love in general. He brings up the point that love can be narcissicistic; if its true that we love another person in a romantic way for the qualities that define them, then perhaps we are living proof that love is narcissicistic. He notes that perhaps the reason why we are attracted to such personality traits it due to the fact that we share similar traits with that person; we are attracted to familiarity.

Perhaps it an also be argued that by loving another, we are fulfilling our own desires and needs. Depending on each of our personalities, we can either be easily satisfied by both love and materialistic things or we can chave a very high standard in regards to love and materialism.

I would have to agree with Derrida; I feel that often times love can be taken too lightly. Are we simply fulfilling the desire to have some sort or romance in our lives, to fill a void that has be present for too long, or are we really in love? Are we being superficial or genuine? If Derrida's statements that we base love on the qualities that define us and our significant other is true, what can be said for the people who change who they are over the span of years because they didn't like who they were or the personality traits that they may have posessed? Does that mean that there is more than one soul mate for each of us? I suppose we can all just take it day by day and view the matter of love as yet anothing quality of life that can define us as well.

Adios!

signifer + signified = sign

"The bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary" (35). Yet again we are put to the challenge of finding reason and logic behind a statement, this time in the words of Saussure. To begin with, I feel as though it would be helpful to understand the distinction between each component that Saussure talks about. The signifier is the defined by the words that are spoken and heard or that are written and read; it is the sound or image of a text. The signified is the concept behind that sound or image within a text that helps us visualize the deeper meaning of the text. Together, the signifier and the signified equal a sign within a text. Although they are different, the connection between the signifier and the signified is that they are arbitrary in that they are random and have no central connection. My best assumption would suggest that Saussure means that we as a society have given meaning to words. Using the example from class, we only know that a tree is named as it is because our society determined that a tall object with branches, leaves, and bark is called a tree. The arbitrary part involves the visualization that we get in our heads when we hear the word ‘tree’; we use the concept that we have gathered and form a picture of what the object actually is.

I feel like since reading about post-structuralism, I now have that ideas and theories that Saussure conjured and I’m able to better relate to them based on my own thoughts. Saussure had the idea that signifiers and the signified are created in our mind, and honestly as first glance I wasn’t entirely sure what he meant. However, after looking at the reading more closely and considering the examples from class, I can now see the parallels that Saussure created for readers to understand.

Dr. Craig's Insight

To begin with, I must say that Dr. Craig’s post has truly shed a new light on Marxism in my eyes. The examples that were provided helped solidify the meaning that I had of Marxism and also encouraged me to look at the theory in a more directed spectrum. I also thoroughly enjoyed the writing style and the humor that was provided throughout the blog post; it kept my attention and made me want to continue reading while allowing me to presumably gain a better understanding of Marxist theory. Thank you, Dr. Craig!

One point that Dr. Craig mentioned that quickly grasped my attention was the piece about the copy of the Communist Manifesto in the retail store. So many times we as consumers go about our daily lives and purchase items that our society has more or less swayed us into buying. But the thing about purchasing these items is that because our current society has molded us into the materialistic society that we are, consumers don’t know anything other than buying in mass quantity for pleasure more so than for necessity. It has become one of our social norms. It’s interesting to note that the Communist Manifesto doesn’t necessarily serve the purpose of being leery and fearful of the wealthy class as it at one point in time did. Dr. Craig mentioned that Communist symbols today remind us of the class distinctions and uprising in our society rather than something we should be fearful of.

Dr. Craig also brings up the valid point that today we as consumers still purchase products with symbolic icons such as Che Guevara. Stores continue to market such products to those who they are confident will be purchasing it: the working class. On one hand, the working class benefits because they can support an icon of revolutionary change at a fairly low cost to them. On the other hand, the wealthier class are the ones who fall into the category of the corporate executives of the stores that continue to sell such products. I have worked at Target for the past four years. Speaking from my personal experience, I have noticed that on numerous occasions we have sold shirts with and image of Che Guevara on it in the men’s clothing section that is grouped with clothes for younger men. Target is a store that makes billions of dollars annually because of the dedicated business of the working class. Others within the working class because the store is able to continue paying them based on the revenue that the working class provides. The specific manufacturers who create the products are those of the ruling class; they are the corporate executives that are rarely seen at national corporate events never mind in any given store in the country. The corporate executives are benefiting from the purchases of the working class because they are continuously given reasons to create more and more products. In this instance, Target has grasped the hegemonic control over our society of working class citizens that has helped the corporation grow into a multi-billion dollar company.

Dr. Craig, it wasn’t until reading your post that I was able to relate my personal experience with Marxism. The examples you provided triggered me to think of Marxism in ways that would allow me to better grasp its concept. Again, I say thank you for providing your insight and examples!

Marxism vs. Liberal Humanism

In terms of literary criticism, liberal humanism can be defined as the idea that we read literature to learn is deeper message and truths about human nature. Rather than look at the deep historic or economic, social, and political circumstances defined by culture that Marxist criticism looks at, liberal humanism looks toward the attitude of literature itself. Liberal humanists believe that a text must be detached from its context and studied in isolation in order to fully understand the deep meaning that an author intends. Marxism is based on a set of information that cannot be changed or read into. Readers don’t have the opportunity to explore the plethora of ideas that others may have when analyzing a similar text.

I would have to say that I myself would fall under the jurisdiction of liberal humanism more so than Marxist criticism. Although much can be said about the factual information in a text, such as the economic or class situations and how they vary by culture, I feel as though readers are limited by the facts that a text presents. On the contrary, when analyzing a text for deep meanings and further theorizing about human nature, readers are able to let their minds explore endless options of ideas. This also allows readers to research further and discover what other theorists have to say about the text or in reference to the text.

This is Me!

Hello all, my name is La Sonrisita (The Little Smile). I am currently a junior English Communications major with minors in Spanish and Information Technology. As you can imagine, this blog is going to be a strong combination of my interests in writing and technology, with a little Spanish flair thrown in there too! My vision for the blog will include my comments on topics that we cover in Critical Theory in another way other than simply our daily class conversations. It will be a way to express thoughts and ideas that have been marinating after class discussion.

As for the concept of theory itself, i feel that it is one of the strongest tools that we can utilize as objects and instruments of study. It allows us to constantly be students, regardless of our age or level of education. Theory helps us consider the thoughts that others before us have proposed, and either agree or disagree with them by applying them to a plethora of topics that are relevant to us. Researching theories is the basis for knowledgeable opinions, which in turn help us formulate our own ideas and theories.