An absolute chink in the armor

At first I was fascinated by Eagleton's chapter on truth, virtue, and objectivity (103). Then I was confused by it. He appears to relegate absolute truth to the rather trivial affairs of life such as tainted fish. He does, however, point to such things as tigers in the bathroom and racism as examples were someone just has to be wrong. There is either a tiger in the bathroom or there isn't. There will be consequences if one chooses "wrongly" here. I did appreciate his separation of truth from dogma, even though that is a relatively elementary observation. However, I did see him break form in one place, and I found it disturbing. "Absolute truth does not mean non-historical truth; it does not mean the kind of truth that drops from the sky, or which was vouchedsafe to us by some bogus prophet from Utah"(108-109). Bogus prophet from Utah? Now, granted, no particular prophet was named. There are probably a great many prophets that hale from Utah. By what standard is Eagleton measuring out the term "bogus" and applying it to any one of them? Is that an absolute truth? Since he has already established that the origins of truth are probably not knowable, why couldn't it drop from the sky? Even the skies over Utah? Can the prophet be bogus for him and not for me? And last, but not least in these considerations, just who the hell does Eagleton think he is? Absolutely?

Light up, Boys, and let's talk about structures

I found the discussion in Goldberg about the statement supposedly originated by Marlowe to be very entertaining: "They all that love not Tobacco & boies were fooles." In the structure of the colonial power of England of that day, use of tobacco products was viewed as a patriotic act. Sodomy was seen as anything that by its nature was subversive to the structures of the kingdom. Religion was the glue that seemed to hold this colonial house of cards together. And religion was totally devoid of anything resembling gaiety. If Marlowe did in fact make the statement referenced above, he was showing his extraordinary wit. To link a social practice that was both encouraged and considered "manly" with a clear reference to all that was considered subversive and weak, was to question the integrity of the primary foundational structures within the society. That would be enough to get a person killed in Marlowe's era. I still wonder what the real motivation behind the Baines Libel actually was, since so much of it appears to have received attention after Marlowe's death.

If the above reading is joined with the Sedgwick reading, it is interesting that the whole concept of social structures still plays such an important role in shaping personal and historical perceptions. The idea of love as an emotion and desire as a structure was fascinating. If I read that correctly, the emotion of love operates within a structure formed by desire, and desire can be defined in many different ways. Homosocial interactions can be perceived as either promoting the health of a society or eroding the integrity of the primary structures. In traditional patriarchal societies, male interaction that promotes male aims is acceptable as long as sexual interaction is kept out of the mix. Homophobia, according to the text, is a necessity for preserving this structure. Condemnation of homosexual activity may not be necessary based on the Greek model of older men mentoring and supporting the careers of younger men and boys. Lesbianism is less threatening to the structure, because it does not directly threaten the patriarchal traditions. I remember one investigation that I was privy to in the Navy long before the "Don't ask: Don't tell" era. A friend of mine who was a lesbian had been called in to be interrogated for "illicit conduct." Several young men had already been investigated for the same thing, and they were being given a discharge from the service on the grounds of engaging in homosexual activities. After about an hour with the interrogators, she had asked them, "It seems that you are convinced that I am a lesbian. So why don't you just kick me out?" Their answer had outraged her. They told her that they thought she was a valuable sailor, and all that she really needed was to find herself a good man to turn her life around. For that reason, they were willing to give her another chance. One investigator had winked at her as she left the room.
All of that may sound like ancient history, but if we look at the prevalence of girl-on-girl action in literature and film today, it is clear that this is not viewed as especially threatening to male dominated structures. Guys still do not have that sort of "following". Maybe they are the lucky ones, and the outsider status is the one that holds the dignity.

I Hear Dead People

Perhaps it is simply a result of coming down off the post Halloween candy high, but I truly enjoyed the Greenblatt reading and Barry's analysis of new historicism which outlined Greenblatt's connections to and creation of that perspective.

The understanding of the concept of power in not only as "object" but "enabling condition of representation itself" was interesting considering that it was followed by a caution to not oversimplify the concept of power itself. Both princes and artists may have had aims for the use of this power, but the very monolithic structures that seemed to "totalize" the production of such works were filled with instability and contention: less the monolith and more the cultural Jello. This impresses me as a basic premise of Marxism. The rise and fall of structures of powers creating a new struggle for class within the reformed structures. Barry refers to this a "multiplicity of discourses" involved in the operation of power structures (170).

In the Greenblatt reading, the depiction of language as "the supreme instance of collective creation" that had been appropriated by a professional caste system claiming the exclusive rights to interpretation and dissemination was fascinating. Along with that, the image of the theater and plays as a means to reclaim that collective, communal sharing of language created an interesting link to humanist thought and to the discussion social energy as that force which keeps a work alive long after the death of the author and the demise of the historical/cultural milieu in which it was birthed. Perhaps I am still locked into last week's discussion of alchemy and the magic of Bourdieu, but all of that sounds like high spell-casting to me. The hard edges of actual history are softened because as Barry states, "for the aim is not to represent the past as it truly was, but to present a new reality by re-situating it (169)." The dead may not simply speak to us, but they may speak in new voices and with new messages.

Broke back camel

The straws have been adding up: plowing through as much of Bourdieu as I can in one week; finishing the book/ 1500 word book review/journal search and submissions; teaching 5 comp and one lit classes; engaging in the increasingly futile efforts to have time with my family; developing an anxiety neurosis over the as yet undefined"15 page scholarly paper" that is the final project. When I actually know what that is all about, I will have one month to crank it out (along with research to support 15 pages, course documents, more Berry, all Eagleton, 90 students, and more blogging). As I sat in front of the screen trying to think of something insightful or even marginally relevant to say about the material, as I tried to come up with a point to make, I heard this sad, snapping sound issue from somewhere in the middle of my back. Too many straws for one beast of burden.

All the world's a production (with apology to Will)

The Eagleton reading confirmed my speculation that Marxist theory relates to art as a product, and the interplay of history/ideology and text/production serves to identify the "internal relations to its 'world' ." As I read, I could not help but envision this relationship in terms of the Greek drama mask. The mask was both the signifier and, to some degree, the signified. It served to give the audience a point of reference. Beneath the mask was the human actor. If this person had removed the mask, the audience would have been at least a little confused. They would not immediately understand the intention or the message behind the action. The threads of the play would be lost, and the actor would not be recognized because he had been know only as that entity signified by the mask. In reference to Balzac,"..his art drives him to transcend his reactionary ideology and perceive the real historical issues at stake" (172). Perhaps all ideologies are merely masks that lend meaning to the cosmological audience. In that case, theoretical constructs are intended to be predominately referential . Maybe.

In search of an adequate umbrella

In the realm literary criticism and theory, it is rare that anyone creates anything new. Most of what we have been reading is based on theorists looking at existing phenomena and attempting to explain the foundations, origins, basis, or "essence" behind the works of others and behind social structures. In the most extreme speculation, there is a denial that such things even exist. There is no real structure or essence. All ideas about reality are artificial constructs that serve a limited and transient purpose. In Marxism, there is a shift back to finding that root/causal element which will explain a number of different--apparently unrelated--phenomena. That base was economy. All social interaction throughout history was to be viewed from the singular perspective of a struggle to control "production" in all of its aspects. The effects on the artistic world are a little blurry because, other than the move by the Communist government to suppress art that didn't toe the party line, Marx seemed to have thought very little about that. Perhaps art was simply another product to be controlled by a fluctuating hierarchy. There are a number of other isms seeking a base that is progressively more eccentric. The definition of a universal philosophy or cosmology based on single group perspective is the aim of many current theoretical approaches. Feminism is simply one more. However, there has been a not so subtle shift in the place and purpose of theoretical speculation. Marxist aims were to change the material world by changing the power base controlling the means of production. The more that people were "schooled" to see this perspective, the harder it would be for the old structures to stand. Unlike previous theorists who sought to understand and to explain, the Marxist sought to actively intervene. A part if this intervention involved the creation of a recognizable enemy of the "cause"--the Bourgeoisie.
The Hooks reading identifies the enemy as the sexist and the purpose of feminism/feminist cultural criticism is to identify and eradicate sexism (against women primarily). The sexist enemy can be either males coming from the old patriarchal structures or the privileged "white"(?) woman who has lost interest and identification with feminist theory because she now has access to the money and the power structures formerly in the tight grasp of the male controllers (are we back to Marxism here?). It is the purpose of feminist criticism and politics to educate the people to recognize the various forms of sexism that may manifest in all aspects of our shared existence. Unlike Marxism, feminism is acutely aware of the influence of the arts and makes them a focal point, as hooks points out in her exuberant proclamation at the beginning of the article. It seems to me that theory as a discipline and as pursuit into deeper meanings (or non-meaning) is becoming both more eccentric and more adversarial in nature. It almost seems that there is an attempt to regress to an "us v. them" mentality. Perhaps some of the earlier vagueness in the course was a good thing.

A loss for words

I really don't know what to say. These readings seem to be starting to rehash everything we have been talking about from the beginning. Issues of form and the purpose of literature and rhetoric (revealing the author, concealing the author, ignoring the author) are still with us. Marxist theory (in its various forms) seems more proactive than most with its stated purpose of not just understanding but changing reality. At least it acknowledges the existence of reality. It is paralleling the more spiritual Greeks who explain the ideal in the guise of the caste system of the utopian philosoper king. Marx denies the ideal and replaces it with the somewhat more mobile and material caste system of class struggle--more mobile in the sense that up sometimes winds up being down and vice versa. Then Althusser brings us right back to a decentered structure without essence or focus. It is all very much like a tail chasing its dog.

So, that's all folks. I am going to sign off now and go read the book that I have selected to review. It really is more interesting for me than this week's assignments, and I suspect it is more original, too.