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.