I race to class from a conference, figuring that this will stand me in better stead than attending Salsa Dancing or how to be organized breakout sessions. I was right.
Today we tackle the the domains of morality, integrity, and ethics.
Morality= judgement/ ="something's wrong, I'm wrong," or "something's right, I'm right."
Integrity= workability
this is wholeness, but not just of me but that community I'm in. Our class has integrity- we all attend, we all contribute. If we're going to be absent we call or email. Dr. R uses the example of a bicyle wheel. When one spoke is taken away, it still works as a wheel, but the integrity is missing. When it hits a bump, the wheel crumples.
At my conference earlier, the people at my table worked together to build a bridge out of wire, styrofoam, wooden sticks, and marshmallows. One of the facilitators was so impressed that we were all participating, actively. Someone would throw out an idea, and we would run with it. None of us dug in our heels about what we wanted, so we didn't argue with each other; we listened and adapted our own ideas to fit with others. And we won a prize. Our integrity as a group produced a positive affect.
Ethics is releated to character, values. It works with morality.
If you get integrity- around you, people are never wrong. (and that draws them to you.)
Listen for where people are coming from.
Dr. Reese- "I listen for the inhales." (Aha moments)
Morality and Ethics are linked to our cultural values and ideals. Integrity floats free. I like the idea of integrity being wholeness. This echoes the Spanish meaning of integral. (Like whole wheat bread.) When something is integral in English, it's absolutely necessary. And integrity as a person leads to peace. When I know who I am, I am not threatened by who you are. I don't have to judge you, because you do not affect the wholeness of me.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Kuhn
I've been reading Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions for another course, and thought it is speaking of science, it has much to say about what we are doing in cultural studies as well. Here's what I wrote for my other class:
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn identifies paradigms as a key element in scientific discovery. According to this premise, it is not until a scientist has put forth a theory and it has been accepted by a sufficient number of his peers as reliable, that other scientists are able to progress in this field, solving problems posed by the paradigm, while keeping to the rules that this paradigm establishes. A paradigm is discovered when a crises point is reached; a scientist is unable to solve a critical mass of problems when using the old paradigm. By investigating these anomalies, a new paradigm is theorized and, once accepted, the cycle begins again. The old paradigm is not discarded until the new one is established, because without the rules set by the paradigm, science cannot be practiced. Indeed, Kuhn posits, paradigms are a prerequisite to perception. What we see is what we have been taught to see. This model holds true for the studies of humanities, as well. Once a scholar has learned a new theory, a new angle from which to consider her data, she is free to discard the old paradigm that has held her to its rules, and to view the world from a fresh perspective.
Kuhn's description of the scientific process echoes what we have been doing in class. These new paradigms (or theorys in cultural studies) are developed by thinkers when questions can't be answered following the old paradigms.As we begin to accept a new paradigm, we also begin to change our interaction with others.
In The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn identifies paradigms as a key element in scientific discovery. According to this premise, it is not until a scientist has put forth a theory and it has been accepted by a sufficient number of his peers as reliable, that other scientists are able to progress in this field, solving problems posed by the paradigm, while keeping to the rules that this paradigm establishes. A paradigm is discovered when a crises point is reached; a scientist is unable to solve a critical mass of problems when using the old paradigm. By investigating these anomalies, a new paradigm is theorized and, once accepted, the cycle begins again. The old paradigm is not discarded until the new one is established, because without the rules set by the paradigm, science cannot be practiced. Indeed, Kuhn posits, paradigms are a prerequisite to perception. What we see is what we have been taught to see. This model holds true for the studies of humanities, as well. Once a scholar has learned a new theory, a new angle from which to consider her data, she is free to discard the old paradigm that has held her to its rules, and to view the world from a fresh perspective.
Kuhn's description of the scientific process echoes what we have been doing in class. These new paradigms (or theorys in cultural studies) are developed by thinkers when questions can't be answered following the old paradigms.As we begin to accept a new paradigm, we also begin to change our interaction with others.
How Do I Know Myself? (Week 6)
Isn't this the same question we've been asking all along? But within culture, this time.
It's all about connecting the dots. As we do this, here's what happens:
First, we become so practised in listening for a theory that we begin to see it and hear it in everything. (Raymond Williams- culture is created and changed.) An example of this is how, after I met H, I found references to Tunisia everywhere, including in grammar exercises I'd been teaching for years. It had been there all along, but once the country was made real to me, I recognized it.
Second, we become so grounded we can find the theory anywhere. (This is why people memorize their holy scriptures. They want to be grounded in it so that they can find what they need when they need it.)
Third, the theories begin to use you. (This is Marx- the site of production becomes you. And this is also the idea of hegemony. We don't even recognize established power hierarchies, so we are controlled by them. Or we do recognize them and allow the control.) An example of this for me is when I became aware of inclusive language and then recognized that I was excluded when people used exclusive language. I don't know if I had ever felt excluded before, but I was aware of feeling excluded after. The first step was a concious awareness, but this has now been internalized in me.
The exercise of trying to identify which theorist or school of theory relates to each level was challenging. I need to be able to identify easily and quickly:
Who the theory person is, and what their school of thought is. ____ is known for ________ theory. What is s/he reacting to? What is her/his contribution to the field?
This then helps me recognize what direction a speaker is coming from, or where their grounding is.
Lacan- language and emotion
Rorty- Truth is social commendation
Leavis- culture created in community
Structuralism- Building up of hierarchies
How can you use the theory through methodology of storytelling to create reality?
Personal point: My inquiry comes across as competitive and therefore agressive, instead of questing. I need to word my questions as creators rather than destroyers. Also, I need to avoid extraneous detail.
It's all about connecting the dots. As we do this, here's what happens:
First, we become so practised in listening for a theory that we begin to see it and hear it in everything. (Raymond Williams- culture is created and changed.) An example of this is how, after I met H, I found references to Tunisia everywhere, including in grammar exercises I'd been teaching for years. It had been there all along, but once the country was made real to me, I recognized it.
Second, we become so grounded we can find the theory anywhere. (This is why people memorize their holy scriptures. They want to be grounded in it so that they can find what they need when they need it.)
Third, the theories begin to use you. (This is Marx- the site of production becomes you. And this is also the idea of hegemony. We don't even recognize established power hierarchies, so we are controlled by them. Or we do recognize them and allow the control.) An example of this for me is when I became aware of inclusive language and then recognized that I was excluded when people used exclusive language. I don't know if I had ever felt excluded before, but I was aware of feeling excluded after. The first step was a concious awareness, but this has now been internalized in me.
The exercise of trying to identify which theorist or school of theory relates to each level was challenging. I need to be able to identify easily and quickly:
Who the theory person is, and what their school of thought is. ____ is known for ________ theory. What is s/he reacting to? What is her/his contribution to the field?
This then helps me recognize what direction a speaker is coming from, or where their grounding is.
Lacan- language and emotion
Rorty- Truth is social commendation
Leavis- culture created in community
Structuralism- Building up of hierarchies
How can you use the theory through methodology of storytelling to create reality?
Personal point: My inquiry comes across as competitive and therefore agressive, instead of questing. I need to word my questions as creators rather than destroyers. Also, I need to avoid extraneous detail.
Wittgenstein from someone else's perspective
My friend Mark is talking about Language and reality on this post. He connects it to God, which is what I tend to do, as well. I really like the comment about the 1:1 map.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Spoken Word
Culture with a Capital C
High Culture Low Culture
Everybody’s got culture
High Culture Low Culture
Everybody’s got culture
Everybody shares culture
With someone else
Find a culture where it happens
Who enacts it, what they do
Is it good? It doesn’t matter
Is it bad? We just can’t say
With someone else
Find a culture where it happens
Who enacts it, what they do
Is it good? It doesn’t matter
Is it bad? We just can’t say
Is it real or ideology?
Is hegemony here to stay?
Money doesn’t make culture
It’s not a thing to buy or sell
Voting doesn’t create culture
It just happens by ourselves
High Culture Low Culture
Everybody’s got culture
Everybody shares culture
With someone else
Cultural Studies asks hard questions
By whom, for whom, and for what?
Tries to draw a “map of meaning”
With the question “What’s your sign?”
Is hegemony here to stay?
Money doesn’t make culture
It’s not a thing to buy or sell
Voting doesn’t create culture
It just happens by ourselves
High Culture Low Culture
Everybody’s got culture
Everybody shares culture
With someone else
Cultural Studies asks hard questions
By whom, for whom, and for what?
Tries to draw a “map of meaning”
With the question “What’s your sign?”
Finds that Language holds the answer
Cause we’re talking all the time.
High Language Low Language
Everybody’s got language
Everybody shares language
With someone else
A cat’s a cat; it’s not a dog
Gato, chat, katous are cat,
not
composite
There’s a striking differánce
Words are fixed in their meanings
In the context where they’re used
Are they real? It doesn’t matter
Are they true? I cannot tell you
That is something you must say
Culture is a conversation
each of us has a part to play.
High Language Low Language
Everybody’s got language
Everybody shares language
With someone else
Cause we’re talking all the time.
High Language Low Language
Everybody’s got language
Everybody shares language
With someone else
A cat’s a cat; it’s not a dog
Gato, chat, katous are cat,
not
composite
There’s a striking differánce
Words are fixed in their meanings
In the context where they’re used
Are they real? It doesn’t matter
Are they true? I cannot tell you
That is something you must say
Culture is a conversation
each of us has a part to play.
High Language Low Language
Everybody’s got language
Everybody shares language
With someone else
(This won't let me put the formatting in that I want. This should look like a conversation. The lines go back and forth.)
Saturday, February 9, 2008
Still wrestling with Butler and discussing Superstition
So now I've read the whole of the Pyschic Life of Power by Butler. Most of it was in one eye and out the other. I didn't do anything with my collage, as I hadn't presented it the week before, and it fell flat in class, not suprisingly. It didn't help that the mobius strip had gotten crushed in my bag. Dr. Reese asked if I wanted a redo, and at first I said no. I could put in all the pictures that everyone else did, and just do something, but it wouldn't mean anything to me. Then she talked about how the redo is a chance to try to reach our audience in a different way. I agreed to try. But my problem is, I really have no idea of what Butler was about. I know I need to include gender, and power, and queer theory (inversion- which I thought I did) in the collage, but I'm not really sure what all she's saying about it. Dr. Reese says if we are having trouble with the text we are resisting it. That could be true, because Butler starts of with Freud and Foucalt and others, and I certainly resist Freud's ideas. But since I don't know what Butler is about, I can't really say I'm resisting her. If her whole point is the inversion of the status quo, thati is, queer theory, I can get that. But why write a whole book about it? As usual, Najendra helped illuminate things for me. He said that the book itself is a demonstration of queer theory in that Butler is inverting the ideas of all of the people who came before.
Our reading for this week was Barker- the first two chapters of Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. He couldn't resist all the big whigs that Butler mentions either, though his book brings her into it as well. For the most part, the class got this book, and our sonnets rocked.
In class we talked about Superstition- shared beliefs. The idea is that anything we believe is a superstition. I heard Dr. Reese saying two different things, but when I tried to clarify this, I got shut down. I think she said it becomes a superstition when we no longer believe it. But I think she also said it no longer is a superstition when we let go of it. Hmmm. I'm inclined to think that the person inside the superstition will not identify it as such, but only a person outside will use that term. However, I think she wanted us to go beyond that to see that everything that we believe is a superstition that chains us until we step out of our fervor and look at it from the outside. Supersitions aren't bad, but we need to see them.
The idea that God is a superstition was floated as an example, but Dr. Reese wouldn't commit to saying that it really is a superstition. But if all that we believe as part of a shared community is superstition, then doesn't even religious belief become superstition? That doesn't mean that it isn't correct or right- it means its a shared belief. (I know, correct and right are only determined by one's context.) THis all comes back to the networked community that uses language to create us. I, me and because are all superstitions. The "I" is a shared belief.
Something else she said - there is grace in being open to receive feedback that allows for the brilliant contributions of others. This is to encourage us to be honest with each other, and to invite that honesty in.
Our reading for this week was Barker- the first two chapters of Cultural Studies Theory and Practice. He couldn't resist all the big whigs that Butler mentions either, though his book brings her into it as well. For the most part, the class got this book, and our sonnets rocked.
In class we talked about Superstition- shared beliefs. The idea is that anything we believe is a superstition. I heard Dr. Reese saying two different things, but when I tried to clarify this, I got shut down. I think she said it becomes a superstition when we no longer believe it. But I think she also said it no longer is a superstition when we let go of it. Hmmm. I'm inclined to think that the person inside the superstition will not identify it as such, but only a person outside will use that term. However, I think she wanted us to go beyond that to see that everything that we believe is a superstition that chains us until we step out of our fervor and look at it from the outside. Supersitions aren't bad, but we need to see them.
The idea that God is a superstition was floated as an example, but Dr. Reese wouldn't commit to saying that it really is a superstition. But if all that we believe as part of a shared community is superstition, then doesn't even religious belief become superstition? That doesn't mean that it isn't correct or right- it means its a shared belief. (I know, correct and right are only determined by one's context.) THis all comes back to the networked community that uses language to create us. I, me and because are all superstitions. The "I" is a shared belief.
Something else she said - there is grace in being open to receive feedback that allows for the brilliant contributions of others. This is to encourage us to be honest with each other, and to invite that honesty in.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)