An End to Theory

So my second to last semester of college is now over, and the true end is almost near (eek). But this semester has been far different from the previous ones. I truly enjoyed all of my classes especially this class even though most of the time, especially in the beginning, I spent asking myself "What am I learning? I don't understand what I'm studying...none of this makes any sense." I remember the first day of class I was completely dumbfounded. Theory at the time to me seemed like German and I was left to translate it all on my own. Once I understood Marxism and structuralism I was able to understand and relate the following theories that we also studied.
This class has taught me to think critically differently, and I have caught myself analyzing texts and films using the variety of theories that I studied. The theory that I have found myself relating most with is feminism.
However I feel that when I try to verbalize and express my understanding of theory it never comes out correctly because one idea conflicts with and spark another idea and my thoughts become all over the place, and I feel that I'm going insane.
Now that we have spent a great amount of time learning all of these theories, its shocking and slightly annoying that we come to find out that theory is dead. To understand, value, or reject theory you have to know where it has been and what it has been through.
Theory may explain everything, something, or absolutely nothing. Sometimes things are just what they are.

A response to Feminism

I have to say that before this semester my definition of a feminist was your typical man hating, short haired, masculine, angry woman. And I would have never considered myself a feminist. I grew up in a family with extremely independent, intelligent, determined women who I would never have really seen as feminists, because they didnt fit the stereotypical physical criteria. I've learned that I was completely blindsided, by media and stereotyping, at what a feminism really is.
Through personal experiences which have made me stronger, enrolling in this class, and also by the influences of professors I do understand feminism and feminist theory. The basis of feminism and feminist theory is viewing sex/gender and race as equals and as Barry states raising the "question of whether men and women are 'essentially' different". Personally men and women no matter what race they may be, we are all equal and should be viewed as such.
Krouse brought up the television show 'Sex in the City' in her post and how these women are to be viewed as independent sassy women but however they are obsessed with shoe's. I find that to be the downfall of the shoe and how these women are potreyed (I'm not very familiar with the show but I know the jist of the plot). But is the writer a man or woman? Does he/she mean to make these women strong but still remain to find them typically fashion, designer label, shoe obsessed women? I find myself reading and viewing movies/televsion from a feminist perspective asking "now why does she have to somehow fit into that typical feminine/girly mold". And thats what the struggle we, women, are faced with which is to show this 'male dominated' society that we are cabable of doing exactly what they do through both media and text.

A Feminist at Tiffany's

Coming up with an idea for this paper took me quite a while I'll have to say. This year I feel like I have become much more of a feminist than in the past due to certain experiences I have had this year and from certain professors who are feminists. For this paper I knew that I wanted to write something from a feminist perspective but I wasnt sure exactly what to do a reading on.....
Then I thought of my favorite movie "Breakfast at Tiffany's". The 1961 film was written by, yes a man, Truman Capote. Holly Golightly (Audrey Hepburn) is the main character of the film. Holly Golightly is a young, attratctive, indipendent, energetic, and strong woman. She lives by herself and does whatever she wants...a free spirit you could say. Golightly is constatnly surrouned by men and when she is approached by them she rejects them....except for one.
What I find interesting is that this woman is portrayed as she is and has to fight against men to get what she wants.
I plan to analyze this film and apply the femist theory yet also keeping in mind that it was in fact written by a man and also finding parts of the film where it is evident.

Ken Ruffo and Baurdrillard

First off I very much enjoyed reading Ken Rufo's post on Baudrillard, as I really got into it. His examples were really easy to follow, which was a change because usually my head and mind are spinning with some of the essays we usually read.

After reading Ken's examples on Marxism I could really see the close relationship between the two. The idea/thought that came into mind was the emphasis our culture puts on name brand and designer lables. Now when these products are produced, say a pair of jeans, is a piece of material that a person has sewn together. We, as consumers, only see and think of these as a basic pair of jeans that we will wear to cover up, because that is what society tells us to do. It isnt until the label that says "True Religion" or "Vera Wang" is placed on it that the purpose of a pair of jeans has changed or we could say the 'sign value'. As Ken said in his blog, "Baudrillard is pointing to something that seems obvious to us today, namely that often what an object represents or signifies is more important than how much it costs or how high quality is its construction". The value of these jeans are now based on the name or designer that is stiched on them.

I guess from reading this post Ive and thinking of all the theories we have studied the idea of the 'real' has become a topic that I have been questioning. I do understand Ken's ideas of Baudrillards reasoning of the real. But what exactly is the real? Is it something that society creates, things we experience, or is there really no such thing as the real?

Language...its all arbitrary

For the past few weeks I feel like I have been sitting in class and feeling like I have not been comprehending anything. As soon as I thought I understood something it would just fly out the window so to speak. So finally, I think that by reading about post-structuralism I now understand structuralism.

How does any object whether it is a tree, a jacket, a shoe, or a bird for example have their particular name? Why cant a bird be called a 'wallet'? For the longest time this question has always boggled my mind. Now let me take a stab at this from a structuralists perspective.

Structuralists believe that reality is created through both language and construction of signs. We can see this by the relation between the signifer and the signified. As Saussure stated, "the bond between the signifier and the signified is radically arbitrary."

Let me take the example that we had in class using a tree. The signifier was the word 'tree' as it is said and seen. The signified is the concept of the image of a tree. It is then through language we can agree on the sign.

I find it interesting that throughout all the different languages that exist in the world this 'equation' can still be applied signs. Though from country to country words for objects will change but they all represent a common sign. Without a language there would not be any meaning for anything, a reality wouldnt exist. And what is life without a reality? Basically nothing.

Marxist Criticism

Do you look at literature as reality influencing literature or as literature influencing reality? These two views have been a constant battle in my head for the last week. But then I question, how can we write about anything without a reality or some influence? Without a reality to stur up thoughts or views there is nothing to write. So I guess that I am saying is that I believe that reality is the influence of literature.
A Marxist view is "the nature of literature is influenced by the social and political circumstances in which it is produced" (Barry, pg 166). Our surroundings whether they are social class, or political views influence what we think and then ultimately what we write about.
When I was reading this chapter I was constantly thinking of literary works from the 1800's up to now. Their surroundings, class, and views were most definitely not the same as they now, but they were relative to that time and what they were experiencing. Today we are more educated and have learned from past experience which will change how literature is written and read.
When I was reading about Leninist Marxist criticism I thought it was strange how in the 1920's the attitude towards art was enlightening and experimental and encouraged, then in the 1930's they basically outlawed liberal views. It all seems extremely hypocritical and as if they want to resort back to earlier years when no one could think "outside the box". I guess was all done so everyone was 'equal'.
I believe thinking on your own and forming individual ideas allows people to grow, learn, and able to make your own decisions. Marx had the right idea and literature today influences our current surroundings.

Hello all! Well this is the first time I have had or written a blog so it may take a couple tries to get use to.
Here at Emmanuel I am a senior and studying English Communications. I have taken many of the english courses that are available here. So far I feel that this class will challenge what I have previously learned, and take what I know about theory to another level. My hopes for this blog is to use my classmates view along with my own to really understand and broaden my knowledge about what "theory" really is.