Going of a Gender Bender

SHOWTIME!
A posh band of antiheroes took to the streets today in hopes of turning some heads and subverting the dominant hegemonic norms. Dressed in drag, they made their way to Newbury Street. Their first stop was the Pour House where after a few beers they were more than ready to cause a stir. This rag-tag crew of would-be rebels strolled right on into American Apparel where they got down and dirty with suggestive water bottles. Afterword’s, these daring foppy dandies used their perplexing Polick flag to stand protest against people who fancied themselves to be something their not. Unsure if the message was getting through, this sexy bunch of fairies headed into the Prudential center where they sought to dance for the humanities. Along the way, they encountered many unexpected allies. Enough with the talk, enjoy the show.


EC STUDENTS ON A GENDER BENDER

SMURFS

Cixous begins with setting up the structure of femininity, as there is already a power structure for the binary in relation to women. She speaks of how women are repressed by living in the structure. In regards to Freud, “the fatality of the feminine situation is a result of an anatomical defectiveness” (penis envy), Cixous deems this as patriarchal voyeurism, saying that it is a misogynistic view, that women are inferior for the lack of penis; denying an intrinsic value, one different from cultural virtue. In regards to “subjectivity and gender”,  the sexual difference among a man and a women, is not determined by the destined anatomy, that Freud had suggested. More so, sexual difference, as the sense of what is male and what is female, is more determined by the sexual pleasure. That is to say, that a man is constructed by the sexual pleasure he desires, thus a women constructed by the pleasure she desires. So if a man does not desire heterosexual pleasure, he is not short of a man, he just isn’t a “man”. 

It seems that in Cixous point of view, Man and Women as the two fundamental, and only Sexes of humanity and this idea does not efficiently function. Because Sexual Difference is based on pleasure, anatomy does not correspond respectfully, and Man and Woman are two large generalizations based on merely a naturally anatomical difference. But, when basing sexual difference on pleasure, man and women do not exist, they provide a symbol for exterior build, and that does not define the difference in their “Sex” among a classification based on cultural normative, as if there is really, natural sexuality.  We are caught up in cultural fabrications that we have kept for a “millennial,” as Cixous says, and it is only necessary to take this problem into consideration, as ideas like sexuality, gender and sex, are invented and the man is based on activity, the women on passive, which corresponds directly, to an anatomy rooted idea. Thus new inventions on gender, sex, and sexuality should modify those long-over due falsities.

           

            And speaking of the cultural fabrications effect on the ideas of Sexuality and Gender, Butler sees the consequence as regulated discourse; man and women are “compulsory performances, ones which none of us choose, but which each of us is forced to negotiate” (p 247) and “the heterosexual matrix proves to be an imaginary logic”.  Butler expands the notion of the imaginary logic of heterosexuality by saying that identifying to a gender requires the desire for a different one.  And for Butler, gender can be understood as a sign, which represents the body, resulting in the opposition of man and women. Thus a drag, would be the challenge to such a sign, it would be a deconstruction.

The main concern in each text is the fact that the structure of everything, as both Cixous and Butler speak of, the political hierarchy and language demanding certain validity of cultural worldviews. They both pick apart the binary of Gender to Sexuality, and the difference between sexuality and terms for anatomy. Cixous and Butler are ultimately concerned with the future and societies ability to modify their understanding and assumptions of humanity, a call to recognize the difference between Gender and Sexuality.

Just because we have the natural ability, in the difference of anatomy, to reproduce, does not mean that heterosexuality is the necessary default, and anything else an obstruction. It is more accurate to say that Male and Female may be symbols to represent an opposition of anatomy, but they shall be mere terms for the biological difference, not sexuality and identity beyond physical form. In our society, Heterosexual be the normal, and power is in the normal, thus there is power in heterosexuality; a dominating worldview, that is skewed based on Adam and Eve. 

The Pedagogical Imperative's Insights into Ken Rufo on Baudrillard

Ken Rufo's article offered a refreshing new perspective of the theories of Baudrillard that have been built through recognization of the flaws of several other theories, one of the major ones: Marxism. Jean Baudrillard's theories have abided by the idea that though vouching for post-modernism all of his life, his theories have been deemed illicit, as other literary theorists have pointed out, because he "repeatedly disvowed the label" and was actually arguing against post-modernism. According to Baudrillard, the structure of Marxism was incomplete and lacked the analysis of "sign-value". Meaning that the value of what something represents, or the value of the "bigger picture" is more significant that that of what that thing essentially is. He took what he saw as a lack of modification in Marxist theories and developed his own theories through this lacking. His interest in simulation leads to his criticism of Marxism. He says that "the mass production of objects and the general flow of wealth is making it possible, more and more, for people of lower classes to "simulate" living like people in the upper classes."

This concept continues to apply to the lifestyles of many Americans today. The pricey things we buy as middle-class citizens who generally wouldn't be able to own such lavish materials, are representations of what we want, or think we deserve, and we have a temporary, short-lived taste of what living as a high-end individual who can afford such over-the-top, material items, feels like.  It is a relevant example of how the constant production of items falls into Baudrillard's theories of simulation. He finds the whole model of Marxism as another product of simulation "constantly making artificial meanings appear as if they are the real meanings, and pretending to discover insight when in reality they created the model that produced the insight, so they produced more of a simulation of insight rather than anything novel." In The Symbolic Exchange of Death, three basic orders are identified. These include, (1) simulation stands in for reality (the order of the counterfeit), (2) simulation hides the absence of reality, (3) simulation produces its own reality, as if reality was the consequence of a model that makes possible its production.

Though Marxism provides an undertaking for some kind of truth, this system is simply feeding into this idea of production. Baudrillard realized that consumption makes the theory of Marxism thrive, not production. Baudrillard feels the very same way about Lacan's theory of psychoanalysis. It doesn't "discover" the unconscious, but in fact, "creates" the unconscious. Baudrillard wants to break down the constructive ideas that seek so much to prove that something exists, or doesn't exist; when in fact, many of these theories seem to be contradicting themselves and actually buy into the very ideas they are striving to disprove; the idea that media and our daily surroundings are creating an artificial meaning. Our reality is shaped through what we are conditioned to believe is real, regardless of what is actually real; this idea traces back to simulation. He also discusses the idea of impossible exchange, which discusses how the world is conditioned through it's own realities that it acquires over time, and therefore, our realities reject any attempts to theorize or come to terms with them. Reality rejects explanation.

Rufo wraps up his in-depth approaches to inner-mind of Baudrillard by stating, "Baudrillard is not trying to rescue the real, if such a thing is even possible, but he is trying to rescue illusion, and for him there can be no illusion in a world where everything is "realized." Baurdrillard has strived to validate the idea that as individuals, we cannot "come to terms" with everything. He wants mystery and a lack of the obvious to exist, and wants this idea to peacefully coexist with theory.
This article was rich with many examples that accurately supported the theories Baudrillard discusses, such as Disney's Epcot and  how this establishment was created in order to define a variety of world cultures, providing the illusion that one is actually there, or that they are truly experiencing real elements of the actual culture, ex.  "Oh look, we're in the Japanese section of Epcot now! You can tell, because that lady is wearing a kimono and that store sells soba noodles. Woo hoo!" This is an example of what Baudrillard calls the "hyperreal", and the "real" that we discover will always be an effect of the simulation. And according to Rufo, we filter your real experiences through the simulation of that reality. It's difficult to get a grasp on Baudrillard's ideas, the things he agrees with, or doesn't. He really seems to want to break down the models of these theories and expose their meanings for what they really are. Whether we'd like to agree with his theories or not, he can be considered one of the most noteworthy theorists in the history of theory, so he's definitely made his mark.

ALLEN GINSBERG

           Allen Ginsberg had made a profoundly strong impact on Poetry writing in America and on the structure that the “academy” suggests as real, or authentic poetry during the late 60’s and on, in terms of rhythm and format. He was part of the “beats” which also consisted of Jack Kerouac, Burroughs etc.       Ginsberg transformed the assumed structure of writing, into a free thought of coherent messages, arriving at a philosophical standpoint for cultural, sexual, and political circumstances. He attempted to connect his work and his life with no distinction, as they are both free flowing with no censorship from him, or others who were the influence.
          Ginsberg was a prominent figure in his method of constructing his writings through a natural rhythms and innate flow. He was a master of improvising; consequently using traditional poetry structure, and getting some academic credit. He says “See, the difference is between someone sitting down to write a poem in a definite preconceived metrical pattern and filling in that pattern, and someone working with his physiological movements and arriving at a pattern, and perhaps even arriving at a pattern that might even have a name, or might even have a classical usage, but arriving at it organically rather than synthetically”
        In the interview, the interviewer attempts to resolve or find some conclusion to formula and syntax used, having regards to the traditional rhyme schemes and classical formats. But for Ginsberg, there is no set method for his poetry/writing: the messages he produced are of most primary importance. The way that Ginsbergs poems came about was from the very rhythm in his head. Which he seems to be out of his head. The interviewer assumes a lot about Ginsberg’s intentions, but the formula Ginsburg seems to use most is that there is no formula. He gives the impression that trying to fit words into specific parameters is a destructive way to go about writing.
       The basic attempt of Ginsberg is to avoid a synthetic message. Furthermore, Ginsberg lacks censorship, which in respect creates a sometimes brutal, but truthful character which was “a complete revision of what literature was supposed to be” and an attack on “proper structure, or something”. The interviewer assumes that the reader wants to know specifics about Ginsberg’s influences and teachings and his methods for production, and he answers “We all talk among ourselves and we have common understandings, and we say anything we want to say, and we talk about our assholes, and we talk about our cocks, and we talk about who we fucked last night, or who were gonna fuck tomorrow”. Ginsberg, and the beats point: to be honest, which means to be truthful, which means to be real and that, meant to be inspiring, his influences being his friends (fellow beats, society and the truth behind real communication).  
       Thus the art of Ginsberg’s writing is an interchange of information with a message, where there is no distinction between, say, the message spoken to a muse and the message spoken to his friend; Ginsberg is solely subversive as he is a revolutionary for his time and the time to come. 

little death?...Makes perfect sense.

One might say that the cause of teen pregnancy has much to do with the death drive, as prof. Sheldon had mentioned: the loss of self and all control (i.e female ejaculation) is a direct result from an orgasm.

The death drive “Always threatens to undo ones sense of self in favor of sexual gratification.” During the search for identity an interruption of sexual desire occurs, leading the subject emptier than the subject already was when using language to fill the void which will always attempt to complete a sense of self, never quite getting there. Thus the Death Drive does well, preserving the void with a slight pause of reality.

This raises the question of what human nature really is. We have already discussed at length in class (via Tucker Duclose) that human nature is a myth, but couldn’t it be said that desire sheds light to the possibilities of such instinct? It’s almost unfathomable to perceive a life with complete satisfaction. Unless a person is born with a life in completion, where there is ultimate fulfillment from the time at birth, to the time at death, well then, desire has no purpose. But for any case but that, of humans, desire seems to be undeniable. It is a quest to fulfill what has not been, or is wanted to be, or wanted to be left alone. Thus desire is the “Self Drive”.

One of the main points of literary theory is that human nature is a myth. Theorists like to stay away from sweeping generalizations and human nature happens to be one of those. The big reason is that human nature when practiced tends to marginalize certain groups that are often not Eurocentric or androcentric, however this idea of seeking and end to the desire might be something that is so universally felt that it could be human nature to want to desire. And even so, that we as humans, desire sexual pleasure. The idea of “sexual identity” does not actually exist. Lacan argues that “there is no fixed identity” of the human subject as there is total instability; languages metonymic chain creates only the “idea” of an identity. And with this chain, of never-ending ideas toward our imaginary identity, the “sexual identity” has no correspondence. It is this sexual identity that is a complete “illogical” statement, assumption, of the self.

As stated before, sex drive interrupts the search for self (The Death Drive) and thus identity is interrupted. Identity and sexual identity are complete contradictions, they do not work coherently together.

By saying that there is no sexual identity, no group (homosexual, heterosexual, bi-sexual, etc) is at no disadvantaged, or marginalized in any way because they are all seeking one thing, “desire” or pleasure, and it is that moment of an orgasm, or the quest for satisfaction, that universally binds, naturally, all humans. Such as the concept of age. Age is common, desire is common, and even if a priest doesn’t have sex, well he is probably desiring something: the knowledge of god, which wont be fulfilled sexually, but still, desired. Non the less, desire, an assertion that there is human nature?

“Of course they are boring - they are forever trapped in a delusion where arguments can’t be conceptualized using metaphors of dance. Which is to say, they are wallflowers.”

          The film Derrida is crafted in such a way that it acknowledges its own inability to actually capture the philosopher as he is. This is made evident in the many scenes where Derrida himself reflects upon the inefficiency of the mediums ability to communicate anything without being corrupted by the structure of the medium itself. The film reflects upon Derrida’s ideas in that it is presented in such a way that it deconstructs its own viability as a “documentary” via the editing process and the content, which is selected to convey some intended meaning.

          As to the interview process I observed that Derrida seemed to be anxious as to his own inability to convey what he actually means through language, never mind the medium of the film itself. I believe that the interviewers own agenda is more on the side of physical stimulation and arousal, anticipating a pleasure from Derrida’s response. The film seems to worship the very Derrida that it cannot know. In reality, Derrida is not a person anymore than George Washington or even Donald Duck, which might connect back to Derrida’s own antagonism towards images of himself. What actually gets said is ultimately up to the editing process and filming and even then, ultimately up to the viewer.

          I do not believe the film was necessarily trying to capture Derrida, as the filmmakers and Derrida himself would be aware of this impossibility. What the film seemed to try and do is capture its own futility in an attempt to capture Derrida. This relates to Post-Structuralism in that it seeks to create an unstable, multiplicity of meaning rather than a fixed singularity.

You can’t use Bulldozers to study Orchards? Oh yeah, watch me.

"signs function not through their intrinsic value but through their relative position"

What the dead theorist means by this is that the meaning signs signify are derived from how those signs are situated in relation to other signs within a system. Take the #1 for example, #1 only holds significance in relation to how it is positioned within a system of numbers. The implications of this is that no one ever knows anything outside of the system of knowing they implement. Take physics for example, physics can predict certain things – using the “perspective” physics grants us, one might predict the many things having to do with what happens when a 100 pound weight is dropped on a cute little kitty cat. But physics can not tell us certain things about the kitty cat. A different “system” would be needed to measure the kitty cats level of cuteness. In the end no one can really ever know the kitty cat – the kitty cat is an unknowable X that has merely been represented in a system of sighns.

Marxism and Chris Craig: reactions to the pitiful

Manifesto, on shelves, probably Urban Outfitters, have i guessed right? This signifies the decay, of what were once messages in the form of gifts through communist angst, into mere ornaments for those pitiful enough to worship such false contribution of such profoundly revolutionary material.

(Horray, lets give it away, for free. but no, not free. You will feel free though!)

What is not left for such open hands is found to be what is most valuable for a sub-cultures present struggle. In accordance to Manifesto, well, it is now so obviously available; easy to pass by, or buy, or ponder, without merit, without the reason for such wisdom. (besides the levis).  With this, comes partial rage, but more frustration. It is a clear example of  Hegemonic Appropriation using history bound to material, bound to consumers, which are bound to wikipedia, who is bound to the public; thus Manifesto will not be feared as it had been, it will be openly accepted, to be obviously looked past, or phased in and then out, like clothes. Like trends. Communism will never be of anything of a trend, well it shouldn't be.

The power of the hegemony has allowed participation in ideas like those of Manifesto, for the means of its own security. What we know, is what we are shown (we know what we are allowed to). Our ideas, remain with us, and as Bob Dylan had once said "if my thoughts, dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine", following through,  What we are shown, (but according to the hegemonic states should not be), are the ideas that have luckily reached our senses which we should take advantage of; forming new ideas, poems for revolutions and philosophies that put the hegemonic demons at an eye-to-eye level with those beneath them. You and me.

I will admit, it is a very sad thing to see someone leave a door so powerfully profound, but once so forbidden, now so widely open. Here rises confusion. And this may be true, that there is hardly any physical, external distinction between who is true and who is fat of their consumption and desire to seem it.

Literature is,  I believe, to be one of, if not the most, powerful mediums of reflection of reality in a particular state; Social, Political, Ethical, Global........every word is influenced, and every sentence is influenced by the influence which transformed the meaning of the words that build an overall message. Literature is complete, unique, reflection. It is the mirror of  particular beliefs mixed with what can be assumed from previous understandings of cause, events, effects, circumstances and living. Literature defends ideas which arise from all influences and imagination.

-Randy

Let's Not Speak Freely, It's For The Best

They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

 –Ben Franklin

In the wake of 9/11, many in control of media saw “fit” to wave the flag and mindlessly salute, which also meant to censor and be patriotic with what they were broadcasting. Those who did not faced ridicule. Stockhausen was no exception. He spoke his mind about the attacks, in which he personally found to be a great work of art, and was then publicly bashed by Tommasini in The New York Times. Although in both instances are protected by The 1^st Amendment, it does not legitimate Tommasini’s view in which the title is nonetheless “The Devil Made Him Do It.”

Unfortunately this is not the only unfortunate case of art and artists being defeated right after 9/11. Clear Channel Communications, a company that runs over 1,170 radio stations nationwide, decided that some songs might be “suitable for the radio” after 9/11. Although they did not out right ban the songs, they “strongly encouraged” the stations to use "discretion" in deciding what songs to play. But what songs were taken of the radio? “Walk Like an Egyptian” by Bangles, “What A Wonderful World” by Louis Armstrong, and “Imagine” by John Lennon. Those songs, although having nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorist attacks, were not played on the radio. It makes sense though, who wants to hear uplifting and up-tempo songs to get their minds off 9/11? 

-Steve Boorman