“What we carry. This is the story in the end.” –Florence, Falling Man
Keith didn’t ask to be born. Neither did Nick. They happened to be the product of various biological combinations, appearing on the earth with little hands and toes. Life happens, and we are in it. We wake up. We sleep. We walk. We keep moving forward. As we grow, we make sense of awkward limbs, cracking ankles, upset stomachs, fading memories, bodies and bodies. We wrestle with urges, desires, needs, both false and real. Our eyes, ears, fingers, tongue, nose take in the world, others too. Why are we here? Presented with an unanswerable question, arguably, we search for meaning. We search for God. We reject God. We wonder, We struggle. Who is in control of all of this? Am I a spiritual person? We make decisions, large and small, every day. Things happen we can’t control. Tragedies blindside us. We experience loss. To be sure, we all experience loss. Events and circumstances arrest us, consume us without our permission. They happen to us, and we make sense of them. We are resilient creatures. This is it, the beauty in everdayness.
As we grow, we build ourselves. Little pieces, conversations, experiences, we build slowly. First words, first loves. Travel, reading, learning. And 9/11 Happened. A loved one dies. We are badly injured. We are emotionally injured. Tragedy breaks even the strongest structures of self. Left in shambles, sifting through pieces, we attempt to rebuild. We rebuild ourselves, individually and collectively. Project rebirth documented this rebuilding. Disparate lives examined parallel to the rebuilding of the WTC site, each person finding something to get them through. Falling Man documented the rebuilding of individuals within a family and the pain of picking up pieces. It is important to remember this when examining political events and theorizing on the grand scale.
For me, it is sometimes easy to get lost in theory. I remember when we were discussing Polanyi, we focused on the double movement and resulting sociopolitical changes happening in the world. We almost lost Polanyi’s young chimney sweep, getting caught inside the chimney and perishing. It was necessary to connect with the pains of migration to cities, split families and the jarring contrast of city and country life that spurred the countermovement’s reaction. Mills’ power elite was more than a description of the modern-day ruling classes. It conveyed finger-on-trigger apprehension, the horror of bomb drills and cowering underneath desks. For me, this is the first lesson of Project Rebirth and Falling Man. When events are highly politicized and theorized, we often lose touch with the everyday experiences that give them meaning.
Both works also got me thinking about myth. After reading Barthes’ text, it is easy to identify mythologies everywhere. Both Veblen and Latour seemed to be writing in the same vein. In my earlier post on Barthes, I mentioned 9/11 and its relationship to the wrestler myth. I was timid, suggesting that I might be taking the example too far. Looking back, our reaction as a country after 9/11 is the embodiment of so many of the negative aspects of the theorists we’ve read. As a country, we avoided engaging with complexity, and took the ‘experts’ at their word [Latour]. We believed that the Bush administration knew better than us; they went up into Truthland and came back to share with us things we could never know on our own. We did not engage with the reality of war; the reality of the death and destruction that would be caused by our decisions [Falling Man/Project Rebirth]. The issue of caskets being filmed coming back to the U.S. is a great example of this. Rather than engaging in open communication and deliberation [Dewey], the “facts” ended discussion; there was a clear right and wrong [Latour]. We misunderstood the nature of the Power Elite and the networks and connections that allowed Dick Cheney to profit immensely from war [Mills]. And most prominently, we chose not to engage in the act of critical thinking. We accepted the President’s request to “go shop” instead of thinking deeply about our situation. In many ways, most of us embodied Marcuse’s One Dimensional Man, becoming lost in the ever-growing number of false needs and the desire for conspicuous consumption [Veblen].
If we can free ourselves from the self-imposed shackles of the cave, we can open our minds up to think critically about the world around us. Questioning power structures and leadership is essential to ensuring that a post 9/11 situation will not reoccur. Really, this is what education should be about. Freeing us to explore our own questions, to be our own experts about the world around us.
If I had to put my finger on the driving force of the movement to war, it would be the eye for an eye myth that Barthes describes through wrestling coupled with Appadurai’s description of an US vs. THEM mentality. If we were able to get some distance on the issues, cool the heat of revenge and engage in some form of forgiveness, a horrible situation may have become an opportunity for real change -- and that’s where my heart breaks. As a country, the U.S. missed out on an opportunity to better the community, both in this country and abroad.
Latour
Linking theory and practice can be a challenge. This year, my brain processed quite a bit of theory, and many thinkers left me guessing about how theory might apply to the real world. I found Latour refreshing, because his thinking is easily applied to many parts of daily life. Embracing complexity, murkiness, and muddiness is not inviting; Latour throws us in the mix of it all, encouraging and empowering us to explore and make sense of our world. For Latour, this requires getting out of the cave and accepting that "nothing is as concise as a myth" (pg. 10). According to Latour, the myth of truths outside of human creation, only accessed through the scientists' double rupture, is a destructive one. [Barthes could have easily penned this in his Mythologies text.]
Using Science as a "trump card" silences debate and discourse, giving those with the 'knowledge' all the power. I found this theory quite interesting when applied to Lippmanian thought. In his world, a country would be run by experts, those who have the time, ability, and talent to truly understand the political world. They would make decisions for the rest of us, for our own good. Why? Because the government asks too much of us; we are overworked, underpaid and simply don't have the capacity or desire to process such complex information. To be sure, there are parts of Lippman's argument that resonate, but throwing all power in a few hands does not seem like a reasonable solution.
Latour's theory really empowers the individual to think critically and maintain curiosity. The question is really, "how do we have the time for any of this?" Scientists are paid professionals, right? They went to school, have degrees and worked hard to master the skills necessary to work in a lab and create experiments. Even if the average Joe wanted to bust into the laboratory and mess around, would he have the time? The time to invest in learning new skills, etc.?
For laughs, some scientific "trump cards"...
Using Science as a "trump card" silences debate and discourse, giving those with the 'knowledge' all the power. I found this theory quite interesting when applied to Lippmanian thought. In his world, a country would be run by experts, those who have the time, ability, and talent to truly understand the political world. They would make decisions for the rest of us, for our own good. Why? Because the government asks too much of us; we are overworked, underpaid and simply don't have the capacity or desire to process such complex information. To be sure, there are parts of Lippman's argument that resonate, but throwing all power in a few hands does not seem like a reasonable solution.
Latour's theory really empowers the individual to think critically and maintain curiosity. The question is really, "how do we have the time for any of this?" Scientists are paid professionals, right? They went to school, have degrees and worked hard to master the skills necessary to work in a lab and create experiments. Even if the average Joe wanted to bust into the laboratory and mess around, would he have the time? The time to invest in learning new skills, etc.?
For laughs, some scientific "trump cards"...
Aeschylus, Democritus & Plato
Reading Democritus was one of the more provocative experiences of my academic career. In simple fragments, a man living 2,000 years ago explained how we should take care of each other. [insert quotes] I can't help but wonder what the world would be like if Plato's philosophies of knowledge were the ones buried, and Democritus and Aeschylus became prominent. What would be different? Moreover, how did Plato's philosophies dominate? Was it a political battle that set the tone for the rest of western civilization? Or was it some innately human desire for "false needs" or competition that helped Plato win the day? [I think not.] I find the ancient Greek tradition fascinating and incredibly relevant. My biggest question remains:: So what does it mean that we've been asking these questions for over 2,000 years? Are they simply questions without answers? Or do the answers constantly change?
---
Plato's philosopher king reaches the "good" by FIRST desiring to leave the cave. This seems logical: the interested, engaged and promising students get out. And they should, right? But many students, because of their "habitus," do not even imagine what it would be like to leave. What does it take for these individuals to develop the motivation to leave the cave? Is this the "turning around"? If so, Plato's plan of geometry and physical education seem laughable today. Have we figured out how to "turn around" a soul?
---
Plato's philosopher king reaches the "good" by FIRST desiring to leave the cave. This seems logical: the interested, engaged and promising students get out. And they should, right? But many students, because of their "habitus," do not even imagine what it would be like to leave. What does it take for these individuals to develop the motivation to leave the cave? Is this the "turning around"? If so, Plato's plan of geometry and physical education seem laughable today. Have we figured out how to "turn around" a soul?
Habermas
Dense, dense prose! Another month with the text would be nice; but even then, I doubt I would walk away with complete comprehension. I can't believe Habermas wrote this when he was only 25! Incredible...
Reading about the liberal public sphere in England ignited issues underlying my entire first year of study. Clearly, no society ever benefited from the perfect public sphere. Taking it further, perhaps its highly unlikely we will ever have a perfect public sphere. Even Habermas admits his sphere excluded many people, including slaves, minorities and women. So, what to do with seemingly dismal hope for change?
In the midst of these arguments, I am attempting to ground myself in what I believe and how I should academically proceed. Do I accept the imperfect public sphere, assume no possible change and work with said reality? Or do I press on toward the Dewian ideal, recognizing that humans can change and grow? I realize this isn't a choice of one or the other; it's finding the action in the former and using it to inform the latter. I am not willing to settle for the status quo. I believe we can do better. We can take care of each other better. We can become involved, discuss and act on political issues better. We can care for our environment better. We can use technology better. We can educate our children better. Believe it or not, I am becoming quite fond of Dewey.
Reading about the liberal public sphere in England ignited issues underlying my entire first year of study. Clearly, no society ever benefited from the perfect public sphere. Taking it further, perhaps its highly unlikely we will ever have a perfect public sphere. Even Habermas admits his sphere excluded many people, including slaves, minorities and women. So, what to do with seemingly dismal hope for change?
In the midst of these arguments, I am attempting to ground myself in what I believe and how I should academically proceed. Do I accept the imperfect public sphere, assume no possible change and work with said reality? Or do I press on toward the Dewian ideal, recognizing that humans can change and grow? I realize this isn't a choice of one or the other; it's finding the action in the former and using it to inform the latter. I am not willing to settle for the status quo. I believe we can do better. We can take care of each other better. We can become involved, discuss and act on political issues better. We can care for our environment better. We can use technology better. We can educate our children better. Believe it or not, I am becoming quite fond of Dewey.
Veblen
INVIDIOUS COMPARISON
What a phrase!
It's amazing how much invidious comparison I facilitate in my own everyday. Most of my academic career has [sadly] been fueled by invidious comparison. [See image right] In my undergraduate music program, our entire selection, promotion and testing processes relied on students' invidious comparison. One of the benefits of this text was becoming conscious of this potentially destructive engagement. C'est vrai! We are more than the sum of our publications, possessions or first-chair wins.
I was also taken with the concept of conspicuous consumption. In our small group discussion, we all agreed that none of us felt like we purposefully displayed our wealth. Clearly, we're all in denial. The clothing, transportation, tools and toys we select say SOMETHING [perhaps many things!] about us. I love my Apple computer and my iPhone, but the giant Apple symbol on the back of the phone is displayed every time I make a call. It says something about my status, whether I intend it to or not. Conspicuous consumption has a mythological feel to it, much like Barthes mythologies. It is always with us, but rarely are we aware of its presence.
What a phrase!
It's amazing how much invidious comparison I facilitate in my own everyday. Most of my academic career has [sadly] been fueled by invidious comparison. [See image right] In my undergraduate music program, our entire selection, promotion and testing processes relied on students' invidious comparison. One of the benefits of this text was becoming conscious of this potentially destructive engagement. C'est vrai! We are more than the sum of our publications, possessions or first-chair wins.
I was also taken with the concept of conspicuous consumption. In our small group discussion, we all agreed that none of us felt like we purposefully displayed our wealth. Clearly, we're all in denial. The clothing, transportation, tools and toys we select say SOMETHING [perhaps many things!] about us. I love my Apple computer and my iPhone, but the giant Apple symbol on the back of the phone is displayed every time I make a call. It says something about my status, whether I intend it to or not. Conspicuous consumption has a mythological feel to it, much like Barthes mythologies. It is always with us, but rarely are we aware of its presence.
If you type conspicuous consumption into a google search,
this image appears on the first page.
Yes, it's a diamond-laden pacifier...
Barthes
I worry about Barthes' selectively neutral treatment of the myth. In the Blue Blood Cruise, his political statement is poignant. I wonder why value judgments are absent from other mythologies, specifically Wrestling [insert title]? Maybe I'm missing something?
Uncritically submitting to myth's gravitational pull seems problematic. The wrestling myth [justice] surfaced during the weeks following 9/11. In an effort to watch the "bastard" get his due, freedoms were sacrificed and a war on terror was waged. Maybe I'
m stretching with this example, but to be sure, our draw toward the spectacle of justice being served can be dangerous.
When countries like South Africa and Liberia set up Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to address war crimes, many were not satisfied with the results. In light of this myth, I can imagine why. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind, but the satisfaction of injuring the other in justice is a powerful motivator.
Right, Justice Harry S. LaForme, chair of Canada's Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with Canada's decades-long government policy requiring Canadian Indians to attend state-funded church schools. From: [http://www.daylife.com/photo/09Uheeg1oif6V]
--
I see a relationship between this text and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin is clearly worried that the film will be used in a highly politicized, potentially negative way. Because of it's "ballistic" nature, the film does not allow the viewer to think critically about the experience; they are very much submerged. On the first page of his work, Barthes draws a correlation between the audience of the mythological world of wrestling and "the aud
ience at the cinema" (15). He says, "a light without shadow generates an emotion without reserve" -- doesn't this sound familiar? It also leads me to Marcuse's mimesis. If the world is filled with the zombie-esque citizens he describes, constantly arrested by film and wrapped in mythologies, how is it possible for the myth-consumer to think beyond the surface level of the myth?
Barthes argues throughout the text that the language-object is never destroyed, but neutralized. My question is: how neutralized can it get? If the audience doesn't perceive the language-object, does the myth becomes truth? What kind of potential does this hold?
Uncritically submitting to myth's gravitational pull seems problematic. The wrestling myth [justice] surfaced during the weeks following 9/11. In an effort to watch the "bastard" get his due, freedoms were sacrificed and a war on terror was waged. Maybe I'
m stretching with this example, but to be sure, our draw toward the spectacle of justice being served can be dangerous.When countries like South Africa and Liberia set up Truth and Reconciliation Commissions to address war crimes, many were not satisfied with the results. In light of this myth, I can imagine why. An eye for an eye may make the whole world blind, but the satisfaction of injuring the other in justice is a powerful motivator.
Right, Justice Harry S. LaForme, chair of Canada's Indian Residential Schools Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dealing with Canada's decades-long government policy requiring Canadian Indians to attend state-funded church schools. From: [http://www.daylife.com/photo/09Uheeg1oif6V]
--
I see a relationship between this text and Benjamin's Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction. Benjamin is clearly worried that the film will be used in a highly politicized, potentially negative way. Because of it's "ballistic" nature, the film does not allow the viewer to think critically about the experience; they are very much submerged. On the first page of his work, Barthes draws a correlation between the audience of the mythological world of wrestling and "the aud
ience at the cinema" (15). He says, "a light without shadow generates an emotion without reserve" -- doesn't this sound familiar? It also leads me to Marcuse's mimesis. If the world is filled with the zombie-esque citizens he describes, constantly arrested by film and wrapped in mythologies, how is it possible for the myth-consumer to think beyond the surface level of the myth?Barthes argues throughout the text that the language-object is never destroyed, but neutralized. My question is: how neutralized can it get? If the audience doesn't perceive the language-object, does the myth becomes truth? What kind of potential does this hold?
Marcuse
When Marcuse talks about the idea of losing "inner freedom" it reminds me of the oral epic tradition discussed in the first few classes last semester. To Marcuse, loss of the "inner freedom" is devastating. He says, "Today this private space has been invaded and whittled down by technological reality. Mass production and mass distribution claim the entire individual..." (p. 10). In the Greek oral epic tradition, the memorization and repetition of stories allowed no room for personal reflection or critical thinking. The advent of writing afforded the opportunity to externalize thoughts and reflect upon them. It seems that Marcuse is describing the same lack of reflection and critical thought present in early Greece.
The irony is stunning. Look how far we've come.
The irony is stunning. Look how far we've come.