May 2009 Archives

There were a number of very strong final papers in this class, including a very interesting and important video project by Scott Kelly which will not be posted because it involved military officers reflecting on the nature of power in the Army hierarchy.  (I would invite him, however, to post to the blog or comment here about what insights he gained from his project).

I would like to highlight four papers here that focused on different facets of the question of authority, power and force.  These papers are made available to readers of the blog by permission of the authors.

In her paper, Breaking the Glass Ceiling? The Paradox of Female Leadership in Sri Lanka, Ruth Canagarajah wrote about what happens to women who rule in traditional patriarchal societies by focusing on two important leaders in Sri Lanka, Sirimavo Bandaranaike, the first female Prime Minister, and her daughter, Chandrika Kumaratunga, the first woman elected President of Sri Lanka.

August Dombrow writes about the dichotomous mode of thinking that dominates the language of the US counterinsurgency (COIN) operations in the context of the Global War on Terror in his paper, Lock Away the Thunderbolts.

Andrea Leshak draws on ecofeminist theory to articulate a connection between the subordination of women and the degradation of the environment in her paper, How Dualism and the Patriarchal View of Women and Nature as the 'Other' Result in the Subordination of Women and the Degradation of the Environment.

Finally, Dan Huff writes about the inconsistencies between the US application of "hard" and "soft" power during the Cold War and the post-Cold War era in his paper, U.S. Applications of Hard and Soft Power.

Each of these papers and the other very excellent papers and projects produced for this course engaged the question of power, force and patriarchal authority in nuanced and substantive ways. They demonstrate the importance, complexity and wide-ranging relevance of these issues for the practice of politics.

I want to take a moment now that the semester is over to thank all of my co-editors of this blog this semester.  I was very impressed with the level of discussion and with the way you all engaged material that was very difficult, but also very important.  The level of discussion and debate was both sophisticated and respectful.

After doing some searching, I found that Freud loved to use metaphors. I feel that Freud's theories are often misunderstood. If taken literally, they can seem ridiculous. However, I believe that Freud's theories are metaphors and need to be dissected. 

I, too, found today's conference quite provocative. The most interesting point for me was simply how little racially and culturally diverse material we actually study. The presenter lamented that many of the most progressive philosophy professors are "still reading Hegel." It's so true that our education focuses primarily on the west--but really, why is that? When I really stopped to think about it, I couldn't think of any legitimate justification! I mean, geographically, we're in the west, but it's not like it's even fair to say that "Americans" brought European culture with them when they immigrated here, because America boasts members of all ethnic backgrounds and cultures, certainly not just European. I just can't excuse it! Any input?

Finally today, everything kind of clicked during the presentation today, so I decided to post on how I came to my revelation (note this is not intended for the sane).  I am not sure why or when or if it really had anything to do with what was being said, but things suddenly clicked in my mind during the speech.  Maybe it has been the cross-pollination of ideas from the sociology course I am taking in concert with this one.  This cross-breading of ideas has increased at the end due to the final sociology course material of race and gender issues.  In the class,we have discussed how these issues are not biological or innate, but created by people and society.  These thoughts lead to great change in my ideas of gender issues.  

Before this semester and before this class, my thoughts of feminism were naive.  I was never against the movement, but from the name I thought it was all about raising women to a position of power along side men.  However, after this course I feel that the movement has been misnamed at least how it applies to Irigiray.  I believe it should be named something closer to the "Topsy-turvy" movement, because it requires a complete re-tooling of the way we think.  It requires a break down in our logic, that not only involves gender relations, but racial relations as well.  Though you may not be a racist, there seems (to me at least) to be an innate feeling that has been implanted in us through our socialization as children that people who look different than us are different in some fundamental way.  This is especially true for those of use that were raised in racially non-diverse areas.  This racial classifying is not exactly dichotomous, because it uses more than just two races, but is the sort of simple labeling that Irigiray is arguing against.  It is not possible to have this sort of group division and move toward the non-phallocentric structure that Irigiray is looking for.  In fact, it is this blind classification that possibly lead  Freud to his "well excepted" ideas.  Basically, to him, we are all defined by our sex and therefore all of our actions are based on sex (both the classification and the activity).  This would logically lead to his ideas presented in his controversial paper which we read this semester on femininity.  

This means that, for a non-phallocentrically structured world, we must eliminate pigeon-hole classifications such as race and gender.  This is not to say that we will all be equal or the same.  A female will still have ovaries and a male still have testes.  Our skin colors will remain varied, as well as other differences.  However, things such as affirmative action and those "optional" surveys on job applications need to go.  These attempt to control or study humanity based solely on practically random birth happenstances that give us membership into our respected classifications.  This also has shown to me the need to reform our current structure, because the phallocentric structure is innately based on these narrow minded classifications.  So we must completely "reformat" the current phallocentric structure in order to be a truly individualized society,  where our worth is based on our personal achievements and not our birth, where we can truly live the "American Dream".      

Since our class days have officially ended i decided to post my feelings about the class as a whole. This class was the first time I ever blogged and also the first philosophy class I have ever taken. I would say that I kind of enjoyed blogging, but found it to be a pain in the ass the last half of this semester. I enjoyed it when we were reading the Greek texts because I found that very interesting and much easier to understand and relate to. After the Greek texts, blogging became much more of a hassle. It was a struggle to even read the material, as i had to take one of those b12 energy drinks just to make it through sometimes. Obviously it is much easier to write about something you have an interest in, and when the Greek texts ended, so did my interest. The Irigaray and other texts that followed were very difficult to understand, making it much harder to have some clear thoughts to put down on the blog. Maybe its my phallocentric bias speaking but I could not stand reading about the gender equality texts like Irigaray. I think i like this phallocentric economy that we live in, maybe it is because I am a male and have no clue what it is like to be a female. Fine, I can accept that because I think the phallocentrism has worked out pretty well so far overall, maybe it has taken a little long to accomodate the female gender, but we are getting there. It is kind of like the natural order of things post ruth made. Why worry about things we cannot really control, I mean is it even worth discussing phallocentrism because there is not plausible way I can think of to change the whole entire order of our global society. Why not let things just play out and see what happens? Things tend to have a funny way of working out in the end. 

In today's presentation our speaker proposed the idea that the concepts of primitive/cultured and irrational/rational should not be presented on a scale with cultured and rational above primitive and irrational. Rather she believed that the two were on an equal plane, with equal values, or without value at all. As an extension of her view I believe that the primitive, rational, cultured, and irrational are all present within as part of human nature, and the extent to which they are exposed is a function of our environment. Joseph Conrad demonstrates this idea in his novel Heart of Darkness. The "Savages" seem animalistic and primordial from a distance. In their dancing and celebration they "writhe". Their communication is "guttural", and their bodies are "earthen" in tone and texture. When Kurtz, the antagonist, goes deep into the forest and lives with the natives, we are given another perspective. He absorbs their culture and through his perspective the natives seem ingenious and even sophisticated to a certain degree, while the colonialist seem savage, irrational, primal, and blindly destructive. I am not proud to say that even during the lecture I found myself judging those around me on this kind of primitive/cultured basis although to a lesser degree than demonstrated in Heart of Darkness. A few rows in front of me sat Professor Long, and directly across from him sat a woman in brightly colored dress and an African style hair piece. Upon seeing both I immediately, through cultural instinct, made the value judgment and placed Professor Long above the other individual on the scale of refinement/sophistication. I realized that this was ignorant and racists, but I felt that everyone who has been raised in or exposed to so-called "sophisticated" cultures and more specifically western cultures are subject to this. Then I investigated what I was wearing and how I might be represented to others. I too had on brightly colored clothes, wore a hood and had on "primitive" footwear. So I wasn't that different. As I mulled over this experience I came to the conclusion (more of a short pause at one destination in a long journey) that the ways we are represented to others can not be given value, or placed in a hierarchy, as all forms of representation are present within us.

I see that the influx of blog posts has begun, so I figured I'd add in my last graded post for...forever.

I was watching a 30 Rock episode ("The Natural Order") on NBC last night, where Liz Lemon and Tracy Jordan attempted to behave and work as equals, because they disliked the fact that the other received preferential treatment in the workplace. To avoid a recap (I'll let you have the joy of watching it), let's just say that by the end, both realized that they preferred receiving the preferential treatment that they did.

 This got me wondering: yes, many of us, I'm sure, would prefer that humans operate in a way that is completely unbiased, but is this a realistic option?  There are numerous areas where it appears that most females are unwilling or unable to take on the same tasks that are considered normal for males, and it's the exact same vice versa. This is definitely not to say that there are men and women out there who are not capable or do not attempt to bridge the gap...there surely are. I'd argue that the majority of people, however, are impervious to differences because it's what they know...something that honestly doesn't need questioning. As long as we have those differences, then there may never be a leveled playing field because both males and females realize and fully embrace the strengths and weaknesses that separate them.  The differences in ability based on gender have been so bound to culture (ie, hunters vs. gatherers) that perhaps most people prefer and expect the benefits/assumptions that naturally fall in whatever sex they are. Can we overcome dichotomy when seemingly-grounded factors like certain abilities and expectations will always be adhered to by the majority?

My analysis, as you can see, is in very general terms and purposefully so. I realize exceptions obviously exist, so no need to provide case-by-case counterclaims...unless you want to.

I would have to share the same sentiments as Corey regarding the CBWP conference today. I had a class that didn't end until 9:55, and the fact that I was a little late to the presentation probably didn't contribute to my understanding of the presentation's significance or major themes. However a gentleman that was sitting a few rows ahead of me did present some information that I found very interesting. He talked about the difference between the connotations of "talent" and "skill." He stated that a basketball player that he had spoken to before would always hate when people said he was talented. I couldn't understand this right away until the presenter elaborated on its significance to the topic of primitiveness. This basketball player's success is a result of years of practice, hard work and dedication. By stating that he has "talent" dilutes the time and commitment he put into the work. The presenter said that "talent" receives a negative connotation because it depicts whatever strength that is being described as something that is instinctual or in other words primitive. The connotation does not shed light on any of the work put into achieving such success-and this concept is applicable to a variety of areas.

I found this to be a very interesting perceive the word "talent." Personally, when I would  receive a comment that I was "talented" I never thought of it in a negatively. I don't think a lot of people do. I've always thought of commenting on someone's "talents" as a way to display your admiration for their abilities in whatever the respected arena may be. What does everyone else think of this? Are skills and talents interchangeable?  Or does "talent" imply some sort of instinctual ability?

In the conference today, the speaker mentioned that African Art was viewed as primitive because the artists reduced everything to basic geometric shapes (at least, I'm pretty sure that's what she mentioned, I had a hard time following at points).  I would like to point out that Frank Lloyd Wright drew heavily on basic geometric shapes.  The very room we were sitting in was made up entirely of rectangles, minus the circular lighting fixtures. Personally, I found the room to have a high artistic value.  To name something as primitive because it makes extensive use of "basic lines" is also absurd.  A straight line can be one of the most powerful forces an artist can tap into if used correctly.  During the speech, the single most distracting element to me was the fact that the beams running across the ceiling were split in the middle, thereby ruining the elegance of the line of the beam (Wow, I guess I took something away from Philosophy of Architecture after all...).  What I'm trying to say here is that what is "basic" is not necessarily "primitive."  I found it somewhat disturbing when the speaker mentioned how recent these ideas were, I had hoped society had dropped such styles of thought  long ago.  What is everyone else's  take on the viewpoints brought up by the speaker regarding African Art as being "primitive?"

So I just wanted to know what everyone else though of the speech we heard today at HIntz. Apparently, many of the attendees found the topic fascinating and I would like to know exactly what was so interesting about it. Not because I felt the opposite, but because I had a hard time hearing and understanding exactly what was being said. To be completely honest, the only things I vividly remember her discussing were breasts, PCP, and necrophilia. Along with primitivism and an inverting of a values system? Any input?