The End.

I didn't take this class because I was interested in the topic, nor was it a requirement of any kind. I took it because, for me, I knew it would be challenging - that I would have to step outside my comfort zone. Of course I didn't like studying all of the theories, some were interesting, and others I think really shouldn't be applied to literature. For example, psychoanalysis. Decoding dreams, thoughts, and the unconscious is something I wouldn't mind further researching, but I don't feel as though it should apply to literary studies. Maybe if you're studying the author, but not texts.

The theories that I really enjoyed learning about were the ones that addressed the hierarchy of power in society - Marxism, feminism, and postcolonialism. I think my interest in those theories has been because of my new interest in the politics of power. Who has it, who doesn't, and why even when we live in a democratic, "open-minded" country, it's easy to say everyone is equal, but really, no one is. I like these theories because they point out the weaknesses in the argument of equality and power. These theories work well in interpreting literature and "real life."

My interest in power structures is what influenced me to write my essay about the movie To Wong Foo. Sure, the movie is hilarious...or at least I think so, but there are a lot of underlying issues that people seem to either ignore or gloss over when watching it. People laugh at things that are stereotypes, but really unconsciously, they believe it to be true. I analyzed the movie through feminist theory, and wrote about how patriarchal power was disguised as drag queens. But I also noticed that patriarchal power doesn't just oppress women, as we discussed in class, it oppresses other non-dominant men, and people of different ethnic backgrounds. And it's ironic that the oppressors in the film were supposed to be the non-dominant "outcasts" in society.

They were the ones who were supposed to be powerless, and yet they were the most powerful. Even within the group - there were three of them - there was one that definitely overpowered the other two. And of course the most dominant one (played by Patrick Swayze) was white and dressed in a more high class glamorous fashion than the other two - one of which was black, and the other latino. I suppose I could have included a postcolonial analysis, although I didn't really think of that at the time.

I believe this is the reason why I really enjoyed reading Cloud 9. I was skeptical at first because I didn't really like Mantissa. But this play is really entertaining. I think that because it uses a lot of humor, it's easier to pick up on the different issues that arise.

Gender is a drag

...it is not that drag opposes heterosexuality, or that the proliferation of drag will bring down heterosexuality; on the contrary, drag tends to be the allegorization of heterosexuality and its constitutive melancholia (Butler 247).

Gender, as we know, is culturally constructed. However, it is also an act that is performed. The act of performing gender is more easily visible in drag.

I don't believe that drag subverts gender norms. Drag is more or less a form of entertainment. Those who participate are only performing a gender in an exaggerated and dramatic form. Drag queens for example, parody the socially constructed gender norms of females in an over the top fashion. They take on the physical appearance of a female, but they don't take on the power that females have in society. They still retain their masculine power.

My paper topic is about patriarchal power disguised as drag queens in the movie To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything Julie Newmar. The basic synopsis of the movie is that three drag queens enter a drag contest in New York. Two tie for first, feel bad for the third, and take her with them from NYC to Hollywood for another drag queen beauty pageant. However, their car breaks down in the middle of nowhere and they are forced to stay in the tiny midwestern town until their car part arrives. In the process they befriend the locals and are able to transform the entire town.

I think that this movie might have thought it was taking a risky step having drag queens in it, especially since the actors who portrayed them were "action" hero-type stars. Really though, it's more entertaining than ground breaking - just as drag queens are. They're entertaining, not deconstructing gender roles. The characters in the small town fall into the typical masculine and feminine roles. The men have all the power and the women do what they say. But when the drag queens are involved, they are able to "show" the women that they can have power in their small town too.

There are a few scenes in which the drag queens "strip" the men of their power and give it to the women. But it's strange because even though they're men supposed to be portraying women, they use their masculine power to overcome the men of the town and "control" them. It's like they're reinforcing the patriarchy by saying to the women it's ok if you have power but only we can put the men in their place because we are men and we have the ability to do so.

Really in the end they're not completing much. All they do is transform the women to act in an exaggerated, dramatic fashion as the drag queens do. Basically reinforcing the traditional gender roles that those in drag perform as a parody.

Political Spouses

With the next presidential election a little over a year and a half away I thought that this topic would be appropriate to discuss, seeing as how the candidates who are running appear in the news everyday. This article doesn't touch upon the presidential candidates, but it does bring up the topic I want to discuss. And as much as I normally dislike Virginia Buckingham's columns, I find myself agreeing with her on this one.

Duty is hers to take: Mrs. Patrick should pick own role as first lady

Incase anyone doesn't know, Diane Patrick is the wife of Governor Deval Patrick (D-MA). What I'm trying to get to is...the job of the first lady.

Whether it be as a governor's wife, or wife of the president. The position of first lady does allow one to have some social power, but it's constructed so that she must follow what society considers the traditional gender role for women. She needs to be nurturing, caring, and compassionate. She is expected to participate in charitable and humanitarian work. Usually, a first lady chooses a specific social cause to support (not one that has any political implications of course). And never ever (not always but a majority of the time - some MA first ladies continued to work) do they continue their career that they previously had outside of office...if they had one at all.

The role of first lady, to me, seems pretty oppressive. There is no rule or law that says you cannot have a career outside of the role as first lady, but it is looked down upon if you do. Not so much in state government as in the White House. One of the most identifiable first ladies is Jackie Kennedy. But why does everyone know and love her? Because she had great style. She fit the traditional first lady role. She was the subordinate to her husband. She supported him and stood by him the way a good wife should. Sure, she was also the first lady during the beginning of the 1960s. But people in the present still admire her. I can't name one single social cause she supported or what her political stances were, but I could describe what she used to wear.

Where Diane Patrick comes into this is that she isn't the typical first lady. And while I am not totally satisfied with her husand's administration thus far, I am pleased that she has chosen to continue her law practice full-time as well as fulfill the duties of first lady.

The reason this topic interests me is that increasingly as more and more candidates are entering the presidential race I've noticed there is a lot of emphasis on their spouses. There have been a few reports that say it will be their wives (husband...ha!) that will make or break their campaign. This is especially noted in the GOP candidate pool. The only republican candidate to have been married once is Mitt Romney. It seems as though his wife Ann is the perfect embodiment of a first lady. Even in the present day, where divorce isn't an unusual act, many voters may base their votes on the candidates relationship with their spouse in addition to their views on issues.

Baudrillard

The first thing I did was print out Ken Rufo's post, because one of the many things I hate most about the internet is not being able to actually have the text in my hands - and because the post was really long and I like underlining stuff.

Baudrillard's incorporation of the sign-value into structural Marxism is interesting. Marxism emphasized the material aspect of production; but the sign-value brings into view that what something represents is more important than the cost or quality of construction. The focus is on consumption and not production. A product may not be consumed because of it's quality but rather it's brand; they're bought for their sign-value not their use-value. Consumption drives an economy, not production; and sign-value is important in a consumer society. You can produce as many material objects as you want, but if no one is buying them, then they don't have value and the economy (in terms of capitalism) will not function properly. A consumer culture is controlled by the objects that are produced rather than the production of those objects, or maybe, they're really controlled by the meaning that the object creates.

The idea of impossible exchange kind of bugs me. I'm not exactly sure why, maybe I'm trying to think about it too much. But, if I understand it correctly, it means that there is nothing outside of meaning, because the impossible exchange barrier is when meaning cannot be exchanged because there is nothing out there to exchange it with? I feel like he means that meaning is meaningful, but only up to a certain limit.

He does say that he wants to "rescue illusion", or at least, allow for the possibility of illusion. So, if he wants for there to be a possibility of non-meaning and illusion, then why is meaning limited by the impossible exchange barrier? In a world of illusion impossible wouldn't exist.

The Author

Foucalt says that the author is dead because the author is not the center; it is only part of the structure. The author is not the origin of the text, but instead, a product of writing. The author is a function of discourse.

“To give a text an Author is to impose a limit on that text, to furnish it with a final signified, to close the writing” (Barthes 188).

I think this quote from Barthes “The Death of the Author” reinforces Foucalt’s idea that the author is a function of discourse, and if the author is not dead, then that limits the discourse of the text. Barthes said that (Mallarme [?]) said that it is language that speaks and not the author. This is where the author starts to become de-centered because the reader hasn’t been taken in account. It is the reader that interprets the text and finds the meaning – every reader brings their own history to a text. For an author to say that their writing has only one meaning would be limiting the text.

I kind of feel like my ideas about the author are a little bit unorganized, but in any sense, I'm going to go on and talk about the author and blogging. Barthes said about writing:

"...that is to say, finally outside of any function other than that of the very practice of the sumbol itself, this disconnection occurs, the voice loses its origin, the author enters into his own death, writing begins" (Barthes 185).

Writing doesn't truly begin until the author's death occurs. The focus moves from the author to the language of the text. In the case of blogging, however, I disagree that the "author is dead." In blog writing, the author is very much alive and the center of the text. This entry at Sunlit Water addresses the sense of intimacy that exists on the internet. Writing on the internet, is very different from writing a piece of literature that is published as an actual text that you can hold in your hands.

The author is alive in blogging because the internet allows writers to update frequently; there really is no wait for publication. Bloggers tend to mix pieces of their personal life in with academics, politics, etc. I feel that readers of blogs not only read because of their interest in a topic that the blog covers, but also because of the personality of the blogger. In blogging, the author is not dead, and they are also part of the text, moreso than in traditional texts.

Freud and Psychoanalysis

Sublimination. It’s similar to repression, in the sense that they both work together. Repression is when things like desires that cannot be fulfilled and traumatic events are stored in the unconscious. These repressed ideas are no longer living in the conscious, therefore, the individual is not consciously aware of them. The process of sublimination takes the repressed information and expresses it in the form of something productive. For instance, one must subliminate their sexual desires and turn that energy into something like getting work done, exercising, etc. If individuals are constantly fulfilling those desires, nothing would get done. That is why the ego is necessary to balance the reality of what can and cannot be fulfilled and when it is appropriate.

I understand the Oedipus complex, but what I don't understand is why Freud didn't give the view of the female infant. Is this complex something ONLY the male infant experiences according to Freud? How is the female infant developing at the same time as her male counterpart? Freud claims that the male infant desires to eliminate the father so that he himself can have power. Does this mean that the female infant reacts in opposition to the Oedipus complex and instead wishes to eliminate the mother to replace her? I feel like Freud's ideas are geared towards masculinity (only). I think it could possibly be related to the time period he completed his studies in, although, I'm not entirely sure.

The Archive

I know there is more to this subject than I am about to write about, but I'm going to try and discuss Derrida's mention of the archive from the film.

"The question of the archive is not a question of the past. It is not the question of a concept dealing with the past that might already be at our disposal. An archivable concept of the archive. It is a question of the future, the question of the future itself, the question of a response, of a promise, and of a responsibility for tomorrow. The archive, if we want to know what that will have meant, we will only know in times to come; not tomorrow, but in times to come. Later on, or perhaps never" - Derrida

To start off, an archive is a place of storage; the preservation of a collection of records and documents. Basically, an archive is a collection of information (that takes up space). Most archives are run by government. For instance, the Mass Archives over near the JFK Library and the Vital Records building all house records that can be accessed by the public.

The problem with archives though is that they only preserve materials that they see fit. The archive is a system, which organizes a system of keeping documents. What happens is that because only certain information is deemed appropriate to save, other information is left out. Since records recall events that have happened in history, does the archive write or create some parts of history? Who says what information should be kept, and what should be forgotten or destroyed?

The memory is an example of an archive at work. Our brains save and categorize information. This information or memories are either kept in the conscious (I guess you would call it that), which can be recalled a bit easier than a memory that is repressed in the unconscious. I was going to try and link the actual physical archive to the brain but I forgot how, so I’ll come back to that later.

So to move on to Derrida’s quote about the archive as a question of the future. I was thinking along the lines that it’s important to the future because it verifies whether or not the past actually occurred. Or maybe that it’s really the beginning of life for the archivable information, and not the death. Information doesn’t get archived because it’s dead and unusable; it gets archived for future use.

A question that I began to think about was that, do you think biography and archive are similar concepts? I mean, a biography fixes the meaning of what it’s about. And an archive fixes the meaning of the past it’s supplementing because some higher authority decided what was important enough to be preserved. Both are important to the future because tomorrow they will show us what we meant. But are we really learning what we meant, or what someone chose to mean for us?

EDIT 2/28: If an archive looks to the future and not the past, shouldn't a photograph look to the future as well? Are archive and photograph similar, because the archive isn't the death of something and yet a photo is?