Henry Louis Gates vs. The Enlightenment

I wouldn't have imagined that the Enlightenment was not beneficial to African American people.  Truthfully, I never wondered about it (my white privilege showing through).  But because the Enlightenment created "an urge toward the systematization of all human knowledge," (1896) African American people were assigned a lower rating than white people, especially the educated western elite European and American.

I think it's not so much where the non-whites were placed as that the discussion even ensued.  There were certainly examples of slaves and former slaves who were educated and achieved academic success.  How did the white people reconcile this fact to their notion that non-whites were biologically different and therefore lacked the capacity to participate in learning, reason, and art? 

The Enlightenment philosophers lent their voices to the argument by claiming that race was defined by complexion, character, and intellectual capacity, thereby depriving non-whites of any claim to "civilization."  Henry Louis Gates, in Writing, Race, and the Difference It Makes, is quick to point out that Anglo-Africans wrote many kinds of works in response to these claims.  However, "Black people, we know, have not been 'liberated' from racism by their writings, and they accepted a false premise by assuming that racism would be destroyed once white racists became convinced that we were human, too." (1901)

Fascinating.  What if every writer had to first prove his or her worthiness, character, and intellectual capacity before being allowed to write?

Reform vs. Revolution

Bell Hooks' Feminism is for Everybody really got under my skin.  I'm just old enough to have some connection with the Feminist Movement of the 1960s and 1970s, but also young enough to have not really been involved in it.  Now don't get me wrong, I was subscribing to Ms. Magazine when I was 16 years old, and I spent 25 years fighting with the Catholic Church on behalf of women.  But here's where I ended up, a college-degreed woman working full-time plus for $12,000 a year to support and enhance a patriarchal structure that will never change and will never work that hard for me.  I'm disgusted with myself now. 

Hooks' definition of Reform Feminists fits me - I was just trying to get ahead myself, and saw true feminist progress when middle class white women made gains.  I could have been like the poor women, because I did some of jobs they do - I babysat, groomed dogs, ran a catering service, and cleaned houses (to supplement my salary from the Church).  But I had my trump cards - I had a college degree, I had a husband with a professional career, and I had family members who were similarly situated and would have helped if it were necessary.  Most of all, I was white and middle class.  This gave me advantages that I wasn't aware of.

Revolutionary Feminists scare me.  I guess I'm not sure what kind of system would arise if they had their way.  I know I can get what I need in the current patriarchal system.

Repressive Structures vs. Ideological Structures

Althusser says the state, like other institutions, uses repressive structures to maintain its power.  However, that power is also maintained by the willingness of the subjugated to remain so.  That's where ideological structures come in.  It seems monstrous that those in power can rely on the consent of others.  Ideological structures, I think, indicate a greater degree of power than do repressive structures. 

That makes me think of the panopticon, where the prisoners are definitely held by repressive structures (the prison), but the possibility of being observed at any moment and the impossibility of knowing if it is happening creates an ideological structure.  After some amount of time (no doubt varying from prisoner to prisoner) the inmate gives up any power he might have.  The cells could then be left unlocked, and there could be no guards.  Or maybe not - it seems that there is always someone who is brave or foolhardy enough to test the structures, be they repressive or ideological.

Fascinating, but I'm not sure what this has to do with reading literature . . .

Marxism vs. Feminism

Jameson's On Interpretation insists that all interpretation must be political in order to be authentic.  I'm having a hard time imagining how this could be true.  I guess that readers who want to see the great Marxist narrative will see it.  Just as readers who want to see Freudian underpinnings will see them.  But isn't it possible that sometimes a cigar is just a cigar (to quote Freud).  Another objection I have to Jameson's argument is that it makes the class struggle the most important thing humanity has engaged in, ever.  I think issues of personal politics and power are more fundamental - especially gender issues.  After all, gender is the most basic division between humans. 

Me vs. English

I appreciated Peter Barry's instruction to stop and think about my study of literature to date.  As one of the few non English degreed students in our class, I often feel like the wrong color duck in the pond.  I did have a time in my undergrad period where I was an English major, and I did take a surprising number of English classes (mostly writing classes) through the 8 years I spent earning my degree in Marketing. 

I don't remember not knowing how to read.  I didn't go to Kindergarten because there was no public Kindergarten where we lived when I was 5, but I went to first grade already reading whole books and knowing how to write in cursive.  I had a wonderful English teacher in high school who recommended that we set a goal of reading at least 50 books a year.  I accomplished that for many years, but I was an undisciplined reader.  I read whatever interested me or whatever was handy.  I rarely discussed it with people and never looked at criticism.  So my reading was a kind of close reading.  It didn't occur to me to wonder about the author or look into the historical period.  I learned a lot about a lot of things, but could only grab onto the things I had some understanding of.

Graduate studies have been an eye opener because so much more is expected.  A part of me resists looking so deeply into literature's context, maybe because it reveals so much about the author.  As a writer, I am uncomfortable knowing that I may betray my secrets in my writing.  Furthermore, I suspect that I am betrayed by my response to literature, and that worries me too.

Erasmus vs. everybody

Poor Erasmus.  After his death, Erasmus was considered by Catholics to be an moderate figure and an advocate of reform within the Church.  Some years later, he was viewed by the church as a near-heretic, and his writings were banned and suppressed because he was said to have "laid the egg that hatched the Reformation."  Similarly, after Erasmus' death Protestants recognized the work Erasmus did to support the ideals of the Reformation.  Later, they became disenchanted with Erasmus' critiques of Luther and the aims of the Reformation. 

Perhaps this is the lot of the humanist.  Religion is, after all, a supernatural pursuit, and it may always call upon supernatural "proof" in its arguments.  This gives religion a sort of trump card that rhetoric does not possess.  Religious arguments don't have to be logical and reasoned, they don't have to stand up to examination and the dialectic process.  Humanism asserts that Truth is found through human pursuits, especially the application of reason.  But there are no trump cards.  The conclusions of humanists are tenuous, and understood to be changeable if new information comes to light.  This is how it was possible for Erasmus to both support and criticize the Church, Luther, and the Reformation - thereby making an enemy of everyone.

Well done, Prince of Humanists.

Putting in your oar

Doug got me thinking about the whole "putting in your oar" metaphor used by Kenneth Burke and referred to by Gerald Graf.  According to the 1811 Vulgar Dictionary, it means "to intermeddle, or to offer an opinion unasked".  As it has been used in Britain, it is generally equivalent to "sticking your nose in someone else's business".  I had the idea that Burke was referring to "putting in your oar" as a way to help the group get where they are going - like adding another rower to the boat.  Of course, there's no way to be sure all will row in the same direction and in unison - maybe that's why we are still debating about ancient rhetoric.

As far as it being a phallocentric image, I didn't see that until it was mentioned in class.  I wonder if there's a comparable gynocentric image . . . No, I can't come up with a good one (although I can come up with some dirty ones).

Stasis Theory

I, too, am basically new to the idea of rhetoric, so stasis theory strikes me as brilliant.  No doubt all my well-educated classmates consider it old hat and already know what theory succeeded stasis theory.  For me, the appeal of stasis theory is its systematic process of running through the applicable arguments, so that the solution is nearly "scientific".  I'm much more comfortable in a world where there is truth and right.  Using stasis theory, any number of people could arrive at the same conclusion, even for a complicated problem or issue.

First comes the consideration of conjectural stasis - the exploration of the crucial fact in the problem.  If yes, it is time to look at definitive stasis, to determine if the terms used truly apply to this situation.  If yes, qualitative stasis follows, where reasons and excuses are offered.  Presuming the reasons are not compelling, the final test is translative stasis, where the authority or jurisdiction of those in power is questioned.  It could be put into a flow chart or a computer program.

Stasis theory is beautiful in its simplicity and order.  I am reminded of the work of the great Hebrew rabbis, toiling for centuries to discover solutions to all potential spiritual issues that their people would face.  Because the process is systematic, there is no need for personal politics.  I guess it is ultimately fair, within the bounds of the rules of the society.

Rhetor vs. Philosopher

I share the concerns of Socrates and Plato regarding the possible misuse of the sophistic rhetoric espoused by Gorgias.  Any time the aim of the speaker is to capture the hearts and minds of the audience, I get uncomfortable.  This sort of rhetoric is often found in religion, and seems to lead to the development of a cult of personality, not a cult of theology.  Plato separates the rhetor (Gorgias)  from the philosopher (himself), and claims that they have different goals.  He insists that genuine investigation of a subject (through use of the dialectic) is better than rhetorical victory (through the use of persuasion).  It is clear that the gifted orator is not necessarily an ethical person, nor an intelligent one.  As scholars, we must develop sense of skepticism about charismatic people, who can too often lead others astray.

I'm late, I'm late!

It is Sunday and I am just getting around to doing the reading.  I will be blogging soon, I hope.  Sorry to be late on the assignment.  Do you suppose Aristotle and Plato had to do laundry and mow the lawn?