For Monday, slog your way through the Raymond Williams if you haven't yet. For part one of your blog (150-200 words) pick out a sentence or two which seem to distill what he's up to, what this essay is about, and explain why.
Also for Monday, read Russell Banks 'Sarah Cole' (under the links) and, for the second part of your blog (150-200 words) find a way to connect it to our discussion. Even in such a brief space, consider what a 'Marxist reading' of that story might entail. What kinds of things might that reading fixate on?
In both cases be sure to quote the text more than once.
And if you haven't talked or emailed me about your paper topic, remember to do so by day's end on Friday.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
The world ruled by the privileged
Hegemony: preponderant influence or authority over others. I believe politics is a perfect example of this. Every four years we partake in the ritual of voting, under the guise that one vote can truly make a difference.
Sorry to be a Debbie downer but that’s just simply hog wash, there so many intrinsic parts that leads to the final decision making process of whom will be elected president. If our vote in government matters could truly have some sort of ripple effect, the idea of representatives would be useless. But the fact of the matter is that we do have representatives, we elect someone who will make decisions that we believe are in our best interest.
Another example of hegemony would be the way in which are politics portrayed by the media. Most channels have their own private agendas meaning if a certain network is owned by a conservative, the views expressed by news anchors will attribute those of the conservative party while over shadowing the liberals.
It’s sad but true, money seems to influence the world, and even politicians are dominated by large companies.
Business invest a lot of money into presidential campaigns so that they may reap the benefits if there candidate takes office. “In 2000 bush’s presidential campaign received close to $1.9 million from oil and gas companies”. The average Joe is just a small fish in a big pond.
-Rita Morales
Sorry to be a Debbie downer but that’s just simply hog wash, there so many intrinsic parts that leads to the final decision making process of whom will be elected president. If our vote in government matters could truly have some sort of ripple effect, the idea of representatives would be useless. But the fact of the matter is that we do have representatives, we elect someone who will make decisions that we believe are in our best interest.
Another example of hegemony would be the way in which are politics portrayed by the media. Most channels have their own private agendas meaning if a certain network is owned by a conservative, the views expressed by news anchors will attribute those of the conservative party while over shadowing the liberals.
It’s sad but true, money seems to influence the world, and even politicians are dominated by large companies.
Business invest a lot of money into presidential campaigns so that they may reap the benefits if there candidate takes office. “In 2000 bush’s presidential campaign received close to $1.9 million from oil and gas companies”. The average Joe is just a small fish in a big pond.
-Rita Morales
seeing what's invisible
Through tv sets in our homes, we normally get to learn what’s going on in the world, of all sorts. Be it politic, business related issues, or anything that has our concerns. But as some of us are aware, many of the important issues in general aren’t necessarily within our reach. Those that are in control, such as politicians and businessmen in high positions, choose what not to be delivered to our homes, to our ears. What we see through the tv screen isn’t everything there is. We sometimes find that particular news information can only be accessible through some foreign news programs and even see that certain issues are addressed differently. The way we perceive things within or out side the country is often manipulated, by those that do have the tool or the power to do so. And as the manipulated form of information and knowledge shape our way of thinking, we often act or choose things the way that would suit the interest of those who manipulated them themselves. The way we concern ourselves with certain political issues, money consumption, or even our taste for food and fashion could well be controlled, by the power of the media, making us think that what we see and choose are the best there is, when it could only be an illusion which could be a well-made hook for its fish. Unless we make an attempt to see what’s beyond, we won’t be as free as we think we are.
The One True Path
It’d probably be too easy and too cheap to attack religion as the clearest example of hegemony and the level of control it can exert over a people but it sticks out since it continues to come up throughout history into today.
The most prevalent examples of this in our current consciousness might be Fundamentalist Christianity and Islamic Extremists. However, I think it’s very important to understand that this has been going on for millennia even before monotheistic religions rose to the prominence they now have.
The issue is not the religion; the issue is those in charge using that religion in order to further the ideals of the state.
I think the best example of this would have been Ancient Rome. In
In
The immediate successor to the
Choice Between Life and Liberty
Hegemony is the idea of a dominating group imposing their beliefs upon a subordinate group and in a way making them believe that this way of thinking is best for them and will benefit them.
An example of this can be seen in the revolutionary framers of the constitution and the starters of the revolution. They were seen by many historians as just "rebels". However, if you look at the revolution from the British perspective you can see it more clearly. America was a colony of the British so they were just another part of the British empire and were themselves British before they were truly "Americans".
Basically the "rebels" wanted to kick the British out of America because they were being taxed, but in a way it was their right to tax them because it was the British who protected them. The Americans knew that the British would always have control over America and they could make them pay whatever they wanted. It made them feel inferior so the more wealthy people wanted to rebel. The poor people didn't care at all in many cases because their lives were bad to begin with. No matter what happened they didn't want to choose sides. They just wanted to work and maintain their lives. The problem with the rich people was that they needed everyone to help them rebel against the British, but the poor and middle class really didn't want to go to war and die.
To get these people to help in the battle against the British the smart and rich people basically tricked people into thinking the British were horrible. They exaggerated the Boston massacre where only about 2 people died. It was actually the rebels who pushed the British into shooting to defend themselves. The Declaration of Independence was printed and circulated to everyone who could read. Generals and even George Washington read the declaration to their soldiers to increase moral and remind them why they were fighting.
The important thing was that they used philosophy to persuade others. They used very general words and always made their effort look like it was their duty to their happiness and liberty. They were born with the right to live free to cover up the fact that they were rebelling from their government. They imposed their way of thinking upon the poor which had a lot to do with status of economy and opportunity that the poor did not have. They used ways of media, such as news and printed works to help persuade and manipulate the poorer, subordinate group. They became without an option because it was either fight against the British or lose all human rights.
An example of this can be seen in the revolutionary framers of the constitution and the starters of the revolution. They were seen by many historians as just "rebels". However, if you look at the revolution from the British perspective you can see it more clearly. America was a colony of the British so they were just another part of the British empire and were themselves British before they were truly "Americans".
Basically the "rebels" wanted to kick the British out of America because they were being taxed, but in a way it was their right to tax them because it was the British who protected them. The Americans knew that the British would always have control over America and they could make them pay whatever they wanted. It made them feel inferior so the more wealthy people wanted to rebel. The poor people didn't care at all in many cases because their lives were bad to begin with. No matter what happened they didn't want to choose sides. They just wanted to work and maintain their lives. The problem with the rich people was that they needed everyone to help them rebel against the British, but the poor and middle class really didn't want to go to war and die.
To get these people to help in the battle against the British the smart and rich people basically tricked people into thinking the British were horrible. They exaggerated the Boston massacre where only about 2 people died. It was actually the rebels who pushed the British into shooting to defend themselves. The Declaration of Independence was printed and circulated to everyone who could read. Generals and even George Washington read the declaration to their soldiers to increase moral and remind them why they were fighting.
The important thing was that they used philosophy to persuade others. They used very general words and always made their effort look like it was their duty to their happiness and liberty. They were born with the right to live free to cover up the fact that they were rebelling from their government. They imposed their way of thinking upon the poor which had a lot to do with status of economy and opportunity that the poor did not have. They used ways of media, such as news and printed works to help persuade and manipulate the poorer, subordinate group. They became without an option because it was either fight against the British or lose all human rights.
Assimilation & Acculturation
People from all over the world immigrate to the United States, a free country. Pursuing the American dream with equal rights for individuals and the freedom to practice a religion without persecution is embedded by law within this country. The poor ones, who have wished to come to this country adopt new rules, language, and a totally new way of living from assimilation and into its outcome, acculturation. We assimilate to the United States through experiences, education, holidays, work, and especially sense of humor. As we practice with these experiences through our lives we begin to acculturate the dominant culture which is American life. This is where we get the spontaneous consent of the rest of the culture under the dominant culture based on Gramsci’s concept of Hegemony.
Whether you emigrate or are identified as a refugee fleeing political persecution or in a time of civil unrest, you generally have no choice but to save your life and move to live in America. The refugee who was granted political asylum has a feeling of alienation in a new world with a different language which is the very opposite of immigration where people feel happy and want to learn a new way of living through language and education for the pursuit of the American dream. Getting back to the refugee who wishes to go back to his/her country to live that happy life again before all hell broke loose has no choice but to assimilate and acculturate a new way of living. When it comes to starting a new difficult life for immigrants in America, they are not coerced because just like everyone else they have their own rights up until the time they receive their citizenship. Through spontaneity and consent, we adapt to this new country successfully and very slowly throughout generations our old culture which we bring from a different country becomes obsolete. What does stay as passed down through our parents who taught us discipline when we were born is our native language, and we continue to apply that native language throughout generations upon our children.
Whether you emigrate or are identified as a refugee fleeing political persecution or in a time of civil unrest, you generally have no choice but to save your life and move to live in America. The refugee who was granted political asylum has a feeling of alienation in a new world with a different language which is the very opposite of immigration where people feel happy and want to learn a new way of living through language and education for the pursuit of the American dream. Getting back to the refugee who wishes to go back to his/her country to live that happy life again before all hell broke loose has no choice but to assimilate and acculturate a new way of living. When it comes to starting a new difficult life for immigrants in America, they are not coerced because just like everyone else they have their own rights up until the time they receive their citizenship. Through spontaneity and consent, we adapt to this new country successfully and very slowly throughout generations our old culture which we bring from a different country becomes obsolete. What does stay as passed down through our parents who taught us discipline when we were born is our native language, and we continue to apply that native language throughout generations upon our children.
Hegemony and the Media
Gramsci differed from Marxism in that he credited a force other than capitalism, namely “intellectual or moral leadership” as capable of inspiring change. Therefore, intellectual men are critical to a society as they mastermind an ideology, which is then imposed on the others. This created dominant culture is so thoroughly instilled in the people that they no longer see it as an imposition, but instead accept in unquestioningly.
It would be futile to reject Gramsci’s idea. Although it is an insult to our intelligence, this assignment forced me to recognize this phenomenon in our everyday life. For lack of imagination, the easiest place to start would be a quick glance at our voting practices. It was the favorite diatribe of a political science professor of mine, to bemoan the lack of democracy in our voting system. I preface these next sentences by stating that this was the position of the professor and not my own. However, he frequently reminded us that our practice of voting, going to the booths and punching the ballots is a farce. Essentially our vote is meaningless (so said my professor) because the ultimate vote, the only vote that counts, is the one places by the Electoral College, and this final vote does not necessarily bear any semblance to how the people of that district voted. This was his theory as to how Bush got his place in the White House, twice.
I also found another illusion of choice or illusion of freedom rather, in our media/press. It always bothered me that while we are given the promise of full disclosure, but in reality, the only news that we receive is what the New York Times or CNN (fill in your paper of choice) chooses to cover. Imagine for example that a man decides to run for president. His platform and campaign trail will only reach the people if the media decides to cover it. We are at the mercy of the media. Although it can be argued that the internet is a medium for spreading information, without having to rely on mass media, but honestly, no one would know to look at the website if the candidate’s name was not previously featured in the news.
It is disconcerting to consider how Gramsci’s theory is still apropos to today.
It would be futile to reject Gramsci’s idea. Although it is an insult to our intelligence, this assignment forced me to recognize this phenomenon in our everyday life. For lack of imagination, the easiest place to start would be a quick glance at our voting practices. It was the favorite diatribe of a political science professor of mine, to bemoan the lack of democracy in our voting system. I preface these next sentences by stating that this was the position of the professor and not my own. However, he frequently reminded us that our practice of voting, going to the booths and punching the ballots is a farce. Essentially our vote is meaningless (so said my professor) because the ultimate vote, the only vote that counts, is the one places by the Electoral College, and this final vote does not necessarily bear any semblance to how the people of that district voted. This was his theory as to how Bush got his place in the White House, twice.
I also found another illusion of choice or illusion of freedom rather, in our media/press. It always bothered me that while we are given the promise of full disclosure, but in reality, the only news that we receive is what the New York Times or CNN (fill in your paper of choice) chooses to cover. Imagine for example that a man decides to run for president. His platform and campaign trail will only reach the people if the media decides to cover it. We are at the mercy of the media. Although it can be argued that the internet is a medium for spreading information, without having to rely on mass media, but honestly, no one would know to look at the website if the candidate’s name was not previously featured in the news.
It is disconcerting to consider how Gramsci’s theory is still apropos to today.
The dominant culture of Fidel Castro..
Unfortunately, in today’s society there are several dominant cultures that attain the “spontaneous consent” over the rest of the cultures. One particular example, is the ruling of Fidel Castro in Cuba. Fidel Alejandro Castro Ruz was a Cuban activist who lead Cuba from January 1959, until February 2008. When Castro became the Prime Minister of Cuba, he turned the country into a single party state. The Cuban people became outraged, because this newly formed government system allowed only one political party to run the government and no other parties were tolerable to run candidates for any election. This type of system is also referred to as “de facto-single party state,” describing a “dominant party system. It consisted of laws and ideologies that prevented the Cuban people from attaining any authority. The Cubans disliked being apart of this communist society. These people have been ruled under Fidel Castro’s beliefs for so long, that they were afraid to talk a loud about a change. “My country is like a prison” stated one Cuban student, sitting on a park bench, who was interviewed by James C. McKinley Jr. Some Cubans explain how they have no freedom, no connection to the outside world. Many Cubans feel upset because they have to continue living on a salary that is extremely insufficient to live on, due to Castro’s assertion. After suffering from an intestinal illness, Fidel Castro gave all responsibility to his younger brother Raul Castro. On February 24, 2008, Raul Castro became Cuba’s new president. However, many Cubans feel hopeless, and do not believe their country will change for the better. There is strong belief that the Castro brothers think alike, and many believe that even though Fidel Castro is not in office, he will still work from behind the scenes…
"Spontaneous Consent" Through Naivety
An example of how the dominant culture may obtain “spontaneous consent” is through manipulating the middle and/or lower classes to believe they have their best interest at heart. This is seen in every United States political debate, whether it’s about universal healthcare, welfare or social security, the public believes whatever they are told. The idea that something like universal healthcare can be bad is like saying smoking cigarettes will cure a cold, but because of what “expert economists” say, it’ll be along ways away before we’ll establish anything even regarding universal healthcare.
This isn’t because Americans (subjected groups) are imbeciles but rather naïve in their belief that the government that represents them wouldn’t want to intentionally cause harm or cheat them. But believe it or not at the end of the day there are those who benefit from the misfortunes of others and there not a drug dealer or gangster, there most likely wearing a suit and own stocks in tobacco and the NAACP.
This isn’t because Americans (subjected groups) are imbeciles but rather naïve in their belief that the government that represents them wouldn’t want to intentionally cause harm or cheat them. But believe it or not at the end of the day there are those who benefit from the misfortunes of others and there not a drug dealer or gangster, there most likely wearing a suit and own stocks in tobacco and the NAACP.
Hegemony and Racial Groups
According to Gramsci HEGEMONY is "leadership" or dominance of groups or a class in society.
A real world example of how the dominant culture is 'spontaneous consent' would be different racial groups who believe that their culture is the dominant culture. They stick together and they 'coerce' others within their culture, to believe what they believe. (To believe their beliefs). Certain members who belong to a dominant racial cultural group, such as whites, Hispanics, blacks, etc. They may discover themselves, or be discovered as "powerful and privileged". The way members, from these different racial groups, interact is considered, by others "to be directly related to issues of power or class".
An example of this example would be the Ku Klux Klan, their beliefs are that every "redneck", as they call themselves, should be part of their clan, because they feel all rednecks should be apart of what they believe. When in reality all rednecks are not the same as those that practice that type of culture. Another example of how the dominant culture is 'spontaneous consent' would be "911". This can be a world example, because this event affected the world dramatically. After this happened this country worked together to try and dominant the bad guys. People from all classes and cultures worked as one. Lower classes as well as upper classes learned how to work together.
The first example I used basically reflects with Raymond Williams excerpt. One of the three common versions, which is "a system of beliefs characteristics of a particular class or group". Also the second version which is "a system of illusory beliefs". This real world example is a choice which people have to make, which is an everyday thing, people make choices every day. whether it's choice of religion, culture, etc.
A real world example of how the dominant culture is 'spontaneous consent' would be different racial groups who believe that their culture is the dominant culture. They stick together and they 'coerce' others within their culture, to believe what they believe. (To believe their beliefs). Certain members who belong to a dominant racial cultural group, such as whites, Hispanics, blacks, etc. They may discover themselves, or be discovered as "powerful and privileged". The way members, from these different racial groups, interact is considered, by others "to be directly related to issues of power or class".
An example of this example would be the Ku Klux Klan, their beliefs are that every "redneck", as they call themselves, should be part of their clan, because they feel all rednecks should be apart of what they believe. When in reality all rednecks are not the same as those that practice that type of culture. Another example of how the dominant culture is 'spontaneous consent' would be "911". This can be a world example, because this event affected the world dramatically. After this happened this country worked together to try and dominant the bad guys. People from all classes and cultures worked as one. Lower classes as well as upper classes learned how to work together.
The first example I used basically reflects with Raymond Williams excerpt. One of the three common versions, which is "a system of beliefs characteristics of a particular class or group". Also the second version which is "a system of illusory beliefs". This real world example is a choice which people have to make, which is an everyday thing, people make choices every day. whether it's choice of religion, culture, etc.
Hegemony and Culture
According to Gramsci, Hegemony means dominants group in a society. which is, the dominant group rule the minority group in a society. in some cases, you don't have to be wealthy in order to dominate a society. Farmer's are dominants in some countries. they dominate their societies, by using their power in producing food for the society. in my country, there are some villages who do not need money in other for them to live. all they need is food and they will be fine. they farm for their food and sell their some of it after cultivation. these farmers have the right not to sell their food to the wealthy people who can't farm for food. in this case their power is overthrown by the Farmer's because it is the farmer's choice to sell or not to sell his food to the other person who can not farm.
In my native land Nigeria(west Africa), there are over three hundred ethnic group who share common language and cultural values. when it come to ruling the country, which is whom to be elected for president, there is always a disagreement. out of all these ethnic groups, only three groups are the majorities(Hausa, Ibo's and the Yoruba's). they are the majorities because their belief is that they have the voice for politics and the others do not have a political voice. money and power are also used in this case.
The lower class accept the situation by choice because if they want change they will fight for change. although the rich people will not like the ideal for change because they might have the fear of loosing to the lower class, the lower class will not stop fighting for change until it is done.
In my native land Nigeria(west Africa), there are over three hundred ethnic group who share common language and cultural values. when it come to ruling the country, which is whom to be elected for president, there is always a disagreement. out of all these ethnic groups, only three groups are the majorities(Hausa, Ibo's and the Yoruba's). they are the majorities because their belief is that they have the voice for politics and the others do not have a political voice. money and power are also used in this case.
The lower class accept the situation by choice because if they want change they will fight for change. although the rich people will not like the ideal for change because they might have the fear of loosing to the lower class, the lower class will not stop fighting for change until it is done.
Hegemony and the Middle East?
To break in down into very simple terms hegemony is one social group having dominance over another. After looking at the readings for a second time, I feel that I better understand what Grimsci is talking about. I feel that that a perfect example of hegemony in today's society would be American troops in the Middle East.
American troops invading the Middle East is a perfect example for hegemony. It shows that American government going into a the country of Iraq, who has much less social status than America, and changing it. It's a very controversial topic and I won't be able to fit everything into this short response, but I'll try to sum it all up. America is a very dominant country, which also influences many other countries. But the difference between how it influences other countries and what's going on in Iraq is completely drastic. American troops have been sent to Iraq to force the people of Iraq to do things their way. They aren't giving Iraq any choose in the matter, and are planning on staying there until everything is good to the American eye. While some of the people of Iraq are happy with the changes, just as many people aren't and they also aren't given any choice in the matter. America is taking their well known power and forcing Iraq to abide to their rules.
Originally, when American troops were sent to Iraq I was all for it, but now I feel that they have over stayed their welcome. I feel that we should leave them alone and let them figure out what's best for their country on their own. We shouldn't be using our power to make them do what WE want. Also, to many soldiers are dying for the "cause." I believe that they some should stay to keep on eye on terrorism, but all and all we need to get out and stop bullying them. America is all about freedom, and making your own choices, so why don't they stop trying to make choices for others.
American troops invading the Middle East is a perfect example for hegemony. It shows that American government going into a the country of Iraq, who has much less social status than America, and changing it. It's a very controversial topic and I won't be able to fit everything into this short response, but I'll try to sum it all up. America is a very dominant country, which also influences many other countries. But the difference between how it influences other countries and what's going on in Iraq is completely drastic. American troops have been sent to Iraq to force the people of Iraq to do things their way. They aren't giving Iraq any choose in the matter, and are planning on staying there until everything is good to the American eye. While some of the people of Iraq are happy with the changes, just as many people aren't and they also aren't given any choice in the matter. America is taking their well known power and forcing Iraq to abide to their rules.
Originally, when American troops were sent to Iraq I was all for it, but now I feel that they have over stayed their welcome. I feel that we should leave them alone and let them figure out what's best for their country on their own. We shouldn't be using our power to make them do what WE want. Also, to many soldiers are dying for the "cause." I believe that they some should stay to keep on eye on terrorism, but all and all we need to get out and stop bullying them. America is all about freedom, and making your own choices, so why don't they stop trying to make choices for others.
Merovingian said it best
Gramsci's idea that there really is no choice is a tough argument to argue against. Especially now that I have been thinking about the thousand situations that you are put in. One of the large situations is the aspect of college. College is a huge red flag in the option of choice.
In the real world, you must go to college. You must go to college, you must go to college. To have a decent job that pays somewhat well, you must go to college. Then I start asking myself, where's the choice? If I don't go to college, there is no way I'm getting a decent job. Besides doing construction and working real hard with my hands until I'm 60. There is no way around it, unless you are extremely talented in some field, and I mean extremely talented. They give you the option of chosing your college, but is it really a choice? When I think about it, it all comes down to money. I can't even go to a college that specializes in the field that I want to go in, because of money. It's a system that wont allow people to move up because of money.
If I go into a job interview and do not have a degree and another guy goes in and has one, even though I may be more qualified and have better potential then that guy, he will get the job. All because he managed to go to the same place for four years straight. I'm not saying that college doesn't help, it definitely opens your eyes up to certain things and you definitely learn more but that should not be the only reason why some people get jobs and some don't.
Also the high paying jobs, look for students that graduate from prestigious colleges, and most times those colleges cost more then fifty thousand a year. Some kids that could excel in those schools can't go because they can't afford it. So the big jobs only hire from these schools, and it keeps sort of a cycle going. The rich kids get the rich jobs and the poor kids get shit! I'm sorry I shouldn't have cursed there. But this all reminds me of the conversation of Merovingian and Neo from The Matrix Reloaded Morpheus: "Everything begins with choice."Merovingian: "No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without."
In the real world, you must go to college. You must go to college, you must go to college. To have a decent job that pays somewhat well, you must go to college. Then I start asking myself, where's the choice? If I don't go to college, there is no way I'm getting a decent job. Besides doing construction and working real hard with my hands until I'm 60. There is no way around it, unless you are extremely talented in some field, and I mean extremely talented. They give you the option of chosing your college, but is it really a choice? When I think about it, it all comes down to money. I can't even go to a college that specializes in the field that I want to go in, because of money. It's a system that wont allow people to move up because of money.
If I go into a job interview and do not have a degree and another guy goes in and has one, even though I may be more qualified and have better potential then that guy, he will get the job. All because he managed to go to the same place for four years straight. I'm not saying that college doesn't help, it definitely opens your eyes up to certain things and you definitely learn more but that should not be the only reason why some people get jobs and some don't.
Also the high paying jobs, look for students that graduate from prestigious colleges, and most times those colleges cost more then fifty thousand a year. Some kids that could excel in those schools can't go because they can't afford it. So the big jobs only hire from these schools, and it keeps sort of a cycle going. The rich kids get the rich jobs and the poor kids get shit! I'm sorry I shouldn't have cursed there. But this all reminds me of the conversation of Merovingian and Neo from The Matrix Reloaded Morpheus: "Everything begins with choice."Merovingian: "No. Wrong. Choice is an illusion, created between those with power, and those without."
hegemony????
The idea of hegemony is of a specific group’s ideology dominating another group. We see this in our everyday lives, in politics, culture, and family relationships. A simple example of this is the relationship between an employer and their employees.
There are hundreds of people who roam the streets of New York City, and many of them live in the upper eastside. Picture this a big shot CEO coming out of his very expensive apartment building, who feels that he’s too busy or maybe just too good to open his own door. This particular task is actually reserved for his doorman. Then this same man jumps into the backseat of his car, and has his driver take him around town.
This same example can be used for people who hire cooks, maids, and nannies to take care of these household responsibilities. These individuals are considered amongst society as the working class, and their employers the bourgeoisie class.
This class distinction is still obvious today in our society, as it was hundreds of years ago. The notion that a wealthy person can’t do simple everyday things by themselves is ridiculous to me. I guess that if they could open their owns door, drive their own cars, and even take care of their own kids, many people would be out of work.
There are hundreds of people who roam the streets of New York City, and many of them live in the upper eastside. Picture this a big shot CEO coming out of his very expensive apartment building, who feels that he’s too busy or maybe just too good to open his own door. This particular task is actually reserved for his doorman. Then this same man jumps into the backseat of his car, and has his driver take him around town.
This same example can be used for people who hire cooks, maids, and nannies to take care of these household responsibilities. These individuals are considered amongst society as the working class, and their employers the bourgeoisie class.
This class distinction is still obvious today in our society, as it was hundreds of years ago. The notion that a wealthy person can’t do simple everyday things by themselves is ridiculous to me. I guess that if they could open their owns door, drive their own cars, and even take care of their own kids, many people would be out of work.
Does it ever matter?
Hegemony is the idea of dominance that was brought upon by consent as opposed to force. Rather than simply explaining how a culture could dominate another, let’s look at how one culture dominated another. Christianity, the majority of people living in the United States belong to this religion. Every single one of our presidents has been a Christian. Some candidates even flaunt their faith as a reason for their nomination. We, by which I mean those of us that still think our votes affect the election, choose one out of two or three people to lead the country for two years. The main problem with this is the fact that all the candidates are the same. Until recently, all the candidates would be white males. Unlikely that someone who doesn’t fir that criteria would even be taken seriously, let alone win the nomination, even then it would be unlikely for that person to win the election.
While we thought the common link between candidates was their gender and skin color, of course Clinton and Obama have disproved this since both have a possible chance at becoming the president, but what is then common link then? They are all Christians. For some reason, we as a nation have agreed that not just religion, but a religion that the majority follows is a major qualification for the president. We didn’t even see it happening, at first it was all that was available, most people that came to this country in the colonial era were Christians. Since each president was a Christian, why should we want another one? The whole idea behind hegemony is people saying “hey, we got a good thing going on here.”
The status quo is so locked into our minds that we can’t even conceive the idea of an Atheist president. Rather than focusing on the issues, people would question his moral background and the fanatics would sooner hang him from a tree than even hear him debate. The Christian dominance exists all around us. The “War on Christmas” is often covered on the news, but they seem to sway more towards the religious rather than someone simple protest. Perhaps they are afraid, or perhaps they are biased to the religion they belong to, either way it continues.Marx said “religion was the opium of the masses.” It has warped the judgment of the population. While out candidates may look different and may spin the same word in a charming tone, they are all clones.
While we thought the common link between candidates was their gender and skin color, of course Clinton and Obama have disproved this since both have a possible chance at becoming the president, but what is then common link then? They are all Christians. For some reason, we as a nation have agreed that not just religion, but a religion that the majority follows is a major qualification for the president. We didn’t even see it happening, at first it was all that was available, most people that came to this country in the colonial era were Christians. Since each president was a Christian, why should we want another one? The whole idea behind hegemony is people saying “hey, we got a good thing going on here.”
The status quo is so locked into our minds that we can’t even conceive the idea of an Atheist president. Rather than focusing on the issues, people would question his moral background and the fanatics would sooner hang him from a tree than even hear him debate. The Christian dominance exists all around us. The “War on Christmas” is often covered on the news, but they seem to sway more towards the religious rather than someone simple protest. Perhaps they are afraid, or perhaps they are biased to the religion they belong to, either way it continues.Marx said “religion was the opium of the masses.” It has warped the judgment of the population. While out candidates may look different and may spin the same word in a charming tone, they are all clones.
The Illusion of Choice
Since the election draws nearer and nearer, why not get a little political?
A great example of spontaneous consent (at least until this go-around) is the electoral system, and our national belief that the president should be a WASP male, above the age of 45. This hegemonic, but shrinking group still asserts itself as the prime political force, attempting to stamp out candidacy of someone who doesn't fit that mold.
In the press and on the street, we constantly hear "Is the country ready for a black president?" or "Is this country ready for a woman president?" These questions are just testament to that ideological hegemony. We question the legitimacy of a candidate based on his race or her gender because we've been conditioned and consented to the idea that a president is a tall, white, protestant man. When JFK was elected, he had to explain to the country that his religion (Catholicism) would have no affect on his ability to act as president. No Catholic since has been elected president, and never has there been a Jew, Muslim, or any other religious group you can think of.
Even the two outlying candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, have a foot in the old equation. Recently, it came out that Obama is distantly related to Vice President Dick Cheney through his mother. Hillary has been a part of the WASP establishment for a long time, and is married to a former president.
Why do we wonder if their differences affect their abilities? Countless woman have ruled successfully in both modern and ancient history. Most of the world leaders today are not descended from Northern Europe or Great Britain, but America, a country that prides itself on its relative acceptance, still has yet to break away from this chauvinistic hierarchy.
The reason is simple, the dominant ideology dictates the way we see the president, there is a clear hegemony on that office, and on our voting patterns regarding it.
(by the way, I'm not endorsing either Senator Clinton or Obama, this just seemed like a pretty good example)
A great example of spontaneous consent (at least until this go-around) is the electoral system, and our national belief that the president should be a WASP male, above the age of 45. This hegemonic, but shrinking group still asserts itself as the prime political force, attempting to stamp out candidacy of someone who doesn't fit that mold.
In the press and on the street, we constantly hear "Is the country ready for a black president?" or "Is this country ready for a woman president?" These questions are just testament to that ideological hegemony. We question the legitimacy of a candidate based on his race or her gender because we've been conditioned and consented to the idea that a president is a tall, white, protestant man. When JFK was elected, he had to explain to the country that his religion (Catholicism) would have no affect on his ability to act as president. No Catholic since has been elected president, and never has there been a Jew, Muslim, or any other religious group you can think of.
Even the two outlying candidates, Senators Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, have a foot in the old equation. Recently, it came out that Obama is distantly related to Vice President Dick Cheney through his mother. Hillary has been a part of the WASP establishment for a long time, and is married to a former president.
Why do we wonder if their differences affect their abilities? Countless woman have ruled successfully in both modern and ancient history. Most of the world leaders today are not descended from Northern Europe or Great Britain, but America, a country that prides itself on its relative acceptance, still has yet to break away from this chauvinistic hierarchy.
The reason is simple, the dominant ideology dictates the way we see the president, there is a clear hegemony on that office, and on our voting patterns regarding it.
(by the way, I'm not endorsing either Senator Clinton or Obama, this just seemed like a pretty good example)
Do we actually have a choice?--Florentina.
We grew up thinking we had choices, but in reality the right and wrong were separated for us by our guardians. We were constantly approached with options that seemed obvious to anyone, of which anyone would choose. This idea that we are given a choice is just an illusionary tactic, to make the people feel like they have a voice—but in reality none of us do.
My mother used to tell me about the communist lifestyle in Russia. As she grew up in a pretty wealthy family, some of her classmates did not. To the lower class, communism was an upgrade because they felt that they received equal treatment—as well as an equal amount of bread… No one had to feel that the poor were starving and the rich were feasting. In their eyes it seemed fair and square. In reality, no matter where you lived, when you are famous—you will always get different treatment. In communism, being rich was not accounted for by money, but by prestige and popularity. My grandmother, as a famous opera singer, received many more benefits than the average Joe. However, since the communist leaders preached for equality and such, the lower class did not realize that they were still considered the lower class—and were happy.
I think any political theory will not benefit every single person. I think the illusionary tactic used in hegemony, is the same concept I described above. Someone will have to have their thoughts manipulated, thinking that they are benefiting and experiencing true and pure communism… The problem is, no matter how hard one tries, certain people will always be treated differently.
My mother used to tell me about the communist lifestyle in Russia. As she grew up in a pretty wealthy family, some of her classmates did not. To the lower class, communism was an upgrade because they felt that they received equal treatment—as well as an equal amount of bread… No one had to feel that the poor were starving and the rich were feasting. In their eyes it seemed fair and square. In reality, no matter where you lived, when you are famous—you will always get different treatment. In communism, being rich was not accounted for by money, but by prestige and popularity. My grandmother, as a famous opera singer, received many more benefits than the average Joe. However, since the communist leaders preached for equality and such, the lower class did not realize that they were still considered the lower class—and were happy.
I think any political theory will not benefit every single person. I think the illusionary tactic used in hegemony, is the same concept I described above. Someone will have to have their thoughts manipulated, thinking that they are benefiting and experiencing true and pure communism… The problem is, no matter how hard one tries, certain people will always be treated differently.
Monday, February 25, 2008
In Rainbows
So, I think I understand how this applies to literature for me:
To quote the great Chris Farley from the Oscar-award-winning movie Tommy Boy: "...if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guarantee I will, I've got spare time... but all you've really got is a guaranteed piece of shit."
What makes a Shakespeare play any different? Or, a Whitman poem, or Beatles song, or Picasso painting?
It is easy to assume that because you had to read The Great Gatsby in high school that it is a great and important novel. Then, what does it mean about me if I think it sucks? Nothing.
I've had this discussion before with different people. I love the band Radiohead. Radiohead, in my opinion, has made some of the greatest albums and greatest songs of all-time. Radiohead still makes albums and they actually just released one (I thought it was great, download it). But, just because Radiohead makes a song or an album, does that make it good? (Is there such a thing as self-hegemony?)
How about the radio? After hearing any song a thousand million billion kagillion times you start to sing the lyrics while sleepwalking and chewing gum at the same time. Must be good if the radio is playing it all these freakin' times, right? Must be good if it wins a Grammy, right? Record sales boost every year for any album/song that is nominated for a Grammy, even moreso if it wins. People are influenced by the powers that be. Because Amy Whinehouse won a Grammy her songs sound better to you?
It's all damn hegemony.
So, being told Shakespeare is a genius doesn't make him a genius, and some of the Beatles songs don't work, and whatever Radiohead comes out with next is guaranteed to be good. But, check out all their old stuff first - immediacy on The Bends, OK Computer, and KID A.
Wait, Tommy Boy didn't win an Oscar? Well, that movie sucks.
To quote the great Chris Farley from the Oscar-award-winning movie Tommy Boy: "...if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guarantee I will, I've got spare time... but all you've really got is a guaranteed piece of shit."
What makes a Shakespeare play any different? Or, a Whitman poem, or Beatles song, or Picasso painting?
It is easy to assume that because you had to read The Great Gatsby in high school that it is a great and important novel. Then, what does it mean about me if I think it sucks? Nothing.
I've had this discussion before with different people. I love the band Radiohead. Radiohead, in my opinion, has made some of the greatest albums and greatest songs of all-time. Radiohead still makes albums and they actually just released one (I thought it was great, download it). But, just because Radiohead makes a song or an album, does that make it good? (Is there such a thing as self-hegemony?)
How about the radio? After hearing any song a thousand million billion kagillion times you start to sing the lyrics while sleepwalking and chewing gum at the same time. Must be good if the radio is playing it all these freakin' times, right? Must be good if it wins a Grammy, right? Record sales boost every year for any album/song that is nominated for a Grammy, even moreso if it wins. People are influenced by the powers that be. Because Amy Whinehouse won a Grammy her songs sound better to you?
It's all damn hegemony.
So, being told Shakespeare is a genius doesn't make him a genius, and some of the Beatles songs don't work, and whatever Radiohead comes out with next is guaranteed to be good. But, check out all their old stuff first - immediacy on The Bends, OK Computer, and KID A.
Wait, Tommy Boy didn't win an Oscar? Well, that movie sucks.
patriotism?... or hegemony
Hegemony is dominance or rule by one group or class gained by 'spontaneous consent' rather than force. In hegemony, the dominating group passes its ideology onto the dominated classes who in turn absorb it and maintain false illusions about their role. Often, the dominated classes do not realize that the ideology into which they've incorporated themselves does not benefit them. One real world example of hegemony at work is nationalism disguised as patriotism in the public schools.
American capitalists (CEO's, etc) often engange in exploitation of foreign nations in order to secure business or profits. The American government engages in war with other nations. What easier way to excuse these actions than to assert that The United States is the best country in the world, thus justifying all of her actions in it?
This, I believe, is an ideology filtered to American schoolchildren every day when they begin class by pledging allegiance to the flag. It is continued when they learn about American "heroes" such as Christopher Columbus (never mind that he did not actually discover America or that he was a mass murderer). It is reinforced through celebration of Presidents and American folklore (the cherry tree, for example). Children read books that celebrate the country, its origins, and its heroes (pioneer stories such as Little House on the Prairie). They read text books such as The American Nation which serve only to spew pro-American propoganda. Then, they get to perform in flag day pageants. I personally recall being a second grader, waving a plastic flag, and singing tunes such as, "I'm proud to be American/Where at least I know I'm free/...God Bless the USA" as if God has specifically selected The United States as the best.country.ever. American history class is boring, the text books are too long to possibly ever get through (thus students only hear their teachers discuss Vietnam for about two minutes at the end of June when everyone has stoppe listening anyway)...why?
Hegemony. And there is nothing anyone can do about it because education is compulsorary, and even home schooled children must learn their state curriculum's version of history in order to pass standardzied tests. It's also a convenient way to assimilate immigrants, because their children can pass it along to them athome. The dominating class discovered that it is very good to unite the country behind its deeds and misdeeds. The dominating class decided that children would not actually learn the history of their country. This is because the dominating class does not want ordinary Americans to know anything other than "I pledge allegiance." If Americans were more aware, they might ask questions instead of watching American Idol. Not only is it easier to control them, but the masses actually think that they're in on it because they think they are being patriotic! This is clear hegemony.
American capitalists (CEO's, etc) often engange in exploitation of foreign nations in order to secure business or profits. The American government engages in war with other nations. What easier way to excuse these actions than to assert that The United States is the best country in the world, thus justifying all of her actions in it?
This, I believe, is an ideology filtered to American schoolchildren every day when they begin class by pledging allegiance to the flag. It is continued when they learn about American "heroes" such as Christopher Columbus (never mind that he did not actually discover America or that he was a mass murderer). It is reinforced through celebration of Presidents and American folklore (the cherry tree, for example). Children read books that celebrate the country, its origins, and its heroes (pioneer stories such as Little House on the Prairie). They read text books such as The American Nation which serve only to spew pro-American propoganda. Then, they get to perform in flag day pageants. I personally recall being a second grader, waving a plastic flag, and singing tunes such as, "I'm proud to be American/Where at least I know I'm free/...God Bless the USA" as if God has specifically selected The United States as the best.country.ever. American history class is boring, the text books are too long to possibly ever get through (thus students only hear their teachers discuss Vietnam for about two minutes at the end of June when everyone has stoppe listening anyway)...why?
Hegemony. And there is nothing anyone can do about it because education is compulsorary, and even home schooled children must learn their state curriculum's version of history in order to pass standardzied tests. It's also a convenient way to assimilate immigrants, because their children can pass it along to them athome. The dominating class discovered that it is very good to unite the country behind its deeds and misdeeds. The dominating class decided that children would not actually learn the history of their country. This is because the dominating class does not want ordinary Americans to know anything other than "I pledge allegiance." If Americans were more aware, they might ask questions instead of watching American Idol. Not only is it easier to control them, but the masses actually think that they're in on it because they think they are being patriotic! This is clear hegemony.
2.25
A much finer job on the blogs, nice work.
For Wednesday, read the Raymond Williams excerpt in your book, thinking about it in relationship to our discussion thus far.
For your Wednesday blog, however, simply describe a 'real world' example of how the dominant culture may attain/coerce the 'spontaneous consent' of the rest of the culture, based on what you understand of Gramsci's concept of Hegemony. Look back over the reading for Monday to clarify that definition (a number of the blogs are pretty well off) and think about how our consent or the consent of the lower classes might be achieved. Or, to perhaps help you think about it another way: where is there an illusion of choice which helps to cover the fact that we (or the lower classes, if you'd rather think that way) are generally without options for change?
For Wednesday, read the Raymond Williams excerpt in your book, thinking about it in relationship to our discussion thus far.
For your Wednesday blog, however, simply describe a 'real world' example of how the dominant culture may attain/coerce the 'spontaneous consent' of the rest of the culture, based on what you understand of Gramsci's concept of Hegemony. Look back over the reading for Monday to clarify that definition (a number of the blogs are pretty well off) and think about how our consent or the consent of the lower classes might be achieved. Or, to perhaps help you think about it another way: where is there an illusion of choice which helps to cover the fact that we (or the lower classes, if you'd rather think that way) are generally without options for change?
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Hegemony, Marxism, and all that fun stuff.
I just want to start off by saying: After having read the Marxist perspective on Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer, I'm wondering when all of the exploited proletariat elves and reindeer are going to throw off the greedy, oppressive yoke of that fat capitalist and establish a truly egalitarian system for redistribution of labor and presents.
I Kid.
Gramsci's idea of Hegemony is an interesting one. A group's hegemony doesn't necessarily mean it is tangibly in power, but it's actions define reality. I think American political pandering gives the perfect example of Gramsci's hegemony, whichever voting block is the biggest and most desirable has the power. Today, we have a baby boomer hegemony, tomorrow, Gen X or our generation. Since the baby boomer hegemony is so pronounced, government policy and social action is based on their beliefs. In recent years, the boomer hegemony has made issues such as social security and health care the biggest domestic issues as a result of the aging of this hegemonic voting block.
I think the pattern of hegemonic change is what keeps capitalism alive. Marx predicted that capitalism would die out quickly (150 years ago), but it's still going strong (sort of) in most of the western world. The explanation for this is as hegemonies shift, so do class alliances and interactions. As the worker's flex their hegemonic muscle, they morph into something other than the working class (think of the Orwellian pigs). Class interested change with power, and soon enough a group that was typically working class is now middle class or capitalists.
So what does a Marxist approach have to do with literature? I think to answer that, I have to consider what we've been talking about regarding genres. The way we classify and interpret something is what it becomes (remember? poem v. assignment). Post-Karl, literature has undergone a Marxist revolution, associating this new system of belief, or creating a response. To say that Marx was an important figure in history, but has nothing to do with anything else is shortsighted, because believers in the Marxist theory took that ideology into everything else they did.
I Kid.
Gramsci's idea of Hegemony is an interesting one. A group's hegemony doesn't necessarily mean it is tangibly in power, but it's actions define reality. I think American political pandering gives the perfect example of Gramsci's hegemony, whichever voting block is the biggest and most desirable has the power. Today, we have a baby boomer hegemony, tomorrow, Gen X or our generation. Since the baby boomer hegemony is so pronounced, government policy and social action is based on their beliefs. In recent years, the boomer hegemony has made issues such as social security and health care the biggest domestic issues as a result of the aging of this hegemonic voting block.
I think the pattern of hegemonic change is what keeps capitalism alive. Marx predicted that capitalism would die out quickly (150 years ago), but it's still going strong (sort of) in most of the western world. The explanation for this is as hegemonies shift, so do class alliances and interactions. As the worker's flex their hegemonic muscle, they morph into something other than the working class (think of the Orwellian pigs). Class interested change with power, and soon enough a group that was typically working class is now middle class or capitalists.
So what does a Marxist approach have to do with literature? I think to answer that, I have to consider what we've been talking about regarding genres. The way we classify and interpret something is what it becomes (remember? poem v. assignment). Post-Karl, literature has undergone a Marxist revolution, associating this new system of belief, or creating a response. To say that Marx was an important figure in history, but has nothing to do with anything else is shortsighted, because believers in the Marxist theory took that ideology into everything else they did.
Reindeers, Marxists, Gramsci...
, Gramsci’s concept of hegemony explains why working-class movements failed and why Marx’s theories in “German Ideology” never came to fruition. Gramsci believed that economic struggles weren’t enough to warrant a revolution. Simply, people were too different. “Gramsci was more "dialectic" than "deterministic": he tried to build a theory which recognized the autonomy, independence and importance of culture and ideology” when I read that quote, it seems that Gramsci understood that people follow different ideologies and belong to different cultures, this would of course prevent a unified Marxian revolution. Gramsci continued to discuss reasons as to why the majority would favor the hegemony. It could be argued that certain members of the working-class didn’t feel as if they were qualified to run the world, and that the bourgeoisie, who were already the wealthier and smarter group, were better suited for controlling the masses.
Keeping Gramsci in mind, lets look at the Marxist reading or “Rudolf”. Rudolf, a mutant reindeer with a red glowing nose, ridiculed by his peers, shamed by his parents, he decides to runaway. Due to his mutation, it was assumed that Rudolf would never pull the sleigh, and thus he would never get to work. Work, being the primary goal for a reindeer. A Marxist finds the similarities between Rudolf and the working class. “The theme, like so many texts before it, is how an individual gains social acceptance, but the emphasis on how the social activities the reindeer children perform prepare them for entrance into the labor force makes it clear that this acceptance and work are somehow inextricably linked” Not until Rudolf finds a use for his mutation is he accepted. Work good, no work, not good, this is how the ruling class see the working-class.
The elf that Rudolf was paired with wanted to stop making toys and become a dentist, interesting how this decision wasn’t based on paychecks but on his own inadequacies in the toy making business. Going back to Gramsci, the economy wouldn’t be enough for a revolution, it would depend on ideology and people. Rudolf and the elf “revolt” by leaving and trying to make it on their own. Their revolution is clearly short-lived because no other workers share their views. I am reminded of Huxley’s “Brave New World” two characters felt apart from the natural order of things. After their time with the Savage they both tried to convince people how the world could be and how it used to be, no one cared. The majority already embraced the hegemony. The world in “Brave new World” was only a dystopia for those two characters, everyone was happy, it was in fact pretty close to Marx’s dream world. As Gramsci said, the economy wouldn’t be enough, it depends on the people, if they submit to the rule and think the world is a utopia, it’ll be hard to pull them in for a revolution.
Keeping Gramsci in mind, lets look at the Marxist reading or “Rudolf”. Rudolf, a mutant reindeer with a red glowing nose, ridiculed by his peers, shamed by his parents, he decides to runaway. Due to his mutation, it was assumed that Rudolf would never pull the sleigh, and thus he would never get to work. Work, being the primary goal for a reindeer. A Marxist finds the similarities between Rudolf and the working class. “The theme, like so many texts before it, is how an individual gains social acceptance, but the emphasis on how the social activities the reindeer children perform prepare them for entrance into the labor force makes it clear that this acceptance and work are somehow inextricably linked” Not until Rudolf finds a use for his mutation is he accepted. Work good, no work, not good, this is how the ruling class see the working-class.
The elf that Rudolf was paired with wanted to stop making toys and become a dentist, interesting how this decision wasn’t based on paychecks but on his own inadequacies in the toy making business. Going back to Gramsci, the economy wouldn’t be enough for a revolution, it would depend on ideology and people. Rudolf and the elf “revolt” by leaving and trying to make it on their own. Their revolution is clearly short-lived because no other workers share their views. I am reminded of Huxley’s “Brave New World” two characters felt apart from the natural order of things. After their time with the Savage they both tried to convince people how the world could be and how it used to be, no one cared. The majority already embraced the hegemony. The world in “Brave new World” was only a dystopia for those two characters, everyone was happy, it was in fact pretty close to Marx’s dream world. As Gramsci said, the economy wouldn’t be enough, it depends on the people, if they submit to the rule and think the world is a utopia, it’ll be hard to pull them in for a revolution.
An Edwardian Response to Marxist Readings
Gramsci’s concept of hegemony, that is that the ruling class can exert and maintain its dominance not by physical force but by psychological and cultural manipulation of the populous, should not be a revolutionary idea to us. We’ve seen it all throughout history. In the antebellum South religious texts were presented in away that made the slaves think they should stay in their place and alleviated any fear the Masta might have had that he was somehow committing an inhumane act by holding scores of people against their will.
It’s even the central tenement of advertising according to A Marxist
But it’s a talking dancing reindeer. It’s made out of felt and glue and slapped together in five minutes. Does Rudolph really contain all that much beyond the fact we shouldn’t crack jokes on the guy with the glowing nose?
Well yes of course it does, all fiction is a byproduct of its culture and as such the ideas of that culture have a way of creeping into the work. But I found myself asking, isn’t this “reading” and all others like it just a manifestation of Marxist hegemony? A belief that anything and everything has been set up by the bourgeoisie to keep the masses under their thumb?
Yes, yes it is and Gramsci already told us that all levels of society can and do create their own hegemony which is why some people adhere to seemingly inflexible concept of Marxism.
They might have taught it like they mother in Kincaid’s Girl taught her daughter. Rigidly she imparts her worldview and like in Rudolph she starts at the earliest age but reason can really take hold in order to make her daughter’s subservience as complete as possible.
Gramsci and the Girl
The Gramsci reading for this week’s lesson is about the social revolution and how it is divided. One of the key things aspects that was focused on was hegemony, “Class struggle must always involve ideas and ideologies, ideas that would make the revolution and also that would prevent it.” It is than subdivided into two groups, economic domination and intellectual and moral leadership. Hegemony is a class struggle that can sometimes turn violent depending on the circumstances of the people. It is based on the ideas of the people. It is a way of starting a revolution. It is believed that the working class is over held by the bourgeoisie.
After reading “Girl” by Kincaid’s I feel that it is the perfect example of what was talked about in the Gramsci reading. This story seems to be a mother showing her daughter how to become a proper woman. But what it really seems is that she’s turning her into a robot. It’s a list of rules that goes on and on, and there’s no point in the story that has a response of the daughter. You can tell that the girl is somewhat rebellious because she is referred to as a “slut” twice during the reading. This story shows control, and the basis behind class and how people should act. According to hegemony, I felt, that the young girl should state her own ideas and make them not only know, but happen. She must take a step for herself, and start a revolution.
This is all related to literature because it sets the basic ideas. It shows that you must stick up for what you believe in and say what’s on your mind. After reading both of these readings I feel that I better understand Marx’s ideas. These stories break it down for you, and explain it in words that I can understand.
After reading “Girl” by Kincaid’s I feel that it is the perfect example of what was talked about in the Gramsci reading. This story seems to be a mother showing her daughter how to become a proper woman. But what it really seems is that she’s turning her into a robot. It’s a list of rules that goes on and on, and there’s no point in the story that has a response of the daughter. You can tell that the girl is somewhat rebellious because she is referred to as a “slut” twice during the reading. This story shows control, and the basis behind class and how people should act. According to hegemony, I felt, that the young girl should state her own ideas and make them not only know, but happen. She must take a step for herself, and start a revolution.
This is all related to literature because it sets the basic ideas. It shows that you must stick up for what you believe in and say what’s on your mind. After reading both of these readings I feel that I better understand Marx’s ideas. These stories break it down for you, and explain it in words that I can understand.
Gramsci and the girl
After reading the Gramsci, i found it very interesting and challenging. in every country or nation, there is always different classes. either you are rich, you are in the middle class, or you are poor. one have to belong in one of these classification. Gramsci refer ed to the rich people as the hegemonic the dominant of so many countries. life would be boring if everyone is rich, in the middle class, and if everyone is poor. the dominant group will always try to use their money power to influence the minority group one way or the other.
Revolution changed everything. revolution brought change. change in governments. the hegemonic class really don't want to deal with change because they want to be in power and rule the minorities. there has always be a fight for change.(change is the key word).
Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit. in some countries, the government own and operate the production level of the country. the is because these countries are communist. but the working class work all the way to bring change. although the hegemonic don't like the ideal of change, they can't do anything about it. all they have to do is work with it.
In the "GIRL" Jamaica point out the cultural differences. it was a situation where a mother ad vicing her daughter on how to live a good life in their society. the mother gave her daughter an ideal on how to cook, how to wash her cloths, how to caught fish, how to love a man and so on. she is teaching her daughter about her culture. what is consider moral and immoral.
Revolution changed everything. revolution brought change. change in governments. the hegemonic class really don't want to deal with change because they want to be in power and rule the minorities. there has always be a fight for change.(change is the key word).
Capitalism is the economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned and operated for profit. in some countries, the government own and operate the production level of the country. the is because these countries are communist. but the working class work all the way to bring change. although the hegemonic don't like the ideal of change, they can't do anything about it. all they have to do is work with it.
In the "GIRL" Jamaica point out the cultural differences. it was a situation where a mother ad vicing her daughter on how to live a good life in their society. the mother gave her daughter an ideal on how to cook, how to wash her cloths, how to caught fish, how to love a man and so on. she is teaching her daughter about her culture. what is consider moral and immoral.
Intentionality of Interjection of Marxism
Gramsci’s reading was quite interesting, especially in the ways it differs from Marxism. The black and white separations that define classes in Marxism seem to completely shift in Gramsci’s ideas of hegemony. Where there is no social mobility and seemingly a bitterness between the Bourgeoisie and the Proletariat in Marxism, Gramsci suggests an alliance between the classes. What I found most interesting is the way there can still be ruling, but this can shift and is not limited only to the Bourgeoisie class. A class in charge can force ideologies among the other classes to accept their ideas of politics and culture. In a way, ,it seems like a colonization of classes where they must assimilate themselves to the ruler. However, as with colonization, hegemony control can be taken by understanding the other’s interests. Although, there is a dominance rule, there is still possibility of mobility. This idea seems to make it better than Marxism because it does not leave one group out.
In the Marxist readings, the most useful thing is how accurately the ideas of Marxism are captured. Especially in “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”, it forces us to look at literature and media in new ways. I actually had to go back and look at clips of the movie to see Herbie being the only elf with blonde hair and rounded ears. I would have never thought to look at a movie which brings the magic of Christmas every year and seems to promote that everyone has a place, in meaning the exact opposite. Although everyone does have a place, it is not a place they would prefer. Class mobility (in Herbie’s case, moving from a Proletariat elf to a Bourgeoisie dentist) is impossible and his place is already chosen among the elves. So many things in this story surprised me and really made me question if it was something intentional.
In Jamaica Kincaid’s “Girl”, there is a set place for her as well. Being a woman and of a lower class, she is doomed to a life of stagnation. Ideas of Marxism are prevalent throughout much of our media, even today. All of the ideas arise when we see the oppression of women or what seems to be the true meaning of Christmas. It forces readers to question other ideologies and how violation of them can lead to failure or being deemed a “slut” as seen in “Rudolph” and “Girl”.
In the Marxist readings, the most useful thing is how accurately the ideas of Marxism are captured. Especially in “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer”, it forces us to look at literature and media in new ways. I actually had to go back and look at clips of the movie to see Herbie being the only elf with blonde hair and rounded ears. I would have never thought to look at a movie which brings the magic of Christmas every year and seems to promote that everyone has a place, in meaning the exact opposite. Although everyone does have a place, it is not a place they would prefer. Class mobility (in Herbie’s case, moving from a Proletariat elf to a Bourgeoisie dentist) is impossible and his place is already chosen among the elves. So many things in this story surprised me and really made me question if it was something intentional.
In Jamaica Kincaid’s “Girl”, there is a set place for her as well. Being a woman and of a lower class, she is doomed to a life of stagnation. Ideas of Marxism are prevalent throughout much of our media, even today. All of the ideas arise when we see the oppression of women or what seems to be the true meaning of Christmas. It forces readers to question other ideologies and how violation of them can lead to failure or being deemed a “slut” as seen in “Rudolph” and “Girl”.
Marxist and Gramsci: Kincaid and Dickens
Antonio Gramsci, essentially a Marxist, elaborated on the ideology with his concept of hegemony. By hegemony he meant “political and ideological consensus”, namely a group dominates not merely economically, but also with intellectual ideology; the imposition of cultural values and morals on the majority of society. This concept explains why capitalism survived despite significant odds. Economic domination by itself did not determine the fate of capitalism. Instead, it endured because the dominant party perpetuated their capitalistic ideology.
For this reason, Gramsci’s theory recognizes the important role of “super structural institutions”. Public institutions, government, the legal system and schools play a role in spreading the ideology of the dominating party.Gramsci distinguishes between institutions whose agenda is more obviously coercive and those with more veiled agendas. This is an important background to understanding the Marxists readings. On studying, the dialogue of Jamaica Kincaid’s “Girl” and Charles Dicken’s collection of works Marxists ideologies can be exposed. This proves Gramsci’s idea of how hegemony is spread and maintained.
Kincaid’s “Girl” is a seemingly innocent dialectic between mother and daughter. However, a Marxist reading reveals its injunctions of “moral precepts”. Anonymity is maintained because the dialogue is not a personal encounter but a lesson for the larger society; “the resolution of problems… within the narrative through the persistent continuation of the mother’s diatribe represents the self-perpetuation of the ideology that keeps the working class in its place.” (2) The Marxists reader of Kincaid is pointing out how this narrative is perpetuating the dominant class hegemony.
Dickens’s “Great Expectations”, as the title implies, features characters that are acutely aware of their indigenous societal class expectations. Furthermore, Dickens seemed to recognize the significance of literature in affecting society. “The value of literature springs from the fact that it continues and changes the organization of social energy; we perceive value through the awakening of the same kind of energy in ourselves.” Dickens’s work was enormously popular and Gramsci would have labeled it a non coercive tool of hegemony.
For this reason, Gramsci’s theory recognizes the important role of “super structural institutions”. Public institutions, government, the legal system and schools play a role in spreading the ideology of the dominating party.Gramsci distinguishes between institutions whose agenda is more obviously coercive and those with more veiled agendas. This is an important background to understanding the Marxists readings. On studying, the dialogue of Jamaica Kincaid’s “Girl” and Charles Dicken’s collection of works Marxists ideologies can be exposed. This proves Gramsci’s idea of how hegemony is spread and maintained.
Kincaid’s “Girl” is a seemingly innocent dialectic between mother and daughter. However, a Marxist reading reveals its injunctions of “moral precepts”. Anonymity is maintained because the dialogue is not a personal encounter but a lesson for the larger society; “the resolution of problems… within the narrative through the persistent continuation of the mother’s diatribe represents the self-perpetuation of the ideology that keeps the working class in its place.” (2) The Marxists reader of Kincaid is pointing out how this narrative is perpetuating the dominant class hegemony.
Dickens’s “Great Expectations”, as the title implies, features characters that are acutely aware of their indigenous societal class expectations. Furthermore, Dickens seemed to recognize the significance of literature in affecting society. “The value of literature springs from the fact that it continues and changes the organization of social energy; we perceive value through the awakening of the same kind of energy in ourselves.” Dickens’s work was enormously popular and Gramsci would have labeled it a non coercive tool of hegemony.
Gramsci & Marx
When describing hegemony, Gramsci means groups that have less priority in a society accept the ideas and beliefs of the more dominating class because they “have reason of their own.” Stating that they believe it is good sense, or good judgment. According to Gramsci, “…the Bourgeoisie is based on two equally important facts: economic domination and intellectual and moral leadership.” Those that lacked these characteristics were considered much lower. The “dominant groups in society” maintain their power through their clever tactic, “spontaneous consent,” which help give them the lead.
“Capitalism was clearly doomed to imminent failure in 1846”, yet it seem to continue because of the concept of Hegemony. One class has dominated the other classes in society, and therefore developed the ability to introduce their ideologies. Overtime these ideologies have conditioned the other classes into believing that those ideas and beliefs were accurate, and that there was no room for change. The other classes of society come to accept the dominant groups own “moral, political, and cultural values.” This concept of Hegemony is then views as “common sense” the “dominant ideology is practiced and spread.” It seems as though there is more wood that is being added to the fire. There is no change, no (water) to help put the fire out…
Karl Marx believed that capitalism would produce conflict, that would eventually lead to a society’s downfall. A Marxist would most likely think the concept of Hegemony is a problem; because Marxist believe in communism. Communism, a socioeconomic structure that consist of no classes. It is solely based on the common ownership of the means of production. In general, Gramsci’s concept of Hegemony describes how the dominant groups holds power, and as a result the other classes accept their values. At this point, a Marxist would identify the issue, almost certainly stating…first there needs to be a society free of class.
After reading the Marxist readings, particularly “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy”, one is able to determine the most useful technique. Which is the author’s skilled way of describing how class structure is introduced through television shows that most Americans view as harmless towards children. One example would be “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” The story reaches its climax when Rudolph attempts to socialize with the other reindeer, yet is rejected due to his shiny red nose; which is extremely bizarre to the other reindeer. This reading has to do with literature, because it shows how different “ranks of society” existed. Rudolph desired to fit in, and participate in the “jockish activities of head butting and other forms of male bonding.” The least useful in this particular story, are the struggles that characters often encounter to be accepted, sometimes it seems that the characters will do just about anything to avoid being eccentric.
“Capitalism was clearly doomed to imminent failure in 1846”, yet it seem to continue because of the concept of Hegemony. One class has dominated the other classes in society, and therefore developed the ability to introduce their ideologies. Overtime these ideologies have conditioned the other classes into believing that those ideas and beliefs were accurate, and that there was no room for change. The other classes of society come to accept the dominant groups own “moral, political, and cultural values.” This concept of Hegemony is then views as “common sense” the “dominant ideology is practiced and spread.” It seems as though there is more wood that is being added to the fire. There is no change, no (water) to help put the fire out…
Karl Marx believed that capitalism would produce conflict, that would eventually lead to a society’s downfall. A Marxist would most likely think the concept of Hegemony is a problem; because Marxist believe in communism. Communism, a socioeconomic structure that consist of no classes. It is solely based on the common ownership of the means of production. In general, Gramsci’s concept of Hegemony describes how the dominant groups holds power, and as a result the other classes accept their values. At this point, a Marxist would identify the issue, almost certainly stating…first there needs to be a society free of class.
After reading the Marxist readings, particularly “Rudolph’s Shiny New Economy”, one is able to determine the most useful technique. Which is the author’s skilled way of describing how class structure is introduced through television shows that most Americans view as harmless towards children. One example would be “Rudolph the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” The story reaches its climax when Rudolph attempts to socialize with the other reindeer, yet is rejected due to his shiny red nose; which is extremely bizarre to the other reindeer. This reading has to do with literature, because it shows how different “ranks of society” existed. Rudolph desired to fit in, and participate in the “jockish activities of head butting and other forms of male bonding.” The least useful in this particular story, are the struggles that characters often encounter to be accepted, sometimes it seems that the characters will do just about anything to avoid being eccentric.
Girl-Gramsci
When I read the section on hegemony it spoke about a social revolution of the working class. Gramsci’ wrote about the concept of hegemony, and how it worked among society. He also believed that hegemony was based primarily on two things ideology and culture. His idea of hegemony was that bourgeoisie had control over the working class; it was also his explanation on why this social revolution had not occurred. One of the reasons he states was that capitalism was still strong amongst society.
I think this idea of one class controlling the other, related to the story “Girl” by Jamaica Kincaid .In the story the mother explains to her daughter her place in society as a female. Throughout the story the mother is teaching her daughter her place in the world. She tells her how to wash clothes, clean the house, cook, sew and iron. When I read this story I felt as if the mother was giving her daughter guidelines or a checklist of things to do when she becomes a woman. This story relates to Marx’s ideas and Gramsci’s idea of hegemony for the simple fact that the daughter is learning her place, just like the working class of society.
What does this all have to do with literature? This was kind of a challenging question. I think that literature plays an important role sometimes to help understand someone else’s ideas, for example Karl Marx. When I read the “German Ideology “my natural reaction was, what did he just said???? I didn’t understand anything, but after reading more literature relating to his ideas I understood his view points a little better than before. A simple story like “Girl” helped me understand Gramsci’s ideas of hegemony.
Gramsci, Marxist Reading - "Girl"
What is being pointed out in the concept of Hegemony by Gramsci is “A domination of a set of ruling beliefs and values through consent rather than coercion.” That is, beliefs adopted by the society where everyone agrees how a government should be set up or controlled through popular sovereignty which is the power of the people. Moreover the political leadership of the working class in a democratic revolution. Capitalism maintained control not just through violence and political or economic force but also ideologically in which through a hegemonic way of living the beliefs of the middle class become the common sense values of all through agreement. The need for educators to encourage the working class through intellectual development. This means that the ruling class and the subordinate exchange ideas, knowledge, and legislature through agreement rather than by force where such force in a ruling class is practiced by totalitarian governments. Such concept from Marxist theory explains that this can be done to avoid opposition from the people against the State.
The other reading with “Girl” discusses a literary aspect in symbolic terms and can be interpreted in the following terms. The mother is the government and the daughter is the means of production. The guiding behavior or “moral precepts” that everyone in society needs to fulfill in a conscientious manner. The more lessons the girl knows from the mother, the more productive the society will become in factories through the orders of the government. As it is told in the second paragraph “the mother reproduces herself both biologically and socially in her daughter, thereby fulfilling her labor as a mother, just as she was produced by her mother.” It does not matter how productive you are as long as you do your job and not deviate, because if you do you don’t get the bread (wage). The last paragraph states, “Such is the condition of the working class: It does not progress beyond the perpetuation of its own labor". Meaning that there is no social advancement in a communist society, there is equal class with equal pay. You can be a professional worker or a unprofessional worker, the progress of the working class does not make a difference but must work reasonably productive.
The other reading with “Girl” discusses a literary aspect in symbolic terms and can be interpreted in the following terms. The mother is the government and the daughter is the means of production. The guiding behavior or “moral precepts” that everyone in society needs to fulfill in a conscientious manner. The more lessons the girl knows from the mother, the more productive the society will become in factories through the orders of the government. As it is told in the second paragraph “the mother reproduces herself both biologically and socially in her daughter, thereby fulfilling her labor as a mother, just as she was produced by her mother.” It does not matter how productive you are as long as you do your job and not deviate, because if you do you don’t get the bread (wage). The last paragraph states, “Such is the condition of the working class: It does not progress beyond the perpetuation of its own labor". Meaning that there is no social advancement in a communist society, there is equal class with equal pay. You can be a professional worker or a unprofessional worker, the progress of the working class does not make a difference but must work reasonably productive.
Grimsci and Marxism
Grimsci's theory on hegemony is basically being defined as different classes within society. Grimsci also describes hegemony as being a "ruling class" and "class struggle". Hegemony is also class groups being in control. In this article Grimsci talks about war position and it's long struggles. He describes culture and ideology, he gives the readers a more clear view and understanding of these terms. He also describes "The Role of Intellectuals In Society". In this reading we will also see Grimsci's own words and quotes from his prison notebook. To sit and read his views I found it very interesting.
Marxist reading, "Girl", by Jamaica Kincaid, relates in some way to the Grimsci's article, because in the article Grimsci talk about the different classes, struggles with in these classes and class powers. In the story "Girl" I feel that she is in a low class society and she has no type of power, because her mother has the power on her. I feel she is basically living like a slave, this is what describes the struggling. She has to wash clothes, cook, and clean. She is given a list of chores to do everyday of the week. Because of her posture, her mother considers her a slut. Marxist describes what the girl is going through as "Labor", which is what Grimsci describes in his reading of hegemony.
I feel what is most useful in these readings is the fact that they have meanings towards them. They are made to grab the readers attention, and this is very important when it comes down to literature. For example, Marxist's reading on Rudolph's Shiny New Economy, this reading really captured my attention. It does have a meaning that people may agree or disagree with. The least useful things about these readings are for one is how long these readings are. I as a reader don't really like reading alot about things that seem to get boring as you keep reading. I feel the readings take to long to get to the point. This all has to do with literature because this stuff is what makes a reading with in literature, it all exists within a story, article, or reading.
Marxist reading, "Girl", by Jamaica Kincaid, relates in some way to the Grimsci's article, because in the article Grimsci talk about the different classes, struggles with in these classes and class powers. In the story "Girl" I feel that she is in a low class society and she has no type of power, because her mother has the power on her. I feel she is basically living like a slave, this is what describes the struggling. She has to wash clothes, cook, and clean. She is given a list of chores to do everyday of the week. Because of her posture, her mother considers her a slut. Marxist describes what the girl is going through as "Labor", which is what Grimsci describes in his reading of hegemony.
I feel what is most useful in these readings is the fact that they have meanings towards them. They are made to grab the readers attention, and this is very important when it comes down to literature. For example, Marxist's reading on Rudolph's Shiny New Economy, this reading really captured my attention. It does have a meaning that people may agree or disagree with. The least useful things about these readings are for one is how long these readings are. I as a reader don't really like reading alot about things that seem to get boring as you keep reading. I feel the readings take to long to get to the point. This all has to do with literature because this stuff is what makes a reading with in literature, it all exists within a story, article, or reading.
Looking Beyond the Obvious Text.
Communism seemed to me, a cute idea. Everyone working collectively and equally with no hierarchy but it never seemed realistic. Antonio Gramsci’s views on hegemony seemed a bit more realistic. In many ways it seems to me the way we live today. We have a group of people who have imposed their moral, political and cultural values on us and we just went along. Of course as we all can see, even that didn’t work too well. Even if it seems that majority of the American people agreed to follow along with things like Christmas and Thanksgiving—there are still groups who want to count themselves out. Gramsci brought a Marxist point of view a bit more down to earth, but it still doesn’t seem to be able to work for all people.
When using a Marxist reading, I found that we can see the social issues and concerns. At first we would like at Jamaica Kincaid’s Girl, and think to our selves what a crazy mother, but she sure is funny. Later when you look down and under to the ideology held up by the mother, you realized how sad it has turned out for the both of them due to the social constraints that influenced such advice. The hegemony involved in Girl seems that a certain class had succeeded to persuade the mother in the story that morally her daughter will turn out to a slut and she is predestined to get pregnant before marriage and that she will have to be a wife one day and have to do certain things. The mother accepted a future for her daughter that was fed to them by society and she doesn’t seem to fight against it. There was never anything about how to go about becoming a doctor or lawyer incase she wants to. Everything revolved around cleaning and providing for someone else.
I think analyzing a piece of writing from a Marxist point of view is helpful in a way that you do not have to read something simply and accept it for what it is, you can look over all of that.
When using a Marxist reading, I found that we can see the social issues and concerns. At first we would like at Jamaica Kincaid’s Girl, and think to our selves what a crazy mother, but she sure is funny. Later when you look down and under to the ideology held up by the mother, you realized how sad it has turned out for the both of them due to the social constraints that influenced such advice. The hegemony involved in Girl seems that a certain class had succeeded to persuade the mother in the story that morally her daughter will turn out to a slut and she is predestined to get pregnant before marriage and that she will have to be a wife one day and have to do certain things. The mother accepted a future for her daughter that was fed to them by society and she doesn’t seem to fight against it. There was never anything about how to go about becoming a doctor or lawyer incase she wants to. Everything revolved around cleaning and providing for someone else.
I think analyzing a piece of writing from a Marxist point of view is helpful in a way that you do not have to read something simply and accept it for what it is, you can look over all of that.
Groucho Marx
After reading Gramsci I found myself asking pretty general questions that seemed to raise a problem, or at least were hidden to me - maybe I just didn't pick up on it:
Are these ways of thinking just the natural results in society? Or, are they concepts that the dominant class understands and that is the reason why they are the dominant class? There is mention that the working class is too busy with their everyday lives, but, even if they were fully aware and able to grasp the hegemony idea, is it even possible that they could change anything?
I am bringing up these questions wary of the possibility that maybe I have fallen into the trap, but any struggle seems fruitless to me. It doesn't even seem all that bad: “A social group can, indeed must, already exercise 'leadership' before winning governmental power (this is indeed one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power); it subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power, but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp, it must continue to 'lead' as well."
It sounded negative when I read it, but this doesn't seem like material to start a bloody revolution over. Although, in my mind I am applying the situation in relation to sports, assuming that the goal of the leader is the same as those he is leading - to win the game. Society and economics are in a different league I think.
For me, the purpose of all this is to see the world from different angles, from a self-aware position, specifically on the idea of control like that which we studied with genre. Then we can recognize things for what they are and make an informed, intellectual choice, form an opinion, disagree or agree, and ultimately accept or not accept the way something is, knowing you can't change it, or try to change something we think we can. That explanation confused me. I don’t know if that’s what Gramsci means here:
"So one could say that each one of us changes himself, modifies himself to the extent that he changes the complex relations of which he is the hub. In this sense the real philosopher is, and cannot be other than, the politician, the active man who modifies the environment, understanding by environment the ensemble of relations which each of us enters to take part in. If one's own individuality means to acquire consciousness of them and to modify one's own personality means to modify the ensemble of these relations."
Maybe I just don’t feel passionately enough about it, or more specifically, I am not personally and directly effected in a manner negative enough to rouse such revolutionary ideas. Do I like the way everything is? Not really, but the way I see it is, what happens if you realize you don’t have power? Run for president? Then what? I don’t even think the president could change things, and even then, it would only be another hegemony that is set up, another structure of ideas on living that would be put into order. I was more interested in the Marxist reading of “Girl”, which seemed to give more insight to the way the capitalist system controls: “As such the absence of plot in the story is more than a directionless narrative; it is the result of the girl’s oppression. Such is the condition of the working class: It does not progress beyond the perpetuation of its own labor. The girl will go nowhere, within or beyond the narrative of what her work––her life––entails. She is without any means for social advancement; she will always need to ‘make ends meet.’” This echoes Strinati from the Gramsci text: "People can accept the prevailing order because they are compelled to do so by devoting their time to 'making a living', or because they cannot conceive another way of organising society, and therefore fatalistically accept the world as it is. This, moreover, assumes that the question why people should accept a particular social order is the only legitimate question to ask. It can be claimed that an equally legitimate question is why should people not accept a particular social order?" I don’t completely agree, because it is also possible to conceive another way of organizing society and still not have the means to make it happen.
I don’t feel like this blog is going anywhere, too all-over-the-place.
I found it hard to link the Marxist readings to the Gramsci text.
Are these ways of thinking just the natural results in society? Or, are they concepts that the dominant class understands and that is the reason why they are the dominant class? There is mention that the working class is too busy with their everyday lives, but, even if they were fully aware and able to grasp the hegemony idea, is it even possible that they could change anything?
I am bringing up these questions wary of the possibility that maybe I have fallen into the trap, but any struggle seems fruitless to me. It doesn't even seem all that bad: “A social group can, indeed must, already exercise 'leadership' before winning governmental power (this is indeed one of the principal conditions for the winning of such power); it subsequently becomes dominant when it exercises power, but even if it holds it firmly in its grasp, it must continue to 'lead' as well."
It sounded negative when I read it, but this doesn't seem like material to start a bloody revolution over. Although, in my mind I am applying the situation in relation to sports, assuming that the goal of the leader is the same as those he is leading - to win the game. Society and economics are in a different league I think.
For me, the purpose of all this is to see the world from different angles, from a self-aware position, specifically on the idea of control like that which we studied with genre. Then we can recognize things for what they are and make an informed, intellectual choice, form an opinion, disagree or agree, and ultimately accept or not accept the way something is, knowing you can't change it, or try to change something we think we can. That explanation confused me. I don’t know if that’s what Gramsci means here:
"So one could say that each one of us changes himself, modifies himself to the extent that he changes the complex relations of which he is the hub. In this sense the real philosopher is, and cannot be other than, the politician, the active man who modifies the environment, understanding by environment the ensemble of relations which each of us enters to take part in. If one's own individuality means to acquire consciousness of them and to modify one's own personality means to modify the ensemble of these relations."
Maybe I just don’t feel passionately enough about it, or more specifically, I am not personally and directly effected in a manner negative enough to rouse such revolutionary ideas. Do I like the way everything is? Not really, but the way I see it is, what happens if you realize you don’t have power? Run for president? Then what? I don’t even think the president could change things, and even then, it would only be another hegemony that is set up, another structure of ideas on living that would be put into order. I was more interested in the Marxist reading of “Girl”, which seemed to give more insight to the way the capitalist system controls: “As such the absence of plot in the story is more than a directionless narrative; it is the result of the girl’s oppression. Such is the condition of the working class: It does not progress beyond the perpetuation of its own labor. The girl will go nowhere, within or beyond the narrative of what her work––her life––entails. She is without any means for social advancement; she will always need to ‘make ends meet.’” This echoes Strinati from the Gramsci text: "People can accept the prevailing order because they are compelled to do so by devoting their time to 'making a living', or because they cannot conceive another way of organising society, and therefore fatalistically accept the world as it is. This, moreover, assumes that the question why people should accept a particular social order is the only legitimate question to ask. It can be claimed that an equally legitimate question is why should people not accept a particular social order?" I don’t completely agree, because it is also possible to conceive another way of organizing society and still not have the means to make it happen.
I don’t feel like this blog is going anywhere, too all-over-the-place.
I found it hard to link the Marxist readings to the Gramsci text.
Gramsci and literature
As the revolutionary movements of the working class people comes to failure, Gramsci sought to find as to why the theory of Marx couldn’t be realized. He then proposed the concept of hegemony in which the importance of ideology and culture and the dynamics of it within the society was stressed as crucial component in achieving society that Marx thought of as ideal. While Marxism had weaknesses within itself, Gramsci attempted to find them and saw that it was more of an abstract sort of thing that was to be seemingly the main reason for the failure of the movement. According to Gramsci, what governed people’s thought most was culture and ideology that was dominant in the society they were living in. Hence, as the dominance of the culture was in control of the group of bourgeois, it was inevitable that those that were subordinate had to be under the control of them also. By means of media, it was easily accessible in terms of influencing the thought and mind of those in the lower level of the society. Gramsci, therefore thought that it was important that lower working class people have their own ideology and culture, apart from what's dominant in the society, set in their minds. And in order to do so, an intellectual with interest of people in mind has to be among them to lead and influence accordingly. By stressing on the fact that it was the mind that played as an ultimate force, Gramsci tried to explain that through more realistic and logical approach that he suggested, people can achieve what was once left as unrealistic, a mere ideology.
After reading Marxist readings, I again saw, how works of literatures can sometimes attain power to govern person’s mind, as if a form of propaganda. Through the works that I have been given to read, though different in terms of the form that it has been written, the impression that I have received was altogether strong. From certain words that the authors each used and the tone of the voice was all an instrument in trying to imply particular notion besides just the contents itself. Also, the way they each have interpreted the texts such as “Great Expectation,” and the story of the red-nosed reindeer, showed me how their view on particular subject or object, in perspective of Marxist, differed radically. As to Dickens himself, though I’m not sure whether he was a Marxist or not, when the author himself was effective in telling the stories, through using his personal experience, as in the case of “Great Expectation,” the work itself seemed to be all the more powerful in influencing the mind of people who were able to relate themselves to the story they have read. While literatures can provide certain enjoyment, it can also be interpretated and used against, or for certain ideology, thus posing itself as possible danger or an effective tool, depending on how you look at it.
After reading Marxist readings, I again saw, how works of literatures can sometimes attain power to govern person’s mind, as if a form of propaganda. Through the works that I have been given to read, though different in terms of the form that it has been written, the impression that I have received was altogether strong. From certain words that the authors each used and the tone of the voice was all an instrument in trying to imply particular notion besides just the contents itself. Also, the way they each have interpreted the texts such as “Great Expectation,” and the story of the red-nosed reindeer, showed me how their view on particular subject or object, in perspective of Marxist, differed radically. As to Dickens himself, though I’m not sure whether he was a Marxist or not, when the author himself was effective in telling the stories, through using his personal experience, as in the case of “Great Expectation,” the work itself seemed to be all the more powerful in influencing the mind of people who were able to relate themselves to the story they have read. While literatures can provide certain enjoyment, it can also be interpretated and used against, or for certain ideology, thus posing itself as possible danger or an effective tool, depending on how you look at it.
Marxism and "The Girl"
Hegemony as defined by Gramsci is how a certain class comes to power, through either coercive control or consensual control. Coercive control being done by force and consensual control by accepting a group is in control.
I believe Kincaid’s Girl is the most useful of the “Marxist readings”. By interpreting the reading through a Marxist lens we are able to better understand the class struggle between poor and rich, but also the social constraints they pose. This being the thought of the story’s Mother, thinking her daughter is determined “to be a slut”.
The most interesting thing about the text is the relationship between the Girl and her Mother. This being how the mother teaches her child the ways of sex and how a woman may go about having an abortion. We are able to associate that sex is a form of labor, just as doing the laundry would be. But this leads to the Marxist idea of the working class holding jobs that can effect their social position.
I believe Kincaid’s Girl is the most useful of the “Marxist readings”. By interpreting the reading through a Marxist lens we are able to better understand the class struggle between poor and rich, but also the social constraints they pose. This being the thought of the story’s Mother, thinking her daughter is determined “to be a slut”.
The most interesting thing about the text is the relationship between the Girl and her Mother. This being how the mother teaches her child the ways of sex and how a woman may go about having an abortion. We are able to associate that sex is a form of labor, just as doing the laundry would be. But this leads to the Marxist idea of the working class holding jobs that can effect their social position.
Gramsci
These readings are very intresting to me, I have always been interested by the thought of a revolution and what it takes to actually have a successful revolution. But the more I read about it, the more discouraged I am. The older I become the more thoughts I have that are the same "What's the point in talking about this? It can never happen." Those are the type of thoughts that circle my mind when I read about a major change in a Government. I understand that change is possible in smaller governments around the world, but something like that happening here, in America I find almost impossible. Maybe I am the reason why it never happens, my way of thinking is just what they want me to think. But I just feel that our government has become far too strong to allow any sort of uprising. No matter what the working class organizes. And it brings me to my first point in why I believe it could never happen. Capitalism was 'supposed' to fail in 1846, but the Gramsci article brought a big point, and maybe the largest point. "People can accept the prevailing order because they are compelled to do so by devoting their time to 'making a living', or because they cannot conceive another way of organising society, and therefore fatalistically accept the world as it is." I honestly believe this is one of the reasons why capitalism has not changed or failed. The society that we live in, takes work to survive and live "comfortably" in. And if you have a family, you are worried about their well being, not overthrowing a government. And as of now, America is still built on family and as long as that continues I find it hard to believe that the middle class will sacrifice their families for a new socialist government. Especially with the way Marxism and commuinsim is painted today. The everyday person doesn't know what true Marxism is, just like I don't even know what it is- to its full extent, and I'm not sure that it is better then what we have now. The government has built a machine that is almost unstopable at this point, unless we go into a severe depression and our economy collapses, I can not see any big changes in the near future. But what do I know? I'm just some college kid, who, when he graduates will be looking for a job like millions of other people.
Marxist seem to have the problem that they find that the middle class failed to be as revoultionary as Marx intended and that goes back to my first point about family. "Marx placed too much faith in the possibility of a spontaneous outburst of revolutionary consciousness among the working class." Also I believe that if an individual who was smart enough to come up with the answers to these problems, he would be sniffed out long before he had a chance to even attempt to make a change. But now I'm getting into conspiracy theories.
I think the Marixst writings are important to a literature stand point because it keeps traditions going, and traditions are an important factor in control. And if you step outside of the normal traditions, you are viewed as a weirdo, or a misfit. And that is basically what those stories do to a certain extent, I'm not sure if they were written for that point but they can be used for that. It just keeps things moving in the direction that leaders want them too. Kind of brilliant if you ask me.
Marxist seem to have the problem that they find that the middle class failed to be as revoultionary as Marx intended and that goes back to my first point about family. "Marx placed too much faith in the possibility of a spontaneous outburst of revolutionary consciousness among the working class." Also I believe that if an individual who was smart enough to come up with the answers to these problems, he would be sniffed out long before he had a chance to even attempt to make a change. But now I'm getting into conspiracy theories.
I think the Marixst writings are important to a literature stand point because it keeps traditions going, and traditions are an important factor in control. And if you step outside of the normal traditions, you are viewed as a weirdo, or a misfit. And that is basically what those stories do to a certain extent, I'm not sure if they were written for that point but they can be used for that. It just keeps things moving in the direction that leaders want them too. Kind of brilliant if you ask me.
Hegemony- Gramsci & Marxism
HEGEMONY CAN BE DEFINED AS A DOMINANCE OR INFLUNCENCE, AS OF ONE STATE OVER THE OTHER, ONE GOOD EXAMPLE WOULD BE OUR OWN GOVERNMENT (CONGRESS), HOW THIS PARTICULAR GROUP CAN PLACE, LAWS AND REGULATIONS ONTO PEOPLE OF LESS IMPORTANCE THEN THEMSELVES. GRAMSCI CALLS HEGEMONY "COMMON SENSE" AS TO SAY THAT THHIS SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD AUTOMATCIALLY JUST BE ABLE TO COMPRHEND TO. ANOTHER WORDS A TYPE OF RELIIGION THAT WE PRACTICE, WHEN SAYING THAT HEGEMONY HELPS IN THE SOCIAL AND CLASS STRUGGLES ONE THING THAT CAME TO MIND WHICH WAS WELFARE, HERE IS A PROGRAM CREATED TO FARTHER THE LIVES OF THOSE THAT ARE ECOMINCALLY AND SOICALLY DISPLACED FROM OTHERS, BUT THIS SYSTEM LIKE OTHERS SEEMS TO EITHER HOLD THEM BACK OR MOVE THEM UP. oNE QUESTION THAT CAME TO MIND FOR ME WAS DOES THIS EXAMPLE REALLY FALL INTO THE CATEORGORY OF HEGEMONY?
HEGEMONY FALLS RIGHT UNDER COMMUNISM ONLY BECAUSE OF IT'S CONTINUAL USE OF THE WORD DOMINANT WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS RULING ,GOVERNING,OR PREVAILING ALL THESE THINGS FALL RIGHT INTO THE FRAME OF A DICTATORSHIP, ANOTHER EXAMPLE SEEN ON PAGE7" LABOUR CLASS CONTROL IS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INTEREST OF OTHER GROUPS AND SOCIAL FORCES AND FINDING WAYS TO COMBINE THEM WITH IT'S OWN INTERESTS."
AFTER READING ANTONIO GRAMSCI IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM WHICH CAN BE DEFINED AS BEING TOTAL OPPOSITES, CAN STILL PROTRAY ALOT OF THE SAME CONTROLLING THEORIES IN THE WAY THEY PLACE LAWS AND REGULATION IN SOCIETY(PEOPLE) INTO A VERY STRICT AND STRANDARD WAY.
HEGEMONY FALLS RIGHT UNDER COMMUNISM ONLY BECAUSE OF IT'S CONTINUAL USE OF THE WORD DOMINANT WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS RULING ,GOVERNING,OR PREVAILING ALL THESE THINGS FALL RIGHT INTO THE FRAME OF A DICTATORSHIP, ANOTHER EXAMPLE SEEN ON PAGE7" LABOUR CLASS CONTROL IS BY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE INTEREST OF OTHER GROUPS AND SOCIAL FORCES AND FINDING WAYS TO COMBINE THEM WITH IT'S OWN INTERESTS."
AFTER READING ANTONIO GRAMSCI IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT CAPITALISM AND COMMUNISM WHICH CAN BE DEFINED AS BEING TOTAL OPPOSITES, CAN STILL PROTRAY ALOT OF THE SAME CONTROLLING THEORIES IN THE WAY THEY PLACE LAWS AND REGULATION IN SOCIETY(PEOPLE) INTO A VERY STRICT AND STRANDARD WAY.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Rudolph, "Girl", Gramsci, and Marx
Gramsci’s concept of hegemony is how a culture can be ruled by the dominating class by imposing their ideology on the other groups in society through “economic domination” and “intellectual and moral leadership.” The dominating group creates an ideology which the subordinate groups can assimilate into. Although capitalism was doomed to imminent failure in 1846, it continues because of hegemony.
Marx called for workers to stumble upon the epiphany of class consciousness and unite against the bourgeoisie. Marxists would explain the lack of predicted revolutions through lack of class consciousness, which means that the workers did not see their true position in society. While this is part of the larger problem, the complex foundation for complacency can be found in Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. In order for a socialist revolution to occur, the dominated classes must form a new hegemony that is stronger than the capitalist one.
Hegemony is perpetuated through society’s institutions, which are run and governed by the dominating group in society. Compulsory education serves as one of the greatest agents of socialization. Children are taught about the value of hard work. They are fed the capitalist dream of hard work and success. They emerge believing that if they work hard enough, they, too, will become CEO’s and factory owners. However, this is public education. The dominating class in society can afford to send their children to their own institutions, private educations and home schooling, where they are fed a different version of the ideology. In these institutions, these children are told that they are privileged and must perpetuate their family’s success. They are told that employing others is a form of providing opportunity, not exploitation. In this way, hegemony works because it incorporates all classes into the ideology, and everyone seemingly has a place and willingly absorbs their position in the machine.
Art is often a vehicle for or against the dominant hegemony. There are many Marxist readings of literature, including “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” and Jamaica Kincaid’s “Girl”.
It turns out that Rudolph is not about misfits finding their place in the world. It is about incorporating children into the economy of Christmas. Rather than expose them to the truths of Christmas, namely environmental waste and 3rd world exploitation in order to feed consumer demand and corporate profits, children think of Christmas as a season of giving. They see elves happily making these toys and get the sense that Christmas is good for everyone, even those who work so hard to make it happen. Rudolph celebrates consumption. It also gives children their first lesson in capitalism. Yukon Cornelius, the aspiring capitalist searching for gold in the North Pole, is not successful until he finds someone else to do his work. The Abominable Snowman is a savage until Cornelius allows him to be assimilated into the Christmas economy.
While a Marxist reading of Rudolph is helpful in seeing how hegemonic ideology is spread and maintained in society, it is not particularly useful from a literary standpoint. However, a Marxist reading of Jamaica Kincaid’s girl truly shows us how literary devices can be used. “Girl” lacks plot. There are no series of events, no cause or effect relationships. This is probably deliberate on the author’s part, as Kincaid demonstrates how the girl is oppressed and how she, as a member of the working class, cannot progress past this dictation of ideology, these rules her mother spits out at her not allowing for any interruptions or questions. According to the author who provides the Marxist reading, “The narrative of her life is work.”
Marx called for workers to stumble upon the epiphany of class consciousness and unite against the bourgeoisie. Marxists would explain the lack of predicted revolutions through lack of class consciousness, which means that the workers did not see their true position in society. While this is part of the larger problem, the complex foundation for complacency can be found in Gramsci’s concept of hegemony. In order for a socialist revolution to occur, the dominated classes must form a new hegemony that is stronger than the capitalist one.
Hegemony is perpetuated through society’s institutions, which are run and governed by the dominating group in society. Compulsory education serves as one of the greatest agents of socialization. Children are taught about the value of hard work. They are fed the capitalist dream of hard work and success. They emerge believing that if they work hard enough, they, too, will become CEO’s and factory owners. However, this is public education. The dominating class in society can afford to send their children to their own institutions, private educations and home schooling, where they are fed a different version of the ideology. In these institutions, these children are told that they are privileged and must perpetuate their family’s success. They are told that employing others is a form of providing opportunity, not exploitation. In this way, hegemony works because it incorporates all classes into the ideology, and everyone seemingly has a place and willingly absorbs their position in the machine.
Art is often a vehicle for or against the dominant hegemony. There are many Marxist readings of literature, including “Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer” and Jamaica Kincaid’s “Girl”.
It turns out that Rudolph is not about misfits finding their place in the world. It is about incorporating children into the economy of Christmas. Rather than expose them to the truths of Christmas, namely environmental waste and 3rd world exploitation in order to feed consumer demand and corporate profits, children think of Christmas as a season of giving. They see elves happily making these toys and get the sense that Christmas is good for everyone, even those who work so hard to make it happen. Rudolph celebrates consumption. It also gives children their first lesson in capitalism. Yukon Cornelius, the aspiring capitalist searching for gold in the North Pole, is not successful until he finds someone else to do his work. The Abominable Snowman is a savage until Cornelius allows him to be assimilated into the Christmas economy.
While a Marxist reading of Rudolph is helpful in seeing how hegemonic ideology is spread and maintained in society, it is not particularly useful from a literary standpoint. However, a Marxist reading of Jamaica Kincaid’s girl truly shows us how literary devices can be used. “Girl” lacks plot. There are no series of events, no cause or effect relationships. This is probably deliberate on the author’s part, as Kincaid demonstrates how the girl is oppressed and how she, as a member of the working class, cannot progress past this dictation of ideology, these rules her mother spits out at her not allowing for any interruptions or questions. According to the author who provides the Marxist reading, “The narrative of her life is work.”
Thursday, February 21, 2008
2.21
PLEASE NOTE THE FOLLOWING ADDITION: 'The Intellectuals' having been removed from the archive, and not being otherwise available online, please read the Gramsci link to the right, from section three on. This will give you an overview of his key concepts and some of his words, and I'll bring more in for you on Monday. This may overlap with Ariel's presentation, but that should hopefully allow for a bit more conversation.
For Monday's class, read over the 'Marxist Readings' on the list, paying particular attention to Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl' (the text is available there as well). If you don't connect directly to the pdf. the link to the actual Marxist reading of the story is at the bottom of the 'Marxist Literary Readings: Jamaica Kincaid's "Girl"' page, though the background is useful as well.
As you read through the Gramsci materials pay particular attention to his particular and influential concept of Hegemony. Consider the following: What does Gramsci mean by this , and what might it have to do with the critical question of why, if capitalism was clearly doomed to imminent failure in 1846, it seems to continue? How does a Marxist explain this problem with Marxism?
Then, in a 250-400 word response, respond generally to the Gramsci, and also think about the 'Marxist readings' specifically: what is most useful in these literary readings and what is least? That is, what does this all have to do with literature?
Also, several of the responses for last Wednesday and the previous Wednesday were far too brief. Remember that this is a 'w' course: if your response is less than 250 words, it will not count for credit.
For Monday's class, read over the 'Marxist Readings' on the list, paying particular attention to Jamaica Kincaid's 'Girl' (the text is available there as well). If you don't connect directly to the pdf. the link to the actual Marxist reading of the story is at the bottom of the 'Marxist Literary Readings: Jamaica Kincaid's "Girl"' page, though the background is useful as well.
As you read through the Gramsci materials pay particular attention to his particular and influential concept of Hegemony. Consider the following: What does Gramsci mean by this , and what might it have to do with the critical question of why, if capitalism was clearly doomed to imminent failure in 1846, it seems to continue? How does a Marxist explain this problem with Marxism?
Then, in a 250-400 word response, respond generally to the Gramsci, and also think about the 'Marxist readings' specifically: what is most useful in these literary readings and what is least? That is, what does this all have to do with literature?
Also, several of the responses for last Wednesday and the previous Wednesday were far too brief. Remember that this is a 'w' course: if your response is less than 250 words, it will not count for credit.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
"Since the State is the form in which the individuals of a ruling class assert their common interests, and in
which the whole civil society of an epoch is epitomised, it follows that the State mediates in the
formation of all common institutions and that the institutions receive a political form. Hence the illusion
that law is based on the will, and indeed on the will divorced from its real basis -- on free will. Similarly,
justice is in its turn reduced to the actual laws."
Kind of confused with this statement, I don't understand what he is saying about the law or state property here. What really confuses me, is why would he write something so complex that the average person can't understand it? How does he expect it to have a impact on a large scale if only a small group can fully understand it?
which the whole civil society of an epoch is epitomised, it follows that the State mediates in the
formation of all common institutions and that the institutions receive a political form. Hence the illusion
that law is based on the will, and indeed on the will divorced from its real basis -- on free will. Similarly,
justice is in its turn reduced to the actual laws."
Kind of confused with this statement, I don't understand what he is saying about the law or state property here. What really confuses me, is why would he write something so complex that the average person can't understand it? How does he expect it to have a impact on a large scale if only a small group can fully understand it?
Karl?
The difference between the individual as a person and what is accidental to him, is not a conceptual difference but a historical fact. This distinction has a different significance at different times-e.g. the estate as something accidental to the individual in the eighteenth century, the family more or less too.
I must admit this was a rather difficult read, scratches temple. Read this paragraph a few times and still nothing.
-Rita Morales
I must admit this was a rather difficult read, scratches temple. Read this paragraph a few times and still nothing.
-Rita Morales
This threw me
"When the estate of the urban burghers, the
corporations, etc. emerged in opposition to the landed nobility, their condition of existence -- movable
property and craft labour, which had already existed latently before their separation from the feudal ties
-- appeared as something positive, which was asserted against feudal landed property, and, therefore, in
its own way at first took on a feudal form."
I 'm not sure what Marx and Engels are attempting to say about the creation of industry in relation to people's relationship to or idea of the state?
corporations, etc. emerged in opposition to the landed nobility, their condition of existence -- movable
property and craft labour, which had already existed latently before their separation from the feudal ties
-- appeared as something positive, which was asserted against feudal landed property, and, therefore, in
its own way at first took on a feudal form."
I 'm not sure what Marx and Engels are attempting to say about the creation of industry in relation to people's relationship to or idea of the state?
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
"These various conditions, which appear first as conditions of self-activity, later as fetters upon it, form in the whole evolution of history a coherent series of forms of intercourse, the coherence of which consists in this: that in the place of an earlier form of intercourse, which has become a fetter, a new one is put, corresponding to the more developed productive forces and, hence, to the advanced mode of the self-activity of individuals- a form which in its turn becomes a fetter and is then replaced by another. Since these conditions correspond at every stage to the simultaneous development of the productive forces, their history is at the same time the history of the evolving productive forces taken over by each new generation, and is therefore the history of the development of the forces of the individuals themselves". (p. 19-20, last paragraph on p. 19)
I honestly had to reread this passage 2 times and I still did not understand what is going on in this passage. I really have no idea what Marx is saying here. In my opinion it feels as if each sentence in this passage is followed by what's supposed to be a beginning to a new sentence. It just really makes no type of sense to me, I feel like this whole reading is just saying "blah" to me.
I honestly had to reread this passage 2 times and I still did not understand what is going on in this passage. I really have no idea what Marx is saying here. In my opinion it feels as if each sentence in this passage is followed by what's supposed to be a beginning to a new sentence. It just really makes no type of sense to me, I feel like this whole reading is just saying "blah" to me.
Marx Engles
“If from a philosophical point of view one considers this evolution of individuals in the common conditions of existence of estates and classes, which followed upon on one another, and in the accompanying general conceptions forced upon them, it is certainly very easy to imagine that in these individuals the species, or ‘man’, has evolved, or that they evolved ‘man’- and in this way one can give clouts to the ear.”
– second paragraph pg 22.
The very last sentence with the meaning of species man and how it correlates to one can give clouts to the ear.
Here's a site for those new to Marx and Marxism, in case you want to understand the general idea of the ideology, you can read the overview:
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philmarx.htm#characteristics
– second paragraph pg 22.
The very last sentence with the meaning of species man and how it correlates to one can give clouts to the ear.
Here's a site for those new to Marx and Marxism, in case you want to understand the general idea of the ideology, you can read the overview:
http://www.radicalacademy.com/philmarx.htm#characteristics
Marx?!?!?!?
"With the community of revolutionary proletarians on the other hand, who take their conditions of existence and those of all members of society under their control, it is just the reverse; it is as individuals that the individuals participate in it." (page 21) I find this sentence prarticulary confusing bescuase it jumps from community to individuals, and it just seems like it doesn't flow, it's hard to get the clear point.
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
"The difference between the individual as a person and what is accidental to him, is not a conceptual difference but a historical fact. The distinction has a different significance at different times-e.g. the estate as something accidental to the individual in the eighteenth century, the family more or less too. It is not a distinction that we have to make for each age, but one which age makes itself from among the different elements which it finds in existence, and indeed not according to any theory, but compelled by material collisions in life."
I, also got most of the reading, but was a little confused by this selection. Does he mean that because it is a fact, it is something unavoidable? and how is the individual compared with the accidental and what is mean t by each?
I, also got most of the reading, but was a little confused by this selection. Does he mean that because it is a fact, it is something unavoidable? and how is the individual compared with the accidental and what is mean t by each?
What The !@#$ is Marx talking about?
"What appears accidental to the later age as opposed to the earlier — and this applies also to the elements handed down by an earlier age — is a form of intercourse which corresponded to a definite stage of development of the productive forces.
The relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse to the occupation or activity of the individuals.
(The fundamental form of this activity is, of course, material, on which depend all other forms - mental, political, religious, etc. The various shaping of material life is, of course, in every case dependent on the needs which are already developed, and the production, as well as the satisfaction, of these needs is an historical process, which is not found in the case of a sheep or a dog (Stirner's refractory principal argument adversus hominem), although sheep and dogs in their present form certainly, but malgré eux, are products of an historical process.)"
Part of me was almost understanding Marx, it reminded me of how different genres can be created by mixing already existing genres, but then he just rambles on and I don't understand his point. He stretches his sentences for too long and I lose sight of the main idea.
editorial-Can you believe thats just 3 sentences?
The relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse is the relation of the form of intercourse to the occupation or activity of the individuals.
(The fundamental form of this activity is, of course, material, on which depend all other forms - mental, political, religious, etc. The various shaping of material life is, of course, in every case dependent on the needs which are already developed, and the production, as well as the satisfaction, of these needs is an historical process, which is not found in the case of a sheep or a dog (Stirner's refractory principal argument adversus hominem), although sheep and dogs in their present form certainly, but malgré eux, are products of an historical process.)"
Part of me was almost understanding Marx, it reminded me of how different genres can be created by mixing already existing genres, but then he just rambles on and I don't understand his point. He stretches his sentences for too long and I lose sight of the main idea.
editorial-Can you believe thats just 3 sentences?
Friedrich Engels
Of the elements handed down to a latter age from an ealier, is a form of intercourse which corresponded to a less developed stage of the productive forces. the relation of the productive forces to the form of intercourse of the relation to the form of the occupation or activity of the individuals.
Monday, February 18, 2008
Karl Marx?
"Communism differs from all precious movements in that it overturns the basis of all earlier realtions of production and intercourse, and for the first time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures of men, strips them of their natural character and subjugates them to the power of individuals united. Its organization is, therefore, essentially economic, the material production of the conditions of its unity, it turns existing conditions into conditions of unity." (18)
The danger of taking only an excerpt out of a larger work is you loose some context. I am unclear as to what he means by 'natural premises' or 'natural character' or 'conditions of unity'? I think this work should come with its own dictionary.
For clarification of the context of his work check out: http://www.isreview.org/issues/33/germanideology.shtml
I found it helpful
The danger of taking only an excerpt out of a larger work is you loose some context. I am unclear as to what he means by 'natural premises' or 'natural character' or 'conditions of unity'? I think this work should come with its own dictionary.
For clarification of the context of his work check out: http://www.isreview.org/issues/33/germanideology.shtml
I found it helpful
Marx & Engels: German Ideology
"We do not mean it to be understood from this that, for personality is conditioned and determined by quite definite class relationships, and the division appears only in their opposition to another class and, for themselves, only when they go bankrupt" (page 22).
I found this entire text complicated, as soem of you did. I understood the jist of it, but do not understand they are talking about when they talk about when they say "go bankrupt." Oh so, confused....
Philosophy- Squashed Marx - The German Ideology - Condensed Abridged
this site has a very squashed version of the german ideology... a bit helpful.
I found this entire text complicated, as soem of you did. I understood the jist of it, but do not understand they are talking about when they talk about when they say "go bankrupt." Oh so, confused....
Philosophy- Squashed Marx - The German Ideology - Condensed Abridged
this site has a very squashed version of the german ideology... a bit helpful.
The German Ideology
"Thus the communists in practice treat the conditions created by production and intercourse as inorganic conditions, without, however, imagining that it was the plan or destiny of previous generations to give them material, and without believing that these conditions were inorganic for the individuals creating them."
I understand the main focus of the essay, this sentence in particular throws in some new adjectives that weren't entirely made clear. What do Marx and Engels mean by inorganic conditions?
Since no one's done it yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
I understand the main focus of the essay, this sentence in particular throws in some new adjectives that weren't entirely made clear. What do Marx and Engels mean by inorganic conditions?
Since no one's done it yet:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism
from the german ideology
The reality, which communism is creating, is precisely the real basis for rendering it impossible that anything should exist independently of individuals, in so far as things are only a product of the preceding intercourse of individuals themselves. Thus the communists in practice treat the conditions created by production and intercourse as inorganic conditions, without, however, imagining that it was the plan or the destiny of previous generations to give them material, and without believing that these conditions were inorganic for the individuals creating them.
Among many other passages that i didn't understand, these were the first that have appeared while i was reading on. Those with red fonts are the ones that i was having difficulty with.
Among many other passages that i didn't understand, these were the first that have appeared while i was reading on. Those with red fonts are the ones that i was having difficulty with.
MARX & ENGELS
"The conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other , so long as the above -mentioned contradiction is absent, are conditions appertaining to their individuality , in no way external to them ;conditions under which these definite individuals ,living under definite relationships , can alone produce their material life and what is connected with it; are thus the conditions of their self -activity and are produced by this self -activity." When I first read this portion of the essay , I read it 3 times after that and I still did not understand what Marx and Engels were trying to say .
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels
" Definite individuals, living under definite relationships, can alone produce their material life and what is connected with it; are thus the conditions of their self-activity and are produced by this self-activity. The definite condition under which they produce , thus corresponds, as long as the contradiction has not yet appeared, to the reality of their conditioned nature, their one-sided existence, the one=sidedness of which only becomes evident when the contradiction enters on the scene and thus only exists for the later individuals". I had so much problems with this particular passage only because the writer seems to be jumbling his words.
Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
"Such countries have no other natural premises than the individuals, who settled there and were led to do so because the forms of intercourse of the old countries did not correspond to their wants. Thus they begin with the most advanced individuals of the old countries, and therefore with the correspondingly most advanced form of intercourse, before this form of intercourse has been able to establish itself in the old countries." I am having difficulty understanding the message the author is trying to send the reader.
Thursday, February 14, 2008
Response for Wednesday Feb. 20th
Note I have added a 'class presentation' prompt to the links: each of you will be giving a presentation at some point in the term, so you might want to familiarize yourself with it now. And our thanks to Britt for going first.
For Wednesday, read the 'General Introduction' (pp. 1-7) to Modern Literary Theory, then Marx and Engels' The German Ideology (pp. 18-23) in the same. In addition, read the Ramamurthy excerpt and the Anna Karenina excerpt listed under the important links.
The critical text here is The German Ideology, Marx and the effect of Marx on criticism ever since. It is also a knotty and difficult text and riddled with complex terms. To this end, this week we will approach the response a bit differently. Each of you are required to post a passage (no more than three or four sentences) which you find particularly difficult to comprehend, etc. Type out the passage in its entirety and explain, in no more than one sentence, your difficulty. Once you have done that, you are required to choose someone else's post and comment on their bewildering passage. Try to paraphrase it, clarify it, point out your own problems and, most especially, explain it in real world terms, with real world examples. Your comment for this week, then, will be as long as your past posts.
The rule here, of course, is only one comment per post. If you find that a post already has a comment, find another. And please, no commenting on your own post.
In addition, you will probably be doing a bit of minor research to comprehend difficult terms, etc. Try to find at least one website which might help readers new to Marx and Marxism, and copy the link here.
For Wednesday, read the 'General Introduction' (pp. 1-7) to Modern Literary Theory, then Marx and Engels' The German Ideology (pp. 18-23) in the same. In addition, read the Ramamurthy excerpt and the Anna Karenina excerpt listed under the important links.
The critical text here is The German Ideology, Marx and the effect of Marx on criticism ever since. It is also a knotty and difficult text and riddled with complex terms. To this end, this week we will approach the response a bit differently. Each of you are required to post a passage (no more than three or four sentences) which you find particularly difficult to comprehend, etc. Type out the passage in its entirety and explain, in no more than one sentence, your difficulty. Once you have done that, you are required to choose someone else's post and comment on their bewildering passage. Try to paraphrase it, clarify it, point out your own problems and, most especially, explain it in real world terms, with real world examples. Your comment for this week, then, will be as long as your past posts.
The rule here, of course, is only one comment per post. If you find that a post already has a comment, find another. And please, no commenting on your own post.
In addition, you will probably be doing a bit of minor research to comprehend difficult terms, etc. Try to find at least one website which might help readers new to Marx and Marxism, and copy the link here.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Poe Vs. Abramov
Some mystery genre elements found in both Edgar Allen Poe’s The Murders in Rue Morgue and Outline A Detective Story by Florentina Abramov are there usage of having unsuspecting detectives. As seen with Abramov’s protagonist Yuval and Poe’s Dupin. Both are ordinary men, but find it in themselves to be detectives. The elements that seem to be most deviated from the mystery genre is the setting of the stories. Instead of having a location that’s placed in a suburban town the actual crime and place deal with other external circumstances, such as the stealing of the bible, a religious object.
Dupin vs. Lenski
Like Murder in the Rue Morgue, Unknown Attacker features a detective dedicated to getting their man. The difference between Lenski and Dupin abound but the most important one is the difference in motivation. Auguste Dupin was not a detective by trade, he didn’t have any remote connection to law enforcement what so ever. For him solving a crime was an intellectual pursuit (and a moral one in the name of clearing an innocent man’s name). Lenski does not solve crime for her own personal amusement. She has quite literally dedicated her life to the pursuit of justice by becoming police officer. We are told that the reason for this comes from bearing witness to an escalation in the level in crime in her neighborhood throughout out her childhood. The mission for her is personal not merely a curiosity.
Because of this their techniques are also different. Murder is the prototypical detective story in so many ways because in many ways you expect a “detective story” to feature one man or woman operating either by themselves of with the aid of slightly less-equipped partner and solving crime through highly sharpened mental acumen. Unknown plays more like what we call a “procedural” cop show. A member of a police department is given a crime and uses all the skills they’ve developed in their years on the force to bring down a criminal by the book. Its what we’re more likely to see on NYPD Blue or Law & Order than say Monk or Nero Wolfe. The odd thing is that though serendipitous discovery of clues is more often found in detective fiction, the first big clue Lenski finds is accidental in the form of a set of keys. Still that item is filtered through her role as a trained officer who understands how Law Enforcement would deal with finding such a thing.
Poe-Vs-Monk
I took poe's reading on the "Rue Morgue" and really couldnt compare the differences in any other reading assigned. they all played out the same scenio , even to me the language seemed the same. Poe had no type of imagnation with his writing to me . When having to find other Genres of a mystery i thought of my favorite two mystery shows Monk and murder she wrote . they both didnt show the same crimes; if anything monk was alittle more of a fanstay where; murder she wrote had a bit of truth behind most of her cases. Edger Allen Poe compare to murder she wrote with a more realistic view that excalty had most sitting on the edge of your sit woulding who could it be (basically a really challenge). Where with Monk there is no real puzzle Monk with his odd ways solves a crime maybe 2mins into the show but its the humor that makes this so different then most mystery.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)