As I read Death of a Salesman this weekend, I couldn't help but ask this question... is incessant longing and being unsatisified inherent in American culture and American literatue?
I'm getting a lot of Catcher in the Rye vibes from this play, and I think this stems from both the time period in which they were written and the atmosphere of unattainable self-fulfillment permeating each. This is incredibly depressing but makes for excellent literature.
I was reminded of Mr. Lazarow's comments on the differentiating tides of idealism and realism that fluctuate back and forth, depending on what time period we're in. We're either grasping for an America that will never be, or we're admitting that it's foolish to have such impractical dreams. Either way, the idea of "America" is unattainable. Could this be because of the social boundries we've set up for ourselves?
Think about it. In our culture, self-fulfillment is rarely achieved. The standard is to always want more, either in the material sense or the spiritual sense. The Willy Loman, the "everyman", works his whole life without ever truly being satisfied. His dreams do not fit the confines of his parameters. They only grow and grow with each tiny failure, each step towards the grave. Even though the American ideal is to work hard to get where you want to be, few people ever get to where they want to be, either because they cannot define true satisfaction, or simply do not have to means to achieve their lofty goals.
Thoughts?
(Tylaor Bruke) *Your mind automatically rearranges words as long as you have the first and last letters of them. An interesting sidenote on how the brain processes the written word.*
Sunday, November 30, 2008
The ship that never docks..
As I was reading a passage of an article, I was able to readily draw a connection between Lorna Dee Cervantes' "Refugee Ship" and the writing at hand. The excerpt is as follows:
"Choice of language frequently plays a significant role in the development of the Hispanic American writer's voice and message. "I lack language," wrote Cherrie Moraga, author of Loving in the War Years: lo que munca paso por sus labios. The use of two languages in the title itself expresses the difficulty that the author perceives in narrating personal experience in one language when one has lived in another."
This, undoubtedly, relates to the discussion that we stumbled upon last week. I feel that all of our perceptions are easily combined into this simple, little paragraph that I have discovered, purely by luck. I love when things connect! I had a 'Eureka' moment and simply had to share.
Cervantes was so torn between her two heritages that she found it necessary to include the last line in her Spanish tongue. The signifigance here is impossible to ignore.
(Sam Maliha)
"Choice of language frequently plays a significant role in the development of the Hispanic American writer's voice and message. "I lack language," wrote Cherrie Moraga, author of Loving in the War Years: lo que munca paso por sus labios. The use of two languages in the title itself expresses the difficulty that the author perceives in narrating personal experience in one language when one has lived in another."
This, undoubtedly, relates to the discussion that we stumbled upon last week. I feel that all of our perceptions are easily combined into this simple, little paragraph that I have discovered, purely by luck. I love when things connect! I had a 'Eureka' moment and simply had to share.
Cervantes was so torn between her two heritages that she found it necessary to include the last line in her Spanish tongue. The signifigance here is impossible to ignore.
(Sam Maliha)
Friday, November 28, 2008
The Symbol vs. The Symbolized...Again.
As I was looking ahead at the next few poems that we will soon discuss in class, a great idea struck me. Two of these works, Yusef Komunyakaa's "Facing it" and Billy Collins' "The Names", seem to form a connection with S.I. Hayakawa's research on semantics. I am surprised as to why I did not see the connection upon my initial analysis of the poems.
Yusef Komunyakaa served in the Vietnam War and acquired a taste for writing upon his return to the United States. He published a book of poems about his experience in Vietnam (Dien Cai Dau), ending with the poem "Facing It", included in this chapter of our Literature for Composition book. In this piece of writing, Komunyakaa agonizes over the 58,022 names etched into the black granite of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial located in Washington, D.C. He looks at the name of a former comrade and forms a connection between a word and a painful memory. To him, the name represents something more than a name; it is an emotion, an irreversible event. He feels that the symbolized (the dead) is inseparable from its symbol (the names).
I touch the name Andrew Johnson;
I see the booby trap's white flash.
(Komunyakaa, Lines 17-18)
Billy Collins was inspired to write "The Names" on the first anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers (September 11, 2002). He progresses throughout the poem, giving names of victims, mentioning one for each letter of the alphabet. To the author, the symbolized, or owner of the name, no longer exists, yet the symbol remains, ready to keep the memory of the deceased alive. Does he not believe, then, that the symbol and symbolized are not a single entity, that they may be separated?
(let X stand, if it can, for the ones unfound)
[Collins, Line 42]
Here, the "X" is nothing more than a symbol of what had once existed.
Thus, I have drawn the conclusion that Yusek Komunyakaa would disagree thoroughly with Hayakawa's views of the symbol vs. the symbolized. On the other hand, however, it seems as if Billy Collins would heartily agree. These are merely my perceptions.
I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving!
(Samantha Maliha)
Yusef Komunyakaa served in the Vietnam War and acquired a taste for writing upon his return to the United States. He published a book of poems about his experience in Vietnam (Dien Cai Dau), ending with the poem "Facing It", included in this chapter of our Literature for Composition book. In this piece of writing, Komunyakaa agonizes over the 58,022 names etched into the black granite of the Vietnam Veterans Memorial located in Washington, D.C. He looks at the name of a former comrade and forms a connection between a word and a painful memory. To him, the name represents something more than a name; it is an emotion, an irreversible event. He feels that the symbolized (the dead) is inseparable from its symbol (the names).
I touch the name Andrew Johnson;
I see the booby trap's white flash.
(Komunyakaa, Lines 17-18)
Billy Collins was inspired to write "The Names" on the first anniversary of the destruction of the Twin Towers (September 11, 2002). He progresses throughout the poem, giving names of victims, mentioning one for each letter of the alphabet. To the author, the symbolized, or owner of the name, no longer exists, yet the symbol remains, ready to keep the memory of the deceased alive. Does he not believe, then, that the symbol and symbolized are not a single entity, that they may be separated?
(let X stand, if it can, for the ones unfound)
[Collins, Line 42]
Here, the "X" is nothing more than a symbol of what had once existed.
Thus, I have drawn the conclusion that Yusek Komunyakaa would disagree thoroughly with Hayakawa's views of the symbol vs. the symbolized. On the other hand, however, it seems as if Billy Collins would heartily agree. These are merely my perceptions.
I hope you all had a wonderful Thanksgiving!
(Samantha Maliha)
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
The Supermarket
So I didn't have a chance to bring this up in class so I decided to bring it up in the blog. It's about the adjectives Allen Ginsberg chose to describe Walt Whitman: childless and a lonely old grubber. I think that he chose these words to emphasize how he is viewed differently from everyone else.
In the previous paragraph, Ginsberg seems to create the image of what is 'normal' in a family: a man, a woman, and children. The words seem to just point out that he is lacking such elements in his life. Thoughts?
Also, while on the topic of the poem, what do you guys think a good essay topic would be? I guess one could be about acceptance in society...
I don't know. Other ideas would be appreciated.
Mary Quien
In the previous paragraph, Ginsberg seems to create the image of what is 'normal' in a family: a man, a woman, and children. The words seem to just point out that he is lacking such elements in his life. Thoughts?
Also, while on the topic of the poem, what do you guys think a good essay topic would be? I guess one could be about acceptance in society...
I don't know. Other ideas would be appreciated.
Mary Quien
An interesting article that I read....
Hi, it's Jenn
I read an article today titled "Russian Analyst Predicts Decline and Breakup of U.S."(http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html)
Basically a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affars says in an interview that U.S. will soon collapse and as a result, Russia and China will replace the U.S.'s role as a world dominant power.
Panarin, the professor, mentions that the "vulnerable political setup" and the "lack of unified national laws and divisons among the elite" will become clear in this time of crisis.
He also predicts that the U.S. will break up into 6 parts: the Pacific coast (with its growing Chinese populations), the South(with Hispanics), Texas, the Atlantic Coast, 5 poor central states (Native Americans), and the northern states influenced by Canada.
He even suggests that Russia could reclaim Alaska(Oh no, not Wasilla) since it was only granted on lease.
How do you guys think about this article? In fact, I laughed a little while I was reading it but after I was done I wondered if current economic crisis will possibly lead to the decline of U.S. dominance in the international community. I mean America got through the Great Depression, right?
Jared Diamond, a Pulitzer Prize Winning Professor at UCLA, wrote that 3 Factors that cause civilizations to fall are environmental change, economic instability, and disruption in food production. Do you feel as if we are even close to this point? Will America's nightmare become real?
(Jennifer Park)
I read an article today titled "Russian Analyst Predicts Decline and Breakup of U.S."(http://en.rian.ru/world/20081124/118512713.html)
Basically a professor at the Diplomatic Academy of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affars says in an interview that U.S. will soon collapse and as a result, Russia and China will replace the U.S.'s role as a world dominant power.
Panarin, the professor, mentions that the "vulnerable political setup" and the "lack of unified national laws and divisons among the elite" will become clear in this time of crisis.
He also predicts that the U.S. will break up into 6 parts: the Pacific coast (with its growing Chinese populations), the South(with Hispanics), Texas, the Atlantic Coast, 5 poor central states (Native Americans), and the northern states influenced by Canada.
He even suggests that Russia could reclaim Alaska(Oh no, not Wasilla) since it was only granted on lease.
How do you guys think about this article? In fact, I laughed a little while I was reading it but after I was done I wondered if current economic crisis will possibly lead to the decline of U.S. dominance in the international community. I mean America got through the Great Depression, right?
Jared Diamond, a Pulitzer Prize Winning Professor at UCLA, wrote that 3 Factors that cause civilizations to fall are environmental change, economic instability, and disruption in food production. Do you feel as if we are even close to this point? Will America's nightmare become real?
(Jennifer Park)
Tuesday, November 25, 2008
Buy Nothing Day
I read OurSpace: Resisting the Corporate Control of Culture for our book review. They talked a lot about Adbusters which is a group which tries to show consumers how corporations are controlling them. And one method they mentioned was by advocating a Buy Nothing Day which they conveniently place on Black Friday and the weekend after Thanksgiving when all the big companies have "early bird deals" and pretty much boast about crazy sales which turn out to only cause you to spend more money.
So I logged on the Facebook today and saw on the homepage Buy Nothing Day, hosted by Adbusters. The location is the whole world. They really want to show corporations that people still have some control over what they buy. They say, "For 24 hours you will detox from consumerism and live without mindless, needless shopping. Anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending (mindlessly)!" People started to complain that this would cause a problem with the economy so they later clarify that you don't have to buy nothing just refrain from buying things you don't need and try to shop at local small businesses. So far about 22,000 people have said they will attend this and I'm sure this number will increase.
If you want to learn more information about Buy Nothing Day then go to http://www.buynothingday.info/main.html
I am neither for nor against Buy Nothing Day. I agree with the point they are trying to make. Does anybody have any thoughts on Buy Nothing Day?
So I logged on the Facebook today and saw on the homepage Buy Nothing Day, hosted by Adbusters. The location is the whole world. They really want to show corporations that people still have some control over what they buy. They say, "For 24 hours you will detox from consumerism and live without mindless, needless shopping. Anyone can take part provided they spend a day without spending (mindlessly)!" People started to complain that this would cause a problem with the economy so they later clarify that you don't have to buy nothing just refrain from buying things you don't need and try to shop at local small businesses. So far about 22,000 people have said they will attend this and I'm sure this number will increase.
If you want to learn more information about Buy Nothing Day then go to http://www.buynothingday.info/main.html
I am neither for nor against Buy Nothing Day. I agree with the point they are trying to make. Does anybody have any thoughts on Buy Nothing Day?
Monday, November 24, 2008
Refugee Ship
Today in class we began to discuss possible essay prompts that might complement Cervantes' "Refugee Ship" on the AP Exam. I just want to suggest a couple more here on which I require your opinions.
Might there be a prompt such as, "To what extent does one's semantic environment affect one's perception of his/her identity?" Or is this question too vague?
How about a question such as, "To what extent is a person's perception of his/her identity a reflection of his/her cultural heritage?"
In general, how would we go about answering such questions that follow a poem on the exam? Would we need to make specific references to the poem at hand or would we focus solely on wider application? I plan to ask Mr. Lazarow, but if any of you have some ideas, please feel free to offer them.
What thoughts do all of you have? What other "poem prompts" might be on the exam?
(Janet Lee)
Might there be a prompt such as, "To what extent does one's semantic environment affect one's perception of his/her identity?" Or is this question too vague?
How about a question such as, "To what extent is a person's perception of his/her identity a reflection of his/her cultural heritage?"
In general, how would we go about answering such questions that follow a poem on the exam? Would we need to make specific references to the poem at hand or would we focus solely on wider application? I plan to ask Mr. Lazarow, but if any of you have some ideas, please feel free to offer them.
What thoughts do all of you have? What other "poem prompts" might be on the exam?
(Janet Lee)
Friday, November 21, 2008
The White Man's Blunder?
In class, we've been discussing The White Man's Burden and examples, causes, and effects of imperialism and help from "superiors". We've generally agreed that those who find themselves to be "superior" (British imperialists...)tend to want to "help" (assimilate, Christianize...) those who are "inferior" (African villages, non-Christian countries). We've also questioned what their motives were for doing so. Is it to genuinely help those they deem less fortunate? Or do they simply want an economic/political gain and they use benevolence as a cover? However, something we haven't discussed as much is what their "philanthropic" deeds actually accomplish.
This confuses me greatly. The white man wants to give to the less fortunate peoples because the white man is superior and therefore needs to help others. But if the white man is giving to other people what makes him superior, hasn't he leveled the field? Aren't both the white man and the African villager on the same level once the white man tells/shows the villager everything he knows? Then, after helping out one group of people, the white man is no longer superior. He has equals. Can the white man help out more than one group of less fortunate people and still claim superiority?
A situation that illustrates this is the US's aid to Iraq. The United States armed Iraqi groups to that they could defend themselves. Now, we (the United States and Iraq) are fighting the war as equals. It's not guns vs. bows and arrows or swords. It's guns vs. guns. In our attempt to help the less fortunate, we have given up our superiority over them.
My basic point is this: Once the white man helps someone, he is no longer superior, he is an equal. This prevents him from claiming superiority twice, and almost humbles him.
Thoughts?
(Megan West)
This confuses me greatly. The white man wants to give to the less fortunate peoples because the white man is superior and therefore needs to help others. But if the white man is giving to other people what makes him superior, hasn't he leveled the field? Aren't both the white man and the African villager on the same level once the white man tells/shows the villager everything he knows? Then, after helping out one group of people, the white man is no longer superior. He has equals. Can the white man help out more than one group of less fortunate people and still claim superiority?
A situation that illustrates this is the US's aid to Iraq. The United States armed Iraqi groups to that they could defend themselves. Now, we (the United States and Iraq) are fighting the war as equals. It's not guns vs. bows and arrows or swords. It's guns vs. guns. In our attempt to help the less fortunate, we have given up our superiority over them.
My basic point is this: Once the white man helps someone, he is no longer superior, he is an equal. This prevents him from claiming superiority twice, and almost humbles him.
Thoughts?
(Megan West)
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Déjà vu...?
Hello, fellow bloggers! I hope I'm not beating a dead horse by bringing the this topic up again, but here I go...
In the national government class I'm taking this semester Ms. Dickason has begun talking about media, its influence, its bias, etc. The whole time she was talking today I was constantly reminded of English class and some of our in-class and blog discussions about the media and bias, in general.
One of my teacher's points was that bias is just one interpretation of the same set of facts, and that many times bias involves taking a look at only one half of the facts. The facts may be correct, but they are incomplete. In addition, I was reminded of the necessity of ethos and reliability of sources when she mentioned that facts are only regarded as "true" when there is an identifiable source (for example, if a source asks not to be named, the information will be regarded as illegitimate, whether or not it is).
My teacher also took a moment to define the term "media," which was a very good move-- whether or not we realized it, we probably were all thinking of different things when we heard the word "media." She said that there are three types of media: printed, broadcast, and internet. She distinguished journalism in print sources of media from opinion editorials. She said that a newspaper makes a point of doing that (that's why there are two different sections-- one for "information" and the other for explicit opinion).
Another point that Ms. Dickason made was that what makes a source legitimate is the fact that the public regards it as so and holds it accountable. This reminded me of the feedback loop that we discussed regarding "Merchants of Cool"-- the media publishes/broadcasts what it knows will attract viewers-- viewers are attracted, and watch-- the media see what attracts viewers and broadcasts it again...etc. Sometimes this is factual, but, as she pointed out, who wants to watch a debate when s/he can hear commentary on the debate? Viewers/readers/listeners are easily bored by straight news, and the media is interested in selling, so it will do what it has to do to make a interesting story. (She mentioned that there is a difference between the media being inaccurate and the person that the media quotes being inaccurate.)
It is impossible to avoid slant and bias, no matter how hard a person tries. The purpose of a media source is not to be the ultimate source of knowledge, but one of many perspectives on information/data/"fact."
I know this is a lot of what we have heard before and discussed already, but I thought it was kind of cool how a lot of the thoughts that have been formulating in English have a place in the history classroom, as well.
Emily T.
In the national government class I'm taking this semester Ms. Dickason has begun talking about media, its influence, its bias, etc. The whole time she was talking today I was constantly reminded of English class and some of our in-class and blog discussions about the media and bias, in general.
One of my teacher's points was that bias is just one interpretation of the same set of facts, and that many times bias involves taking a look at only one half of the facts. The facts may be correct, but they are incomplete. In addition, I was reminded of the necessity of ethos and reliability of sources when she mentioned that facts are only regarded as "true" when there is an identifiable source (for example, if a source asks not to be named, the information will be regarded as illegitimate, whether or not it is).
My teacher also took a moment to define the term "media," which was a very good move-- whether or not we realized it, we probably were all thinking of different things when we heard the word "media." She said that there are three types of media: printed, broadcast, and internet. She distinguished journalism in print sources of media from opinion editorials. She said that a newspaper makes a point of doing that (that's why there are two different sections-- one for "information" and the other for explicit opinion).
Another point that Ms. Dickason made was that what makes a source legitimate is the fact that the public regards it as so and holds it accountable. This reminded me of the feedback loop that we discussed regarding "Merchants of Cool"-- the media publishes/broadcasts what it knows will attract viewers-- viewers are attracted, and watch-- the media see what attracts viewers and broadcasts it again...etc. Sometimes this is factual, but, as she pointed out, who wants to watch a debate when s/he can hear commentary on the debate? Viewers/readers/listeners are easily bored by straight news, and the media is interested in selling, so it will do what it has to do to make a interesting story. (She mentioned that there is a difference between the media being inaccurate and the person that the media quotes being inaccurate.)
It is impossible to avoid slant and bias, no matter how hard a person tries. The purpose of a media source is not to be the ultimate source of knowledge, but one of many perspectives on information/data/"fact."
I know this is a lot of what we have heard before and discussed already, but I thought it was kind of cool how a lot of the thoughts that have been formulating in English have a place in the history classroom, as well.
Emily T.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
America's Nightmares
Hey it's Jenn
I hope y'all remember the story Lottery.
In Debate class, we were discussing whether a course on America's dark past should be adopted in every school in the United States.
The curriculum of the course will include discussions on the nation's darkest times such as forced relocation of Natives, Japanese internment during WWII, etc.
Of course I started zoning out and realized that this topic is related to the discussions in AP ENG and the chapter America's Dreams and Nightmares
One of America's "Nightmares" came to my mind immediately when I began to think about the Lottery.
Lynching had been used in the past to torture and kill innocent people.
Lynching was not limited to Blacks in the South but used to kill people of various ethnicities in different parts of America.
Various grotesque mechanisms of torture were performed and lynching would be publicly advertised to gather crowds at the scene.
From many published historical records, these mobs considered lynching as a festive and would proudly admit that they took part in it. Very similar to the townspeople who did not feel guilty or morally wrong about stoning someone to death.
Would you agree that we need to educate young people about America's Nightmares?
What do you think about the connection between the Lottery and lynching?
(Jennifer Park)
I hope y'all remember the story Lottery.
In Debate class, we were discussing whether a course on America's dark past should be adopted in every school in the United States.
The curriculum of the course will include discussions on the nation's darkest times such as forced relocation of Natives, Japanese internment during WWII, etc.
Of course I started zoning out and realized that this topic is related to the discussions in AP ENG and the chapter America's Dreams and Nightmares
One of America's "Nightmares" came to my mind immediately when I began to think about the Lottery.
Lynching had been used in the past to torture and kill innocent people.
Lynching was not limited to Blacks in the South but used to kill people of various ethnicities in different parts of America.
Various grotesque mechanisms of torture were performed and lynching would be publicly advertised to gather crowds at the scene.
From many published historical records, these mobs considered lynching as a festive and would proudly admit that they took part in it. Very similar to the townspeople who did not feel guilty or morally wrong about stoning someone to death.
Would you agree that we need to educate young people about America's Nightmares?
What do you think about the connection between the Lottery and lynching?
(Jennifer Park)
The End of our Semantics Journey
I was browsing the net and reading things as I went along. I was fortunate enough to find the following excerpt from a TIME article.
"Semantics (defined as "the science of meanings") has been criticized principally because its theoreticians have made such sweeping claims for it as a social cureall, and because books about it are hard to read. Semanticist Chase makes his claims as sweeping as any, but his book is easy reading. "A brief grounding in semantics," he vouches, "besides making philosophy unreadable, makes unreadable most political speeches, classical economic theory, after-dinner oratory, diplomatic notes, newspaper editorials, treatises on pedagogics and education, expert financial comment, dissertations on money and credit . . . Great Thoughts from Great Thinkers in general."
The reason that this passage struck me immediately is because my feelings are identical to Stuart Chase's. From chapter one of Language in Thought and Action, I began to perceive language differently. People around me would speak, and I would find myself dissecting their sentences and scrutinizing their every word. I found it hard to converse with them without pointing out a correction or alternative for their speech. Little did they know that what they were saying was not at all expressing the point they hoped to make. Even to this day, I find myself marvelling at the speech employed by our peers and teachers. I've come to doubt almost everything and have begun thoroughly measure the value of my words before voicing them (or at least I try to!).
Are any of you experiencing this? Semantics is an inevitable, ongoing process. As long as language exists, so will semantics. Sometimes ignorance may seem an easier path to follow; do we regret our study thusfar? I surely do not, no matter how skeptical I have become. Our study of this subject has even affected my views on other courses (biology, history, etc..).
I just thought I'd include one last post on semantics to tie things together since the unit has officially ended. Then again, I doubt this will be the last passage posted on this topic - it's just too important to disregard!
(Samantha Maliha)
"Semantics (defined as "the science of meanings") has been criticized principally because its theoreticians have made such sweeping claims for it as a social cureall, and because books about it are hard to read. Semanticist Chase makes his claims as sweeping as any, but his book is easy reading. "A brief grounding in semantics," he vouches, "besides making philosophy unreadable, makes unreadable most political speeches, classical economic theory, after-dinner oratory, diplomatic notes, newspaper editorials, treatises on pedagogics and education, expert financial comment, dissertations on money and credit . . . Great Thoughts from Great Thinkers in general."
The reason that this passage struck me immediately is because my feelings are identical to Stuart Chase's. From chapter one of Language in Thought and Action, I began to perceive language differently. People around me would speak, and I would find myself dissecting their sentences and scrutinizing their every word. I found it hard to converse with them without pointing out a correction or alternative for their speech. Little did they know that what they were saying was not at all expressing the point they hoped to make. Even to this day, I find myself marvelling at the speech employed by our peers and teachers. I've come to doubt almost everything and have begun thoroughly measure the value of my words before voicing them (or at least I try to!).
Are any of you experiencing this? Semantics is an inevitable, ongoing process. As long as language exists, so will semantics. Sometimes ignorance may seem an easier path to follow; do we regret our study thusfar? I surely do not, no matter how skeptical I have become. Our study of this subject has even affected my views on other courses (biology, history, etc..).
I just thought I'd include one last post on semantics to tie things together since the unit has officially ended. Then again, I doubt this will be the last passage posted on this topic - it's just too important to disregard!
(Samantha Maliha)
Tuesday, November 18, 2008
Class Discussion (11/18/08)
Today in class, we focused upon Rudyard Kipling's "The White Man's Burden."
Kipling's poem seems to indicate that he strongly believes that we have an obligation to help "civilize" less-advanced cultures. Despite the fact that your subjects may be "sullen" and both hate and blame you, Kipling urges us to take on the "white man's burden", or the responsibility to enlighten those below us.
We questioned whether this attitude was actually beneficial to the native peoples. Simply assuming that the "uncivilized" people need the help of the white man is often condescending and implies that their culture is inferior. However, accomplishments have been done through colonization, such as the British's abolishment of suttee, in which a widow was burned along with her husband's body.
Still, does a "burden" or responsibility to stroll into others' lives and interfere with them to "improve" them actually exist? Every time we see something in another culture that we perceive as barbaric, should we attempt to correct it? Although the definition of a "civilized culture" differs depending upon the perspective, Kipling seems to imply that we must "search our manhood" and take on this burden to both prove ourselves and help others.
However, although Kipling may have reflected what some people genuinely believed in his time, today we see this "white man's burden" as nothing more than a justification for imperialism. As the parody poem written on the next page pointed, often the native peoples are exploited, regardless of the "burden" and responsibilities.
In addition, we wondered whether our invasion of Iraq was a fulfillment of the white man's burden. After all, some people (by no means all) believed that we were entering Iraq to free the oppressed people and plant democracy. Whether the invasion was legitimate or not, we wondered if the invasion was almost a rebirth of the white man's burden.
And of course, Sam's disclaimer applies here.
(Eric Wei)
Kipling's poem seems to indicate that he strongly believes that we have an obligation to help "civilize" less-advanced cultures. Despite the fact that your subjects may be "sullen" and both hate and blame you, Kipling urges us to take on the "white man's burden", or the responsibility to enlighten those below us.
We questioned whether this attitude was actually beneficial to the native peoples. Simply assuming that the "uncivilized" people need the help of the white man is often condescending and implies that their culture is inferior. However, accomplishments have been done through colonization, such as the British's abolishment of suttee, in which a widow was burned along with her husband's body.
Still, does a "burden" or responsibility to stroll into others' lives and interfere with them to "improve" them actually exist? Every time we see something in another culture that we perceive as barbaric, should we attempt to correct it? Although the definition of a "civilized culture" differs depending upon the perspective, Kipling seems to imply that we must "search our manhood" and take on this burden to both prove ourselves and help others.
However, although Kipling may have reflected what some people genuinely believed in his time, today we see this "white man's burden" as nothing more than a justification for imperialism. As the parody poem written on the next page pointed, often the native peoples are exploited, regardless of the "burden" and responsibilities.
In addition, we wondered whether our invasion of Iraq was a fulfillment of the white man's burden. After all, some people (by no means all) believed that we were entering Iraq to free the oppressed people and plant democracy. Whether the invasion was legitimate or not, we wondered if the invasion was almost a rebirth of the white man's burden.
And of course, Sam's disclaimer applies here.
(Eric Wei)
Monday, November 17, 2008
Class Discussion (11/17/08)
This post will serve as a summary for today's class discussion during Mr. Lazarow's absence. Disclaimer: None of the following information necessarily represents my personal feelings on the topic.
What is America? Our nation was founded on democratic (yet also religious) principles in 1776. Yet has the same thing that once brought us together possibly tearing us apart? We all agreed that arguing the existence of God is very different from arguing the positives/negatives of religious doctrine. Some of us felt it to be self-serving; another portion of us felt it to be a useful tool of guidance. How could something so sacred cause such bloddy massacres (the Crusades, the Wars of Religion during the 1500s and 1600s, etc..)? Yet on the other hand, religion has also instilled certain morals within its followers.
This led to yet another topic of discussion. A non-believer is capable of maintaining morals. Just the same, a believer may lack the morality demanded by society. But by this point of the discussion, we began to question the definitions of a believer/religious person. What made someone religious? We found this hard to specify.
Some mentioned that their complaints against religion stem from those who practice the religion rather than the religion itself. In other words, different faiths may exist in harmony as long as one person does not impose their principles on another. When such imposing commences, different groups are separated further. How can something meant to bring us together tear us apart? One student mentioned a website (www.chick.com) that seemed to be doing just that: tearing different groups at the seams due to discrimination (i.e. against homosexuals, etc..).
This is about as well as my memory will serve me from today's discussion. Once again, I will state that this post is merely to inform Mr. Lazarow of our discussion (as he asked us to do) and does not represent my own beliefs in any way, shape, or form.
(Samantha Maliha)
What is America? Our nation was founded on democratic (yet also religious) principles in 1776. Yet has the same thing that once brought us together possibly tearing us apart? We all agreed that arguing the existence of God is very different from arguing the positives/negatives of religious doctrine. Some of us felt it to be self-serving; another portion of us felt it to be a useful tool of guidance. How could something so sacred cause such bloddy massacres (the Crusades, the Wars of Religion during the 1500s and 1600s, etc..)? Yet on the other hand, religion has also instilled certain morals within its followers.
This led to yet another topic of discussion. A non-believer is capable of maintaining morals. Just the same, a believer may lack the morality demanded by society. But by this point of the discussion, we began to question the definitions of a believer/religious person. What made someone religious? We found this hard to specify.
Some mentioned that their complaints against religion stem from those who practice the religion rather than the religion itself. In other words, different faiths may exist in harmony as long as one person does not impose their principles on another. When such imposing commences, different groups are separated further. How can something meant to bring us together tear us apart? One student mentioned a website (www.chick.com) that seemed to be doing just that: tearing different groups at the seams due to discrimination (i.e. against homosexuals, etc..).
This is about as well as my memory will serve me from today's discussion. Once again, I will state that this post is merely to inform Mr. Lazarow of our discussion (as he asked us to do) and does not represent my own beliefs in any way, shape, or form.
(Samantha Maliha)
Religious Propaganda
So, I was just looking at the website Sam mentioned in class today (www.chick.com), and I found this:
this. (The portion I'm referencing is in about the middle of the comic, when they start talking about Communism).
I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that this organization is actively linking itself to Chinese Communism. They even go so far as to suggest that Mao stole his propaganda techniques from fundamentalist Christians!
This makes me wonder: do the people who run this organization have any idea what they are saying? Have they never learned about The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Perhaps these statements are borne out of genuine ignorance, but, unless they are, it seems to me that they are supportinng manipulation and brainwashing to further their own agenda (namely, converting others to their religion).
(Please understand: I don't have a problem with religion in general. I just oppose people who try to force their beliefs on others, and it seems to be the case here.)
Thoughts?
-Paige Walker-
this. (The portion I'm referencing is in about the middle of the comic, when they start talking about Communism).
I find it extremely odd, to say the least, that this organization is actively linking itself to Chinese Communism. They even go so far as to suggest that Mao stole his propaganda techniques from fundamentalist Christians!
This makes me wonder: do the people who run this organization have any idea what they are saying? Have they never learned about The Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution? Perhaps these statements are borne out of genuine ignorance, but, unless they are, it seems to me that they are supportinng manipulation and brainwashing to further their own agenda (namely, converting others to their religion).
(Please understand: I don't have a problem with religion in general. I just oppose people who try to force their beliefs on others, and it seems to be the case here.)
Thoughts?
-Paige Walker-
Friday, November 14, 2008
Dear Mr. President-Elect...
In an article entitled "The Food Issue - Farmer in Chief", published on October 9, 2008, Michael Pollan addresses a letter of concern to "the future President of America". We have, since then, elected our new President, yet the letter has not lost its signifigance. The whole article includes valuable information. One passage, however, directly relates to our study of language.
In a part of the article, Pollan begins to suggest several steps the government may take in order to nurture to make local foods affordable for consumers. The following passage is directly taken from the article:
"Create a Federal Definition of 'Food.' It makes no sense for the government food-assistance dollars, intended to improve the nutritional health of at-risk Americans, to support the consumption of products we know to be unhealthful. Yes, some people will object that for the government to specify what food stamps can and cannot buy smacks of paternalism. Yet we already prohibit the purchase of tobacco and alcohol with food stamps. So why not prohibit something like soda, which is arguably less nutritious than red wine? Because it is, nominally, a food, albeit a 'junk food' -- and instead make clear that such products are not in fact food of any kind. Defining what constitutes real food worthy of federal support will no doubt be controversial (you'll recall President Reagan's ketchup imbroglio), but defining food upward may be more politcally palatable than defining it down, as Reagan sought to do. One approach would be to rule that, in order to be regarded as a food by the government, an edible substance must contain a certain minimum ratio of micronutrients per calorie of energy. At a stroke, such a definiton would improve the quality of school lunch and discourage sales of unhealthful products, since typically only "food" is exempt from local sales tax." (Pollan 11)
Pollan acknlowedges that difficulty will be met when trying to agree upon a single definition for the word "food". He also makes sure to include a qualifier when mentioning his own definitions of the word (i.e. 'arguably').
Once again, informative definitons have imposed reform. They seem to be overtaking politics. From fundamentals to food, we're on our way to rewriting the Oxford Dictionary!
(Samantha Maliha)
In a part of the article, Pollan begins to suggest several steps the government may take in order to nurture to make local foods affordable for consumers. The following passage is directly taken from the article:
"Create a Federal Definition of 'Food.' It makes no sense for the government food-assistance dollars, intended to improve the nutritional health of at-risk Americans, to support the consumption of products we know to be unhealthful. Yes, some people will object that for the government to specify what food stamps can and cannot buy smacks of paternalism. Yet we already prohibit the purchase of tobacco and alcohol with food stamps. So why not prohibit something like soda, which is arguably less nutritious than red wine? Because it is, nominally, a food, albeit a 'junk food' -- and instead make clear that such products are not in fact food of any kind. Defining what constitutes real food worthy of federal support will no doubt be controversial (you'll recall President Reagan's ketchup imbroglio), but defining food upward may be more politcally palatable than defining it down, as Reagan sought to do. One approach would be to rule that, in order to be regarded as a food by the government, an edible substance must contain a certain minimum ratio of micronutrients per calorie of energy. At a stroke, such a definiton would improve the quality of school lunch and discourage sales of unhealthful products, since typically only "food" is exempt from local sales tax." (Pollan 11)
Pollan acknlowedges that difficulty will be met when trying to agree upon a single definition for the word "food". He also makes sure to include a qualifier when mentioning his own definitions of the word (i.e. 'arguably').
Once again, informative definitons have imposed reform. They seem to be overtaking politics. From fundamentals to food, we're on our way to rewriting the Oxford Dictionary!
(Samantha Maliha)
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Polygraphs and Language
A polygraph machine, or a lie detector, is the instrument used to sense irregular body activities during a lie detection test.
I am quite unsure how this topic came to mind, yet somehow, it made its way into my thoughts. Does certain language affect the result of a polygraph test? Are certain linguistic tools used in order to acquire desired answers that are not necessarily true? We know that certain words have a wide range of connotations. This could possibly affect one's emotions and, in turn, cause odd physical activity. The fact of the matter is that even the innocent are capable of failing the test. Is it a farce? If so, it should be extinguished as soon as possible.
There are three types of questions asked throughout the duration of the polygraph test:
1.) Irrelevant
I am quite unsure how this topic came to mind, yet somehow, it made its way into my thoughts. Does certain language affect the result of a polygraph test? Are certain linguistic tools used in order to acquire desired answers that are not necessarily true? We know that certain words have a wide range of connotations. This could possibly affect one's emotions and, in turn, cause odd physical activity. The fact of the matter is that even the innocent are capable of failing the test. Is it a farce? If so, it should be extinguished as soon as possible.
There are three types of questions asked throughout the duration of the polygraph test:
1.) Irrelevant
- These questions have obvious answers. [ How old are you? ]
2.) Relevant
- These questions portray what kind of information is wanted. [ Did you steal the car? ]
- These questions produce reactions that are then compared to your reactions from the relevant questions. They usually apply to all subjects. [ Have you ever gone to school? ]
Those who take the test are advised to give short answeres. A mere yes or no will suffice. Explained answers, as we well know from Hayakawa, will be dissected and analyzed. In this case, language is a tool of separation rather than a tool of "togetherness". Where is the cooperation in a polygraph test? If society depended upon "yes" or "no" answers, how could we learn to live mutually?
Isn't language supposed to provide a way to progress and a way to acquire a better understanding of the world's phenomena? Just a curious thought..
(Samantha Maliha)
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Morality
Although many of us consider the stoning morally wrong, from the villagers' viewpoint it was morally acceptable. After all, they were merely sacrificing the needs of the individual for the common good of all. Don't we do that many times ourselves? After all, wasn't that the idea of republicanism from the American Revolution? (Citizens make necessary sacrifices of personal rights in the formation of a government for the good of society.) We agree that we have to lock up criminals for the good of society and sacrifice their freedom (that's morally acceptable), but we shudder at the thought of stoning others. But from the villagers' viewpoint, it was morally correct to participate in the ritual (Tessie is even told to be a "good sport" at one point and continue on with the tradition).
That brings up the question: Is there any intuitive sense of right and wrong? Are any morals universal, or are they all subject to conventions of society? As a recent Newsweek article put it: Is morality natural?
We did discuss in class that society often decides where to draw the line on our ego/id/superego iceberg, but surely we have some say?
We did discuss in class that society often decides where to draw the line on our ego/id/superego iceberg, but surely we have some say?
Would you drive your boat faster to save the lives of six people if one person would fall off in the process and drown?
Would you suffocate a bawling baby to stop soldiers from finding you and killing you, the baby, and anyone else hiding with you?
Interesting enough, studies have shown that people reply with a strong yes to the first, and a very tentative, hesitant yes to the second. If you time to spare, you can go onto the Moral Sense Test from Harvard (http://wjh1.wjh.harvard.edu/~moral/nm1/test/test.html) and see how your morals compare to those of others.
Or perhaps morals are all personal and are embedded into our intensional maps: morally, we cannot judge anyone, not even Jackson's stone-crazy villagers.
(Eric Wei)
Metaphorically Speaking...
As we were discussing "The Lottery" today in class, I started formulating some ideas of my own in regards to its deeper meaning...
What if "The Lottery" is a metaphor for our society? No, we don't stone people and we aren't willing to sacrifice our friends for this fall's crop... or are we??? The story begins with a description of a perfectly wonderful summer day-- the sky is clear and sunny, it's warm out, the flowers are blooming, the grass is green, etc. Yeah, it looks great... but once we reach the end of the story we discover that there is something terribly wrong in this society, and they don't even realize it, and the only person who does realize that something is wrong (Mrs. Hutchinson) is not in a position to assert her opinion and expect others to listen.
Now, I realize that it might be a little bit difficult to see the comparisons I am about to make, but please bear with me. Look at our society, think about the American Dream. Sounds great, doesn't it? What sacrifices do we make to reach our goal of the "American Dream?" If we want success, if we want wealth, money doesn't grow on trees, does it? Look at our economic crisis, look at the debt... Americans have dug themselves a deep hole that will be difficult to get out of-- all for what? The "American way of life"-- symbols of wealth: big houses, nice cars, etc. (after all, they are only symbols of wealth if we are indebting ourselves to get them). We didn't realize that something was wrong until it was too late to be undone... does that sound like anyone? (i.e. Mrs. Hutchinson?)
But, the sacrifice of indebtedness is little compared to the larger sacrifice that we make as a society but rarely notice. In our quest for success, a good job, etc., how much time do we spend with our parents? Our friends? Our community as a whole? Sometimes we don't even realize how much difficulty we have making time for people. After all, what would our success be worth if we couldn't share it? I know we've all heard variations of that before, but, really, think about it. Are we sacrificing our relationships in order to achieve success, like the town sacrificed one person each year in hopes of a successful crop? Society is individualized for the most part-- we work most of the day, most of the week, most of the year, we become successful, and with whatever time is leftover maybe we'll spend time with friends or family. Are our priorities mixed up?
As I mentioned above, the American Dream looks great, doesn't it? The town in "The Lottery" looked great, too. There was a real problem, though, in the town. They sacrificed a friend, a coworker, someone that they knew and loved, in hopes of a successful crop. Are we, too, sacrificing our relationships in hopes of success?
I realize that I may be sounding a bit too extreme-- I know we don't all live under rocks and we aren't all anti-social...but I'm just trying to make a point.
Emily Thompson
What if "The Lottery" is a metaphor for our society? No, we don't stone people and we aren't willing to sacrifice our friends for this fall's crop... or are we??? The story begins with a description of a perfectly wonderful summer day-- the sky is clear and sunny, it's warm out, the flowers are blooming, the grass is green, etc. Yeah, it looks great... but once we reach the end of the story we discover that there is something terribly wrong in this society, and they don't even realize it, and the only person who does realize that something is wrong (Mrs. Hutchinson) is not in a position to assert her opinion and expect others to listen.
Now, I realize that it might be a little bit difficult to see the comparisons I am about to make, but please bear with me. Look at our society, think about the American Dream. Sounds great, doesn't it? What sacrifices do we make to reach our goal of the "American Dream?" If we want success, if we want wealth, money doesn't grow on trees, does it? Look at our economic crisis, look at the debt... Americans have dug themselves a deep hole that will be difficult to get out of-- all for what? The "American way of life"-- symbols of wealth: big houses, nice cars, etc. (after all, they are only symbols of wealth if we are indebting ourselves to get them). We didn't realize that something was wrong until it was too late to be undone... does that sound like anyone? (i.e. Mrs. Hutchinson?)
But, the sacrifice of indebtedness is little compared to the larger sacrifice that we make as a society but rarely notice. In our quest for success, a good job, etc., how much time do we spend with our parents? Our friends? Our community as a whole? Sometimes we don't even realize how much difficulty we have making time for people. After all, what would our success be worth if we couldn't share it? I know we've all heard variations of that before, but, really, think about it. Are we sacrificing our relationships in order to achieve success, like the town sacrificed one person each year in hopes of a successful crop? Society is individualized for the most part-- we work most of the day, most of the week, most of the year, we become successful, and with whatever time is leftover maybe we'll spend time with friends or family. Are our priorities mixed up?
As I mentioned above, the American Dream looks great, doesn't it? The town in "The Lottery" looked great, too. There was a real problem, though, in the town. They sacrificed a friend, a coworker, someone that they knew and loved, in hopes of a successful crop. Are we, too, sacrificing our relationships in hopes of success?
I realize that I may be sounding a bit too extreme-- I know we don't all live under rocks and we aren't all anti-social...but I'm just trying to make a point.
Emily Thompson
Apathy...
I know this post isn't much for conversation, but as I was scrolling through Windows Media before settling in to do vocab, I came across the song by Relient K called "Apathetic Way to Be." So, just for fun, I thought I'd post some of the lyrics in light of the fact that "apathy" is one of our vocab words this week...
"Yeah, I'm not angry
And no, I'm not upset
It's taken me awhile
But this is what I've learned
Emotional attachment is really not a threat
When I'm simply not concerned
"The things that I take on
I soon shrug off
'cause I know no one
Will ever be content
With the way things are
Or with what they've got
So I've given up and now I'm just indifferent
"You all laugh at me
Like I'm not happy
With anything, any time, anywhere
And the half of me's all about apathy
And the other half just doesn't care
"Yeah, bein' apathetic's a pathetic way to be
(I don't care)
What matters to you does not matter to me
('cause I don't care)
"I'm well aware that everything
Is a far cry from all right
I'm well aware that all of us
Can at times, be too uptight
And possibly, the remedy
Is a dose of apathy
You point your finger at you
I'll point mine right back at me"
These are just selected verses, but it's a pretty cool song...
Emily T.
"Yeah, I'm not angry
And no, I'm not upset
It's taken me awhile
But this is what I've learned
Emotional attachment is really not a threat
When I'm simply not concerned
"The things that I take on
I soon shrug off
'cause I know no one
Will ever be content
With the way things are
Or with what they've got
So I've given up and now I'm just indifferent
"You all laugh at me
Like I'm not happy
With anything, any time, anywhere
And the half of me's all about apathy
And the other half just doesn't care
"Yeah, bein' apathetic's a pathetic way to be
(I don't care)
What matters to you does not matter to me
('cause I don't care)
"I'm well aware that everything
Is a far cry from all right
I'm well aware that all of us
Can at times, be too uptight
And possibly, the remedy
Is a dose of apathy
You point your finger at you
I'll point mine right back at me"
These are just selected verses, but it's a pretty cool song...
Emily T.
Monday, November 10, 2008
The Many Wonders of Disney World
This is slightly off-topic but I spent the break in Disney World and I couldn't help but notice that coercion and general manipulation was more widespread than almost any other place I'd ever seen. Just a few linguistic gems.
1) Everyone who works at Disney is referred to as "Cast Members", no matter their individual position. Even the maid's closet is labeled with a "Cast member's Only" sign. I found this amazing though slightly ridiculous. Are we supposed to forget that out waiter is in fact only a waiter? Is referring to him as a "cast member" supposed to make us believe that he is not a waiter but merely plays one? When does each scene end? I was simply befuddled at the term and wondered if anyone had a better explination.
2) There are buses to and from each park to the individual Disney hotels. Upon reaching each hotel the bus driver plays a recorded message that in addition to wishing everyone a magical day, says "welcome home." Again, do the guests staying in these hotels honestly feel that they are going home, rather than a hotel room? They repeat this idea of the hotel room as your home throughout Disney. In the park there are signs biding you to check out the Disney channel when you get back home, as well as a banner above check in that says welcome home. I guess I'm just wondering if an environment can be made intoxicating enough that people will believe ridiculous propoganda when it's thrown at them. Admittedly, there is certainly a charm about Disney, but does this, combined with the constant overstimulization make you more willing to accept their messages?
3) This was a small thing that began to irk me as time went on. Every "cast member" in Disney would wish you a "Disney day" upon you're departure. What does that mean?! A day where you spend $6 on a bottle of water because of price fixing? A day where you stand in lines for extended periods for a 3o second ride?
I realize I'm begining to sound like I hate Disney World, which is not true. I'm just in awe of their language usage. It seems to me that they can get away with saying whatever they want because of their reputation. Thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
1) Everyone who works at Disney is referred to as "Cast Members", no matter their individual position. Even the maid's closet is labeled with a "Cast member's Only" sign. I found this amazing though slightly ridiculous. Are we supposed to forget that out waiter is in fact only a waiter? Is referring to him as a "cast member" supposed to make us believe that he is not a waiter but merely plays one? When does each scene end? I was simply befuddled at the term and wondered if anyone had a better explination.
2) There are buses to and from each park to the individual Disney hotels. Upon reaching each hotel the bus driver plays a recorded message that in addition to wishing everyone a magical day, says "welcome home." Again, do the guests staying in these hotels honestly feel that they are going home, rather than a hotel room? They repeat this idea of the hotel room as your home throughout Disney. In the park there are signs biding you to check out the Disney channel when you get back home, as well as a banner above check in that says welcome home. I guess I'm just wondering if an environment can be made intoxicating enough that people will believe ridiculous propoganda when it's thrown at them. Admittedly, there is certainly a charm about Disney, but does this, combined with the constant overstimulization make you more willing to accept their messages?
3) This was a small thing that began to irk me as time went on. Every "cast member" in Disney would wish you a "Disney day" upon you're departure. What does that mean?! A day where you spend $6 on a bottle of water because of price fixing? A day where you stand in lines for extended periods for a 3o second ride?
I realize I'm begining to sound like I hate Disney World, which is not true. I'm just in awe of their language usage. It seems to me that they can get away with saying whatever they want because of their reputation. Thoughts?
(Molly Dunbar)
The Effect of Songs
Eric's post just reminded me of something I've been meaning to bring up in the blog. I know this might be a bit late, so I apologize.
In my semantics book 'The Way We Think Now' by Geoffrey Nunberg, one of the topics brought up was how some songs stick around while others die out, specifically in country music. Nunberg theorizes that the life of a song depends on the wordplay contained in its lyrics. People like the metaphors, the puns, the images created by the words.
My question: Does this still apply today? What about other types of music? Do a lot of songs survive because of the meaning of their lyrics or the way they are written?
Mary Quien
In my semantics book 'The Way We Think Now' by Geoffrey Nunberg, one of the topics brought up was how some songs stick around while others die out, specifically in country music. Nunberg theorizes that the life of a song depends on the wordplay contained in its lyrics. People like the metaphors, the puns, the images created by the words.
My question: Does this still apply today? What about other types of music? Do a lot of songs survive because of the meaning of their lyrics or the way they are written?
Mary Quien
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Communication
As Taylor wrote about in his previous post from last month, language does have its limitations. That led me to this train of thought: Is language truly the most powerful and most effective method of communication? I'm sure we agree that language is the most versatile, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is the most powerful...
To put this in perspective: Imagine that a group of aliens comes down and visits Earth. We want to explain Earth's culture and history to them, but they do not understand us. Do we:
1) hand them pages and pages of meaningless written symbols for them to decipher or try to talk in gibberish noises to them (the use of "language")
2) show them our masterpieces of art
3) play them music
4) show them our mathematical achievements and equations
In this case, art, music, and math might actually serve as better methods of communication than language would. Isn't a picture worth a thousand words? And sometimes music can express our feelings better than words ever can. Perhaps math is even more universal than language, given a few basic assumptions, such as 1 + 1 = 2.
Art History class and Newsweek magazine have provided me with two interesting quotes, with the first elevating art over language and the second describing music's advantages over other medium.
From Ernest Boyer, President of the Carnegie Foundation:
"But even with the beauty and power of the written and spoken word, our miraculous use of language was was incomplete. For the most intimate, most profoundly moving universal experiences, we needed a more subtle, a more sensitive set of symbols than the written and spoken word. And this richer language we call the arts. And so it is that men and women have used...the visual arts to transmit most effectively the heritage of a people, and to express most profoundly their deepest human joys and sorrows and intuitions, too."
From Daniel Levitin, the author of "The World in Six Songs"
"What music is better able to do than language is to represent the complexity of human emotional states."
So, what is the most effective method of communication, especially for transmitting human emotions and feelings? Words do have their limits, and yet society has been founded upon the literary pooling of knowledge.
Interestingly enough, the Voyager spacecraft carries a golden disk with it that is supposed to enlighten aliens upon Earth's culture. It includes art, music, math, and language.
Here's a Wikipedia link about it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record
Comments? (We'd better be ready when those aliens come...)
(Eric Wei)
Monday, November 3, 2008
Rushkoff or Hayakawa? Take your pick!
Douglas Rushkoff's Coercion was not based on the laws of semantics. Rather, Hayakawa's ideas were vaguely referenced in terms of the media and pop culture.
Rushkoff alluded to presymbolic and ritualistic utterances, directive language, cooperation in a society achieved by language, the map and territory analogy, intensional/extensional worlds, and levels of abstraction.
"...the answers were already built-in, but they gave you the illusion of interactivity. Like the responsive readings in a church service, they made you feel like you were actively participating in a deductive process..." (Rushkoff 14).
[Presymbolic/Ritualistic]
"As Miller put it, 'Do not ask any question that will lead to a yes or no answer, like 'Would you like to take a test drive?' Just ask him, 'Which one would you like to take for a drive?' His Language presupposes your actions" (Rushkoff 42).
[Directive]
"The CIA manual suggests appearing genuinely concerned about the subject's feelings, developing a mutual set of goals, or defining a common enemy as a means to developing the illusion of friendship. The opening is about listening, assessing, acknowledging, and befriending" (Rushkoff 34).
"The objective of this stage is to secure 'ongoing cooperation' by convincing the subject that he has not been duped" (Rushkoff 39).
[Cooperation in Society]
"In the same way that the CIA interrogator assesses his subject's 'psychologic-emotional and geographic-cultural typographies,' the car dealer fathers information during the 'preappraoch' in a process called 'blueprinting'" (Rushkoff 41).
[Map Analogy, Intentional/Extensional Worlds]
"The less specific the details, the more iconic and universal the reference" (Rushkoff 112).
[Abstraction]
These quotes present ideas that were introduced to us this summer by S.I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. As is evident, Rushkoff related these concepts to his own field of study, though less directly.
What struck me as controversial, however, was Rushkoff's claim that the icon, or symbol, is the thing symbolized.
"The product is its icon, inseparably and without exception" (Rushkoff 186).
Does this not contradict one of the main principals we learned from Hayakawa's lessons? How can two well-respected researchers publish view points on the opposite ends of the spectrum?
I'd like to hear how Rushkoff's points relate to the books each of you read. :)
(Samantha Maliha)
Rushkoff alluded to presymbolic and ritualistic utterances, directive language, cooperation in a society achieved by language, the map and territory analogy, intensional/extensional worlds, and levels of abstraction.
"...the answers were already built-in, but they gave you the illusion of interactivity. Like the responsive readings in a church service, they made you feel like you were actively participating in a deductive process..." (Rushkoff 14).
[Presymbolic/Ritualistic]
"As Miller put it, 'Do not ask any question that will lead to a yes or no answer, like 'Would you like to take a test drive?' Just ask him, 'Which one would you like to take for a drive?' His Language presupposes your actions" (Rushkoff 42).
[Directive]
"The CIA manual suggests appearing genuinely concerned about the subject's feelings, developing a mutual set of goals, or defining a common enemy as a means to developing the illusion of friendship. The opening is about listening, assessing, acknowledging, and befriending" (Rushkoff 34).
"The objective of this stage is to secure 'ongoing cooperation' by convincing the subject that he has not been duped" (Rushkoff 39).
[Cooperation in Society]
"In the same way that the CIA interrogator assesses his subject's 'psychologic-emotional and geographic-cultural typographies,' the car dealer fathers information during the 'preappraoch' in a process called 'blueprinting'" (Rushkoff 41).
[Map Analogy, Intentional/Extensional Worlds]
"The less specific the details, the more iconic and universal the reference" (Rushkoff 112).
[Abstraction]
These quotes present ideas that were introduced to us this summer by S.I. Hayakawa and Alan R. Hayakawa's Language in Thought and Action. As is evident, Rushkoff related these concepts to his own field of study, though less directly.
What struck me as controversial, however, was Rushkoff's claim that the icon, or symbol, is the thing symbolized.
"The product is its icon, inseparably and without exception" (Rushkoff 186).
Does this not contradict one of the main principals we learned from Hayakawa's lessons? How can two well-respected researchers publish view points on the opposite ends of the spectrum?
I'd like to hear how Rushkoff's points relate to the books each of you read. :)
(Samantha Maliha)
Sunday, November 2, 2008
Framing
In my book, Thinking Points: A Progressive's Handbooks, George Lakoff came up with an interesting connection between cognitive psychology and politics: the use of "framing" in politics to manipulate feeling and emotions.
"Frames" are the "mental structures that allow human beings to understand reality" (Lakoff 25). Essentially, they are our subconscious assumptions and perceptions of reality, and function in the same way as Hayakawa's intensional map. Frames lock us into viewing something a particular way and restrict us: to step out of a mental frame is similar to "thinking outside of the box", a difficult task.
Lakoff states that there are basically two types of frames: surface frames and deep frames. Surface frames are easily manipulated by language and refer to the temporary feelings and images that a word evokes, so they are similar to intensional connotations. Lakoff gives an example of surface frames with the word "accuse". The word "accuse" immediately causes a surface "accusation" frame to come up and influence our view: We begin to look for an accuser, and accused, and an offense. We begin to look for someone to blame or indict. Hayakawa would say that the judgments implanted in words are what cause surface frames to spring up.
The other type of frame is a deep frame, which refers to our moral worldview and political philosophy. Liberals and conservatives have inherently different deep frames. Although surface frames can be activated by using loaded (snarl/purr) words, deep frames can only be indirectly reached through the use of surface frames.
According to Lakoff, an understanding of political framing shows why the "war on terror" is impossible to win. The surface frame associated with the word "war" influences us to look for an army, a fight, an enemy to conquer and kill, and the surrender of the enemy. Already, we're viewing the world through a particular lens or frame. When "terror" is added onto "war," the opposing army becomes "terror." But because "terror" is not a tangible enemy but only a state of mind, it cannot be conquered on the battlefield. However, the deep frames aroused by the "war on terror" push us to continue the fight and "win," because losing a war is unacceptable. Because conservatives have framed the occupation in Iraq as the "war on terror", we have an instinctive desire to "win the war" and "fight the good fight." This whole "war" frame of mind then leads to criticisms like "cut and run", because in "war" you should stay and fight.
Lakoff asks what would have happened if we had framed the terrorist acts not as a "war on terror" but as an international police problem: We would go to the International Criminal Court to indict bin Laden, and then use diplomacy to create an international coalition to hunt bin Laden down and try him for crimes against humanity. This approach is completely different from the "war" frame.
Anyway, as much fun as frames are, I felt that there was a question that Lakoff never explicitly answered in the book: How do we reframe issues? To give you an example that we all know, conservatives have reframed "global warming" as "climate change." But how did they do it? How do you step outside of the frame and then change the perspective? It wasn't as simple as repeating "climate change" over and over again...or was it?
I apologize for the lengthy post, but it's helping to clarify my thoughts for my book review...
Any comments?
(Eric Wei)
(Eric Wei)
Saturday, November 1, 2008
Scale of truth
(Continuing from previous discussions) I don't want to say we are all Gods in our own little ways because of the simple fact that we cannot perform any miracles...or can we?
If you think I created five million bowls of soup from one drop of chicken noodle, and I say so, did it just become a fact? Can that be called an absolute statement? I mean, if you believe it and I believe it, and if I make everyone else believe it, wouldn't that become a truth? After all, based on what we have talked about so far, everyone has different truths. So why can't we make them all believe the same thing?
Is making something absolute solely dependent on common belief of all?
Also, is it not possible for actions to be absolute? If I touch something, and say "I
touched it" how can that not be an absolute? If someone says I didn't, why would we bother with the truth of a lier? I guess what I'm trying to say is does every truth worth the same and do we have to take all the truths into account when we are determining the absolute.
Sorry if you don't understand what I'm talking about.
(Jennifer Park)
If you think I created five million bowls of soup from one drop of chicken noodle, and I say so, did it just become a fact? Can that be called an absolute statement? I mean, if you believe it and I believe it, and if I make everyone else believe it, wouldn't that become a truth? After all, based on what we have talked about so far, everyone has different truths. So why can't we make them all believe the same thing?
Is making something absolute solely dependent on common belief of all?
Also, is it not possible for actions to be absolute? If I touch something, and say "I
touched it" how can that not be an absolute? If someone says I didn't, why would we bother with the truth of a lier? I guess what I'm trying to say is does every truth worth the same and do we have to take all the truths into account when we are determining the absolute.
Sorry if you don't understand what I'm talking about.
(Jennifer Park)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)