Blogs

There's an interesting piece in the Times "Week in Review" section today, called The Death of the Cyberflaneur. It locates the evolution of the internet--from its earlier days, as a place of wandering exploration, to its current structure, which is highly deterministic and commercially driven--in the longer history of the "flaneur," the 19th century wanderer who "did not have anything too definite in mind," as he strolled the streets of Paris, observing, sometimes narrating, the rich sensory experience he perceived there.

The key challenge here--to the celebration of collaboration that we've lately been engaged in--is "this idea that the individual experience is somehow inferior to the collective"; it's an interesting take on "the tyranny of the social" that I think we might explore more fully together….

This week there was a strong presence of Marxist thought in both the Education and French literature courses. In last weeks conversation in French we discussed written language as the embodiment, the production and the perpetuation of colonial tools and epistemology for language communication—where the idea of a ‘written’ documented language is one brought by colonizers. In the same way that written language is discussed in post-colonial literature as the very essence of its contradictions, Marxism can be thought of similarly in the context of its presence in the Global South. What was essentially a western ideology permeated deeply into Global South nations and had/has a profound effect on much of the literature we are reading in our 360 course. In Cultural Action for Freedom the quote that stood out to me was, “His alienated culture prevents him from understanding that his thinking and world-expression cannot find acceptance beyond his frontiers unless he is faithful to his particular world.” It is interesting how Paolo Friere uses the ideas of alienation, false consciousness, power and class to discuss access to education and how to educate those we are marginalized and illiterate yet writes in an academic elite jargon that is only comprehensible to an esoteric population.  His writing reminded me greatly of The Power Elite by sociologist C. Wright Mills--the idea of forces larger than the individual controlling knowledge and access to the creation and attainment of truth.

In the summer of 2011, one of the world’s biggest comic distributors, DC, announced that it would be re-launching many of its most popular titles with new storylines and re-imagined characters.  Superhero fans of all genders rejoiced until they saw the new titles and realized that many of DC’s female characters had been rendered flatter, more sexually appealing, and less dynamic than ever before.  Female fans the world over began to press, at comic conventions and on the internet, for answers from DC as to why they had decided to leave 50% of the world’s population behind as they modernized their books.  They were met with a variety of responses, many of which added up to a simple “We write for men.”  Though this sentiment is nothing new, and female comic characters have always been rendered to suit the male gaze, it is problematic when taken in the context of a purported modernization and exceptionally problematic when one considers the extreme leaps in sexualization that many of DC’s female characters have endured in the context of the recent reboot.  

After weeks of class and many interactions with media and technology, I now feel like I am in a position where I can  really assess how technology is affecting (good and bad) my life.

Just from this class alone, my tech and computer  literacy has sped up faster than I expected. Not only can I type super fast, navigate the world of touch screen, and balance multiple social/interactive websites, I can also think in very short, twitter-like sentences (I am not so sure that is a good thing). However, I am struggling in the sense that I do not know how to (or can't at all) balance between my "worlds," as lugones would say, in school, personal, and social/online life. In some ways it is uncomfortable to have the three merged because there is no sense of identity. Part of having an identity is knowing that there are distinct "sections" of myself and I feel like they have all become one, muddled pile. Is it at all possible to make clear distinctions between identities once tech and social media is involved? Do we have control over these distinctions now that sites, like Facebook, can be left to the viewer's interpretation?

Thinking back again to the chapter on Childhood and Postcolonization, I can’t help, but think how waste is also an example of how colonization still exists in our society. When the United Sates does not know what to do with all of their “stuff,” they just send it off to the Third World as a free gift. Not only is this unsustainable, but it is also perpetuating the power dynamic between the United States and other continents such as Asian and Africa. It is also ironic that the cycle is actually a cycle. Clothing, electronics, products are made by sweatshop workers or modern day slaves in factories in China or by children in the Democratic Republic of Congo. These products are then sent to the United States and Europe where marketers manipulate consumers into buying useless products that they will eventually dispose of in exchange for more useless goods. The products they are “useless” are then taken to thrift stores and second hand stores, which only end up selling one fifth of that back into the economy and society. Finally the cycle goes full circle as the United States then ships all of this clothing and electronics to the countries that made the products in the first place. At some point, even these countries do not even need the products since there are so many excess products.

    The feeling of reading Three Guineas seems a little bit awkward for me. Virginia Woolf asked many questions and answered them herself in the book, trying to make her writing more conversational and interactive. However I had a feeling of being excluded by the conversation. As a white woman from higher class, Virginia Woolf sent her invitations to the “outsiders”, yet I feel the ‘outside’ she defined is still the “inside” for most of us who read the book. With priorities of the rich, she could say that poverty,
chastity,
derision,
and freedom from unreal loyalties are “four great teachers of the daughters of educated men”. However, does she really understand what the “outsiders” need and want?

When we were talking about how Persepolis excludes many women, and only tells the story of one woman, I kept coming back to the idea that exclusion is necessary.  Although feminism seeks to give voice to those who have been underheard, I don't think that works of literature can, or should try to show every side of the story or have every voice heard.  Of course, it would be great if everyone's story were told through some medium, but individual works shouldn't have to do any more than tell one story.  It's up to the reader to think about the other characters, such as the extremists in Iran, who we are not hearing from.  I don't think that excluding an opinion makes something un-feminist.  So many choices have to be made in the process of creating a story or work of art, that it seems ridiculous to say that feminism means hearing from the unheard, and therefore a text or peice is not feminist if it only gives one side to a story.  A feminist person should try to hear all opinions, but it's too much to hold up each text and ask if it represents all sides of a story, although it is important to keep in mind who we are actually hearing from and not hearing from.  

    With academic writing morphing into a genre on the web, we mostly read assigned texts from our computer. I decided to use reading the course assignments online as part of an experiment to test my ability to concentrate. Turns out I prefer to read the course material from a piece of paper instead of a computer screen because I grasp the material quicker and gain a better understanding. As previously mentioned in class, reading from our computers often leads to going in and out of multiple websites which means we are not able to give our assigned readings the undivided attention they deserve. I ask myself: Are we program to give text on a piece of paper more authority, esteem and attention? If so, we must acknowledge that the online publication of academic writing is gaining appraisal from the scholarly community and that we must modify how we perceive reading in this medium.  

     It is all a matter of time for me (as the writer), for you (whoever is reading this right now), for us (as a class)…

Feminism in Korea

            Though the United States is not a perfect country, the nationalism that’s been engraved in our history and in our citizens has flourished into the type of thinking that leads most North Americans to think that America is a place where people from everywhere are represented and have the freedom to speak out for or against whatever they choose speak out about. Ideas of Feminism are only relevant in a place as “open” and “accepting” as America. America: the country that gives voices to those who cannot speak. So, when the word Feminism is spoken, places like Korea and Iran aren’t what come to mind. Along with the war history between America and both these countries, Americans would normally not be able to relate Korean politics and Iranian politics to our own because of the differences we’ve associated between America and the rest of the world. America is different. Women here are able to be feminist. What is Korean feminism any way? Does that even happen there? And what about Iran? Certainly not, women aren’t allowed to go outside without head scarf on in Iran; they probably don’t even know what Feminism is. In our shallow American pride, we do not see outside of our nationalist bubble, but Korea’s history along with stories like Marjane Satrapi’s graphic autobiography “Persepolis” show that Feminism isn’t just a western idea.