Skip to main content

2/2 Reflection

 1. At the risk of oversimplifying, one question that kept popping into my head: can ideology ever be good? Does reaching an "ideological status" necessarily mean we need to go back to the drawing board? Are we all doomed to "reify a narrow concept of culture and construct [our] own selective tradition of the best that has been thought and said (Sparks, p. 71)? Is it possible for society to exist without the process of constant theorizing (Hall, p. 44/45). Or will the need to go "beyond...in order to understand contemporary culture" always be a must (Sparks, 78)? In other words, will we ever get to rest??

2. In a similar vein, can texts - even if read differently/in opposition to - ever exist outside of ideology? I suppose I know the answer is no, and a new order would have a historical link to current power systems, but for some reason this feels sticky to me. Maybe I'm just overthinking this one. 


** I think my second question relates to Butler's "historicity of force." What Mao and Young say is "commenting on the conditions or limits of developing new and affirmative set of meanings of the word "queer," Butler points out that discourse...'has a history that not only precedes but conditions its contemporary usages, and that this history effectively decenters the presentist view of the subject as the exclusive origin or owner of what is said' (1993, 227). Therefore any recuperative efforts...may be constrained and compromised because of discourse's power to decenter or implicate the user" (2008, 2).


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Addressing the Crisis: Your Collective Digital Stories

https://www.wevideo.com/view/2668669034    https://www.wevideo.com/view/2665696438  https://vimeo.com/695272441  https://www.youtube.com/embed/BN2wDbBLMWo https://drive.google.com/file/d/1pggTZblBzhQ5Nd6d8MU7jg28kBV0WixT https://www.wevideo.com/view/2648072657  https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tUBup-RbbiCCl9-pWoOCvs2JFbUJYvhC/ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Eed6_fpya8WOfEb0Hjhd4jySuMgi8fI0/
Post a Comment
Read more

On Journals and Prose

My two questions from this week have emerged from the Judith Butler piece, A 'Bad Writer' Bites Back , both centered around the journal, Philosophy and Literature —which Butler describes as the self-proclaimed “arbiter of good prose.”  I agree with Butler’s staunch defense of questioning common sense and provoking “new ways of looking at a familiar world”, and was reminded of David Harvey’s quote in the introduction to his Companion to Marx’s Capital : “Real learning always entails a struggle to understand the unknown.”   Butler describes Philosophy and Literature as a “culturally conservative academic journal” which naturally led me down a longer-than-anticipated visit to the journal's website . I was greeted with a video presented by the Philosophy and Literature’s editor Garry L. Hagberg, who rails against the “jargon infested” work that litters the journal’s field, locating Philosophy and Literature in clear opposition to such bothersome clutter.  However, Hagberg...
Post a Comment
Read more