Orientalism

Orientalism is the changing of one (the oriental) unknown and mirroring him/her in terms of what looks similar to us, “a manner of regularized (or Orientalized) writing, vision, and study, dominated by imperatives, perspectives, and ideological biases ostensibly suited to the Orient." It is the image of the 'Orient' expressed as an entire system of thought and scholarship,” this according to Danielle Sereed, when discussing Edward Said’s Orientalism. Therefore, we get the Americanized version of foreign continents and therefore are lead to misread people. A perfect example of this can be seen in the Muslims. After 9/11, Islam was seen as a place of “fanaticism, fatalism and polygamy” according to Roger Du Pasquier, in his article, Orientalism, Misinformation and Islam,” in this article it states that since 9/11 people have looked to villainies the Muslim people by making them out to be these monsters with no values. All the while overlooking the true values they’ve always held true. “One symptom of this ignorance is the fact that in the imagination of most Europeans, Allah refers to the divinity of the Muslims, not the God of the Christians and Jews; they are all surprised to hear, when one takes the trouble to explain things to them, that 'Allah' means 'God', and that even Arab Christians know him by no other name,” This passage referring to the way Americans view the Christian ways of the Muslims. Seeing their prayer as sort of a lost religion because they don’t have a god, this is simply not true. That is just the view of a few who allow themselves to get caught in the mystification and “simplifying” of something unknown. Using orientalism (if you will) to try and solve a math problem that can’t be solved so easily. Orientalism is used not only in a demeaning sense, but a lazy sense, as instead of getting better acquainted with something different, the different is simply transformed to resemble the more familiar, “constructed by and in relation to the West.”

Works Cited

“Pasquier, Roger Du.” Orientalism, Misinformation and Islam. Web. 17 May 2010.

“Sered, Danielle.” Orientalism. 1996. Web. 17 May 2010.

The History of Sexuality

It was interesting to see the comparison of the way sex was treated and used to be seen. To what it is now. Before people tried to put purpose behind sex, limiting it to married couples for reason of reproduction early. To ensure this, people (probably women) would be chastised if they comply with their marital duty, as this was seen as being just as bad as giving into carnal temptation. Nowadays, sex is still a hot topic; people are still being chastised for such things as infidelity. But now people have more freedom with what they do and reproduction is not at the top of most people’s list. As even Foucault knew that, “It was time for all these figures, scarcely noticed in the past, to step forward and speak, to make the difficult confession of what they were. No doubt they were condemned all the same, but they were listened to,” (893). And speak they did and condemned they were, these confessions led to the sexual revolutions o the past and have lead to the open door we leave sex to frolic in. Now, no longer is sex (seen as something non-sexual) but is seen as something liberating and something that is naturally fun. Sex has now come out of its trap and alive and everywhere, as stated by Ludwin Molina in the article “Human Sexuality,” “Next to sleeping and eating, it seems that it is one of the most important drives we have to deal with as humans. That is, it takes up so much of our time in thought and behavior that it sometimes seems that every facet of our life revolves around this to a certain extent.”Here we see that sexuality has broken down those uncomfortable walls built up and is now something that is producing life in a whole different way.

Works Cited

Foucalt, Michel. “The History of Sexuality.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. Victoria, Aus.: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. 892-899. Print.

“Molina, Ludwin.” Human Sexuality. 1999.Web. 17 May 2010.

Works cited

Marx, Karl. “The German Ideology.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Victoria, Aus. Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print. 651-658

Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. “Introduction: Starting with Zero.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Victoria, Aus. Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print. 643-646

“Lin, Joseph.” Top 10 College Dropouts. 2010. Web. 10 May 2010


Sealey, Geraldine. “Is 'Hillbilly' Humor Offensive?: Critics Say Humor About Rural, Working-Class Whites Crosses Line” 2009. Web. 29 Oct. 2009
< http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=90179&page=1>

Monster-in-Law. Screenplay by Anya Kochoff. Dir. Robert Luketic. DVD. New Line Home Entertainment, 2005. DVD.

Santee, Robert T. and VanDerPol, T.L. “Actor's Status and Conformity to Norms: A Study of Students' Evaluations of Instructors.” The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 17, No. 3 (Summer, 1976), pp. 378-388 Published by: Blackwell Publishing on behalf of the Midwest Sociological Society (WEBCT) 17 May 2010

Monster-in-Law: A Ruling Class Looking Down

“The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force,” this quote is taken out of The German Ideology, by Karl Marx. By this quote Marx argues that in the class struggle between the aristocrats at the top of the social ladder and those at the bottom trying to reach for some form of that top ladder there is an imbalance of ideas as to what is correct for the whole, as the lower class is subject to be fed the ideas of the ruling class. Because of the fact that the ruling class does have the means of production, it is automatically assumed that they have all the original ideas and know what is best for everyone around them. Therefore, continuing to separate the line of class division by preventing any of the lower classes to speak opinion, thought, or any sort of ideas ultimately keeping them the lower class. This type of division has been seen for centuries, from Shakespeare to slavery and even in today’s world (as the ruling class’ view of the lower class is sprinkled into everything we pay close attention to); class division is no stranger to everyday life.

This point of view for example can be seen very clearly on film (as everyone watches movies intently, therefore listening to their ultimate message). The film I choose to focus on is Monster-in-Law, starring Jennifer Lopez and Jane Fonda. A film in which a mother (a successful media journalist, Viola), meets her potential daughter-in-law (a temp, Charlotte). And automatically tries to get her out of the picture as Viola sees Charlotte as being not good enough for her doctor son (Kevin), ultimately meaning not good enough for her family. And at first sight Charlie (short for Charlotte) sees this ideal in Viola’s surroundings and quickly conforms to this ideal thought. And now we see in this film, and through the art of humor, first impression, and the lower class conformity of the ruling class’ dominance. That the Marxist ideal of the ruling class being better than the lower class is not only still alive in the thoughts of the upper class but also with the conformity found on film, is still alive in the thoughts of the lower class as well.

In Monster-in-Law we meet Viola who has just been fired from her talk show. She immediately goes home for comfort (after leaving rehab due to a nervous breakdown), but soon her comfort is turned into unwanted stress as she meets her potential daughter-in-law, Charlie, who is of the lower class compared to her doctor boyfriend. Viola’s first impression of Charlie is that of a gold digger, someone who was able (through some sort of “persuasion”) to land herself a successful man of the upper crust (obviously not proper in the world of the ruling class). This first impression begins to define the lower class in a sense as it now proves how the lower class depend on the upper ruling class for survival because as Marx states himself, “The individuals composing the ruling class possess among other things consciousness, and therefore think.” (Marx, p. 656) Meaning that the ruling class has what it takes to survive and prosper in the real world and that the lower class does not, therefore they work and wait for some ideal to fall down from the sky for them, while they just dream of the aristocratic life. This idea of the thinkers was actually highlighted in a 2010 article found in TIME Magazine, focusing on the top ten college dropouts, entitled (appropriately), Top 10 College Dropouts, by Joseph Lin. One of the men that dropped out of school was Steve Jobs who dropped out of Reed College but would soon, “go on to eventually found Apple, NeXT Computer and Pixar, becoming an instrumental force in shaping the landscape of modern culture.” And become one of the richest men in the country. Proving that in order for one to make in life, one has to be a thinker and make a way for himself, not relying on anyone but themselves to move themselves up. This first impression of Charlie goes as far as leading Viola to believe that Charlie has become pregnant with Kevin’s child and in this laying the reason for their engagement. Here we see the first sign of a struggle (although only in the mind); of someone trying so hard to attain something that is not hers (and according to Viola, never will be). And in this meeting of two classes we also see a new view, an unstable view of two classes, proving that, “Moreover, all class-divided societies project into culture the instabilities on which they are built,” as according Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan in the article Introduction: Starting with Zero.

This leads to Viola plotting now how to rid herself of this nuisance that has come into her life (making her life even more unstable), which forces her to point out the fact that Charlie does not fit into this world. This now brings us into the humor and conformity of the film. First, Viola runs a background check on Charlie that proves to be clean of any sketchy past she may have had. Next, she throws a party in which she invites all of the people Kevin grew up with (which just happens to be some of the world’s most prominent people). This accomplishes the first task in Viola’s plan to make Charlie feel out of place, not knowing the first impression Charlie had of Viola. Charlie’s first impression of Viola was that of a women who had done so much more than she could ever imagine. Here is the first sign we see Charlie’s conformity to the ideal that Viola is better than her and has a right to be simply because she knows these people and therefore she is worldlier, has better knowledge on world issues (smarter than her), and is more up to speed with everything around her. This can be heard in Charlie’s reactions to the photos she sees when entering Viola’s house, “Shut up! Is that the Dalai Lama? That can’t be real!” This surprise now seeps into the American audiences and we accept Charlie’s point of view as our point of view (because after all, Viola met Oprah!). Now this conformity on film becomes reality, since now, not Charlie but Jennifer Lopez conforms to Viola’s ideal and we follow her and suddenly her conformity is our conformity and now we feel comfort in our lower stature, this similar view was argued by Rivkin and Ryan. “One function of literature (or film) is to offer those on the losing end images that assure them that their situation of relative deprivation is the natural result of fair play and fair rules, not of a systematic dispossession that is a structural feature of the society.” (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 645) Meaning that because Jennifer Lopez is not right away trying to fight this image of herself as someone unworthy of loving Kevin, but really giving in, she almost gives us permission to do so as well (i.e. give into the impressions people may have of us). Similarly as did Shakespeare in his plays for the royal court, as stated in this same article of how he created character that promoted the royals as the supreme people and made the lower class characters appear as if they deserved to be there, making, “Their speech and patterns of thought suggest less refined natures than those possessed by their “betters,” who usually happen to be aristocrats.” (Rivkin & Ryan, p. 645) And again since it is Shakespeare who says this to the people of his time, they are more willing to accept this, thus solidifying the class divisions.

Now, having failed in making Charlie feel out of place in Viola’s life, as Charlie claims her love for Kevin is stronger than anything that can be thrown at her. The film takes a turn in its discourse from conformity to slap-stick comedy. And again, here we see the lower class character made out to seem like the fool, like in the Shakespeare plays. But here the character takes a different turn as now she will stand up for herself, but even still we see that this character is subject to some harassing behavior (as Viola pretends to not be able to sleep in order to get Charlie in her bed, only to attack her while Viola “sleeps”). And here is where we truly the battle begins as Charlie at first puts up with this harassment because of the fact that she is Kevin’s mother, but soon we see her finally take her stand. This kind of harassment is discussed in the article Actor's Status and Conformity to Norms: A Study of Students' Evaluations of Instructors by, Richard T. Santee and T. L. VanDerPol. The article states how the “roles” in which we all play in life have always played in the backgrounds of our lives, and it is only when you subject yourself to not playing along in your “role” that you open yourself to the harassment of others, “The concepts of norm and role have played a significant part in the behavioral sciences by serving as background assumptions and sometimes explanations of human behavior. Labeling and evaluation are said to result from conformity to and deviation from group standards (Becker, 1963; Cohen, 1966), with scapegoating or harassment of those who do not play the role assigned by the group (Coch and French, 1948).” This harassment is again definitely seen in this film as Viola at one point even poisons Charlie by putting nuts into the gravy in which Charlie is about to consume with her mashed potatoes, knowing very well that she would have an allergic reaction to the nuts (as she does). And in this humor we see Charlie stand up for herself as she returns the harassment and gives the “ill” Viola sleeping pills instead of the vitamins she was taking. Viola finally sleeps (which allows Charlie to finally do the same). We must also though ask why this humor is allowed (and why are we making fun of ourselves) because by laughing her in her situation, we laugh at everyone in that situation. This topic was covered in an article found at ABCnews. com, the article was entitled “Is ‘Hillbilly’ Humor Offensive, and the article basically stated that this type of humor is not offensive in fact, “It's funnier if you have somebody who can relate to it who's making the joke,” stated Chris Duerr in the article. And this type of example is definitely seen here as Jennifer Lopez does find herself relatable to a wide audience. And with this we see the tables finally turn (as the lower class finally grows a backbone) and the lower finally takes all they can take and the real struggle begins. And then we find Ruby (Viola’s assistant) the next morning applauding Charlie in her ability to begin somewhat to win this struggle. As Ruby tells her, “I underestimated you, you don’t need a gun.” And in this we see other lower classes rooting on other lower classes because as Marx states in The German Ideology, “It’s victory, therefore, benefits also many individuals of the other classes which are not winning a dominant position,” (Marx p. 657).

As now the humor not only works as a punishment for trying to go outside your “role” in life, but, now also serves as a test. As now not only does the class also depend on you to win this struggle. But we also get the upper class testing your strength to see if you are in fact worthy to join the upper crust. But to focus for a moment on this lower class not winning a dominant position in life, Ruby, Viola’s assistant is just that, her assistant. She may appear as if she has some power over Viola, working a lot of the time as her voice of conscience (even though many times she does not listen to her). But in the end her social level does not move up, she remains Viola’s assistant. Because of the fact that Ruby stays in the background of the film and does tend to offer a lot of the comedic relief in this film, it could be that she is the perfect example of what ruling classes look for in a person. Ruby stands for someone who does not disobey or necessarily go against the ruling class. Even though, she does appear to have a mind of her own she never truly rebels against the ruling class. She just sits back and waits to see which idea will fall from the sky next.

Unlike Charlie, who goes against everything Viola stands for, and even though she is the producer of everything. Because if you really think about it she was the one who produced everything Kevin had, so in a way you could almost look it as if she brought him up to her social stature as well. And just like he ultimately proved himself to his mother (as he became a doctor), so must Charlie through this class struggle (Humor of film) before Viola will accept her. Because we see this “eternal law” which Marx discusses as the separation of power. And this eternal law can be seen as highlighted in two particular parts in this film, one scene in which both women stand their own grounds and Charlie tells Viola that she knows about everything that she has done and that her game is over, and Viola cackles and responds, “This isn’t over, not even close.” To which Charlie responds, “Bring it on Grandma.” The second scene in which this “eternal law” is highlighted is at the end of the film when the two face off again as the wedding day has arrived, and Charlie tells Viola one more time to fact the fact that she will marry Kevin, and Viola tells her to fact the fact that she will never be good enough for him. This altercation again ensues in slap-stick comedy, this time with literal slapping. By now the audience has slipped into their comfort zone of the inferiority introduced to them by the bourgeois of modern day. But soon see something that is less often achieved by someone of the lower social class. Charlie has won the war against Viola and has been accepted into the family. Thus, now offering a new look at the class structure of the modern and possibly even offering hope that all class structures can be abolished.

Karl Marx argues that ideals of the ruling class are the dominant ideas for all classes, since they are at the top of the social ladder, no one else’s opinion matter but theirs. And this is can definitely be seen in the film Monster-in-Law. As we see the struggle of two different social classes. One is of the ruling class (Viola) whose word is law because it is the producing force. And the other of the lower class which stays divided from the upper class in order to keep order, as can be seen as Viola’s main focus in trying to keep Charlie from marrying her son. The upper class of today tries to do the same with the world as a whole instilling this belief in the film we watch, as they instill the belief that the lower class in lower because that is where they belong, along with the upper class being where they are because that is where they belong. And because we assume that they are better than us, we automatically listen to their ideals. This ideal being instilled in the actors who we love who portray the conforming characters that we soon associate ourselves with. Ultimately proving, that the Marxist ideal of the ruling class being better than the lower class is not only still alive in the thoughts of the upper class but also with the conformity found on film, is still alive in the thoughts of the lower class as well.

Post-Modernism

According to Jean-Francois Lyotard, Post-Modernism advanced the use of knowledge in order to advance the states. Knowledge was used as a way “to produce the administrative and professional skills necessary for the stability of the state.” So in a sense Post-Modernism did not promote free thought but instead promoted the idea of free thought that was to become one unifying thought to promote legislatures. So it now becomes a contradiction in itself as “legislators will- the desire that the laws be just- will coincide with the will of the citizen, who desires the law and will therefore obey it.” (Lyotard) So now we see control in the form of knowledge, as we feel we have the proper knowledge about the things we vote about, speak out about, and feel for in terms of controversial issues. Suddenly we find “control in the chaos” as we unify in the same thought. As stated in the article “Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed” by Mary Klages, “Modernity is fundamentally about order: about rationality and rationalization, creating order out of chaos.” The article states a similar view when it comes to post-modernism, stating that in creating more stability within the people of the post-modern era, the better it functions. And this is not just seen in education and politics; this is seen in everything from music, to art, to everything in general that is entertaining. One thought means less chaos in free time, meaning better productivity in consumerism, meaning better health in the economy.

Works Cited

“Klages, Mary.” Literary Theory: A Guide for the Perplexed Web. 2007. 16 May 2010

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. “The Postmodern Condition.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. Victoria, Aus.: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. 355-364. Print.

Marxist Analysis

I find it interesting when being introduced to Marxism of how this concept is still visible in today’s society. In the reading Introduction: Starting with Zero by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan, they talk about Shakespeare writing his plays just to humor the king and queen. Because after all, “Shakespeare could not have expressed counter-monarchial ideas and still been “Shakespeare,”” meaning that he would not have been hired by the king and queen if he did not promote their point of views in his so-called form of entertainment. And good thing he did follow the rules because at the end, his plays were not only entertaining but also garnered a lot attention. This was a good thing since it helped people remember their place in life, and not in a bad way since these characters were likeable and in a sense made people satisfied with the way they lived, “the lower-class characters, though likeable and comic or the most part, seem to deserve their lower-class status.” This concept can still be seen in today’s form of entertainment, where millions will watch television about the rich and famous (in their own aristocratic), and still be content with other characters on television. The other characters as discussed in an article found on The Museum of Broadcast Communications entitled Social Class and Television by Richard Butsch states about the differences in characters, “In middle-class domestic situation comedies the male buffoon is a rarity. When a character plays the fool it is the dizzy wife, like Lucy Ricardo in I Love Lucy. In most middle-class series, however, both parents are mature, sensible, and competent, especially when there are children in the series.” This quick view shows how television makes it comfortable to see how at the same time it is ok to laugh at the characters on television. We as an audience are saying that it is okay to laugh at ourselves.

Works Cited

“Butsch, Richard.” SOCIAL CLASS AND TELEVISION. Web. 1992. 17 May 2010.

Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. “Introduction: Starting with Zero.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Victoria, Aus. Blackwell Publishing, 1998. Print. 643-646

Ideology

When reading the chapter on ideology it was like reading about me, everything in this chapter described me. Ideology is the belief in something imaginary. Or at least that is how Althusser put it, and that is exactly how it is, all humankind is broken down into beliefs, they don’t even have to be necessarily true. From birth until death we follow things as we are told. I found it interesting to find out that we are all subjects, even before birth. We are all assigned to someone; we all have parents and become their children. We become sons or daughters; we are assigned a name and therefore become their property (in a sense). From then on we are told how to act “civilized,” and I always wondered why we act a certain way, when it is more than obvious that people wish to act a different way. Is it really the ideology of separating ourselves from the animals? Or is it just brainwashing into becoming how people want others to act, here we are introduced to the imaginary. For example with religion, we believe in religion but it is something never to be seen. It is just something that you see in the people who pray the people who attend church and even in the people who live a certain believing that someone is observing them. Here is one positive look at ideology, a look at people who change themselves for the better. But what happens when ideology takes a negative turn, this was the focus of Jim Walker in the article The Problem with Belief, “People have slaughtered each other in wars, inquisitions, and political actions for centuries and still kill each other over beliefs in religions, political ideologies, and philosophies. These belief-systems, when stated as propositions, may appear mystical, and genuine to the naive, but when confronted with a testable bases from reason and experiment, they fail miserably. I maintain that beliefs create more social problems than they solve and that beliefs, and especially those elevated to faith, produce the most destructive potential to the future of humankind.” What this basically states is that beliefs help create more issues than they solve, especially those that become personal. But the personal is the fuel behind the ideological, so the ideology in the end does not have to be factual because factuality isn’t represented here.

Works Cited

“Walker, Jim.” The Problems with Belief. 1997. Web. 16 May 2010

Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideoligical State Apparatus.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. Victoria, Aus.: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. 693-702. Print.

Biting my nails!

My habit was biting. I found it interesting to find a deeper meaning in the fact that I bite my nails. I mean to be honest I never really thought about it, I just did it. But it does make sense when thinking about the times when I bite my nails and the signs are there. When I’m anxious I bite my nails, when I’m kept waiting for anything I bite nails, when I’m bored I bite my nails, when I’m nervous I bite my nails. In reality I shouldn’t even have nails anymore. But in remembering the times when I bite my nails there was a pattern revealed. This patter revealed to me a sense of insecurity, I bite my nails because I lack the control of perfection, or perhaps any control on my life at all, and in reality it became second nature to bite my nails, and in that a sense of comfort was born. I mean to really think about it, why shouldn’t my nails be a source of comfort? I know my nails will always be located on my fingers; they’re not going anywhere anytime soon. So therefore I bight my nails, because in a time of insecurity, there is one secure thing I know. But, to move on, what is the comfort found in biting my nails? That is what I really thought about. What sense of security do my nails offer?

Or is it even security but really just force of habit? In an article published in The Los Angeles Times titled, “Habits can be broken, but not forgotten” by Karen Raven. The article states that we can break habits if we focus hard enough and put effort into quitting. But then the article focuses on the part of our brain (the striatum) that makes our habits a part of our lives by focusing on the function of rats, “But once the rats were in the habit of running the maze, just being placed in the maze was all it took to make them run it. Not much was going on in their striatums; they were running on automatic pilot.” This automatic pilot, is this what controls my biting my nails?

Or is it that they will always be on my fingers? Not necessarily. I think that there is comfort found in trying to make them as short as possible, which is why I let them grow long. If I put it in my mind that I can make them as short as possible without the need of nail cutters then there is one less thing I need to be dependent on. And that also in a sense offers a feeling independence. That need that forms from infantry to not have others do things for us. This also makes me think of the mirror complex and the need to identify with the image of ourselves in that mirror as stated by Jacques Lacan, “We have only to understand the mirror stage as an identification, in the full sense that analysis gives to the term: namely, the transformation that takes place in the subject when he assumes the image,” (442). And then the real reason I bite my nails is answered. The reason I bite my nails is for the control they provide in my identification. My nails not only offer sense of independence, a sense of comfort, but ultimately a sense of control. I can in the end control the length of the nails. I can ultimately make them as short or as long as I want. And there lies the true enjoyment reason for biting my nails.

Works Cited

“Raven, Karen.” Habits can be broken, but not forgotten. 2009. 4 April 2010.

Lacan, Jacques. “The Mirror Stage as Formation of the Function of the I as Revealed in Psychoanalytic Experience.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. Victoria, Aus.: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. 441-446. Print.

Hamlet and Freud

“Identification is known to psycho-analysis as the earliest expression of an emotional tie with another person.” (Freud, p. 438) In this scene in “Hamlet” we see this tie stand out between Hamlet and his mother. As Hamlet is able to channel the identification of his father and confront his mother on the death of his father, as it does take a sexual tone (as Hamlet shows his mother a locket with a picture of his father and a another with the picture of his father’s brother, while lying on top of her). This similar argument as made in the article, “Mother and Child: The Erotic Bond” by Linda Marin. In this article she turns the table and focuses on the erotic bond a mother creates with her son, “Still, it seems mothers do something equally silencing in the day-to-day way we do not speak of our erotic feelings toward those most desirable of objects, our children. We say our kids are cute, of course, or beautiful or remarkable, and we endlessly detail their behaviors and idiosyncrasies, but rarely do we acknowledge the erotic component of our own feelings in these observations of them.” In this clip of hamlet we see the acknowledgement of this eroticism and the consequences that come from it. Having the bond between mother and son disappears as Hamlet takes a dominant role over his mother in his attempt to have her confess and having the sexual tone become almost sexual force and mimicry of fornication (since it does appear that Hamlet is almost raping his mother). According to Freud, this scene alone shows us that that the early attraction between Hamlet and his mother never went away, as Hamlet obviously created a sexual tie between him and his as mother and identification tie between him and his father, as the father is obviously the model he is trying so hard to mimic. At the climax of this scene we see Hamlet losing steam on the dominance over his mother but as soon he sees the image of his father he remembers what he came there to do (to get the confession from his mother about the death of his father). And soon is back on track and leaves his mother with a warning to confess or suffer the consequences. Leaving his mother an emotional wreck, while not exactly accomplishing what he originally set out to do, he does accomplish in establishing a dominant stance between him and his mother.

Works Cited

“Marin, Linda.” Mother and Child: The Erotic Bond. 1994. Web. 4 April 2010

Freud, Sigmund. “Group Psychology and the analysis of the Ego.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. Victoria, Aus.: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. 438-440. Print.

Charles and Snoops

Sitting by the dock of the bay, one of America’s favorite past times. Here is an image of one of America’s favorite cartoon characters sitting with his dog (the legendary Snoopy) as they just relax by the water. Not letting time become of any importance, they aren’t troubled with the worries of a recession, or deadlines for something important, or even of global warming as the waters in the picture are still exceptionally blue. Instead they let life bring what it may and they don’t ever lose their cool. When I look at this picture I wonder what their conversation could possibly be like, wondering what one talks about when one has nothing to say. I think that’s what I find truly fascinating about this picture, the simplicity in the stress free life.

Semiotic Analysis

The picture is of Charlie Brown and his dog Snoopy. So obviously this picture is first meant to make the reader reminiscent of his or her childhood (if not viewed by a child). Next the viewer can focus on the image that the two characters are focusing on; in this case it’s a lake. By this observation the viewer will automatically feel relaxed and calmer as the picture depicts this serene atmosphere. Another tactic used to enhance this relaxed feeling is looking at the picture through the eyes of the characters or with the characters. Since we cannot see the characters faces it is almost as if they are not part of the picture but with you in the picture (with the backs turned to us, they have brought us into the picture), another to interpret this picture is by actually becoming the Charlie Brown and his dog Snoopy (since their backs are turned and they almost aren’t a part of the picture, they offer the viewer the opportunity to get lost in the picture and become their favorite cartoon characters.

Mikhail Bakhtin....Language

“Language-like the living concrete environment in which the consciousness of the verbal artist lives- is never unitary.” (674) Mikhail Bakhtin states here that language is never meant to take on only one form, it is meant to be used and abused. Sure, the words we speak are recycled but we re-invent them every day by doing something as simple as choosing how we greet people (if we greet them at all). Bakhtin even gives us the ways in which our language can be put to good use by putting it into genres, “specific points of view, specific approaches, forms of thinking, etc.” (675) Through criticism for example, we show the ever changing format in which we use our language, by simply changing our specific points of view on certain topics and seeing how those can change in the blink of an eye. People cannot stop talking about Tiger Woods now, everyone decides that he is guilty of doing something heinous, but this time next year, this time last year, it will be, and was different. And that is what Bakhtin alludes to in this article and I have to say that I agree with him in every sense of the word. Words aren’t meant to be trapped forever, no one can own a language, language (point of view) is always changing, which is why Bakhtin mentions that the words we speak today will have nothing to do with the words we speak tomorrow and spoke yesterday. An example to support this comes from the “A changing language situation: The decline of Dyribal, 1963-1989” by R.M.W. Dixon. This article focuses on the decline of the use of the Dyribal language in which at one point had 5,000 but soon saw a declined to about a solitary few, “I have worked fairly steadily on these tasks for just over a quarter of a century. During this period, I have the language decline from a state in which there was an abundance of speakers who could supply the information I sought to one in which there is just one good consultant left for each of three dialects, with no one to go to for a second opinion. The language has died at a faster rate than I could record it.” (Dixon, p.183) This quote proves what Bakhtin states is true, language is not meant forever. It is basically just a way to communicate and people are of a fickle nature which means that as hard as one may try, language will change whether we like it or not. As Bakhtin even mentions the way people can create their own language inside their own sphere. So now he even opens up to the fact that language doesn’t even have to make literary sense in order for it to be language it just has to be understood.

Works Cited

Dixon, R.M.W. “A Changing Language Situation: The Decline of Dyirbal, 1963-1989.” Language in Society, Vol. 20, No. 2 (Jun., 1991), pp. 183-200 Published by: Cambridge University Press (WEBCT) 24 February 2010.

Bakhtin, Mikhail. “Discourse in the Novel.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Rivkin, Julie and Ryan, Maichael. Victoria, Aus.: Blackwell Publishing, 1998. 674-685. Print.

On the presentation...

Working with the group I did was a great experience. It was the first time I was able to work with a group that was able to agree on everything. The topic and presentation that we were able to agree on the most was on the portrayal that is the imitation of life in art and how it depicts reality in the worst way possible for knowledge to strive. For the imitation clip we chose the clip from the sitcom Friends, in which is having a baby. This clip was chosen because not only was it a clip we would all be familiar with, it was also a clip we were sure would get the message of slap-stick comedy. Because of the fact of the struggle both Rachel and Ross go through in the delivery of their first born. In the clip we see Rachel struggle to push the baby out and Ross struggle keeping the grip on Rachel, in the end the baby finally is brought to light but not before the unforgettable line Ross shares with the female doctor and Rachel of the pain he suffers when Rachel hits him with her head, “you have no idea how much this hurts.” In seeing a clip such as this, although it does serve the purpose of providing comedic relief, it does not provide much else in the way of knowledge as Plato states, “if our young men were to listen seriously to such utterances it would be difficult for them, being mere mortals, to think themselves above such behavior…” (Plato, 27). And now you have kids that don’t having children and don’t have the true knowledge of having children or of the nine months that are crucial to the formation of the child and preparation it takes to even care for the child before it is born. I must say I enjoyed this presentation, although I will admit that I was nervous going up there to talk. Overall it was pretty fun experience.

Plato versus Amy

Plato argues in Republic 3 that people should be spared the harsh details of reality, for Plato it was the reality of the gods. It was like Plato stated at the beginning of Republic 3, “These then, are the sorts of things which people should and should not hear about the gods from their earliest childhood, if they are to honour the gods and their parents, and to value their friendship with each other,” (Plato, 24). Nowadays the gods aren’t such a big influence as is the media. But Plato’s concept still stands…



The video is Britney Spears’ “If U Seek Amy,” and the video is basically a reference to sex. With the title working as a subliminal message, F-U-C-K-Me, it shows Britney in a whorehouse where she rises from the foot of a bed with the lyrics, “Oh baby, baby, have you seen Amy tonight? Is she in the bathroom? Is she smoking up outside?” Dressed all in black, revealing major cleavage and also wearing a pair of red pumps she begins to walk the room. The room reveals the people around either still in beds or the floors from what we are to perceive as the morning after. And not long after she breaks into the chorus of, “Love me, hate me, say what you want about me, but all of the boys and all of the girls are begging to If U Seek Amy.” This discourse of music, or art, is basically what Plato argues, to have this infest the minds of the youth, now becomes the mission of what we must censor from them. Because now sex becomes something kids don’t necessarily fear, but it still doesn’t help them truly understand what sexual intercourse means. Because now what flows in their minds is a plethora of imagery, it could either be a glamorizing vision of sex as something fun and wild, or make it appear as if sex is something that should be hidden from everyone around. As Britney spends the entire music video indoors, it isn’t until the very end that she welcomes the outside to her presence. Of course by now she is fully dressed in suburban attire and even accessorizing herself with a pie (an image of domesticity). This image could also make youths scared of sex in a sense, as some may interpret this video as imaging sex as something dirty, something to be hidden only because it is shameful. Plato I think touches on a subject similar to this in Republic 3 with this quote, “indeed the more poetic they are the less they should be heard by boys and men who must be free and fear slavery more than death, (Plato, 25). I don’t necessarily agree with this statement. Because to say that children are easily influenced by what they see is to say that they do not have minds of their own. And that simply is not true. This similar point of view is stated in the Time Magazine, Child Sexuality: Challenging the Taboos, this article discusses a journalist’s attempt to release a book that challenges parents who unnecessarily instill fear of sex in their children. “Levine, a journalist, argues that adults harm children by associating sex with danger--warning kids about pedophiles, for instance, but not acknowledging that children and teens are capable of a measure of sexual pleasure. Getting abducted by a stranger is a less likely danger for most children than the chance that a teenager will catch a sexually transmitted disease.” So therefore, talking to children and having them fear something instead of helping them understand it, proves to be even more hurtful than just watching the plain videos. For, even seen in the Britney video she shows two different sides to her, one of a sexual vixen and then one of domestic stereotype. So now youths are given two different images to choose, one of sexual “sinful” pleasure and then one of domestic “good, clean, fun” kind of pleasure. I believe that if parents are to talk to their kids about sex that maybe they should take a lesson from the popstars. In order to truly have kids understand sex, it cannot feared and it cannot be taken lightly, there needs to be morality instilled in it and children need access to it in the videos of today’s songs (to have a full image understanding of it). Because at the forefront of them listening, they need to feel trusted, they need to feel they have the liberty of making their own decision. Because ultimately they do have the final say…



This next clip shows the edited version of “If U Seek Amy,” now entitled, “If U See Amy.” This version hit radio stations across the United States, instead of the version found on the album. This version of the song does not highlight sexual intercourse instead it now sounds like an upbeat love song. Hiding away the harsh reality that is possible with sexual intercourse, the purpose now of hiding this from the youth, means that they will listen to their parents and they will (if the parents take the time to explain), understand that sex can be a choice, and it doesn’t have to end up in a whorehouse, or be a big secret that is hidden from the world, basically making defunct everything that could be interpreted from the actual song and video.

Works Cited
Spears, Britney. “If You Seek Amy.” BritneySpearsVEVO. 29 October 2009. Web. 7 February 2010.


“Winters, Rebecca.” Child Sexuality: Challenging the Taboos. 2002. Web. 7 February 2010.

In the beginning...

Here is just a cool little intro to start off the class… (Sorry it’s a little late)

The most important thing to consider when analyzing a text is what it's not telling you straight out. By this I mean inner meaning, what someone might see as meaningless words, someone else might take as insight. Take Madonna, she’s seen at the queen of pop. Someone who changed music and feminism, yet others see her as garbage. -Mannyism