Aquinas

I liked Aquinas’ arguments concerning biblical text. The bible makes these comparisons or uses parables in order for us sinners to understand and learn from them. These examples provide clear images that are relatable or can be transformed into situations in our own lives. Isn’t that the point? God wants us to learn and grow from His word and if the bible had been written in this divine language we wouldn’t be able to understand, for we are but mere humans. Aquinas says this much better then me: “spiritual truths be expounded by means of figures taken from corporeal things, in order that thereby even the simple who are unable by themselves to grasp intellectual things may be able to understand it” (244). He also goes on to say that these “divine truths are the better hidden from the unworthy” (244). It goes to prove that we can’t handle the power of God. It’s like in the Old Testament where often prophets couldn’t look into the face of God because it would most likely kill them. Instead they would fall face down or listen to God’s voice. I think what I got out of this essay was that the bible is a text written for the sinners of this world, for everyone. And in the word sinners can find freedom and salvation. And we can understand and relate and grow from this because the truths are presented in a way that is accessible to all human beings.

Augustine

Okay so after reading Augustine of Hippo’s essay “On Christian Doctrine” my mind got to working on this idea of “signs” and “significance”. He says in his first section that “in this distinction between things and signs when we speak of things, we shall so speak that, although some of them may be used to signify something else, this fact shall not disturb the arrangement we have made to speak of things as such first and of signs later” (188). Here I was intrigued because he is saying that before we can try to find some sort of meaning or underlying significance, we need to just speak of the object as the object. I can remember in my high school English class when some of my classmates would get irritated at the teacher because she was always assigning deeper significance to every single thing that happened in the books we were reading. They would argue that maybe the author just meant for the reader to take it at face value and nothing else. I never chimed in because secretly I liked to derive hidden meaning from the words on the page and I wanted to believe that the author intended for the text to mean something more. However, I found Augustine’s words to be refreshing after spending three years enrolled in English classes here at Messiah. I guess I too appreciate a little face value reading every now and again.

Augustine goes on in the next section to write “Just as I began, when I was writing about things, by warning that no one should consider them except as they are, without reference to what they signify beyond themselves, now when I’m discussing signs I wish it understood that no one should consider them for what they are but rather for their value as signs which signify something else” (188). So here Augustine is focusing on the “sign” itself and not an object or thing. These signs need to be interpreted as signs with some sort of larger meaning. Augustine goes on to talk about the different signs surrounding Jesus Christ’s time on earth. He writes about the lady who reached out and simply touched Jesus’ robe and was healed of her bleeding. To me this is a vivid image of the power of signs. This sign of healing proves Jesus’ divinity. Signs are proof; signs make connections between something concrete and something spiritual.

Does anybody still read???

I definitely believe that less and less people are reading. I have many, many friends who always question my love for literature and English. They ask why I would ever pick to major in something where I read constantly. And I always respond with the same thing: How can you not enjoy reading? Now I'm not going to sit here and say I loooove reading all the time. There are days when I'm exhausted and there is no way that I'm going to be able to sit down and actually comprehend the words before me. However, the days where I enjoy reading outnumber these bad days and so I find myself a bookworm even after all these years. So when I read Professor Power's essay, Reading Ethnic Literature Now, I was shocked at the arguments and statistics he gave about college students leaving college and still unable to read and comprehend labels for some sort of experiment with blood pressure and physical activity. This shocked me. Now maybe I'm just naive and unaware, but seriously? Is it that bad?

In some ways I wasn't completely surprised. Many of my friends seem to be almost elementary in the way they read and write. I know that sounds horrible but I'm honestly not trying to be mean or act high and mighty. I've corrected some of my friends papers (and I know this isn't the same as reading but I feel like these two go hand-in-hand) and I've been blown away at how undeveloped they appear. It's as if either students absolutely LOVED English throughout their school years and so they really excelled at it and worked on it or they absolutely HATED English and so they didn't even try.

I know the majority of Professor Powers' essay is concerning multi-ethnic literature and how it is important to incorporate this in our reading but I was just really struck with the information regarding people's lack of interest in reading books. Am I alone here?

Who I am and Where I come from?!

In my last post I talked about Ngugi's eassy on the abolition of the English department. When first reading that essay I thought that Ngugi was addressing the white European's, specifically I took it to address America. However, after our class discussion I realize that Ngugi is actually talking to Africans. This changed the way I interpreted the essay. I think I saw it as more of an attack against English literature and it most definitely was not. Ngugi isn't saying that English literature is bad and no one should read it. He is stating that English literature is great for that specific cultural and it isn't necessarily universally human in nature. Each culture, or country, is going to relate and connect with the writings and history of their own. This isn't to say that different cultures can't learn from one another. It just means that in order for this diversity to occur each culture must first be immersed in their own history and past so that they can then grow and learn from others.

I hope I'm getting this interpretation correct. I think this is a brilliant argument and I find it true in my own life. It is necessary for me to know who I am and where I come from and what my past history is in order for me to understand others. If I don't know who I am, how am I going to be able to relate and challenge those around me? Learning about yourself is important, and I know we are taught to put others first which is important as well, but before that can happen one must first look inside and figure out who that person is within themselves.

Ngugi

It only makes sense that people must learn history and gain knowledge about their own backgrounds before they can expand and understand different cultures. After reading “On the Abolition of the English Department” by Ngugi, Liyong, and Owuor-Anyumba I realized that some countries have needed to fight for this freedom. Why would Europeans try to teach Africans through an “English Department”? Isn’t it obvious that these students want to learn about their own literature and languages? Americans have such an ego centric view of everything. We think that our way is the only way and also the best way so why wouldn’t people want to be like us? Why wouldn’t these Africans want to learn about English literature?

Every human being has a right to learn and read about their past, about where they’ve come from and the strong history they are tied to. Peter Wasamba spoke on this a bit in his lecture. He talked about the importance to not interfere with other countries and try to force our (American) culture on them. Everybody works through situations different and it is important to connect with these other cultures, and even to help them when they are in need. But during this process we need to allow them to have freedom to handle things in the way their culture acts.

In the Ngugi article it states, “…education is a means of knowledge about ourselves. Therefore, after we have examined ourselves, we radiate outwards and discover peoples and worlds around us….things must be seen from the African [fill in country name here] perspective.” I think the world needs to start appreciate the colorful cultural differences that exist. Especially the United States, because we aren’t “better” or “right”, but rather we are view and comprehend things in a different way then other countries. And it is these differences that make our world unique.

Hughes

So Langston Hughes’ entire essay was about this young African American poet who wanted to be a “white poet”. In Hughes mind this is crazy and why would anyone want to be something they are not? I loved Hughes essay for many reasons. First, because his language was easy to understand and so I could read through it numerous times without getting utterly confused and being unsure as to what he was saying. Second, because it gave me that feeling of adrenaline, like “yeah I agree with you” and “yes that’s right.” This may sound odd considering it was a piece of writing mostly directed towards African Americans. But in addressing the need to accept and embrace our cultural background and who we truly are, Hughes also reveals many issues of the white world of thinking.

“And so the word white comes to be unconsciously a symbol of all virtues.”

This bothered me. Because I don’t want to be encouraging these ideas that because one is white this makes them better or happier or successful. It comes back to this never ending racial issue and I think Hughes is addressing this in his essay. He wants African Americans to be able to have the freedom to express themselves, based on who they are NOT on what the white majority is telling them to be. This idea of the world consisting of so many different people and from these differences we can learn and grow is present here.

“She does not want a true picture of herself from anybody. She wants the artist to flatter her…”

Hughes is speaking about a white woman in this passage. And I completely agreed with his point, but I believe the above statement can be true for all people. We don’t want to know what we really look like or how we really act. Make us look beautiful, tell us we are great, so that we can feel good about ourselves and feel as if we are these wonderful individuals who are making a difference in this world. This bothers me. A lot. Because what we all need is a mirror so that we can look deep inside it and see who we truly are. And honestly, for a lot of people this would be scary and earth shattering because what would be revealed in that reflection wouldn’t be wonderful, great, or beautiful.

Making connections.

Our class discussion on Tuesday opened up a whole different way of viewing male and female writing for me. Never before had I thought of their differences in this light. I don't really know if I agree with everything Cixous and other feminists writers propose, especially concerning the extreme connection between sexuality and writing. However, I've come to learn one very important thing this semester: Even if you don't agree with the entire idea, it's always good to listen and craft your own thoughts on the issue. So, I listened to the different views of these feminist writers and I've come away able to make a connection to what I learned and external texts I've been reading.

As noted in Abigail's blog, we've just finished reading the novel How Stella Got Her Groove Back by Terry McMillan. And after reading this story I felt no different; actually I felt like I had wasted a good chunk of my time. Although the book is very entertaining and an easy read, I just felt like something about the plot line was dull and unfinished. Nothing huge ever happened; there was never a moment of suspense or dramatic events. Instead, the entire book just kind of skipped along merrily in the exact order expected. After our class discussion on Tuesday, Abigail and I were fascinated at how much Terry McMillan's novel relates to this non-climatic structure in relation to women's sexual experience. There isn't a place or chapter or event in the book where one can assign climax of the story. No, the entire story is the experience, if that makes any sense.

It is through these connections that I've been able to make with the material we are covering in class with other outside texts that is challenging me and allowing me to sharpen these new ideas/skills I'm learning. Making these meaningful connections is forming a foundation for other things, new information and ideas, I learn to build upon.

feminist theory??

After reading Cixous and Woolf it starts to become redundant that women have been suppressed by males throughout the history of our society. This is something we know and so what is being done about it? I found Kolodny's essay, Dancing Through the Minefield, to be a cry for change, not only in men but also women. This change is in the way we read and think about literature.

"Since the grounds upon which we assign aesthetic value to texts are never infallible, unchangeable, or universal, we must re-examine not only our aesthetics but, as well, the inherent biases and assumptions informing the critical methods which (in part) shape our aesthetic responses” (2158).

It's time to "re-examine" the way we do things. I liked how Kolodny isn't man-hating in her essay. She isn't contrasting women's literature with men's literature. She is simply raising awareness and asking all readers to interpret women's writing in a new way. It's important to reach this common ground where men and women alike can work together to understand each other and the writing that each gender creates. For me this is what feminist theory should be all about...unifying with men to transform the ideas surrounding women's literature from the past, present, and well into the future. This change is necessary.

"Beauty will no longer be forbidden."

Ok so Virginia Woolf wrote about there being two parts of our minds: the man and the woman. I found this whole concept slightly ridiculous because I believe that we only have one mind and it is fully woman or fully man. We can be aware of the way the opposite sex functions, the way they write and think. But this doesn't mean we have this "male (or woman) mind" that can be turned on and off. When one writes they need to be aware of their audience and for me, if there is going to be men reading it, then one must take into consideration the way the male mind functions in order to reach those audience members. There should be a balance because male and female writing is very different, but that is what makes the world of literature so rich. Anyway...my point is that I found Helene Cixous's essay, The Laugh of the Medusa, to be completely opposite of Woolf's essay on this particular point. Cixous states that, "I write woman: woman must write woman. And man, man." She places a huge emphasis on woman writing themselves, using words and stories to express who they are and not to fear this form of expression but rather to embrace it and allow it to flow forward.

"Write! Writing is for you, you are for you; your body is yours, take it. I know why you haven't written...Because writing is at once too high, too great for you, it's reserved for the great -- that is, for 'great men'; and it's silly. Besides you've written a little, but in secret. And it wasn't good because it was in secret..."

Cixous words are full of passion. She is fighting for the woman, saying that it is time to move away from the past and look into the future and change. Her entire essay is her battling for the need for women to speak up and overcome this fear of language. This is good and all but I found a lot of her essay to be confusing and filled with sexual context. I wasn't sure what to make of it and was trying to figure out her boldness in the area of sexuality and body. The last half of her essay is filled with these types of connections.

Inspiration. That seems to be the feeling Cixous is going for here. And it works. My question is how would the women of that time have reacted to such strong words and opinions? Because obviously it isn't a shock to me, a 21st century woman, to hear her encouraging women to write openly. Women today write and it's accepted and even praised and honored. But how would they have seen these ideas? Would they have been shocked and embarrassed? Or would they have rallied up with Cixous and journeyed forward? Most likely there would have been a mix of both...but it's something I'm definitely going to look into further.

Pierre Bourdieu and the impact of class

After our class discussion today on Pierre Bourdieu I left with many questions and new ideas bouncing around in my mind.

The impact of class on reading makes sense to me. Obvioulsy those who are well educated will interpret a text differently and from a opposite starting point then those of the working class. However, I don't think it is for anyone to judge which way is right. Both are significant within their own context. I also think that the interpretations and connections that lower classes make with literature can be surprisingly insightful and accurate at times. I guess my only disagreement or argument on this issue is that those of the upperclass shouldn't dismiss the ideas and art forms of the lower class. But yet they aren't on the same level. When does something become art? When the upperclass deams it so? Because often there is a big difference between writings from working class and writing from the upperclass. Who makes the decision? Where is the cut off? Is there a distinct line or is the line blurred??

I don't even know how to go about answering these questions. But I guess my concern is for the working class. Because I don't believe these individuals should be written off simply because of their class status. So how can their interpretations and forms of writing be deamed either a work of art or not? I guess what I'm searching for are some kind of guidelines or scoring rubric to determine this...does one even exist?

It seems to be an endless cycle of questioning...

Virginia Woolf

So...is it necessary to have a balanced, fair voice in one’s writing that doesn’t discriminate against man or women? Should writers take on this “woman-manly or manly-womanly” stance within their essays, novels, and poetry? According to Virginia Woolf and her essay A Room of One’s Own, “some collaboration has to take place in the mind between the woman and the man before the act of creation can be accomplished.” And what do I think of this idea? I believe Woolf has a solid argument and that women have accomplished much since the sixteenth century and deserve this inclusive voice in a male dominated society.

Woolf’s essay is speaking about women author’s during the 16^th century but I believe it can hold true for our society today. Although America has come far since the women’s rights movement, unfair treatment of women still occurs more often then we would think. I’m so accustomed to the freedoms I have as a woman writer that I can’t imagine the suffering these women must have faced. To not be able to express oneself simply because of gender is a foreign idea to me. I can use my voice and no one is going to outwardly shut me down. I won’t be beaten or thrown into jail. Society would reject me. Although it is so hard for me to relate to Woolf’s essay I still found her thoughts intriguing and informative. Hearing about how women writers endured such mockery and ridicule makes me appreciate my freedom more.

This idea of making our brain into one man/woman whole is important. It allows the erasing of gender and the forming of something bigger. It gives power to every voice and allows man and woman to share opposing ideas and arguments openly. I can’t say that I’ve ever sat down at my computer to type a paper and actually thought about removing my specific personality based on gender. I don’t really know if I could do that because I feel like my woman characteristics and voice are too strong to be toned down. So maybe I’m reading into this essay wrong but it kind of made think and question and at the same time agree with Woolf but not completely…Overall though I did enjoy her writing style.