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...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
If the literature is produced by the "upper crust" and is read by the same...wouldn't their interpretation (though not always exactly alike) be the "correct" translation? The vulgar might add an insight here and there, but he or she has no control of the process.
Post a Comment