Weekly Reflection 9: Does Science Restrict Literature and Thought?

"All values are topics of debate, and the debate should, according to Lyotard, continue endlessly. The only wrong consists of closing off debate" (Lyotard 355). Post-Modernist Jean-Fancois Lyotard, in The Post-Modern Condition (1979), gives us this idea of Post-Modernist thought in reference to science. Science seeks one, limited, absolute, objective truth that allows us to understand the universe, effectively "closing off debate." There is much propaganda today that supports science as the correct way to the future, "progressing" underdeveloped countries, for example. But for Lyotard, our acceptance of science forces us to forfeit parts of our lives that may be important for us, notably literature.

"Research sectors that are unable to argue that they contribute even indirectly to the optimization of the system's performance are abandoned by the flow of capital and doomed to senescence" (Lyotard 362). With the one absolute truth of science, the "sectors" of society that do not contribute to the one truth will be justifiably marginalized. Literature is one art that is usually seen as being less important to future society - there are no specialized literature jobs in industries. Yet, for many, there is an immense love of literature, creative writing, and thought. Does science cause us to turn out backs on literature and thought?

No doubt superficially, we have turned out backs on literature - literature is viewed as leisure, something unnecessary. However, science and literature seem compatible still. Perhaps science does force us to streamline both production and our lives, but undoubtedly we retain our curiosity that makes us all human. Literature can help fill that curiosity, fulfilling our lives in ways that science cannot. And surely a fulfilled person will be a more motivated worker, thus it seems science and literature go hand in hand.

Works Cited_

Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Foreword: Jean-Francois Lytotard's The Postmodern Condition. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology Second Edition.

Lyotard, Jean-Francois. The Postmodern Condition. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology Second Edition.

Third Analysis: American Cartoons and Marx

The American public is bombarded by cartoons today. There are many sorts of American cartoons, many which make people happy through wise comedy that exceeds the expectations of their silly visuals. One such sort of American cartoon that has become popular on a mass international scale is the cartoon about the average family. An example of this is the wildly popular television series Family Guy.



The main characters of the show being the average family makes Family Guy particularly interesting to analyze from a Marxist perspective, much like I've done to the movie Silent Hill in reflection 6, - is Family Guy for or against the revolution?

Clearly Family Guy glorifies the working class life, as seen in the above clip. The father, Peter, shows no interest in intellectual (bourgeoisie) matters like the newspaper except insofar as they assist him with his silly, crude sense of humor. Turning the intellectuals into jokes is a recurring theme in Family Guy and most average family cartoons. Family Guy characters that are intellectuals are hilarious farcical exaggerations - people with outrageously long "sophisticated" names, a man with such an exaggerated high-class accent that his words are inaudible, the sophisticates at the New Yorker magazine who don't have toilets because they have no anuses. Marx would no doubt find these characters to be a great show.

However, simply that Family Guy glorifies the working class does not necessarily make it a Marxist show. Perhaps the appreciation of the working class is being used in the case of American cartoons as a way to put false satisfaction for capitalism into the American working class. For example, Family Guy father, Peter, may celebrate the working class in order to keep workers happy while they're being taken advantage of elsewhere - economically by the bourgeoisie. If this is the case, then Marx would be adamantly opposed.

In the end, a show like Family Guy cannot be judged so simply as just being a 'show for the people,' regardless of its Marxist overtones. Capitalists may just as easily have used the Marxist image for their own profit. It's impossible to know the truth, but if we recognize the stranglehold that capitalists have and enforce on the media, the latter idea seems more realistic.

Weekly Reflection 8: Post-structuralism... or simply neo-structuralism?

Post-structuralism is the belief of reality having no structure, literally. It sounds crazy, and it is - crazily wise.
Jacques Derrida pioneered the idea that "when you see the world, what you see is not identities but a network of relations between things whose difference from one another allows them to appear to be separate and identifiable" (Rivkin 258). Simply, Derrida means that when you think of, for example, a lemon, you must also think of an orange to establish what a lemon is not. A lemon cannot be understood at all without having something to contrast it to.

"What this suggests is that no presence or substance of an object or of an idea is complete in itself" (Rivkin 259). Essentially, identity itself is impossible. This is a problem for ideas and reality, but even more of a problem for literature. Because literature depends on words referring to objects/ideas, if there are no identities of objects/ideas, then there can be nothing for words to refer to; literature, like identity, becomes impossible.

This post-strucrutalist idea that life is entirely relative has some merit, however there seem to be issues with saying that this means there can be no identities.
Marx, a renowned structuralist, discussed in reflection 7, believed man did not make history, but history made the man. This seems to parallel post-structuralist thought - no person creates themselves out of nothing, but our identities are created by causal relations. Marx essentially put human identity in the post-structuralist form, but he never says once that humans have no identity. This shows that post-structuralist belief and identity are compatible. Humans, objects, and ideas are understood by their relation to other things, and that is how we come to know their identities. The identity is not nonexistant, it is simply different from the past conception of identity.
Identity is not post-structure, or "without structure," it is simply in a new structure, "neo-structure."


Works Cited_

Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Introduction: Introductory Deconstruction. Edited by Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Literary Theory: An Anthology Second Edition.

Weekly Reflection 7: Marx versus New Historicism

(The comic is unrelated, but hilarious) Roughly, Marx, discussed also in reflection 6, believed every person was a product of history. Roughly, the 'New Historicist' movement believes that history should not be considered when studying literature. These two views contradict almost perfectly.

I respect the New Historicist movement for what they try to do - that is, understand a work of art on only the terms of the work, and nothing else. They seek the true essence of a work that makes it good or bad literature, without being tainted by the biases of the real world. However, I can't help but think that it's at least unfair on the moral level.

Not everyone can write freely, removed from the world. In the most extreme case, it may be even illegal to do so. Consider authoritarian societies where writing that does not express a certain view is suppressed, censored, or destroyed. Are those writers who conform to the authoritarian viewpoint simply bad writers because, removed from history, they all express the same uncreative view? It would be morally wrong for us to judge those writers for doing something they have no control over. To truly understand such literature would absolutely require the authoritarian historical context, so that we may realize at least the restrictions put on the author and thus the work itself. This would seem to favor a Marxist view on literature.