La necesidad del “Otro”

Es consternante la necesidad que tenemos del “otro” para poder definirnos o identificarnos. Esta relación o distinción entro nosotros y el “otro” permea diferentes áreas desde los estudios de género, el colonialismo, hasta la división de periodos históricos y culturales. Varias escuelas teóricas han abordado este tema, por ejemplo Simone de Beauvoir apunta como la construcción del género femenino está basada directamente en relación con el género masculino. La mujer es todo aquello que el hombre no es, es decir que lo femenino se construye a partir de lo masculino.
Por otro lado, tenemos la teoría de Edward Said, quien en su libro Orientalismo, señala acertadamente como hemos construido la visión del oriental en comparación al occidental. El que vive allá en el oriente es todo lo negativo, todo lo que nosotros no somos. Esta comparación nos “ayuda” a formar nuestra identidad, pareciera que para poder conocer quienes somos, nos es menester del otro.
Esta necesidad la veo tambien en la teoría de Freud y Lacan. Para Freud, el niño comienza a formar su identidad en cuanto su padre le niega el acceso a la madre, y según Lacan, el niño se reconoce cuando se ve en el espejo. Entonces, cada ser humano necesita al padre para poder posicionarse y identificar cual es su rol dentro de su entorno. Igualmente, el niño necesita de su imagen, que no es él mismo sino “otro”, para poder comenzar a construir su identidad.
Y este tipo de dicotomía tambien se puede ver en la manera que dividimos los movimientos literarios; el neoclasismo, se opone al romanticismo, luego tenemos la Ilustración que cuestiona al romanticismo, mas tarde tendremos el cuestionamiento del progreso por habernos llevado a los campos de concentración.
Todo este vaivén de ida y vuelta, de comparaciones, me inclina a preguntar, ¿Por qué necesitamos tanto del otro?

La chica bon bon.

‘Gender?’

“To be a subject is to be gendered…” (Rice and Waugh 228). Does gender lead to a sense of power? I think of poetry and narrative fiction written by women whose works have created a clear distinction of ‘feminine writing.’ In particular, those who have widened the gap for women and writing. Delmira Agustini, for example, whose poetry clearly expresses love and erotic images. One particular poem that expresses this is “El intruso” … Amor, la noche estaba trágica y sollozante / cuando tu llave de oro cantó en mi cerradura; / luego, la puerta abierta sobre la sombra helante, / tu forma fue una mancha de luz y de blancura… (Agustini 310). Does the written ‘feminine’ word then, only consist of specifically gendered concepts such as love, desire and eroticism? What then is the interpretation of a ‘woman?’ Yes, women appear in various time periods as individual subjects who strive to have her ‘group’ recognized, as well as being recognized for having a particular sense of identity. The catch lies in the language or images that may be used to represent a woman, be in literature for example. Is there a clear distinction then, in meaning or interpretation, say, if the above mentioned poem had been written by a man?

Touching on Luce Irigaray’s “Sexual Difference” essay, she expresses that “it is man who has been the subject of discourse…for women, there remain the so-called minor art forms: cooking, knitting, sewing and embroidery; and in exceptional cases, poetry, painting and music” (Rice and Waugh 236). Is it possible then to categorize ‘gender’ based on the subject’s experience such as the tasks just mentioned? With gender, comes an amount of power that is implied. Power may be conceived as gender based and gender specific and with having a certain amount of control. There must be then, a central point to that power that moves from the most powerful to the least. Where on this scale of power does ‘gender’ lie?

Palomita (Anita)

Sigur Rós and Barthes allies in the war against the author!

Poststructuralists! You have my heart! Maybe because I have found an example of originality! Woohooo! Maybe It’s still possible to be original Ben! Barthes describes the “Death of the Author” as something that must be achieved in order to produce a “Writerly Text” (151) a text that allows the reader to make or create an original creation out of the work of art. Here Barthes gets rid of the authorship. The author disappears to make way for the reader who is then able to create an original interpretation of what he/she discovers. Derrida recalls a “logocentrism” the desire for a center in a text, a center that controls everything (164). This center must be eliminated so that a re-presentation of the text can take place.

The album ( ) [that’s really its title] by the Iclandic band Sigur Rós, completely eliminates an authorship. The album ( ) lacked a title because of their belief that the “listener is free to make up his/her own title since there is essentially none” (Sigur Rós). The album also contains no lyrics, instead Sigur Rós’s lead singer Jónsi sings in a made up language, which they call “Hopelandic” (Sigur Rós). The insert of the album contains a series of blank pages. The blank pages are meant to assist the listener while he interprets the sounds into infinite possibilities of interpretation. The listener fills in the lyrics according to their own perception. Thus, Sigur Rós kills the author in their ( ) album. The lack of lyrics and the use of a non language allow the music to internalize in all listeners by lacking a linguistic barrier and thus also makes for the listener to create his or her own original work.

If the picture doesn’t work here is the link:

http://jandemessemaeker.net/music/albumcovers/Sigur%20Ros-(%20).jpg

And the link to the youtube music:

An Invaderbean that loves Sigur Rós because they might be original after all! Or at least my allies in this war against the author ☺

I am not an “intimidator” Mr. Jonathan Culler!

In Jonathan Culler’s “Literary Theory: A Very Short Introduction” he concludes by writing that theory is nothing but another tool of intimidation. Culler states “ Theory…is endless. It is not something that you could even master, not a particular group of texts you could learn so as to ‘know theory’… Theory is thus a source of intimidation, a resource for constant upstagings…” (15)

My conclusion: I’m an intimidator? I study this to become the bully of my literary affluent friends? Well before I sentence myself to death for such egocentric views of myself I will try to save myself from this conclusion. I, after all, sweet me (at least I think Im sweet, but now I don’t know so much since I have been labeled an “intimidator”) Professor! Save me, please tell me you are not teaching me the tools to becoming the number one bully in my very tiny circle of friends! I don’t want to be that!

From what we defined the critic as “el descreído, el que duda, el que cuestiona”

¡Yo la descreída! Maybe sometimes, I mean that’s what makes this world ever so interesting. If we don’t question everything we read, know or are taught then how do we know our faith for such things is actually true? I can see myself as the one who doubts, and questions. But I don’t see the harm in any of this, why does Culler want to brand me an “Intimidator”?

Depressed Invaderbean

I figured it out! Woohoo! :) Thanks Emmi!

I figured it out!
Being that I have been completely lost as to who and when everyone posts, I decided to just load up all the posts I’ve done and saved on my MS Word throughout the quarter ☺ So here goes the attack of the InvaderBean!

Starting with a post I posted on Facebook and Ben’s comment and Invaderbeans response:

Originality has died! ‘Do you wish to express yourself, you ought at least to know that the inner “thing’ you think to ‘translate’ is itself only a ready-formed dictionary, your words only explainable through other words, and so on indefinitely’ (Roland Barthes, “The Death of the Author”).
Ben Cluff: But there is only one Aileen Zamayoa – therein lies originality.

Response: Thanks Ben for being an idealist! But we must succumb to the fact that our dictionaries have already been pre-written! Maybe we can apply all this literary criticism into our own life’s, then we could all just sit in silence forever and have others materialize us, mis-interpret us! That, I believe would be the only way of achieving originality again (doing it through others)! Remember “only by saying nothing can they prevent us from thinking that they mean something. Even to summarize their views itself implies their failure in this respect” ( 187). I refuse to assert my failure! Therefore I will just make sounds from now on, I will stop writing, leave grad school, sit in a chair and make little beeping sounds for the rest of my life. I wont ever point out my views! lol! Hmmmm Maybe not

Anyhow I think the overthrowing of the authorship is a lot more fascinating and fun sounding than that of overthrowing my own being! I love revolutions!