School Recap

Yes, I ahave been a slacker. The original plan was to post everyday after class about my dangerous dealings. As you all very well know, my plans don't always fall through. But here I am still trying. I'll try to recap what I learned in my classes on Tuesday and Thursday, but keep in mind that was a couple days ago and I have a bad memory.

Modernism -
We continued with Pound (that crazy s.o.b.). We read his Thrones de los Cantares. We talked about too many things to discuss here, so I'll just tell you about what I wrote my paper on. The section I analyzed comes from canto XCVIII. For those of you who don't speak Roman numeral, this is Canto 98.

Does god need a clay model? gilded?

hua t’ou these tongue words!

The maker of words ascending,

whiteness of bones beneath.

The celestial wants your small change?

or bears grudge when he does not get it,

First, I'll give those of you that are interested a little background. Pound, especially in these later cantos, is obsessed with money, coinage, interest rates, usury, etc. Also, hua t'ou is Chinese. It is usually translated "before the spoken word," but literally means "word head," "sentence head," or "speech's head." In Jewish legend there is a creature named golem. A golem is a clay figure that can be brought to life by writing a word across its forward. Afterward, the creature becomes something of a robot or an automaton. The only way to kill this creature is to write the same word again, only backwards, on his forehead. In my paper I also referenced a "whited sepulchur." In Judeo-Christian thought this is a metaphor for a hypocrite. It is a building that is painted white on the outside to look holy, but inside are bones and corruption. "Bones" is slang for money and that bones were often carved into, thrown, and subsequently used to foretell futures. And the most important thing to know: Pound would have been aware of all of these things as well as much much more. Now that you know all this, you can probably do the same reading of it as I did, but here is my basic argument: Pound imagines god as a kind of coiner (maker), while simultaneously equating coiners (makers of words) with gods. In light of his economic beliefs (that usury is the ultimate evil, making things worth more than they actually are is evil, deception is evil, etc.) and his explicitly outlined relationship between god and money, is that god is susceptible to money. This is counter-intuitive, but so is much of Pound. I also posit that Pound believes the only way to escape this corruption and necessary evil is via multiplicity, i.e. constant circulation, constant wordplay, and ultimately a type of polytheistic monotheism.

Shakespeare -
We are reading Macbeth. We did talk about one interesting thing this week, and it was while Rob went out for a walk. Ironic, huh? Anyway, early in the play Lady Macbeth asks to be "unsexed." The passage alludes to the idea that she wants her blood coagulated. I.e. she wants to stop mensturating, pumping blood to and from her heart, etc. The play between gender roles in this play is very interesting to me. To equate feminity ot bleeding is certainly nothing new, but in this sense it also reveals an interesting view of masculinity: that blood does not flow through their veins, and indeed their heart does not even pump. I know it's a bit of a stretch, but it was still cool to think about.

Intro to Feminist Theory -
We talked more about Marxist/Socialist feminism, and mainly debated the issue of socialized childcare and housework. I brought up this question: Many pro-choice feminists are also in favor of socialized childcare. How do they reconcile the two, because they seem to stem from opposite ideologies. On the one hand, they are believe that women should have choice above all else, and yet they want their children to be a social responsibility? I don't really see how the two can be reconciled rationally. Kim gave me an answer, which honestly I can't quite remember, but I still think I have a good point. Any thoughts???

Feminist Political Theory -
We talked about Rouseau on Tues. and his social contract theory. It basically goes like this: everyone (meaning men) agrees on a gov't and then they govern themselves. In theory, since everyone came together and had their say in forming the gov't, no one will ever do antyhing against it. The social contract is constantly being re-done, but nevertheless every citizen is a part of it and agrees to it explicity (not inexpicitly like Locke). Then, the day I had been waiting for, Foucault!!!!! I love the man. We read sections from Discipline and Punish, focusing on the section "Docile Bodies." It's all about how society trains us to not only have specific ideologies and notions of natural, but to actually move our bodies in certain ways. [[Pavlov's dog]] We sit in rows, we sleep at night, eat dinner at six, etc., just like good little soldiers. Kinda creeps you out when you begin to notice just how much society shapes your life, even down to your bodie's smallest movements. The way I always remember Foucault: It is more powerful to say "yes" than to say "no." In other words, it is more powerful (and more sneaky) to train than to punish.