Author Archives: stella44

I found Henry Jenkins’ Textual Poachers to be very relevant and a unique application of the Marxist thought and critiques that we have read this semester. Jenkins’ text brings up many interesting questions about the influence of fan culture, especially on the original work. I always found it somewhat puzzling that the creators of the work would be opposed to fan-created materials because I didn’t think it would have a significant impact on the original work, but Textual Poachers led me to understand that this type of interpretation can actually change its meaning. By reinterpreting the original text, fans influence future interpretations, and the original work will become conflated with the fan text. Jenkins bring up the notion that reading is no longer a passive activity and fans now have the ability to actually change the original meaning. On the other hand, I do believe that many of these fan cultures truly bring value to the original work because we make the meaning. While I am not very familiar with the fan culture surrounding Star Trek, it seems like the show would be nothing without the fans. I also found Jenkins’ thoughts of female social predispositions toward fandom particularly interesting, especially his observation that females are more inclined to interpret the story whereas men tend to stick to the original story.

After reading the introduction the first week of class, I thoroughly enjoyed reading the rest of Che’s Afterlife. On account of my research paper topic, the Shephard Fairey image of Barack Obama was at the forefront of my mind while reading Casey. Korda’s image of Che resembles the Fairey image of Barack Obama and both men have essentially become brands that can be bought and sold in a public marketplace. However, Che’s consumer appeal was established primarily after his death, whereas Obama is in the midst of making his own brand and legacy. It is problematic that in both cases, the images of these two extremely influential men do not necessarily stand for their beliefs or causes but have come to represent more of their commercial appeal. Ironically, Che once said, “man really attains the state of complete humanity when he produces, without being forced by physical need to sell himself as a commodity”. While the image of Che is meant to be a symbol of his anti-capitalist beliefs and still partially holds this meaning, the Fairey image serves no other purpose than to market Obama. This explicit difference between two ostensibly comparable images illustrates how celebrity and branding has made its way into politics.

Sorry this is so late!

I found Radway’s arguments to be very interesting and unlike any other texts that I have read before. Prior to reading Reading the Romance, I never thought of the publishing industry for romance novels as a sophisticated means of churning out formulaic books that are guaranteed to sell. Radway reveals the many conventions that come together to form either a “good” or “bad” romance novel. I think that most consumers do in fact judge a book by its cover and title, but it seems that this practice is performed most often by readers of romance novels. Using data that she gathered from Smithton readers, Radway analyzes the literary conventions that readers would like to see in a romance novel that they are reading. It is not surprising that most readers are looking for a moderately detailed love story and a happy ending but do not want to read about bed hopping or rape. Radway goes on to connect this information to the idea that we live in a patriarchal society, and romance novels only serve to perpetuate the ideology that women are weaker than men. While Radway’s text is a great introduction to this field, I think that her lack of scientific data and limited sample size restrict the scope of her argument. I also found Radway’s section on escapism to be particularly interesting. Radway argues that these women read romance novels as a means of temporarily escaping their lives. However, I would be more interested to know why these women, and all women, want to escape and what they are escaping from. Is it simply a way to get away from the mundane aspects of their lives and go to a faraway place or is it something more complex?

I found it interesting that de Certeau acknowledges that although social science has a means of studying everything that makes up a culture, it neglects a means of analyzing the ways people reappropriate these factors in everyday life. Based on our other readings, I think this is an original notion and something that is generally ignored. We have read so much about the different parts of cultures, from language to art, that come together to form a society, however, de Certeau is correct in saying that we also need to examine how those aspects play out once they reach the public. Because we do not have a means for looking at this stage in the cultural process, the opportunity arises for people to become complacent and submit to the institutions that seek to pacify them. Failing to acknowledge ordinary people’s vulnerability to received culture will ultimately lead to a society of passive consumers. De Certeau, however, steers clear of labeling these people as “consumers” and instead uses the term “user” to describe those associated with mass culture.

De Certeau begins much like Williams in declaring that culture is common and ordinary and goes on to explain the constant struggle that we face to resist assimilation. In his book, de Certeau puts together key concepts and questions that will help us to understand and discuss everyday “tactical” activities. De Certeau identifies two kinds of behavior, the “strategic”, which is associated with the producers, and the “tactical”, which refers to ordinary people and non-producers. The desired outcome of a strategy is to perpetuate itself through what it produces, leading to a focus on mass reproduction and homogeneity, not only of its products but also of its audience. On the other hand, de Certeau explains that a tactic does not attempt to defeat a strategy because it is clearer weaker but instead meets the needs of the strategy and tries to infiltrate through means other than force. Tactical activity seems far more elusive than strategy and is more difficult to examine because it is not visible through a product; however, de Certeau attempts to provide the necessary tools to do so.

I found the Fanon reading to be particularly interesting because rather than being another analysis of Marxist theories, it actually proposed a practical change to how things are being done. Frantz Fanon, as a psychiatrist, explores the psychological effects of colonization on the Algerians as well as the larger implications of colonization. He uses these observations and conclusions as an argument for the decolonization of Algeria.

In addition to Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth, I also thought that Jean-Paul Sartre’s preface to Fanon’s work was especially evocative. Sartre’s controversial introduction takes a very specific approach to Fanon’s argument and presents it as an advocacy for violent behavior. While Fanon acknowledges the use of violence as a means in the process of decolonization, he does not, however, point to it as the sole method of achieving the goal. Sartre’s words misleadingly imply that the use of violence is what will ultimately lead to Algerian liberation. In his foreword, Homi K. Bhabha asserts that Sartre’s introduction provides a limited analysis of Fanon’s extremely influential piece and may turn some readers off of the body of the work. Sartre makes it seem as though Fanon’s main argument is that of violence.

Despite the controversial introduction, the influence of Fanon’s Wretched of the Earth is far reaching and has become a sort of handbook for those dealing with or analyzing the process of decolonization. When I looked up Fanon on Wikipedia, I found it very interesting that the Pentagon continues to refer to Fanon’s work as advice on handling the conflict in Iraq.

I found Hall’s comparison between the two major views in Marxist cultural studies, culturalism and structuralism, especially interesting after having read both Raymond Williams’ and Louis Althusser’s works. The term of culturalism is best defined by looking at Williams’ analysis of the concept of ideology and focuses on the “creativity of the cultural process and the active autonomy of human practices”. Williams assumes an identity between class and experience; whereas, Althusser defines cultural studies as a structure of practices. Althusser’s perspective of structuralism focuses more on “the complexity of and the contradictions within the social formation, conceptualized as a structure of practices.”

I thought that Grossberg and Slack’s article “An Introduction to Stuart Hall’s Essay” was beneficial in helping to clarify the comparisons and conclusions made in Hall’s essay “Cultural Studies: Two Paradigms”. Hall takes ideas from each and forms his own theory that falls somewhere in the middle of necessary correspondences and necessary noncorrespondence. Hall’s argument goes back to the definition of ideology, which he characterizes as “the web of meanings and discourses, the strings of connotation and their means of representation, within which social practices, consciousness, identities, and subjectivities are placed” (Grossberg and Slack, 89). Grossberg and Slack’s discussion of Orthodox and Structural Marxist theory was also interesting. While Orthodox Marxist theory sees ideology as false knowledge, Structural Marxism rejects this theory and sees ideology as a part of the social formation.

I completely sympathize with what many of you are saying and felt slightly overwhelmed by Althusser’s essay “Contradiction and Overdetermination.” Although some portions of the text stood out to me and made sense, I felt lost while reading others and do not feel like I fully grasped all of the concepts. For one, I know that I would benefit from an explanation of the Marxist inversion of the Hegelian dialectic.

In terms of concepts that did make an impression, I particularly liked Althusser’s reference to Lenin’s theory of the “weakest link”. I think that this passage stood out to me because it was a practical application of the rather dense Marxist concept of contradiction.  Althusser explains, “A chain is as strong as its weakest link. In general, anyone who wants to control a given situation will look out for a weak point, in case it should render the whole system vulnerable. On the other hand, anyone who wants to attack it, even if the odds are apparently against him, need only discover this one weakness to make all its power precarious” (p. 94). Thus, the weakest point in a system is the most important, whether it be from an angle of protection or attack.

Lenin’s application is really hammered home with the example of the possibility for revolution in Russia. In the chain of imperialist nations, Russia was “the most backward country in Europe”, leading to an “objectively revolutionary situation” (p. 95). The fact that Russia was “simultaneously at least a century behind the imperialist world, and at the peak of its development” made revolution imminent (p. 97). The historical contradictions that existed within Russia in the early 20^th century led to an unavoidable weakness in the string of imperialist states.