Hegemony

I am not sure of the purpose of hegemony other to provide for a gray area as opposed to the black and white way that Marx has set up the base and superstructure. I must admit I am struggling with these ideas as well. I have always (until this point) felt that what Williams includes in the hegemony has always existed in the superstructure, so I guess this is a new lesson in Marxism for me. Culture and ideology have existed in the superstructure for me as I have always thought of them in terms of them being attached to or a part of the legal and political (superstructure). What bothers me is the necessity of trying to break apart the pieces into so many parts that the message and ideas thus the whole point of using Marxism as a lens to approach "art" get lost in the complexities of societal analysis. We have extremely complex societies, and, I think, we recognize this. This does not make the base-superstructure approach wrong; it only makes our job as close readers much more complex in how we handle the relationships within complex societies and the works which are products of them.

Power Struggles

Foucault is searching for a way to examine theories and show the effects that they have on the societies which have given them power. He examines history and seems to search for center in the struggle for power. Which obviously goes back to deconstruction and Derrida. If we challenge the center, which is what seems to me the power stronghold, then we take back some of the power. In Barry last week I believe he stated that theories like Marxism and Feminism give us the lenses through which we are to read a piece of work, while structuralism gives the work itself power and deconstruction challenges the work thus challenging the power centers that have influenced the work. It's all a struggle for power.

Certainty vs. Confusion on a grand scale

Well, deconstructionists have decided to take the pendulum of thought and swing it in the completely opposite direction (and push it really hard). There are a few ideas that I do embrace. The idea of uncertainty is one of them. The philosophical aspect of deconstruction where "[t]here are no facts, only interpretations" (61) really hit home. I have trouble as a teacher in presenting only one interpretation of a text (which later is undermined by the state mandated standardized tests). I am, just as many philosophizers, "skeptical by nature" and question pretty much everything.

I also believe that "meanings are fluid" and that the "meaning words have can never be guaranteed one hundred percent pure" (to a point). I agree with this just simply based on the fact that languages evolve. When a language ceases to change it dies (for example Latin).

I also feel that reality is somewhat relativistic in that it is subject to an individuals interpretations as well as the extent in which the individual is "governed by the system" linguistically (according of couse to the structuralists).

Questions I would like to discuss as a class include:

What is the point of doing either a structuralist or deconstructive analysis of a text when both can be done on the same piece of writing thus "proving" a unified and disunified text?

What happens to power? (not just in the text but in reality which is created either by language or by the readers or interpreters of language)?

Rhetoric: The New Weapon of Mass Destruction

I had to post again after commenting on Marilyn's blog because I have a few more thoughts now on what happens when we mix the rhetoric of politics with the rhetoric of religion. Plain and simple rhetoric can and is a weapon of mass destruction when used to ascertain "truth" or "certainty."

Turbulance

Trebizond felt that "rhetoric was...devoid of the requirement that the orator be a good man, in the moral sense. Rhetoric was, rather, a pragmatic political art indifferent to morality" (115). This comes just in time for some of the most politically turbulent times in Europe, and also when rhetoric could be used and somewhat manipulated in order for change. Trebizond also felt that memory and delivery were a natural talent not necessarily something one could learn. Since of course he "borrowed" almost all of his writings on the works of Hermogenes without giving him proper credit, it a lot easier to see just how morality seems to have become more of an idea rather than a practice and scholars seemed conflicted about which way to go.

Erasmus set the pendulum of morality swinging again back in favor when he wrote about his views on education. He felt that education should develop "eloquent persons of character" which was rather an idealistic view to say the least. He basically in Praise of Folly makes the reader begin to question traditional wisdom (at least according to Conley as I have not finished reading it myself). This questioning of the traditional is what led reformers like Luther to begin their own writings which questioned things foremost among them the abuses within the Catholic church. What is most interesting about Erasmus is that in Diatriba de libero arbitri he is not promoting his own agenda but merely pointing out the facts that flaw Luther's "certainties." This may have been fascinating to many who read this work, it makes me question the point. It is easy to point out the mistakes that others have made, but by not countering with an alternative, Erasmus can be seen as only playing devil's advocate not really intent on adding anything to the discussion (again here I can only rely on what Conley points out not my own reading).

The other thing that is fascinating is the discussion of certainty that pervades the readings. Augustine felt that the scriptures were "certain," and Luther's writings question Catholic dogma which were at one time "certain" while Erasmus questions Luther's certainty with regard to the scriptures. Then we get Ramus, whose Dialectic aims to critique the ancient rhetoricians and provide us with a "sure method for attaining certainty, and a set of criteria for judgment that enabled one to test the validity of the certainty" (133). But with all of the political evolutions taking place as well as with the advances of civilization this period seems fraught with uncertainty and rhetoric is the only means to navigate it.