For much of the semester, we've talked about orality versus writing, as if the two were the only ways in which history was recorded, remembered, and recalled. This week, we see that architecture is a third way in which histories are captured. Indeed, architects often had liberty to do/say things via their structures that writers could not.
In The Hunchback of Notre Dame, Victor Hugo worries that "[t]he book will kill the building" (Hugo, 169). He fears that writing will replace the cultural authority that had been the domain of the architect. What will happen to buildings if they are no longer of import (beyond being structures)? Hugo needn't have worried.
When I recall the traveling I've done, and the pictures I've taken, buildings feature prominently (in both memory and pictures). I think fondly about the Eiffel Tower, Dublin Castle, the Plaza de Toros de las Ventas in Madrid (bull fighting ring), and other places that I've seen that are important for a variety of reasons. These buildings are historically significant as the sites of the histories of these cities/countries. Some of them are still important - like the bull fighting ring in Madrid - as they continue to be the sites of living history. While we certainly read books to prepare for travel, and even seek out books when we travel (the Book of Kells comes to mind), architecture still plays an important part in documenting the history of places.
Recently, the Clock Tower in the Old Town Square in Prague turned 600 years old. To commemorate this event, the city presented a spectacular digital map of this 600 year history. In a grand display of old meeting new, the events of the past 600 years were literally displayed upon the facade of the building. Print is undoubtedly important for capturing and preserving histories. But I don't think that the book has killed the building.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
Thursday, October 14, 2010
Mid-semester Reflection
I've thought a lot about the story with which Frank ended class last week. When confronted with his mortality, he thought about his ancestors, and a reunion with them wherever they are. I've experienced the inverse of that.
I have really low blood pressure, and the way that I found out was by fainting in a restaurant. I'd never fainted before, and it's a pretty incredible experience. I lost consciousness, but not sub-consciousness. While I was passed out, I remember looking around a dark hallway for my grandmother. It was a very calm, very rational moment. And I thought to myself, "Well, she's not here, so I guess I'm not dead." I didn't realize how certain I was that death would reunite me with lost loved ones until I had some time to reflect on that experience.
And now I'm thinking about how our ancestors contribute to communication habits that are unique to us, that we inherit as beneficiaries of the familial institution. Stereotypically, many Italian people use their hands when they communicate. In my own family, my grandmother communicates via the preparation and presentation of food. I obviously can't speak to the communication habits of other families, but I presume that each family has a set of communication strategies or techniques that are inter-generational.
What does this mean for the study of communication? I think it means that we can approach communications with a camera, so to speak. We can look through the lens and make generalizations that apply to the majority of people. We can look broadly at the history of the communications tradition that we (humanity) have inherited. Or we can zoom in. We can zoom in to look at communications within institutions such as the state, religion, education, etc. We can zoom in further to look at family dynamics and politics. Finally, we can zoom in all the way, until we get to ourselves. As Frank said in class, "In the end, we each define our own rootedness and duty."
And in the end, (I think) we return to our ancestors.
I have really low blood pressure, and the way that I found out was by fainting in a restaurant. I'd never fainted before, and it's a pretty incredible experience. I lost consciousness, but not sub-consciousness. While I was passed out, I remember looking around a dark hallway for my grandmother. It was a very calm, very rational moment. And I thought to myself, "Well, she's not here, so I guess I'm not dead." I didn't realize how certain I was that death would reunite me with lost loved ones until I had some time to reflect on that experience.
And now I'm thinking about how our ancestors contribute to communication habits that are unique to us, that we inherit as beneficiaries of the familial institution. Stereotypically, many Italian people use their hands when they communicate. In my own family, my grandmother communicates via the preparation and presentation of food. I obviously can't speak to the communication habits of other families, but I presume that each family has a set of communication strategies or techniques that are inter-generational.
What does this mean for the study of communication? I think it means that we can approach communications with a camera, so to speak. We can look through the lens and make generalizations that apply to the majority of people. We can look broadly at the history of the communications tradition that we (humanity) have inherited. Or we can zoom in. We can zoom in to look at communications within institutions such as the state, religion, education, etc. We can zoom in further to look at family dynamics and politics. Finally, we can zoom in all the way, until we get to ourselves. As Frank said in class, "In the end, we each define our own rootedness and duty."
And in the end, (I think) we return to our ancestors.
Sunday, October 10, 2010
Identities
This week's readings explored personal and political identity politics, as they relate to men. In Fromm's "Sane Society," men grapple with severing maternal ties in order to become separate individuals. In Virgil's "Aeneid," Aeneas balances being his father's son with being a good statesman/soldier. These themes can be bound in a broad category called identity politics. Who are we? How do we develop our sense of self? What agents of socialization come to bear upon the decisions we make that define who we are? Though there are many answers to this last question, we see three distinct answers in this week's texts: maternal relationships, nationalism, and religion. Interestingly, nations and religions often take on maternal qualities, further blending these categories of identity.
There are many ways in which a man defines himself. "[H]e has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother." (Fromm 39) He has to "belong to a nation." (Fromm 56) We see this search for self definition played out in Aeneas' journey. Aeneas is his father's son and also a son of his country.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to take this post to the same place I've taken previous posts - to the topic of gender. In both readings, women represent the foundation from which men can start to develop identities. Women are nurturing mothers, or motherlands. There is no option for women other than to be the platform from which men launch their adult lives. In the context of this week's readings, what does women's identity politics look like? I think that Fromm alludes to some of the ways in which women develop personal and national identities: there is Eve's fall from grace (where the woman is, at least in the beginning, more intelligent than the man); there is the acknowledgment that matriarchal societies exist, and that those societies are different than patriarchal societies. I would also argue that women's identity can be considered in what Fromm doesn't say, in the negative space of the essay, so to speak. For example:
"The incest tabu is the necessary condition for all human development, not because of its sexual, but because of its affective aspect. Man, in order to be born, in order to progress, has to sever the umbilical cord; he has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother. The incestuous desire has its strength not from the sexual attraction to mother, but from the deep-seated craving to remain in, or to return to the all-enveloping womb, or to the all-nourishing breasts." (Fromm 39)
If we look at what isn't said, then can we assume that women do not have to work through any of these issues as they develop their personal identities? If men fight the urge to return to the womb, then are women stronger for not having to fight that urge? Are biological women freer to develop identities because they have their own wombs and breasts from which to be comforted and nourished? Or do women just have "daddy issues" which Fromm was not able or interested in documenting in this excerpt?
Then, of course, there is gender identity politics as it relates to the queer community. I know that this goes way beyond the scope of what we read this week, but as our task is to write about ideas that relate to personal experience/interest, I'll proceed.
How are we to understand personal and national identity politics in the queer community? Does a transsexual person born a woman undergo the personal identity development of a man? If this happens later in life, then does that middle-aged person become the equivalent of an adolescent in terms of personal identity? And what of national identity? This is especially relevant in light of recent developments in the existence of DADT, where personal and national identity politics crash into each other. Men and women are asked to deny their personal identities in order to embrace and participate in a culture of national identity. Fromm writes that the "average man today obtains his sense of identity from his belonging to a nation." (Fromm 56) Clearly, this is true, since countless LGBTQ people are willing to sacrifice their personal selves to maintain their national identities.
What does all this rambling mean for us today? In sum, I walk away from this week's readings with the following:
There are many ways in which a man defines himself. "[H]e has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother." (Fromm 39) He has to "belong to a nation." (Fromm 56) We see this search for self definition played out in Aeneas' journey. Aeneas is his father's son and also a son of his country.
At the risk of beating a dead horse, I'm going to take this post to the same place I've taken previous posts - to the topic of gender. In both readings, women represent the foundation from which men can start to develop identities. Women are nurturing mothers, or motherlands. There is no option for women other than to be the platform from which men launch their adult lives. In the context of this week's readings, what does women's identity politics look like? I think that Fromm alludes to some of the ways in which women develop personal and national identities: there is Eve's fall from grace (where the woman is, at least in the beginning, more intelligent than the man); there is the acknowledgment that matriarchal societies exist, and that those societies are different than patriarchal societies. I would also argue that women's identity can be considered in what Fromm doesn't say, in the negative space of the essay, so to speak. For example:
"The incest tabu is the necessary condition for all human development, not because of its sexual, but because of its affective aspect. Man, in order to be born, in order to progress, has to sever the umbilical cord; he has to overcome the deep craving to remain tied to mother. The incestuous desire has its strength not from the sexual attraction to mother, but from the deep-seated craving to remain in, or to return to the all-enveloping womb, or to the all-nourishing breasts." (Fromm 39)
If we look at what isn't said, then can we assume that women do not have to work through any of these issues as they develop their personal identities? If men fight the urge to return to the womb, then are women stronger for not having to fight that urge? Are biological women freer to develop identities because they have their own wombs and breasts from which to be comforted and nourished? Or do women just have "daddy issues" which Fromm was not able or interested in documenting in this excerpt?
Then, of course, there is gender identity politics as it relates to the queer community. I know that this goes way beyond the scope of what we read this week, but as our task is to write about ideas that relate to personal experience/interest, I'll proceed.
How are we to understand personal and national identity politics in the queer community? Does a transsexual person born a woman undergo the personal identity development of a man? If this happens later in life, then does that middle-aged person become the equivalent of an adolescent in terms of personal identity? And what of national identity? This is especially relevant in light of recent developments in the existence of DADT, where personal and national identity politics crash into each other. Men and women are asked to deny their personal identities in order to embrace and participate in a culture of national identity. Fromm writes that the "average man today obtains his sense of identity from his belonging to a nation." (Fromm 56) Clearly, this is true, since countless LGBTQ people are willing to sacrifice their personal selves to maintain their national identities.
What does all this rambling mean for us today? In sum, I walk away from this week's readings with the following:
- Personal and political identities are not mutually exclusive.
- While we focused on male identities, there is room to use these readings to talk about female identities as well.
- Families, states, and religions are primary agents of socialization and individual development.
- Modern theories of identity politics face the challenge of incorporating and representing groups whose development is not traditional (though not less valid or important for falling outside of tradition).
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
History: War & Ritual
This week's historical readings - Thucydides, in particular - demonstrate some of the ways in which Greek culture set the precedent for the development of future societies. Indeed, within these readings we can easily see representations of ancient Greek culture in our own lives. There are two big takeaways for me:
1. Where men exist in collectives/societies, war is inevitable.
2. Ritual ceremonies contribute to the foundation of society.
On War
"Even after the Trojan War Greece continued in a state of upheaval and resettlement, with no opportunity for peaceful growth." (Thucydides, page 8)
Substitute Operation Iraqi Freedom for the Trojan War, and Iraq for Greece, and this sentence would be relevant today. What is it about the nature of men that compels them to battle? Were women the majority of leaders around the world, would there be as much global conflict as there is today? I think back on Amartya Sen's interview to which we listened last week. It doesn't seem possible to me to balance justice and war. I don't understand the desire to conquer, seize, and kill. This is contradictory to what Thucydides writes later on: "we are not angry with our neighbour if he indulges his own pleasure, nor do we put on the disapproving look which falls short of punishment but can still hurt." (page 91) If on the one hand you are not obsessed with your neighbor, and on the other hand you fight a war with your neighbor, then how do you reconcile this contradiction within yourself? It seems to me that war boils down to men's egos - both in ancient Greek life and in our world today.
On Ritual
". . . the bones of the departed are laid out, and people can bring offerings to their own dead." (Thucydides, page 89)
I was struck by the account of funeral rituals during war times. It is quite amazing to visualize the gathering of bones, laying of offerings, and weeping women. State funerals were accorded to those high in the military chain of command, and eulogies were tributes that could embolden the living and stir them to aspire to the greatness of the dead (what a concept!). Ritual - whether religious or not - is of great consequence on many levels: sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, educationally. Ritual binds people together, giving them common experiences upon which to draw in times of sadness, celebration, anger, etc.
Rituals are all around us. I only wish it were easier to objectively identify and analyze the ones in which we participate.
1. Where men exist in collectives/societies, war is inevitable.
2. Ritual ceremonies contribute to the foundation of society.
On War
"Even after the Trojan War Greece continued in a state of upheaval and resettlement, with no opportunity for peaceful growth." (Thucydides, page 8)
Substitute Operation Iraqi Freedom for the Trojan War, and Iraq for Greece, and this sentence would be relevant today. What is it about the nature of men that compels them to battle? Were women the majority of leaders around the world, would there be as much global conflict as there is today? I think back on Amartya Sen's interview to which we listened last week. It doesn't seem possible to me to balance justice and war. I don't understand the desire to conquer, seize, and kill. This is contradictory to what Thucydides writes later on: "we are not angry with our neighbour if he indulges his own pleasure, nor do we put on the disapproving look which falls short of punishment but can still hurt." (page 91) If on the one hand you are not obsessed with your neighbor, and on the other hand you fight a war with your neighbor, then how do you reconcile this contradiction within yourself? It seems to me that war boils down to men's egos - both in ancient Greek life and in our world today.
On Ritual
". . . the bones of the departed are laid out, and people can bring offerings to their own dead." (Thucydides, page 89)
I was struck by the account of funeral rituals during war times. It is quite amazing to visualize the gathering of bones, laying of offerings, and weeping women. State funerals were accorded to those high in the military chain of command, and eulogies were tributes that could embolden the living and stir them to aspire to the greatness of the dead (what a concept!). Ritual - whether religious or not - is of great consequence on many levels: sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically, educationally. Ritual binds people together, giving them common experiences upon which to draw in times of sadness, celebration, anger, etc.
Rituals are all around us. I only wish it were easier to objectively identify and analyze the ones in which we participate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)