NOTE: By class vote, we moved the due date for Short Paper #2 from Wednesday to Friday by 5pm. That means we do have class on Wednesday, but not on Friday. Please note the change, especially since a few of you missed class on Monday, and if you miss on Wednesday you'll miss an entire week of class (not good for your grade!).
Read Chapter 8 in Culler's text, our last chapter from that book and one that will be very important to our next book, The Harlem Renaissance Reader. It will also be important to your Critical Paper #2, which is your final exam paper.
Here are some ideas to think about as you read, since we'll do an in-class writing when you arrive on Wednesday:
* What does Culler mean when he writes that "Theory is inclined to argue that to be a subject at all is to be subjected to various regimes (psycho-social, sexual, linguistic)"?
* How might we argue that identity is itself a performance, and one that "emerges as the result of actions, of struggles with the world"? Related to this, can something that is formed by external stimulus also be the "cause" of these stimuli? In other words, can our inner being determine our external struggles? (think Cavafy's poem "Ithaca").
* Culler writes that "literature has not only made identity a theme; it has played a significant role in the construction of the identity of readers." How can a book make a person's identity? Can you think of a book that was influential in your personal aesthetic or your view of yourself?
* What does Culler mean when he writes that "Literature is said to corrupt through mechanisms of identification?" How might this relate to the idea of censorship and banned books?
* Why might some theorists argue that books "produced 'the modern individual,' who was first of all a woman"?
* If our identity is first and foremost an act of identity, why is this identification doomed to fail? Why is the essence of every human being a botched performance or a failed imitation? (and is this necessarily a bad thing?)
* Can group identity come through opposition? Can you become "a people" simply by opposing what you're not? Or those who deny your existence? Also, is group identity more about negation than identification?
* How do we know we have agency or free will to choose? How much of our decisions are really our own, and how much is subjected upon us by our group identification? Related to this, how much are you responsible for the actions of a group even if "you" didn't participate in them? Is being part of a group being universally responsible?
No comments:
Post a Comment