407 Matching Annotations
  1. Jun 2016
    1. Schools are not factories, nor are learning or learners products of the mill.

      Now you know why I follow @jessifer on Twitter!

    2. Most college educators (at both traditional and non-traditional institutions) do little direct pedagogical work to prepare themselves as teachers. A commitment to teaching often goes unrewarded, and pedagogical writing (in most fields) is not counted as “research.”

      Too many professors are not trained "teachers" and this is a disservice to their students.

    3. This is a lively and intimate space of creativity and inquiry — a space of listening as much as speaking.

      Precisely the goal of the community I wish to build with my students.

    4. that educators and students alike have found themselves more and more flummoxed by a system that values assessment over engagement, learning management over discovery, content over community, outcomes over epiphanies.

      Questions I have asked myself all through my teacher training. I'm always questioning where "we're" at, and why.

    5. becomes an act of depositing, in which the students are the depositories and the teacher is the depositor.”

      Oh, you mean modern college education?

    6. Pedagogy is praxis, insistently perched at the intersection between the philosophy and the practice of teaching.

      Again, this is so overlooked by many college "teachers". There are too many "professors" that just don't care at all whether their students are understanding. They get paid to be there no matter what...

    7. It is through this impatient dialogue, and the implicit collaboration within it, that Critical Pedagogy finds its impetus toward change.

      When we understand this, we will be moving away from the Knowledge Repository.

    8. How can we build platforms that support learning across age, race, culture, gender, ability, geography? What are the specific affordances and limitations of technology toward these ends?

      I always wonder about the digital divide and the SES separation between students and technology.

    9. A Critical Digital Pedagogy demands that open and networked educational environments must not be merely repositories of content. They must be platforms for engaging students and teachers as full agents of their own learning.

      Again, I must argue for the disadvantaged here. Where does this leave the poor?

    10. Intellectuals have a responsibility to analyze how language, information, and meaning work to organize, legitimate, and circulate values, structure reality, and offer up particular notions of agency and identity. For public intellectuals, the latter challenge demands a new kind of literacy and critical understanding with respect to the emergence of the new media and electronic technologies, and the new and powerful role they play as instruments of public pedagogy.

      Should not be written off as "stodginess" but real questions of value, I think. The shift won't be automatic or instantaneous, as we have seen. Educators must consider the WHY behind a digital shift.

    11. Critical Pedagogy is an approach to teaching and learning predicated on fostering agency and empowering learners (implicitly and explicitly critiquing oppressive power structures). The word “critical” in Critical Pedagogy functions in several registers: Critical, as in mission-critical, essential; Critical, as in literary criticism and critique, providing definitions and interpretation; Critical, as in reflective and nuanced thinking about a subject; Critical, as in criticizing institutional, corporate, or societal impediments to learning; Critical Pedagogy, as a disciplinary approach, which inflects (and is inflected by) each of these other meanings.

      I love this! Let's find as many definitions of "critical" as possible!

    12. ritical Pedagogy, no matter how we define it, has a central place in the discussion of how learning is changing in the 21st century because Critical Pedagogy is primarily concerned with an equitable distribution of power. If students live in a culture that digitizes and educates them through a screen, they require an education that empowers them in that sphere, teaches them that language, and offers new opportunities of human connectivity.

      What power do those WITHOUT screens have? It seems that we're assuming 100% when that's not nealry the actual picture. How do we catch up districts who are so far behind that they don't even know what google docs are? What are the implications for the students from those districts?

  2. Dec 2015
    1. I’m convinced that Hacking the Accident is not merely a novelty. It’d be all too easy to dismiss the work as a gag, good for a few amusing quotes and nothing more.

      Of course we want to defend our own work. But this is like the convo Sara and I had about taking a queering too far.

    2. I love that The Chronicle of Higher Education always appears as The Church of Higher Efficiency; it’s as if the newspaper was calling out academia for what it has become—an all-consuming, totalizing quest for efficiency and productivity, instead of a space of learning and creativity.

      I see some of the value now. Interesting.

    3. writing, the thing that we produce and consume endlessly and desperately, writing, the thing upon which our lives of letters is founded—writing, it is mere “yacking”

      Nothing is sacred!

    4. writing, the thing that we produce and consume endlessly and desperately, writing, the thing upon which our lives of letters is founded—writing, it is mere “yacking”

      Nothing is sacred!

    5. I took the entire contents of Hacking the Academy, some thirty something essays by leading thinkers in the digital humanities, and subjected them to the N+7 algorithm used by the Oulipo writers.

      Why? What was the purpose for doing this?

    6. “I study systems that break other systems.”

      why does this sound familiar? Oh, I know! Binaries!

    7. Carpentry aspires to build from scratch, whereas the Deformed Humanities tears apart existing structures and uses the scraps.

      But we're anti-building, right?

    8. Mashups, remixes, fan fiction, they are all made by breaking things, with little regard for preserving the original whole.

      great examples

    9. And let’s not soften our critical blow by calling it deformance. Name it what it is, a deformation.

      interesting. IDK though...a rose by any other name, maybe? (Sorry, i'm full of cliches tonight!)

    10. The end result of deformance as most critics would have it is a sense of renewal, a sense of de-forming only to re-form.

      We're still just queering it but calling it deformance.

    11. say, by focusing on only the nouns in an epic poem or calculating the frequency of collocations between character names in a novels.

      Just because we can?

    12. damaging to critical seriousness

      How does it damage? You don't necessarily need to destroy the original thing to build from it.

    13. Reading backwards revitalizes a text, revealing its constructedness, its seams, edges, and working parts.

      causes us to consider that paper in new ways

    14. deliberately misreading a text, for example, reading a poem backwards line-by-line.

      reminds me of queering

    15. The Deformed Humanities is an origami crane—a piece of paper contorted into an object of startling insight and beauty.

      I like this metaphor. A piece of paper is useful all by itself, but is a paper crane useful in any real-world way? Or is it just an object of art?

    16. not about building. It’s about sharing.

      Sharing. Hm. Ideas? Resources? Methods? What about creating? Is that the same as building?

    1. What type of research infrastructure do we need? How do we align ourselves with science and engineering driven agendas, and how can we make a strong and grounded argument for humanities cyberinfrastructure?

      focused on structures/tools

    2. Modes of Engagement

      here's where we start the breakdown of what DH include or could include or should not include or of how things look now or might have looked or will look in the future. Components.

    3. As you initially said, while more or less everyone I know in IS is tech-happy and tech-savvy — very few take this to the point of actively constructing alternative environments, etc. in the name of research. There's just so much happening before us that it's all one can do to try to research and explore the diverse social and communicative phenomena from especially (but again, not exclusively) social science perspectives...

      And again, the object

    4. This means that all decisions have to be discussed and negotiated which means that one is forced to reflect on what one is doing, which was the point for us.

      Sounds like a true nightmare! No thank you!

    5. ore mundane issues such as actual research and real implementation

      Yeah. exactly. Why worry about those??

    6. Some pieces might be described as installations while others are more akin to traditional humanities computing tools, or standard, if multi-modal, articles.

      I feel like there is going to be a limited number of folks willing to buy into this model. Just as there are a limited number of folks unwilling to buy into modern art, ala Damien Hurst. What is it TEACHING? What are the OUTCOMES. Show me the practicality, dammit!

    7. Although the ACTLab relates to many different disciplines and institutions, there seems to be a clear sense of being outside the traditional structures.

      And what did the actual work look like that came out of this?

    8. he individual term digital humanist may be problematic because it may seem both too general in not relating to a specific discipline or competence (thus deemphasizing the discipline-specific or professional) and too specific in emphasizing the "digital" part of the scholarly identity (if you are scholar) or giving too much prominence to the humanities part of your professional identity (if you are a digital humanities programmer or a system architect). The more general and non-personal term digital humanities is more inclusive, but somewhat limited because of its lack of specificity and relatively weak disciplinary anchorage

      slippery term

    9. The answer has to do with how we relate to divisions between the humanities and art, the humanities and science, thinking and making, and the university and the outside world.

      Who's allowed in?

    10. Here we are concerned with a rather future driven, positivistic and arguably techno-romantic presentation (starting from "the spectacular emergence of new media innovations") that lists a number of contemporary media representations, as well as suggesting an ongoing creative transformation of society, culture and politics as a result of "strikingly original developments in technologies of digital communication" — a movement described by [Raley 2009, 25] as "the wired Left."

      And the award for the longest, most jingoistic sentence of the week goes to...

    11. Like cultural studies, critical cyberculture studies strives to locate its object of study within various overlapping contexts, including capitalism, consumerism and commodification, cultural difference, and the militarization of everyday life

      To teach a class on this that isn't outdated by semester's end? Hmm...

    12. Libraries are an important part of the infrastructure of the humanities, and in a sense, a kind of humanities laboratory [7] placed outside the departments and schools. Libraries are also, by default, important players in relation to humanities-based information and information technology.

      I am glad this places importance back on libraries. New focus is needed to keep them from dying.

    13. t probes how these common tools may be used to make new knowledge from our cultural inheritance and from the contemporary world.

      back to objects again

    14. ow have reading and writing changed in the digital era? What new forms of cultural expression emerge with the advent of the digital age and how do they build upon or break with the old? How should we assess the ethical and political implications of digital technologies? What kinds of tools do we have or do we need to develop in order to make sense of and/or to take advantage of these new technologies?

      One key part of the argument/field

    15. there is definitely a tension between the traditional disciplines and some of the scholars and initiatives engaged with the digital as a study object.

      just one part is studying the "object"

    16. Digital Humanities is not a unified field but an array of convergent practices that explore a universe in which: a) print is no longer the exclusive or the normative medium in which knowledge is produced and/or disseminated; instead, print finds itself absorbed into new, multimedia configurations; and b) digital tools, techniques, and media have altered the production and dissemination of knowledge in the arts, human and social sciences. [original emphasis]  #manifesto

      More definitions. I am not feeling hashtags as citation. #i'mold

    17. Bell notes that the " 'field' of cyberculture (or whatever) studies is diverse and heterodox, too undisciplined to be called a discipline

      Um, okay...or whatever.

    18. assimilation and distinction. According to Hayles, assimilation extends existing scholarship into digital domains whereas distinction emphasizes new methodologies, novel research questions, and the emergence of new fields


    19. Humanities 2.0 is distinguished from monumental, first-generation, data-based projects not just by its interactivity but also by openness about participation grounded in a different set of theoretical premises, which decenter knowledge and authority"

      In other words, instead of just viewing, we are interacting.

    20. Humanities 1.0 and Humanities 2.0

      more vocab

    21. computing humanities, blogging humanities and multimodal humanities.


    22. I argue that a better understanding of the landscape of the digital humanities is vital to the continued growth and consolidation of the field, and necessary to meet a range of exciting upcoming challenges.

      Where is the allowance for change? Is this view not obsolete in 5 minutes? (A slight hyperbole.)

  3. Nov 2015
    1. he borderline work of culture demands

      more talk of borderlands/ contact zones.

    2. Beingin-the 'b e yond', th en-is tojn habit an intervening space, a s any dictionary will tell you. But to dwell 'jn the Jreyond' is also, as I have shown, to be part of a revisionary time, a return to the presenTto redescribe our cultural COntem pnranpit y: tr> rpjnsrrihp n nr hiiman, higz toric comm onality; to touch jhejut ure on its hither side.

      Ugh! Really?

    3. Postcoloniality, for its part, is a salutary reminder of the persistent 'neo-colonial' relations within the 'new' world order and the multi- national division of labour. Such a perspective enables the authentication of histories of exploitation and the evolution of strategies of resistance. Beyond this, however, postcolonial critique bears witness to those coun- tries and communities - in the North and the South, urban and rural - constituted, if I may coin a phrase, 'otherwise than modernity'.

      new definition outside post colonialism

    4. ultures are being produced from the perspective of disenfranchised minorities. The most significant effect of this process is not the proliferation of 'alternative histories of the exclu

      new ways of thiking about nationalism

    5. The hideous extremity of Serbian nationalism proves that the very idea of a pure, 'ethnically cleansed' national identity can only be achieved through the death, literal and figurative, of the complex interweavings of history, and the culturally contingent border- lines of modem nationhood^


    6. of _^^^t^^__WK_^^v_ca^: structed

      yeah. Totally clear.

    7. interstitial space between the act of representation

      probably the point

    8. Even then, it's still a struggle for power between various groups within ethnic groups about what's being said and who's saying what, who's representing who? What is a community anyway?

      echoing again thoughts of any minority be it gay or proletariat.

    9. The jecognition t hat traditi on besto ws [is a partialform of identif ication. In restaging the past it introduces ot her, incommensurab je^uhuj^ tempofalitie s inlu lite inve it ti en-of-tra^ ditinn


    10. 'racialization of religion' as the dominant discourse through which the State represents their conflicts and struggles, however secular or even 'sexual' they may be.

      some freud some butler some marx

    11. nstitutiona l lgrgtvji gf»"ip^ti*V?i locale, sexual orientation

      come again?

    12. orjhgreis a sense of disorientation,


    13. ontroversial shiftiness of th e prefi x 'gost': postmodernism, postcolonialism, postfeminism. . . .

      What does this even mean?? WTF is "gost"?

    14. The 'bey ond' is neither a new horizon , nor a leav ing b ehind of th e past . . . . Beginnings and~endings ^naybe the sustaining myths of the middle years

      As much as I love an OER text, sometimes I wonder if having to struggle through all these weird typos is really worth it. I'm supposed to pull a deeper meaning out of this text while also decoding the formatting screw ups. I'm tired.

    1. At this junction of nature and culture

      Ha! I knew it!

    2. We can thus understand the inertia characteristic of the formations of the I,

      we are acted upon, we don't act?

    3. expressing the impotence of a pure consciousness to master any situation; a voyeuristic-sadistic idealization of the sexual relation; a personality that realizes itself only in suicide; a consciousness of the other that can be satisfied only by Hegelian murder.

      I've got nothing.

    4. But \unfortunately that philosophy grasps negativity only within the limits of a self-sufficiency of consciousness, which as one of its premises, links to the meconnaissances that constitute the ego, the illusion of autonomy to which it entrusts itself.

      Is this that French feminist thing?

    5. Samaritan of aid

      aware of others outside the self?

    6. But it also throws light on the dymnamic opposition between this libido and the sexual libido, which the first analysts tried to define when they invoked destructive and, indeed, death instincts, in order to explain the evident connection between the narcissistic libido and the alienating function of the I< the aggressivity it releases in any relation to the other, even in a relation involving the most Samaritan of aid.

      Maybe this is important? There are Freud words...

    7. dialectic that will henceforth link the I to socially elaborated situations.

      So instead of the actual baby he can see in the mirror, the "I" becomes constructed by what he learns from exterior sources.

    8. guiding grid for a method of symbolic reduction.

      So he's "scienceified" dream symbols?

    9. he mirror stage is a drama whose internal thrust is precipitated from insufficiency to anticipation - and which manufactures for the subject, caught up in the lure of spatial identification, the succession of phantasies that extends from a fragmented body-image to a form of its totality that I shall call orthopaedic

      So, what the baby is trying to do is at odds with what he sees in the mirror, but he still recognizes himself? IDK. All I got.

    10. The objective notion of the anatomical incompleteness and likewise the presence of certain humoral residues of the maternal organism confirm the view I have formulated as the fact of a real specific prematurity of birth in man. It is worth noting, incidentally, that this is in fact recognized as such by embryologists, by the term foetalization, which determines the prevalence of the so-called superior apparatus of the neurax, and especially of the cortex, which psycho-surgical operations lead us to regard as the intra-organic mirror.

      I might know...5 of those words.

    11. These reflections lead me to recognize in the spatial capitation manifested in the mirror-stage, even before the social dialectic, the effect in man of an organic insufficiency in his natural reality-in so far as any meaning can be given to the word 'nature'.

      I feel like this might be in some way related to the nature/nurture binary?

    12. Such facts are inscribed in an order of homeomorphic identification that would itself fall within the larger question of the meaning of beauty as both formative and erogenic.

      We need others around to help form the idea of "I" or self.

    13. penumbra of symbolic efficacity

      Say that one 4 times fast!

    14. it is still pregnant with the correspondences that unite the I with the statue in which man projects himself, with the phantoms that

      There is only ever one true "I" and we leave it behind at 18 mos.

    15. must resolve as I his discordance with his own reality.

      Really reminds me of the Butler, when she wrote about "who is I?" "I" is something that is discovered and then developed through experience in the world. Especially the world of words.

    16. This form would have to be called the Ideal-I.

      Before any thoughtful self judgement can be made

    17. For me, this activity retains the meaning I have given it up to the age of eighteen months.

      The "excitement" or "aha" phase only lasts from 6-18 mos.

    18. immediately rebounds in the case of the child in a series of gestures in which he experiences in play the relation between the movements assumed in the image and the reflected environment, and between this virtual complex and the reality it reduplicates --the child's own body, and the persons and things around him.

      A child doesn't get bored of looking at himself and his mirror-world.

    19. The child, at an age when he is for a time, however short, outdone by the chimpanzee in instrumental intelligence, can nevertheless already recognize as such his own image in a mirror.

      He's saying that at a core, fundamental level, humans have this ability to recognize themselves from a very early age.

    1. Faeces, penis and baby are all three solid bodies; they all three, by forcible entry or expulsion, stimulate a membranous passage, i.e. the rectum and the vagina, the latter being as it were “taken on lease” from the rectum

      "Taken on lease" Ohhhhkay. Now, let us relate this to "literature"

    2. aeces, penis and baby are all three solid bodies; they all three, by forcible entry or expulsion, stimulate a membranous passage, i.e. the rectum and the vagina, the latter being as it were “taken on lease” from the rectum,

      Oh, so now it's nice and clear! Thanks, Freud!

    3. Interest in faeces is carried over first to interest in gifts, and then to interest in money.

      is this in girls AND boys?

    4. The faecal mass, or as one patient called it, the faecal “stick”, represents as it were the first penis, and the stimulated mucous membrane of the rectum represents that of the vagina.

      So? What does this matter?

    5. narcissistic clinging to anal erotism

      Is he talking about being "anal retentive" or "anal" as in "i'm anal about how clean my car is" ?

    6. He either parts obediently with his faeces, “sacrifices” them to his love, or else retains them for purposes of auto-erotic satisfaction and later as a means of asserting his own will.

      Has this retention ability been proven in infants? Is there hard science here?

    7. A certain amount of libidinal cathexis which originally attached to the contents of the bowel can thus be extended to the baby born through it. Linguistic evidence of this identity of baby and faeces is contained in the expression “to give someone a baby’. For its faeces are the infant’s firstgift, a part ofhis body which he will give up only on persuasion by someone he loves, to whom, indeed, he will make a spontaneous gift of it as a token of affection; for, as a rule, infants do not dirty strangers.

      Uhh...i'm not actually sure if he's talking about the infant developmental stage, the later mature stage of the "mother" or...I'm a little confused.

    8. It is, however, more likely that the wish for a man arises independently of the wish for a baby, and that when it arises - from understandable motives belonging entirely to ego-psychology - the original wish for a penis becomes attached to it as an unconscious libidinal reinforcement. The importance of the process described lies in the fact that a part of the young woman’s narcissistic masculinity is thus changed into femininity, and so can no longer operate in a way harmful to the female sexual function.

      So the baby/penis issue does become or IS separate?

    9. So that in this respect too a baby can be represented by the penis.

      Still not sure i'm getting this 100%

    10. puts up.with the man as an appendage to the penis

      Interesting! She wants the penis for herself, so she tolerates the man....but what does this say about lesbians? Gay men? What might Butler think?

    11. substitute for the penis that has been denied them

      A consolation prize, if you will. Wat.

    12. In other women we find no evidence of this wish for a penis; it is replaced by the wish for a baby, the frustration of which in real life can lead to the outbreak of a neurosis.

      Is he saying that if you want a penis you're a neurotic? Is he calling being lesbian a mental defect?

    13. mishaps which are themselves frequently the result of a very masculine disposition, have re-activated this infantile wish and, through the backward flow of libido, made it the chief vehicle of her neurotic symptoms.

      Is he talking about lesbianism?

    14. castration complex

      Stripping a figure of power?

    15. If we penetrate deeply enough into the neurosis of a woman, we not infrequently meet with the repressedwish to possess a penis like a man.

      Power and oppression?

    16. The “little one’, which originally meant the male genital organ, may thus have acquired a secondary application to the female genitals.

      Interesting. This seems a bit counter-intuitive, however.

    17. the concepts faeces (money, gift), - baby and penis are ill-distinguished from one another and are easily interchangeable


    18. to what extent and in what way does each of them share in deciding its fate? For the organic sources of anal erotism cannot of course be buried as a result of the emergence of the genital organization.

      Where do the anal "impulses" go when replaced by the penis?

    19. development of the libido in man the phase of genital primacy must be precededed by a ‘pregenital organization’ in hiwch sadism and anal eroticism play the leading parts.

      Genital primacy centers libido in the penis

    1. He is turning away from the father whom he knows today to the father in whom he believed in the earlier years of his childhood; and his phantasy is no more than the expression of a regret that those happy days have gone.

      Idealizing his father.

    2. contents itself with exalting the child’s father, but no longer casts any doubts on his maternal origin, which is regarded as something unalterable

      Genetically/evolutionarily we can't guarantee who is the father but the mother is never in doubt.

    3. Chance occurrences of this kind arouse the child’s envy, which finds expression in a phantasy in which both his parents are replaced by others of better birth.

      Seems that we are ambitious from birth whether we realize it or not

    4. But here the influence of sex is already in evidence, for a boy is far more inclined to feel hostile impulses towards his father than towards his mother and has a far more intense desire to get free from him than from her.

      The oedipus/electra complex.

    1. Consid-erations of the canon, it becomes clear, while vital in themselves cannot take the place of questions of pedagogic relations within and around the canon. Canonicity itself then seems the necessary wadding of pious obliviousness that allows for the transmission from one generation to another of texts that have the potential to dismantle the impacted founda-tions upon which a given culture rests.

      Really? Was she not just arguing that we could pull mini-canons only because of the existence of a master canon?

    2. o be gay, or to be potentially classifiable as gay-that is to say, to be sexed or gendered-in this system is to come under the radically overlapping aegises of a universalizing discourse of acts or bonds and at the same time of a minoritizing discourse of kinds of persons


    3. Musil, Kafka, Cather, but ... Mann? James, but ... Lawrence? Eliot? but ... Joyce?

      Awesome. So they were all gay. What does that mean? Does it matter? Why should I care?

    4. Don't ask; You shouldn't know.

      Where is this, beyond New Criticism? Who, I think, weren't anti-gay so much as anti-author.

    5. The word "homosexuality" wasn't coined until 1869-so everyone before then was heterosexual. (Of course, heterosexuality has always existed.) Or

      Honestly? Who actually thinks this is true? Do these people exist?

    6. A short answer, though a very incomplete one, might be that not only have there been a gay Socrates, Shakespeare, and Proust but that their names are Socrates, Shakespeare, Proust; and, beyond that, legion-dozens or hundreds of the most centrally canonic figures

      Is this surprising to anyone? Does it matter? Why?

    7. the cult of the individual author and the organiza-tion of liberal arts education as an expensive form of masterpiece theatre.

      Is this sarcasm? I feel like it is, but I don't even know how to put that into context anymore considering our previous readings.

    8. Socrates of the Orient

      Lao Tsu? Sun Tsu? Really? An AA Proust...PICK ONE. I just don't even know what the hell she is talking about here.

    9. now being realized within literary criticism, for assembling alternative canons of lesbian and gay male writing as minority canons, as a literature of oppression and resistance and survival and heroic making.

      Hero making? Really? For seeing things in perhaps a different way? I am NOT picking up what she is putting down at all.

    10. If it is still in important respects the master-canon it nevertheless cannot now escape naming itself with every syllable also a particular canon, a canon of mastery, in this case of men's mastery over, and over against, women

      Ah. And there's our binary. It wouldn't need to be called a "master canon" if others didn't exist. And others wouldn't exist if there wasn't a master canon.

    11. In fact, though, the most productive canon effects that have been taking place in recent literary studies have occurred, not from within the mechanism either of the master-canon or of a postfractural plurality of canons, but through an interaction between these two models of the canon.

      I tend to agree. It doesn't necessarily need to be one way or the other; why not both? I think we have been doing the mini-canon in comparison with THE canon for a while.

    12. ow may the strategy of a new canon operate in this space

      I think she's talking about how many lenses one can use to read these works. There's a much larger variety of lenses than previously thought? Or that one reading can erase/efface another? Can making these texts part of the gay canon efface their other "meanings?"

    13. homophobic mastery

      Is she saying "we" learned how to be homophobic from the impact of these texts?

    14. a modern homosexual identity

      Ooooh. Just one? Just ONE modern homosexual identity? I'm being a little thrown here by some of these historical claims with more modern subject matter.

    15. In any gay male canon the two contemporaneous experimental works must be yoked together as overarching gateway texts of our modern period

      I'm surprised by this statement. She is making "must" statements about a canon, something we really haven't seen in theory for a long time. New critics, probably? Maybe reader response?

  4. Oct 2015
    1. There are no direct expressive or causal lines between sex, gender, gender presentation, sexual practice, fantasy and sexuality. None of those terms captures or determines the rest.

      It's all just expression and none of it is "T"rue

    2. That there is a need for a repetition at all is a sign that identity is not self-identical. It requires to be instituted again and again, which is to say that it runs the risk of becoming de-instituted at every interval.

      Performance is not constant, and so cannot ever be defined as the self, or the "I"

    3. In this sense, gender is not a performance that a prior subject elects to do, but gender is performative in the sense that it constitutes as an effect the very subject it appears to express.

      Will need this one explicated a bit.

    4. naturalize itself as the original,

      There is no original; it's all constructed.

    5. 3 that drag is not an imitation or a copy of some prior and true gender; according to Newton, drag enacts the very structure of impersonation by which any gender is assumed.

      There is no drag because it's ALL drag

    6. That is, in a political discourse that wages its violence against lesbianism in part by excluding lesbianism from discourse itself?

      Is the lesbian disenfranchised because she is a woman?

    7. What “performs” does not exhaust the “I”; it does not lay out in visible terms the comprehensive content of that “I,”

      What I look like or how I act isn't all of me, it's just one part of how the I is expressed.

    8. In other words, the negative constructions of lesbianism as a fake or a bad copy can be occupied and reworked to call into question the claims of heterosexual priority.

      Hm. Are we back to JFK again here?

    9. If a sexuality is to be disclosed, what will be taken as the true determinant of its meaning: the phantasy structure, the act, the orifice, the gender, the anatomy?

      We know that signifiers only have the meaning assigned to them through a kind of societal agreement which is unstable. Is she worried about this instability?

    10. For being “out” always depends to some extent on being “in”; it gains its meaning only within that polarity.


    11. so we are out of the closet, but into what? what new unbounded spatiality? the room, the den, the attic, the basement, the house, the bar, the university, some new enclosure whose door, like Kafka's door, produces the expectation of a fresh air and a light of illumination that never arrives?

      I LOVE this! What a powerful statement.

    12. invoking the lesbian-signifier, since its signification is always to some degree out of one's control, but also because its specificity can only be demarcated by exclusions that return to disrupt its claim to coherence.

      You don't get to decide what the signifier means. That is determined in the public mind.

    13. But if the I can so determine itself, then that which it excludes in order to make that determination remains constitutive of the determination itself.

      Back to the binary again.

    14. What or who is it that is “out,” made manifest and fully disclosed, when and if I reveal myself as lesbian? What is it that is now known, anything?

      AGain, questioning the purpose of labels. What good does it do? What does it reveal?

    15. If the political task is to show that theory is never merely theoria, in the sense of disengaged contemplation, and to insist that it is fully political (phronesis or even praxis), then why not simply call this operation politics, or some necessary permutation of it?

      Why does there have to be gay theory or race theory or justice theory? Can it all be one? Should it still be called theory?

    16. How do I relate the paradoxical situation of this dependency and refusal?

      So she's writing, reluctantly, under the label of lesbian which makes it a thing whether she wants it to be or not.

    17. To install myself within the terms of an identity category would be to turn against the sexuality that the category purports to describe

      To identify oneself with a label is to embrace that there is an opposite. I like how she says that the changing nature of titles makes her uncomfortable in a good way

    18. “homosexuality” is itself an extension of a homophobic discourse

      The binary again. Like in the funny article with the "JFK was not a homosexual"

    19. whether as the normalizing categories of oppressive structures or as the rallying points for a liberatory contestation of that very oppression.

      This is the binary that we have discussed in class

    20. For it is a production, usually in response to a request, to come out or write in the name of an identity which, once produced, sometimes functions as a politically efficacious phantasm. I'm not at ease with “lesbian theories, gay theories,” for as I've argued elsewhere,

      Not comfortable with labels as they are constructed externally.

    1. monstrosity

      Well, THAT was painful. A monstrosity indeed.

    2. here are thus two interpretations of interpretation, of structure, of sign, of freeplay. The one seeks to decipher, dreams of deciphering, a truth or an origin which is free from freeplay and from the order of the sign, and lives like an exile the necessity of interpretation. The other, which is no longer turned toward the origin, affirms freeplay and tries to pass beyond man and humanism, the name man being the name of that being who, throughout the history of metaphysics or of ontotheology-in other words, through the history of all of his history-has dreamed of full presence, the reassuring foundation, the origin and the end of the game. The second interpretation of interpretation, to which Nietzsche showed us the way, does not seek in ethnography, as Levi-Strauss wished, the "inspiration of a new humanism"

      Some think you can find the "T"ruth and that would be the core or origin. Others think that there is no core or origin.

    3. by failing to pose the problem of the passage from one structure to another, by putting history into parentheses

      I can't tell whether he thinks that history and its accounting is a good or bad thing. He seems to be saying that history isn't made of discreet events, rather it's a continuum where one event influences the next. But how that fits in with the rest is escaping me.

    4. supplementary allowance [ration supplementaire]-if it is permissible to put it that way-is absolutely necessary in order that on the whole the available signifier and the signified it aims at may remain in the relationship of complementarity

      This sounds a bit like Fish's nests.

    5. superabundance of signifier, in relation to the signifieds to which this superabundance can refer

      I feel like this means LS is talking WAY TOO MUCH. I know that feel. looking at you, Derrida

    6. permitted by the lack, the absence of a center or origin, is the movement of supplementarily. One cannot determine the center, the sign which supplements it, which takes its place in its absence-because this sign adds itself, occurs in addition, over and above, comes as a supplement.

      Sign for sign, "ad infinitum" as I believe he's already said.

    7. On the one hand, structuralism justly claims to be the critique of empiricism. But at the same time there is not a single book or study by Levi-Strauss which does not offer itself as an empirical essay which can always be completed or invalidated by new information.

      Beyond all the hate for LS, i'm not getting a whole lot here. He claims his writing is empirical, but it really isn't? It's something else? Not sure.

    8. myth: the myth of mythology


    9. In effect the study of myths poses a methodological problem by the fact that it cannot conform to the Cartesian principle of dividing the difficulty into as miany piarts as are necessiary to resolve it. There exists no veritable end or term to mythical analysis, no secret unity which could be grasped at the end of the work of decomposition. The themes duplicate themselves to infinity. When we think we have disentiangled them from each other and can hold them separate, it is only to realize that they are joining together again, in response to the attraction of unforeseen affinities.

      This actually sounds a lot like the lecture. A LOT like the lecture.

    10. If one calls bricolage the necessity of borrowing one's concept from the text of a heritage which is more or less coherent or ruined, it must be said that every discourse is bricoleur. The engi~eer, whom Levi-Strauss opposes to the bricoleur, should be one to construct the totality of his language, syntax, and lexicon

      So we use whatever words we have on hand for explaining something, even if what we're trying to explain is that words are insufficient. I'm getting deja vu (sp?).

    11. Thus it is that the language of the human sciences criticizes itself.

      As I wrote before, you can't talk about a concept without talking about the concept.

    12. This critique may be undertaken along two tracks, in two "manners." Once the limit of nature/culture opposition makes itself felt, one might want to question systematically and rigorously the history of these concepts. This is a first action. Such a systematic and historic questioning

      There are ways of studying oppositions. One way is to look at the history of the words and concepts that are used to define the binary.

    13. The prohibition of incest constitutes a rule, but a rule, alone of all the social rules, which possesses at the same time a universal character.

      So, he's arguing that they're not really binary opposites. There is some sort of overlap in the relationship and so they can't be used to define each other. Maybe.

    14. let me choose as one guiding thread among others the oppostion between nature and culture. In spite of all its rejuvenations and its disguises, this opposition is congenital to philosophy. It is even older than Plato. It is at least as old as the Sophists. Since the statement of the opposition - Physis/nomos, physis/techne [nature/culture, nature/art or making] - it has been passed on to us by a whole historical chain which opposes "nature" to the law, to education, to art, to technics - and also to liberty, to the arbitrary, to history, to society, to the mind, and so on. From thebeginnings of his quest and from his first book,

      A binary opposition, but LS didn't think of it. It had been done before.

    15. Levi-Strauss

      Okay, i've been trying to ignore it, but is he talking about the jeans guy?

    16. But if nobody can escape this necessity, and if no one is therefore responsible for giving in to it, however little, this does not mean that all the ways of giving in to it are of an equal pertinence.

      Is he saying that there isn't really any getting around our pre-arranged system of language and ideas, and that we shouldn't try to ignore it, but be aware of it and what it means?

    17. Since these concepts are not elements or atoms and since they are taken from a syntax and a system, every particular borrowing drags along with it the whole of metaphysics.

      You can't escape language. You can't talk about destroying or disagreeing with an idea without talking about the idea.

    18. The concept of the sign is determined by this opposition: through and throughout the totality of its history and by its system.

      Oppositions give each binary meaning.

    19. are trapped in a sort of circle. This circle is unique. It describes the form of the relationship between the history of metaphysics and the destruction of the history of metaphysics. There is no sense in doing without the concepts of metaphysics in order to attack metaphysics. We have no language-no syntax and no lexicon-which is alien to this history; we cannot utter a single destructive proposition which has not already slipped into the form, the logic, and the implicit postulations of precisely what it seeks to contest.

      We have to use language to deconstruct language. We have to use ideas to deconstruct ideas. Meta.

    20. I would probably cite the Nietzschean critique of metaphysics, the critique of the concepts of being and truth, for which were substituted the concepts of play, interpretation, and sign (sign without truth present); the Freudian critique of self-presence, that is, the critique of consciousness, of the subject, of self-identity and of self-proximity or self-possession; and, more radically, the Heideggerean destruction of metaphysics, of onto-theology, of the determination of being as presence.

      Mentioned in the lecture. Nietzche, Freud, anyway. Not sure about Heidegger.

    21. This moment was that in which language invaded the universal problematic; that in which, in the absence of a center or origin, everything became discourse-provided we can agree on this word-that is to say, when everything became a system where the central signified, the original or transcendental signified, is never absolutely present outside a system of differences. The absence of the transcendental signified extends the domain and the interplay of signification ad infinitum.

      Thought I had this one, but I don't think so. But this is familiar from the notes. There's no transcendental signified, so the interplay of signification can go on forever.

    22. he repetitions, the substitutions. the transformations, and the permutations are always taken from a history of meaning [sens]-that is, a history, period-whose origin may always be revealed or whose end may always be anticipated in the form of presence. This is why one could perhaps say that the movement of any archeology, like that of any eschatology, is an accomplice of this reduction of the structuralality of structure and always attempts to conceive of structure from the basis of a full presence which is out of play.

      We know what seeds are and know that if you start with a seed, you're always going to get a plant. This is a rule that we are comfortable with.

    23. The concept of centered structure is in fact the concept of a freeplay based on a fundamental ground, a freeplay which is constituted upon a fundamental immobility and a reassuring certitude, which is itself beyond the reach of the freeplay.

      So, seeds are still seeds. You can only plant different ones, but they're still seeds and you can't really change that fact.

    24. The center is not the center.

      Or there are many centers?

    25. This is why classical thought concerning structure could say that the center is, paradoxically, within the structure and outside it.

      Thinking of the core as a seed, it exists inside the structure because the structure (the plant) grows from it. But there are also always more seeds out there in the world, so they exist outside that structure, too.

    26. Thus it has always been thought that the center, which is by definition unique, constituted that very thing within a structure which governs the structure, while escaping structurality.

      The center or core is the essential idea, the germ from which the rest of the rigid structure grows. You take away the core, the whole thing disappears. You can begin with another core and begin building around that, but the core is the unique changeable part of the structure.

    27. interdicted

      prohibit or forbid (something). "society will never interdict sex" synonyms: prohibit, forbid, ban, bar, veto, proscribe, embargo, disallow, debar, outlaw; 2. intercept and prevent the movement of (a prohibited commodity or person). "the police established roadblocks throughout the country for interdicting drugs" synonyms: intercept, stop, head off, cut off;

    28. notion of a structure lacking any center represents the unthinkable itself.

      Structure, by its nature, is organized and stable, adding coherence. The structure isn't something you can really mess with otherwise all you have is chaos. But (it seems) like you can play with the core or center of the structure before you set it?

    29. Qua center, it is the point at which the substitution of contents, elements, or terms is no longer possible

      Once your structure's core or center is set, then you can't really mess with it anymore.

    30. concept of structure and even the word "structure" itself are as old as the episteme

      Concept of structure has been around a long time.

    1. What are the modes of existence of this discourse? Where has it been used, how can it circulate, and who can appropriate it for himself? What are the places in it where there is room for possible subjects? Who can assume these various subject functions?

      Maybe it's just me, but I feel like Foucault and Hunter S. Thompson would have been besties.

    2. even in existence

      Would he like to go back to anonymous publishing? Further, make it impossible to persecute or prosecute anyone for any "discourse"? What would a Foucauldian utopia look like?

    3. analyzing the subject as a variable and complex function of discourse.


    4. discursive initiation

      beginning of discourse

    5. On the other hand, reexamining Freud's texts modifies psychoanalysis itself, just as a reexamination of Marx's would modify Marxism.

      Discursive - returning to itself.

    6. They are unique in that they are not just the authors of their own works. They have produced something else: the possibilities and the rules for the formation of other texts.

      founders of discursivity

    7. It would be just as wrong to equate the author with the real writer as to equate him with the fictitious speaker; the author function is carried out and operates in the scission itself, in this division and this distance.

      Yes! Great analogy!

    8. still defines the author in much the same way


    9. StilI, we can find through the ages certain constants in the rules of author construction.

      Maybe, "there is no universal AUTHOR" like the one we have for poets? Not sure.

    10. "Hippocrates said," "Pliny recounts," were not really formulas of an argument based on authority; they were the markers inserted in discourses that were supposed to be received as statements of demonstrated truth.

      So now truths need accountability, and so they must have some one, AN AUTHOR to make accountable.

    11. Texts, books, and discourses really began to have authors (other than mythical, sacralized and sacralizing figures) to the extent that authors became subject to punishment,

      when it became necessary to assign blame or point the finger

    12. The author function is therefore characteristic of the mode of existence, circulation, and functioning of certain discourses within a society.

      Because the signer or guarantor don't matter. They are not AUTHORS. There's nothing significant in what they are producing as far as a body of work. They are putting pen to paper, sure, but does that make them AUTHORS?

    13. The author's name is not, therefore, just a proper name like the rest.

      It's more important when it MEANS an author because a name has more functions in that context.

    14. the links between the proper name and the individual named and between the author's name and what it names are not isomorphic and do not function in the same way.

      The name identifies a PERSON, but also makes the AUTHOR a person, bringing him back into the picture.

    15. There seems to be an important dividing line between those who believe that they can still locate today's discontinuities [ruptures] in the historico-transcendental tradition of the nineteenth century and those who try to free themselves once and for all from that tradition.

      Yeah, I pretty much have nothing for this whole section. Possibly he's suggesting that religious texts are important because of who wrote them? The author makes the work important? IDK.

    16. A theory of the work does not exist, and the empirical task of those who naively undertake the editing of works often suffers in the absence of such a theory.

      There is no definitive answer as to what a work is.

    17. If an individual were not an author, could we say that what he wrote, said, left behind in his papers, or what has been collected of his remarks, could be called a "work"?

      Why are these things only important if the creator is a "writer"? Are these mundane artifacts really work? This creates the question of intention.

    18. writing subject

      Is this term used to oppose the idea of what we think of as the author? So, the AUTHOR is involved in his text, but the WRITING SUBJECT has removed himself?

    19. now possesses the right to kill, to be its author's murderer, as in the cases of Flaubert, Proust, and Kafka

      Does this suggest these authors have successfully divorced themselves from the text?

    20. immortality of the hero

      The author is not a hero, he doesn't live on through his work.

    21. In writing, the point is not to manifest or exalt the act of writing, nor is it to pin a subject within language; it is, rather, a question of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears.

      So the act of writing is unimportant, but what is important is that the author is not present in or attached to the work.

    22. not designating writing as something completed, but dominating it as a practice

      Ah! Writing is often thought of as a process rather than an artifact.

    23. n this indifference appears one of the fundamental ethical principles of contemporary writing

      So, who wrote it doesn't matter.

    24. I want to deal solely with the relationship between text and author and with the manner in which the text points to this figure that, at least in appearance; is outside it and antecedes it.

      First things first, let's separate the work from the author. Accept that the author is outside of the text.

    1. deep personal and cultural meanings for consumers

      For CONSUMERS. Interesting.

    2. Social semioticians are interested in the way socially accepted meanings change as society evolves


    3. Brands must demonstrate respect for how hard she has worked – and will expect to work – on the day. Don’t suggest she cheat, but do not expect her to feel proud of or loudly celebrate her achievement at creating such a meal, because to some extent she expects to be invisible. This is about the family, not about the cook.

      Cutting, but accurate.

    4. The discourse was almost always about perfection.

      I hate Christmas for just this reason.

    5. from assumed knowledge to education.

      Interesting! YOu could make a lot of guesses about the culture from this one observation.