usrussianrhetoric-blog - Tumblr blog

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Post Proposals

For your post this week, and in lieu of our physical class, let's proceed by way of Blackboard. Please post your latest draft of your research proposal. Make it as excellent as you can, following all directions, and using correct and complete MLA style for in text citation and your works cited. And please respond to an many of your peers proposals throughout the week as possible. Respond with your characteristic thoughtful suggestions, affirmations, etc., to get our work to the next level of excellence!

Response:

TITLE:

The Duality of Woman: Both Keystone and Superfluous

AIM:

While critiqued on a global scale, Russia’s newest law that has lessened the punishment for assault against women and children has been quietly dismissed as the actions of a backwards, underdeveloped nation. This discourse formation is problematic in every sense. Lack of examination of the power structure that has allowed this law to come into place allows this superpower to go unquestioned in its treatment of women and children. My goal is to explore the patriarchal structures in place in Russia that have allowed for the value of women and children to be disregarded in such a manner. I plan to examine the perceived connection between Russian Orthodoxy and the resurgence of conservatism in Russian politics that has allowed for the normalization of the rhetoric of abuse. The concept of “tradition” used by Russian Orthodox church must be parsed apart. Behind traditional values hide a narrative where physical violence is deemed not only a norm, but something expected in a reactionary sense or during discipline. In short, I am looking to answer a specific question; how have traditions been used to hide a deeply patriarchal society? And how was this patriarchal society the same one that was known for its women’s movement during the USSR? And to what extent do these two realms cross over? Finally, to include a the comedic reflexive portion of this project, I wish to turn the narrative upon the U.S. and examine what similarities the two societies share. This will allow a society that writes off Russian societal “norms” as backwards, nonsensical, or otherwise to reflect upon the similar motifs that run through both the U.S. and Russia.

REASONING & HISTORY:

Recently, in Russia, a law was passed that decriminalizes first time, "less harmful" domestic battery, basically anything that does not put the person in the hospital. The amendment passed at 380 to 3. Russia's government is represented by an archaic structure called the Duma. The Duma is the lower legislative body of Russia and is based in elections. The group tends to vote conservative, supporting their claims with "tradition". Human Rights Advocates have been outspoken in their condemnation of Russia’s acts, yet no groups have been able to overturn the ruling. This law has become my object, and acts as a spring board to help me examine the past that has been obscured under the guise of tradition.

The moment I saw the first articles coming out about the domestic abuse law in Russia, I felt deeply unsettled for obvious reasons. Not only is Russia a world super power who has great influence over the policies of developing nations, but also because the rhetoric that was coming out in support of the new law sounded all too similar to what you would hear in my small southern town. Indoctrinated with strict patriarchal traditions, small towns are breeding grounds for the excusal of abuse within the home—as long as it didn’t lead to serious physical injury. But a lack of a broken arm doesn’t mean the violence doesn’t exist. In both Russian society and American, this is generally the case. Until it is overtly harmful, the violence is allowed to continue. While there are laws in place the cultural barriers in place make reporting domestic abuse even harder for victims. In this history, I plan to not only observe another country, but also look deeper into my own country's history of dealing with domestic violence and the corruption that exists.

Since the Cold War, looking deep into Russia and the USSR's propaganda and ideals on the treatment of women and subaltern groups often mirrors similar behaviors in the U.S. that often go unrecognized until the two are presented next to each other. In a sense, the U.S. and USSR interact through a chiasmus, not directly related but with enough similarities to draw some parallels. But while the United States didn’t kick off their feminist movement until the 70’s, the USSR prided itself on reinventing the Soviet woman during the 1920’s. Women were believed to be impowered, fulfilling the tenants of the New Soviet Woman. Women were always expected to run the household, raise the children, and look after their husband’s affairs while also heeding their tyranny and now, they were expected to take jobs as well. This duality of responsibility is explored frequently in Soviet era literature and is said to still plague the nation to this day.

PLAN:

While looking to create a history that exists in the realm of rhetoric instead of usual history, I am looking to the writings of Foucault, Burke, and White to assist me in creating a discourse formation. In order to find the ruptures in this discourse, I have first found the uniting factors (Foucault). In this case, it is the power that women in Russia seem to have within their household, their daily lives, and in their work places—the rupture comes when one notes their exclusion from narratives of power. A second rupture appears with the resurgence of the Russian Orthodox Church as a wielder of power. For a majority of the 20th century communist leaders like Lenin looked at religion as one of the most unsavory features of the peasantry. Suddenly it has reemerged and has returned to a status of power.

To understand what gave led to the creation of this history, I will be looking back to the traditional treatment of women and children in Russian society, as well as their roles in the household. The power structures formed centuries ago are reinforced in the modern era with calls from the Russian Orthodoxy to support tradition. The same speakers that support and validate this object are speakers who exist in a position where they benefit from the patriarchal system in place. The members of the Duma, Vladimir Putin, and the Russian Orthodoxy all have their power reinforced by this law.

The discourse that has emerged must not only be recognized as ever shifting and in no ways shedding light on any proper “truth”, but it must also be turned in on itself in some way (Burke, White). In order to do so I plan to compare the emergent system in Russia with the present system in the U.S. because no matter how far removed or backwards the Russian model may seem to an American, the power dynamics are far too similar to go uncritiqued. Doing so would only further perpetrate the narrative of backwardness that the west has created around Russia and would excuse the power dynamics that are in play. I understand that there is no way to create a truthful narrative about this new law and the systems it exists within because something will always be lost in the articulation of my thoughts (Foucault, Burke). However, I will try to the best of my ability to properly represent the data I collect, and will feel no fear in growing the number of sources that I draw from. And at the same time, I shall do my best to acknowledge where my own biases that stem from years of being exposed to propaganda against Russia begin and where the data ends.

Works Cited

Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes Towards History. Beacon Pr., 1961.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Routledge, 2002.

Kim, Lucian. “Russian President Signs Law To Decriminalize Domestic Violence.” NPR, NPR, 16 Feb. 2017,www.npr.org/2017/02/16/515642501/russian-president-signs-law-to-decriminalize-domestic-violence.

NPR gives a more broad overview of the issue, citing more numbers and including a video from a Russian news source with English subtitles. Once again, the news source is quite liberal.

Nechepurenko, Ivan. “Russia Moves to Soften Domestic Violence Law.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2017,www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/world/europe/russia-domestic-violence.html?mcubz=3.

This article focuses on the American and Western European point of view, there is an outright condemnation of the actions of the Duma as well as voices from opposition of the law. The source is quite liberal.

“Russia: Bill to Decriminalize Domestic Violence.” Human Rights Watch, HRW, 9 Feb. 2017, www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/23/russia-bill-decriminalize-domestic-violence.

This article comes from the Human Rights Watch, in my opinion it is more telling that the government is willing to actively support this law, while also being allowed to keep its seat in international organizations

White, Hayden. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, 1997.

Comments: This is a solid, smart, and important research proposal. Your aims are robust, and the articulation may tend to slip into more "plan for research" than "aims," so feel free to narrow and focus on just the aims--read and study again the template formula on definition of the "aims" section to make your edits and adjustments. The background you offer is at once personal (could benefit from citation of Spivak on examination of one's own subject position in writing history/producing knowledge) and rooted in your study of related discourses. Your plan for research is a smart and cunning design incorporating well all three theorists, as the turn to the U.S. offers the ironic, comedic turn so necessary for writing what White would call "genuine" history. Make sure to adjust writing for a general audience/reader, not one specially trained in our course. Your discourses/digital archive is still developing with a stronger inclusion at this time of discourses related to Russian culture than U.S. So make sure to include the discourses that you will use to show the U.S. normalization and norming of violence against women. Right now we seem to be flooded with civic discourses in the U.S. that illuminate these U.S. norms of patriarchy and violence. Brock Turner gets a light sentence for raping a woman passed out behind a dumpster and is now appealing the conviction--lots of discourses there justifying the lack of punishment for Brock, displaying the deep seated ethos in the U.S. that values men more than women, and allows for violence against women for privileging the will of men. Roy Moore and his supporters are also circulating significant discourses on what they describe as the proper power of men over women. A young girl who killed her sex trafficker has been sentenced to life in prison rather than being seen as the child victim she was acting in self defense, that case is being circulated currently with lots of discourses showing U.S. disregard for violence against women. Also discourses pointing out the problem in the U.S. of violence against women (see also Jimmy Carter's book of last year, for another example, which is not just U.S. centric, but shows that the U.S. is not at all free from this violence) all seem to be discourses important for your consideration in your digital archive, to show the U.S. social norms about women and violence. Keep building your archive. I am eager for your presentation! I know it will be excellent, and have no worries, as all is always a work in progress. What you don't like about your presentation, if anything (as I expect I will like all of it), you can critique in your digital portfolio. All is a learning process and open to revision before final grading. Have confidence in your work. Be kind to yourself as you move through this experience, you are doing an excellent job!

Reflection: Overall, I very much agree with Dr. Mifsud on most of the points that she made in her commentary on this proposal. There was a good deal of blurring between sections, and my aims very much became part of my plan for research. But they were there, at the very least. As I went forward in preparing for the presentation, I would simply shift some of the information into the right section as I edited. While not perfect, this draft ended up preparing me for the final far better than the midterm ever could. But then again, it’s a process and it takes many different steps. I see a common theme in my posts that this post somewhat exemplifies. In her comments, Dr. Mifsud gives me a few examples of how to turn the dialogue onto the United States. This shouldn’t have had to happen--I knew what examples I wanted to use and instead of stating the opposing discourses, I simply outline them with a broad idea. I didn’t take the time to go into the specifics because the line between ‘purely a proposal’ and a ‘completed project’ was so foreign to me that I constantly found myself in this limbo between researching and actually doing the project. At this point even, I don’t think I understand the difference truly. Because in order to find the discourses you have to actually start to learn about the history. And once you begin down that road people begin to question them and start parsing apart the nuances of the history. So the answers start to appear quick quickly.

I think one of the most beneficial things about this post was that we could review other student’s posts before we actually had to post our own proposal. I was able to read over Claire and Colin’s proposals and my understanding of how to phrase these proposals was expanded beyond compare. I realized that there really isn’t a template or anything along those lines, it comes down to which authors influenced you more in each section. As long as you include each of them in some way or another you’ve done what needs to be done. As I was writing this in the beginning I felt like I was grasping at straws. The ‘proper’ template for doing these projects was always just out of my reach. And that was incredibly frustrating for me in the beginning. However, I made it to the other side of this post with something workable.

As you can see in the section of this blog dedicated to the evolution of these proposals, my final proposal took a lot from Cory’s work and identified 3 concepts that the discourses in my history revolved around. I didn’t do that here because I was still confused about my history--looking at a discourse as if it was a history. Because of this view point, finding the statements was incredibly difficult for me. The view point I had about my history inhibited me from being able to word this proposal in a way that made it into an actual history. In my opinion, that explains some of the inconsistencies within this proposal as well as my rather large background and aims. I wasn’t trying to explore the discourses that surrounded domestic abuse in Russia, I was trying to explore the discourses that surrounded the law about domestic abuse. And even then, when you read into my proposal, I’m attempting to connect it to women and children, as was suggested to me in class. But I would go on to find that this would require a history of Russian women that would be fraught with statements and discourses that fed into domestic abuse in a way that one exists only because of the other. Looking back at the complexities of this history, I understand my confusion and find it somewhat warranted. But now that I’ve completed this project I think I could complete another proposal much clearer and efficient proposal.

#proposal

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Kenneth Burke’s Comedic Attitude

What is the Comic Attitude? How does it act as a corrective? How can you write your history with a comic attitude and corrective?

Kenneth Burke describes the way the comic attitude/comic frame acts in many different realms. The concept is meant to reveal new fields of social criticism by allowing us to see irony that we were blinded to due to seemingly average social constructions (Burke 167).Burke states that the comic frame is, "the methodical view of human antics as comedy, albeit as a comedy ever on the verge of the most disastrous tragedy" (Burke Introduction 3). This view becomes an attitude that we take when we observe what White would call diataxis, but in this case is referred to as the "bureaucratization of the imaginative" (Burke Intro. 3). This, in short, is a muddling of the aim or vision on the way to its physical embodiment (Burke 3). The comedic attitude is implemented in such a way that it works to bring light to topics that are hidden through layers of the accepted norm in a palatable way. This is incredibly important, because this concept is what the entire attitude focuses upon. Burke moves on in his chapter, The Comedic Corrective, to describe how one is to go about doing this and the effects that it should have. A major concept in the comic frame is that it "provides the charitable attitude towards people that is required for purposes of persuasion and co-operation, but at the same time maintains our shrewdness concerning the simplicities of "cashing-in"" (Burke 166). In short, you don't move into the realm of becoming hostile, which will raise someone's defense, but you still work towards informing and shedding light on topics effectively and critically. Without the force that is normally used in order to change someone's point of view, Burke believes that this will be used to help understand the intricate depths that exist within a discourse. While this attitude is mainly considered in an academic sense, it is also meant to be implemented in daily life. The frame allows us to critique the motivations of humans without having people get tripped up on the 'accusation' of behaving in some decidedly immoral way, because it is able to avoid some of the "cynical brutality" that comes when people feel accused of acting in such a way (Burke 170). When you can get around some of the 'bigger' emotions, humans are able to look beyond their pain/indignation/anger/hurt and "be observers of themselves, while acting" (Burke 171). And while using this lens, you are opened up the maximum opportunity to find new sources to build a critique (Burke 173). To that end, the purpose of this attitude is not to excuse the actions that have been done, and this is key. Instead, In psychological terms this makes a lot of sense to me. My past is riddled with a littering of therapist speak, and this acknowledgment of the way we act and being able to address it and acknowledge it with a lighter heart sounds incredibly familiar to one of the steps to decrease the frequency of toxic behaviors. Beating yourself over the head over a personal fault will never bring about any change in yourself, instead you should acknowledge it and ruminate on what has caused this thought and then let it go. The comedic attitude in my mind makes it somewhat easier to walk away from the real atrocities that become unearthed. Edited: Forgot to add the part about my project: I'm still somewhat unsure about this. I'm thinking that the comedic attitude comes about in the mirroring of cultures that is completely ignored but is ever present, and often used as propaganda against one another. Or maybe in the condemnations that often come of each other that seem eerily familiar each time it happens. This is something I need to hear applied to other people's concepts to fully grasp it and be able to apply it with ease to my concept. Edited: Burke, Kenneth. Attitudes towards History. Beacon Pr., 1961.

Reflection: While I think I rather effectively outlined the concept of the comedic corrective, I am not sure that I correctly applied it to my own knowledge or history. While I think that in the moment, the concept of making light of a situation helped ground the theory in something familiar, I’m not sure it did me much good in understanding the different layers of what Burke had to say. In essence, my rendering of what he had to say was more topical. I took the very basic concept of what he had to say and grappled with it. In some sense, however, that is what is necessary to formulate a concrete understanding in the future. I think what helped me the most was our in class discussion. We spent most of the time on Cory’s comedic corrective of the free the nipple campaign and its limitations. And while that was helpful, I found that I didn’t really understand how to apply that to my history. My object was a little bit more abstract and I was struggling to make connections that were already obvious to others. One of the most clarifying moments was when Dr. Mifsud helped me apply the comedic corrective to my history. In my post, connecting it to my history was more or less an after thought. I was not able to actively apply it while reading because it was not clicking. Dr. Mifsud pointed me towards the part of my project that involved looking at similar policies within the U.S.. It wasn’t clear to me at the time, but the comic corrective was built into the methodology: the comparative discourse critique against the US is the comedic corrective (from class). As soon as the US’ discourses are added it ‘corrects’ the discourse around Russian women by aligning my own societal discourse of women with one that is inherently alien. Removing this concept of other-ness and looking at the similarities between the two is key when using the comedic corrective.

#kenneth burke

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Posts on Posts!

Cory’s Post: The in class discussion, as well as Emilie and Kristi’s post, were very helpful in moving forward my understanding of tropical discourse. Emilie’s comment was particularly helpful for me to understand the two quotes I had pulled from “A Conversation with Hayden White,��White's method is not "a law of discourse, even of the discourse about consciousness" but rather "a convention in the discourse about consciousness, and, secondarily, the discourse about discourse itself" (White 12,13). White does not seek to write rules for how discourse ought to be formed, but rather to theorize on a common path of discourse.This made it clear to me that White is not teaching or encouraging a methodology of history, but rather he is revealing it.The method: 1. Identify what trope is being used in the discourse

White theorized that all history was tropical in production and effect — meaning that history is always conjured through tropes rather than objectivity, scientific, or representational understanding. One must question if the discourse is metaphorical or ironic. Metaphoric discourses are concerned with development and evolution (diachronic), and are thought to be more representational (260).

Irony is the meta reflexive discourse, being “the contrast that lies hidden within every apparent resemblance or unity (the mode of irony)” (128).We cannot trust discourse that is not self aware

Analyze the discourse using: Mimesis - verisimilitude or description of data Diegesis - a narrative far from the data Diataxis - a taxiing between mimesis (data) and diagnosis (narrative) Identify slippages - Nothing in history can be perfectly represented There is no control over data, and slippage occurs between data and narrative — diataxis exists and it is governed by tropes (1)One must exert control over data that announces slippages and realize that data is not in control Tropes announce slippages Emplotment-- History must be interpreted by historians Emplot/emplotment — White uses this word to describe how historians create and “employ” events as “a tragedy” or “a comedy or romance” (58), in whichever way the historian understands experience. History is far from neutral, it is completely tropical (55-56) As a result, tropical methodology separates the “real” from the “non-real,” the "us" vs. "them," in order to create a narrative.It was very helpful for me to think of this in terms of archival work. Similar to the role of an archivist, a historian presides over the meaning making and interpretation of histories. Also, in the archival“corpus” (respect des fonds), things are kept in an orderly form that is projected as representational but is truly up to the discretion of the presiding archivist. As a result, it is almost impossible to understand context and “truth” from a traditional archive as they are not self aware; an archivist participates in emplotment in their preservation of works.For my own narrative: 1. The current discourse surrounding the bra is not extremely/not at all self-aware. Wearers of the bra likely do not identify with the idea that the bra is capitalistic colonialism of the bust. This discourse is not critical of itself, instead it seeks to promote itself and protect itself from other discourses. If bras are no longer perceived as necessary, the industry is threatened. I would argue that most consumers do not realize their participation in the discourse. 2/3. The diataxical movement translates the data into the narrative of bra as political necessity. There is also a disconnect between the two, as the narrative is constantly trying to grab onto foreign or strange materials in an attempt to take control and render something strange as a familiar narrative. For example, the bra is often enshrined in high fashion; an example of the narrative of the bra as political necessity entrenching itself in a new realm. There almost has to be a metaphorical interpretation of the bra in order to make the object become meaningful and surpass any data that says otherwise. Similarly, Madonna’s liberatory reinterpretation of the bra was reshaped into a narrative which the bra industry could profit from.4. As a result, the bra is viewed as an anatomical, political, social, etc, necessity. This excludes those who do not participate in the narrative, or who are not written into the plot of the narrative. For women who do not wear bras for social or political reasons, the emplotment of the bra narrative is already set for them, or in how that the historian accepts or interprets the experience. Many of these views were cultivated for the sake of the bra industry, allowing the industry to stay in power, rather than complicating the discourse and discovering a populist understanding of what the bra means.

Cory! I really like how in your reply post you do a comparative of what you thought White was saying verses what we later clarified in class. I find that the most helpful for seeing where I'm going wrong and how to shift that way of thinking. I also really enjoy the new terms you introduce, like slippage. I think slippage is far easier to understand than say, diataxis. I also think the adjustment of your post was incredible--the change in the understanding of the post is super visible.

About your discourse; Maybe consider the high fashion moves where models are going braless beneath their sheer shirts. On top of that, I find it interesting that bras are seeming to get smaller and smaller, so they're easier to hide beneath clothes. There's shirts where the back is completely open so the bras women wear are hardly there, literally stuck on. When we reach the point that a bra is so necessary to be HIDDEN and yet still NEEDS to be there, even when there's hardly a way a to wear a bra, what does that mean about the way bras are integrated into our society?

Reflection: Even as the class has come to an end, the more I think about Cory’s history the more intrigued I become. I find myself going through the phenomena that surround the bra in regular conversation now. I think that intensity that I feel about this discourse is represented in my response even--there’s so many places I want to take this discourse and there comes a point when it simply becomes unhelpful. I give three ideas to bounce off of, and only add more information about one of my statements. In comparison to the posts I attempted to emulate (Destiny and Cory’s) my response was dismally short. I think this is somewhat a continuous theme in my work in this class, but I don’t think it was intentional by any means. Now that I’m aware, it will be something to continue to push myself to work on. But all that being said and done, it’s rather difficult to offer Cory advice when a good deal of his work was so stellar.

I tried to mimic Destiny and Cory’s responses in some sense, but I’m not sure if I did it quite as clearly. In the future, I think it would be key for me to reword what I’ve gleaned from someone’s post, just in case it could help someone else. Cory’s post really did help me understand a good deal of the vocabulary behind the tropical methodology and very much has set a standard for me in what I need to be doing when I’m explaining a text. Reading Cory’s posts often times end up being more like reading well planned notes, whereas mine are usually more like stream of consciousness notes. This wasn’t an idea that I really focused on in my post, because I didn’t really think it would be too helpful in the end.

#hayden white #response post

2 notes · View notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Tropical Methodology

Based on your study of Hayden White's Tropics of Discourse, compose a tropical methodology for doing history. Your statement should incorporate textual citation, and display a thorough and incisive explication of the introduction to this text, as the introduction contains the whole and parts of his tropical theory for doing history.Then, please apply this methodology to your history in a brief statement to discuss in class. Include a working bibliography for your history, include Hayden White and a thorough researching of your historical subject. At this point you should show a thorough research effort, identifying thoroughly the "digital artifacts" for your history (the various and particular discourse formations, and statements within formations and associated domains, etc.). Use MLA style.Your statement should be no more than 1500 words.

Response:

Understanding Tropical Methodology:

Tropological theology of discourse is meant to provide “a new way of classifying discourses by their linguistic modes instead of focusing on the different interpretations of a discourse” (White 21). In other words, it is key to understand the arrangement and proposal of a discourse in order to vocalize a critique. Before one is able to articulate a discourse, it is important to have a vague understanding of how tropes display themselves in discourses. According to White, “tropes generate figures of speech or thought by their variations from what is ‘normally’ expected, and by the associations they establish between concepts normally felt not to be related or to be related in ways different from that suggested in the trope used” (White 2). Tropes exist on the most basic level of understanding, where they render part of a discourse into something more understandable (White 2-4). This is necessary, yet can be damaging if one cannot look into the topical nature of tropes and recognize how tropes shift the meaning of the narrative we are attempting to tell truthfully. A major issue arises when only one trope is executed in rhetoric, and the rest go ignored. When we deal with tropes in discourses, they modify the meaning of a discourse. White articulates the layers that exist within a discourse, the mimesis--the data that is observed-- and the diegesis--”that of the argument or narrative” that is created in relation to the data (White 4). From there, a discourse is formed through diatactical expression (White 4-5). White believes this phrases to be too overused, however, and instead coins his own phrase, diataxis. Diataxis becomes the relationship that exists between the data and the story being told that is, in some way or another, misinterpreting the data (White 5). The way a diataxis is created however “determines the possible discourses” and enables a new form of analysis to be created (White 4). Instead of arguing about interpretations, it becomes possible to group arguments based on their execution of this diataxis and how tropes are used to form this diataxis.

From there, it is necessary to turn the argument onto itself (White 6). One can decide whether or not they wish to leave their dissection of the discourse where it is, or if they wish to look deeper and change the lense they’re using further (White 6).

My own history:

In my own history one of the recurring tropes I see is metaphor. This comparison of the present to a past that never truly existed. When the Russian Orthodox Church stood in defense of the new legislation being passed, they cited tradition as a metaphor for patriarchal structures within Russian households. Looking at this argument through this lense suddenly opens up this seemingly isolated incident in Russia to the rest of the world where similar power structures are defended in incredibly similar ways. Now, gathering an understanding of this discourse on a more familiar cultural landscape is quite available.

Works Cited

Nechepurenko, Ivan. "Russia Moves to Soften Domestic Violence Law." The New York Times. The New York Times, 25 Jan. 2017. Web.

White, Hayden. Tropics of Discourse: Essays in Cultural Criticism. N.p.: Johns Hopkins U, 1997. Print.

Dr. Misfud, I wasn’t quite sure if I was going in the right direction. It felt somewhat right, however I found myself drawing most of my understanding from the opening pages whereas the pages further back seemed to have less information for me to create a methodology from. I’m also somewhat confused on how to create this to begin with, but here’s a start.

Reflection: Once I posted this response, I went through and read as many responses as I could to try to actually understand what was supposed to be going on. I think two of the things that helped me the most was Destiny’s post, and a quote from Dr. Mifsud that I saved. I think they actually manage to go hand in hand. Destiny said

“In other words, tropes help us move away from what is known in discourse and move towards new, figurative meanings. History has not always recognized the tropes that exist in it, though they have always existed. History/discourse cannot be genuine unless it realizes the tropes in itself and how they function.”

She makes it very clear that tropes will always exist within discourses. It’s not about getting rid of tropes, it’s about understanding what role they play. I think Dr. Mifsud’s quote goes along with this quite well. It’s the concept of...

Yes tropes, but all of them.

That was something I wasn’t fully able to articulate in my post. While I did mention it, I think it is a far more important part of The Tropics of Discourse.

Overall, I think I managed a decent explanation of White and his ideas. I think I could have gone further into my history, however at this point I was still at a strange point in trying to look at a discourse as a history. This post also marks a change in my attitude, thanks to Dr. Mifsud and I communicating over the importance of posting in the face of confusion and fear. Before this point, I was too afraid to do so. I either wouldn’t dedicate enough time to trying to create something, or I would want to rely on class time to make sure what I thought was true was correct. That’s just not how a class like this works. At that point, a professor can’t tell whether or not I’m even doing the readings. So this was a turning point in the class for me. And that’s something I’m proud of.

#hayden white

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Hayden White

For your post, please articulate what you think Hayden White's thesis is in Tropics of Discourse, use ample textual citation to support your articulation. Follow your articulation of his thesis with identification of what you think are the top 10 terms White uses to theorize rhetoric's role in doing history. Once you identify these terms, please define them. Use ample textual citation throughout.

Tropes-According to White, “tropes generate figures of speech or thought by their variations from what is ‘normally’ expected, and by the associations they establish between concepts normally felt not to be related or to be related in ways different from that suggested in the trope used” (White 2). In other words, tropes are common in discourses, yet their impact is not thought about. They exist and modify the discourse, yet they are not seen or examined and therefore we have lost part of the discourse. Tropes often “[deviate] towards another meaning, conception, or ideal”, instead of an actual “genuine self-aware” critique (White 2, 4) Discourse-The word discourse comes from the Latin word that suggests multilateral movement, a back and forth (White 3). White suggest that discourse must exist as two things: anti-logical, deconstructing a conceptualization of an experience that is rigidly defined and no longer in a position to be newly considered, and prelogical, the marking of an experience in a logical manner that allows you to conceptualize it (White 3, 4). Must be analyzed in three levels: the mimesis that is found must be analyzed, as must the argument that’s provided, and how both of these two interact (White 4-5).The three points of discourse that must be understood Mimesis- In a phrase, it means the representation of data (White 4/In class discussion). The mimicry of whatever you are trying to get across/represent. Diegesis- The argument provided by a narrative/story Diataxis- A representation that is based upon the misinterpretation of the data. The relationship between data and narrative (Mimesis and Diegesis) (White 4). Diatactical- We try to replicate the data we see when we create a narrative/discourse. And while there are some true points in data, there is always something that cannot be expressed in data (in class). Discourse therefore becomes the relationship that exists between the data and the narrative and how the two go back and forth (in class quote/White 4). White says that this phrase too overused

History is not representational because of its tropical nature. (Quote from Destiny in class) I'm getting this in late because I didn't really have the best grasp of articulating this, however I think I understand what's going on now.

Reflection

Though this post was turned in late, a bad habit I got into through a majority of the class, I’ve found this to be one of my most articulate posts. Often times my posts didn’t read like notes and finding the information within them was very difficult. This one, one the other hand is very clear to me. I took a page out of Cory’s book and tried to synthesize what was being said in class as we spoke. I think that helped me more than anything in producing something this clear.

My lateness in posting this definitely came from the fact that I did not understand how to properly conceptualize tropes outside of literature. It took Destiny and Collin’s in class, out-loud explanations of renderings of our reality through metaphors to make sense to me. Despite having spoken with Dr. Mifsud earlier in the semester about the concept of this Tropical methodology, actually reading what was briefly explained to me seemed to make everything more complicated. But that’s just sometimes how it can be with these writers. I think one thing I very much need to focus on is posting my responses in the face of uncertainty. In classes like these, failure only comes when you don’t try. You are never really punished for not understanding at first. But my fear held me back throughout a large portion of the class.

Thankfully, I was able to move on from this point and being attempting to apply the tropical methodology to my history at a later time, so late or not, I was able to use this knowledge to my advantage in the coming assignments.

#Hayden White

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Foucault Quick Ref. Sheet

Our goal is to create a sharp and concise set of notes to be used for quick reference when doing discourse critique Foucault style.Identify what you see as the top 3-5 steps a critic must take when doing critique Foucault style. With each step, offer a summary of this step, and a quick reference of key terms and definitions, with specific pages of The Archaeology of Knowledge for reference.Think about your discourse critique, your archaeology of knowledge. Use these 3-5 steps to critique your discourse in brief.

Response: -Identify the domain discourses related to a similar object exist in According to Foucault it is necessary to compare discourses that exist inside of a statement by their differences—and to see what appears in between those lines instead of comparing the unities. That’s how the true differences will be seen. -Identify the main power structures that exist inside each discourse/identify how these discourses have been allowed to come to power

(67-68) Foucault states that inside each discourse, it is aligned by the existing power structures that relate to the discourse. Therefore it must be pieced apart for us to fully understand who or what is being silenced. -Explore how the different discourses/statements that arise from the same object are related. Statements are anything that relates to the discourse and has some kind of basis in the history of the object (83). With the statement it is necessary to understand the background of it, not what’s being said. -What has normalized this discourse? (90-91) Looking at the enunciate function, one must observe the statements that have a preexisting meaning that is often taken as truth. This more often than not overrides the true discourses that come up in a statement. (90-91) Therefore it is crucial to unlearn these normalized discourses and identify them to begin a proper critique.

Reflection

My post later came to help in the creation of the crib sheet that the class put together. I would say that overall that crib sheet was a blessing because it has made my misunderstandings of Foucault incredibly clear. Our step number one was somewhat unspoken in my original post, whereas the class began like this:

1. Discern/identify/recognize a discourse to critique, perhaps especially those which form your own subject position

And so, my idea was originally to continue off of that to identifying the domains. One of my biggest problems with explaining Foucault in a precise manner simply came down to the fact that many of the steps I thought were implicit must be stated. Such as,

2 . Identify discourse formation ripe for critique

as well as what became our first step. I found myself very focused on the minute details, these small details basically became all of my final points. And while understanding the power structures have come into power, exploring the different discourses, and looking at what has been normalized is incredibly important when applying a Foucaultian view they exist within broader categories.

This became somewhat of a theme in my understanding of Foucault. I really focused on points that made sense to me, and needed so much explaining to get some of the broader concepts that the points I understood related to. I think doing Foucault is somewhat like trying to put together a puzzle when you haven’t seen the box. Eventually, the outline we formed in class based off this post would allow me to go back over my information and see what I missed and what I oversimplified. My understanding of power structures is key, however it would be better placed under a broader categories of “The Speaker” and the “Rules” of the discourse. It is, in essence, what I was trying to articulate, I simply combined two different conceptualizations of power structures instead of allowing them to exist within different steps. Similarly, the normalization of the discourse that I focus on in my ‘crib sheet’ falls into two categories instead of just one. Not only does the normalization apply to the Rules of the discourse (step 4), but also applies well to the Statements of the domain that must be identified. It somewhat blends into the Foucualtian idea of the ‘already-said’.

#michel foucualt

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Your Archive!

What will your digital archive include for this critique? (a Foucauldian way to say . . . what statements populate the domain of this discourse and correlated domains?)

Response: I wish to critique the decriminalization of domestic abuse in Russia which recently passed 380 to 3. Many supporters of the law, including the Russian Orthodox Church, support the decriminalization of this bill state that the law relates to disciplining unruly children and nothing more. Many Russian's who oppose the bill tie this to a prevalence of violence in Russian households--yet the term "domestic violence" doesn't even truly exist in their legislature. I wish to examine the Church's relation in pushing "traditional values" as well as the bio-ethics in Russia that have become normalized over the years such that a law of this nature, with this lack of regard for public safety could be passed.

http://www.dw.com/en/decriminalizing-domestic-violence-in-russia/a-37310513

http://www.npr.org/2017/02/16/515642501/russian-president-signs-law-to-decriminalize-domestic-violence

https://www.hrw.org/news/2017/01/23/russia-bill-decriminalize-domestic-violence

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/25/world/europe/russia-domestic-violence.html?mcubz=3

Reflection: My original idea focused pretty heavily on the concept of the implications of my object, a law in Russia, and the discourses that surrounded it and women and children. And I think this is where I got pretty off track. I was looking to identify discourses that fit my ‘theme’ of sorts instead of working backwards. Finding discourses and then moving to a broader statement in the future. I think this is, in general, why my entire project felt like I was pulling teeth near the end. There was a level of confusion that I couldn’t explain because of this post right here.

In retrospect, I think I would have had much more success to take a discourse around Russian women or Russian children and then do more research from there--and in the end that’s somewhat what I did. I took the concept of Russian women within their society and looked out from there. And these sources, as general and unrelated as they may be, actually ended up being my jumping off point. I think if I were to go back and take this class again I could focus more on this law, but I would have to do it through the theme of domestic violence reports in Russia, and then tie this object that exists within this domain in. And if done properly, I think this would marry happily to my most recent project, maybe even help me fill some gaps in my analysis of the Russian women discourse I ended up exploring.

#michel foucualt #archive

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

The Archive

1. Write a 100 word brief of The Statement and The Archive. Identify key passages that we should explicate and discuss in class.2. What practical advice do you draw from Foucault's writing on the archive as you think about your history project?

Response: N/A

Reflection:

I honestly did not think that I had no completed any posts, however I was obviously wrong. Foucault was a mystery for me time and time again, it took a lot of in class discussions to actually be able to say anything in my own words about him. However, attempting to fill out this post would have been far more helpful than leaving it blank. I would have been forced to try to come up with something somewhat articulate in order to make a post, and as I’ve said before, in this class you are not punished for making mistakes. This was a case where my fear of failing is quite obvious.

#michel foucault

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Adv. Study of Foucault’s Theory for Doing History

1. Please re-read and revise your list of terms in your prompt from last week. In your re-reading and revision, focus on what we need to discuss in class now that we have gotten through "the unities of discourse": Chapter 3, "The Formation of Objects," Chapter 4, "The Formation of Enunciative Modalities." We are going to keep our roll slowed here, so we can move carefully through Foucault's methodology for doing history. So read slowly, and carefully, then re-read!! You will be amazed at how this process of engagement combined with our class work together will allow your understanding to flourish! 2. In addition to revising your list of terms, summarize in 100 words Foucault's theory of doing history in these initial chapters. 3. Finally, in 3 bullet points identify ways that the Florida history "A Requiem . . . " performs some Foucaultian moves!

Response:

Terms

All of the phrases that are written below are descriptions of continuities that are present in our notions of “history”. According to Foucault, we must cast away in order to properly understand historical discourse. Tradition- "(tradition) is intended to give a special temporal status to a group of phenomena that are both successive and identical; (...) tradition enables us to isolate the new against a background of permanence" (21). Foucault tells us that tradition is given, basically, a free pass to continue on throughout the modern time without being questioned. He instead asks to question it.

Unity- "Unity is variable and relative. A soon as one questions that unity, it loses its self-evidence" (23). This quote is striking, because in history we tend to view it as uniform occurrences that can all be parsed out in a similar fashion. Disregarding this concept will help untangle our predispositions to categorization. According to Foucault, unities are created by people in power and grouped together in ways that silence new ideas.

Retrospective hypothesis- "Literature and politics are recent categories, which can be applied to medieval culture, or even classical culture, only by a retrospective hypothesis" (22). According to Foucault, we will never be able to see history as it was perceived during the time that the tradition or cultures came about. We will only be looking at it through our modern lens, and Foucault asks us to see this as we observe silences in these histories. A history of 19th century medicine will have silenced areas of the science that we must look for.

Oeuvre- (23) "(an oeuvre) is not a homogeneous function" (23). In short, Foucault claims that an oeuvre, a collection of an author’s work, are collections of major silences. An oeuvre will never be an author’s entire work, because what we consider their “works” will be missing and knowledge will be left out that can in some way help evolve the discourse around their work.

'Already-said'- " 'already said is not merely a phrase that has already been spoken, or a text that has already been written, but a 'never-said'". It, "covers and silences" (25). When we make this assumption of things being already said, then we will ignore the logic/reasoning that is almost self-apparent in our time period, no matter who the assumption silences.

Spirit- Spirit acts somewhat like blanket beneath which true motives can be hidden, according to Foucault. While the present spirit may be something positive, it becomes deferred to when something challenges the theme projected by the ‘spirit’.

Virtually Self-Evident- "(They) are not the tranquil locus on the basis of which other questions may be posed, but that they themselves pose a whole cluster of of questions" (26). This quote and concept falls into the theme Foucault creates during this chapter that focuses on innate silences that we must question.

1. “Statements different in form, and dispersed in time, form a group if they refer to one and the same object” (32). Foucualt goes on to disprove this hypothesis, using the term “madness”. As he tries to group madness throughout history he states that there is no one singular description of madness that has been continuous through history—in other words the retrospective hypothesis is at play. Instead of describing the object, Foucault asks us to observe the way that the object’s portrayal relates to itself over time. (“it would be the interplay of the rules that make possible the appearance of objects during a given period of time” (32-33).) Law of division (33): related to the first hypothesis, this is how we must observe these objects. Through the gaps in the objects description over time. To understand what aligns them, we must understand what makes them different. 2. “to define a group of relations between statements: their form and type of connexion” (33). This asks us to individualize the specific “coexistence of these dispersed and heterogeneous statements; the systems that governs their division … the way in which they interlock or exclude one another… the play of their location, arrangement and replacement” (34).3. Unifying a group via the constant concepts that govern their methods. But again, Foucault notes that our notions of stable concepts cloak, silence, and transform these constant concepts. He once again goes back to the idea that we must compare the differences that exist inside these methods and concepts to understand them. 4. Grouping discourses by “themes”—however the problem is that within a theme, say evolution, many different levels of discourse may exist. Some of them may even be contradictory within a given thematic discourse.All the hypothesis are proven wrong, but in this we find a way to outline a “system of dispersion” where we can look for regularities, and in regular differences we can find our true discourse formations.Discourse Formations (41) -Surfaces of their emergence: (*Their being objects) Foucault asks us to look at HOW our object occurs in the scheme of the world, not just traditionally but how a new discourse on the topic comes about and wields its power -Authorities of delimitation: Who are the authorities? Lobbyists, doctors, lawyers, police officers, experts, religion. Anyone enforcing/establishing/designating how this object emerges in the discourse. -Grids of specification: All discourse formations are formed through these three methods

Part 2

When doing history, one must look past the continuities of history that are well marketed by historians. Smooth continuities rely on things like spirit, tradition, collections of works, and a lack of retrospectiveness that in turn silence any underlying and repressed histories. In order to see these ruptures of continuity and properly analyze them, we must stop looking at the unities of a historical grouping and instead look at the disparities between the grouping. And from there, we compare these disparities which in turn shows the true discourse formations. When observing a discourse, we must see HOW the discourse has emerged, who continues to validate the discourse, and under what circumstances the discourse is allowed to exist.

Part 3

-Identifies the discontinuity of what Florida is currently known for and how Florida was viewed by the first people who took it over -Brings light to the fact that Florida is kept drained by a feat of engineering and an intense levy system, a fact which is completely ignored by the modern people living there. -The fact that the drainage that Floridians have done has endangered the wildlife, which was at one point viewed as the greatest menace towards human habitation of Florida when colonizers first attempted to move there.

Reflection: This was one of the infamous, first late posts. The original part one took me a very long time to create. That being said, I think this was a post that I took an incredibly long amount of time on for good reason. I actually really did need the extra time to properly get down my descriptions of these words. And from there, this reference sheet would go on to help me commit to memory the terms we used on an almost constant basis in class. It was very helpful to have them just written out in front of me with page numbers.

I found myself coming back to this post quite often as we needed to go back to re-introduce Foucault after studying mostly White and Burke for the end of class. In all honest, I think the first part of this post will act as a template for my close readings of rhetoricians in the future. They often create their own language to such an extent that this kind of vocab sheet is necessary.

Looking back on my part two I can tell that while I have a lot of general ideas, there are sentences that act almost as filler. I focused on the concept of unities more than anything else. Looking at Krisit’s post really helped me get a better grasp of the later chapters and how to combine all the separate parts of Foucault with her post.

“Foucault urges us to examine how groups interplay and transform over time, but the danger in looking at systems of dispersion rather than “permanent” systems is that the historian would be going into uncharted territory. In Chapter 3, Foucault then goes on to discuss how objects of discourse form (emergence, delimitation, and specification). Foucault emphasizes the relational nature of discourse between the object and the systems, institutions, social processes, etc. Chapter 4 is all about the power relations of discourse that are formed by individuals/institutions that have the power to speak and form unities of discourse.”

-Kristi Mukk

Kristi did a great job smoothly throwing in her citations, whereas I tried to generalize Foucault’s statements. When I found myself overwhelmed with all the terms, I tried to throw a few in, because we hadn’t explored groupings of terms in class by this point.

If I were to go back, I would make sure that I actually go chapter by chapter in my synthesis.

And finally, in part three I feel somewhat confident that I identified some Foucualtian moves. The author was clear, thus giving us a good template for a completed Foucaultian history.

#michel foucualt

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Foucault Second Week

Using the Index to the book as a Guide, create a list of key terms that appear in this reading (pages 21-56). Define these terms, citing text. This should function like a vocabulary list of terms for your historiography.

Response: (Edited after posting because I did not include citation) Tradition- "(tradition) is intended to give a special temporal status to a group of phenomena that are both successive and identical; (...) tradition enables us to isolate the new against a background of permanence" (21).

Retrospective hypothesis- "Literature and politics are recent categories, which can be applied to medieval culture, or even classical culture, only by a retrospective hypothesis" (22).

Oeuvre: (23) "(an oeuvre) is not a homogeneous function" (23)

'Already-said': " 'already said is not merely a phrase that has already been spoken, or a text that has already been written, but a 'never-said'". It, "covers and silences" (25).

Virtually Self-Evident: "(They) are not the tranquil locus on the basis of which other questions may be posed, but that they themselves pose a whole cluster of of questions" (26). This quote and concept falls into the theme Foucault creates during this chapter that focuses on innate silences that we must question.

Reflection: Creating this post took a few extra days outside of class. I suppose that I underestimated how much work it would actually be to get the terms compiled. A rather poor mistake on my part, however I was somewhat content with the original work. Identifying terms in Foucault was difficult at first because he makes up so many words that one could easily make the mistake of trying to identify every one of the words he uses within each concept instead of the concept itself. I think that you can see some of this in this first, small post.

The next post would involve editing the post completely, this is shown in the above post. I mainly edited my terms during class as my understanding was furthered and that saved me some time in the next post.

#michel foucault

0 notes

usrussianrhetoric-blog · 8 years ago

Text

Introducing Foucault on Hist.

1. One key point from Foucault's theory of "doing history" that you find particularly resourceful. Identify this key point, summarize it, and point to page numbers for explication of the point. 2. Does Spivak's essay engage, complicate, problematize, or affirm the key point from Foucault that you identify above? If so, identify the key way(s) how. Offer page numbers for explication of the text.

Response: 1. On page 14, Foucault launches into his description of what is being bewailed when history is looked at through a more critical lens. "But one must not be deceived: what is being bewailed with such vehemence is not the disappearance of history, but the eclipse of that form of history that was secretly, but entirely related to the synthetic activity of the subject; what is being bewailed is the 'development' (devenir) that was to provide the sovereignty of the consciousness with a safer, less exposed shelter than myths, kinship systems, languages, sexuality, or desire; what is being bewailed is the possibility of reanimating through the project, the work of meaning, or the movement of totalization, the interplay of material determinations, rules of practice, unconscious systems, rigorous but unreflected relations, correlations that elude all lived experience; what is being bewailed, is that ideological use of history by which one tries to restore everything that has unceasingly eluded him for over a hundred years."While this quote is quite long, I feel that in order to grasp the specifics of concept, the entirety of the quote is needed. In short, Foucault gives numerous explanations of what is truly being defended when historians attempt to defend the study of history by saying that a change in the lens causes histories to disappear. Instead, bringing to light the many layers that go into history can better help us understand the multifaceted nature of history that changes and shifts, even though it is "completed". Questioning the ideologies that are commonly taught and the systems that they help uphold shifts away from a traditional history, which in turn upsets the constructed balance modern historians have created. Foucault encourages people to continue their analysis despite the calls of heresy from traditionalists in order to reckon with the multifaceted nature of the incomplete history we live with today, because history in itself, is still living (bottom of page 14).

2. Spivac complicates Foucault’s theory by critiquing his inability to recognize that ideologies, and believers of said ideology cannot view themselves extrinsically (68). People that partake, cannot see themselves partaking, according to Foucault. Which, according to Spivac, not only puts undue pressure upon the less educated, it removes all pressure from the intellects of the time. This leaves room for gaps in proper criticism of theological works of the times simply because the intellectuals were excused because they could not look beyond the institution they were party to (69).

Reflection: Part one of this post I feel is quite solid. I still find the text I wrote about to be important. It is, in fact, the basis of his entire concept of doing histories stems from this idea that when we pick apart history we will lose something. And that is important and GOOD.

Part two, was not so good. Spivak was long winded and complex and in the moment I found it incredibly difficult to draw anything definitive from the stories she wove into her piece. Eventually, it did become clear that she was not complicating Foucault, as I had said, but instead she problematizes his work. The more we went over this in class throughout the semester, the more it made sense. I think having a strong understanding of Foucault would have been somewhat more important than trying to understand them at the same time. After we finished Foucault, I think Spivak made a 100% more sense to me.

#michel foucault

0 notes