 |
| Rousseau, one of the "theorists" |
From Chapter One, "What is Theory?"
1. What does it mean that an idea like sex, or gender, is "culturally constructed"? How can theory help us examine this and understand why it's like this--and perhaps, even re-write it?
2. Culler, through examples with Derrida and Rousseau, explains that writing is a supplement to speech (just as speech is itself a supplement of an earlier, pre-linguistic 'language'): what does it mean that writing 'supplements' speech? Is it less important or powerful? How does this help us understand how we write and use writing, and the limits of writing (especially in literature) itself?
3. Our culture talks a lot about being a "natural" person or being an "authentic" person. We're very concerned with being our "true self." However, as Culler points out, such a thing might not even exist. Why is this? How does culture (through theory) explain how being "natural" is no more natural than any other state of being?
4. Why, according to Culler, is theory not predictable or completely knowable? Why could you never truly master theory? And if so, why study it at all? What is the point of studying something you can--in a sense--never truly learn?
1. What does it mean that an idea like sex, or gender, is "culturally constructed"? How can theory help us examine this and understand why it's like this--and perhaps, even re-write it?
ReplyDeleteSex, as we know it biologically, is simply differentiating between males and females (also a verb). Gender, however, is seemingly used interchangeably when it isn’t actually the same thing. I suspect the reason why is 1) to keep the kids taking standardized tests to stop snickering when they fill in the bubble about their sex or 2) people are ignorant. In this kind of euphemism-centric culture, I’ll toss in with the former.
Gender-roles are a cultural construct that, for want of a shorter and more concise answer, outline the duties expected of that sex. ‘Men should like killing stuff’ and ‘women should be horrendous drivers’ are two aforementioned expectations.
Theories show us some things as far as this construct is concerned. First, that there is something that is kind of a rule but we aren’t exactly sure of how to prove it (or if it can be proven) and that it is nearly inescapable. I will always prefer my mother’s cooking (yes, I use the word mother when I address her) to my father’s (same). I’d much rather enjoy the taste of good casseroles and her tea than my dad’s fried bologna. Every time. But there is something not all encompassing about this. I know some very bad female cooks and some very good male cooks. Two instances, an ex-girlfriend of mine was a horrible cook. A good friend of mine is a fantastic baker and drink mixer.
Theoretically, we can bend these ‘rules’. Two hundred years ago, this was the rule and not simply the norm as it is now. And even now, this is still changing. It was also the norm in those days to not divorce; now the divorce rate is over 50%. The expectations are different, and so the theories about how these expectations can be met change. They become re-written because they become outdated or culturally… Offensive? How many satirical sexist licks have I thrown in throughout this passage? Enough to make a point, I hope. Cultures change; the theories that interact with these cultures also have to change or become fallacies. A theory of how theories interact with the culture around them would be extremely helpful.
Stephen: excellent and witty response! Good distinctions between sexual realities and gender stereotypes. Though culture seems to need these 'crutches' as regards identity, theory questions whether or not they are universal and how much they even explain of the realities of our own time. And many theories do try to chart how 'theories' interact with our culture, waxing and waning depending on the cultural moment. Hopefully we'll talk more about this. (Dr. Grasso)
DeleteIn respnse to #4
ReplyDeleteAccording to Culler you (or any other human) cannot master theory because it is ever changing. A theory, according to Culler, is a speculation about something that may not actually have an answer. Which differs from a guess, because a guess suggests that there is an answer. Culler also qualifies that a theory must not be obvious and it must be complex. Involved in its complexity, it must not be easily proved or disproved. Something is always being added to the canon of speculation. Even if you were somehow able to read every theory ever composed (which you could not) you would still not know all there is to know about theory, because many theories are part of an oral tradition we like to call conversation. We make up theories about everything all day long and we hardly bother to record them. In fact recording them would be useless, because we change our minds constantly.
The point of studying something you cannot master is the same point as why we (or at least the majority of us) choose to live our daily lives without committing suicide. Life is something you can never master, but we live anyway. Life is not even really something we can understand. Even the most pious man or woman in the world cannot claim with absolute certainty that they know how this all ends or why we are here. They have faith in a certain view, but no knowledge. Love is the same way. People search high and low for the perfect love. Alternately they also look for love with the perfect mate. T.V. dramas, books, movies, and entire careers have been dedicated to the concept of love and yet anyone who claims to have mastered the entire genre is a liar and will be labeled as such. Theory is the same way. True mastery is unattainable, just like it is with everything that humans seem to truly want.
Macy McDonald
Macy: Excellent and very thorough response! As you suggest, a guess presupposes an answer, while a theory merely points at unresolved issues that might change the question AND the answer (if there is one). Theories, as you say, connect to everything, even to fields we're not aware of--or fields not yet born! To prove it would require the mind of God or space aliens; lacking both, we can only decide whether or not the theory in question helps us see new ideas and question old ones. It's an abstract (like Life and Love) which only exist as we dream them up; the danger is mistaking the idea/dream for something real that becomes solid and unchanging. As we change the ideas change, which makes theory and literature unique and relevant. (Dr. Grasso)
Delete#1:
ReplyDeleteThe idea of sex is biologically driven. What makes a person male or female has been the same for centuries, regardless of race, culture, ethnicity, etc. Gender, however, is a term that has many different connotations and meanings. In various cultures, gender is defined alternatively to how other cultures may define it. By using theories, we can further advance, and understand, the multiple definitions of gender, as well as the acceptable behaviors associated with gender in certain cultures.
As time passes, and the world evolves, so does definitions of gender, and what makes someone male or female. History has wrote, and re-wrote, what it means to be a male or a female. In the past it didn't matter if males played or interacted with feminine eccentricities, or if males had male lovers, and in some cases, depending on the culture, it was an acceptable and firm exploration. Today, that has became much more taboo, but it is only because our definition of what gender means has shifted and shied away from what it once was.
- Casey Fowler
Casey: Good response, particularly in noting how whatever passes as 'gender' depends on our own notions of 'theory.' While society has its own norms and taboos, these are continually questioned by popular culture and literature itself, which asks whether or not such behaviors are 'natural' and universal. Theory is sometimes the enemy of tradition, since it takes nothing at face value. In a way, we have a much more fluid idea of gender today, though our idea of sexuality is more limited. Perhaps this is because 'sexuality' as an identity didn't have the same meaning 200 or so years ago (as Culler explains via Foucault). There's more that a man and a woman can do today, though we want to know upfront who they sleep with!
DeleteFirst, the definition of theory by Culler - "a theory must be more than a hypothesis: it can't be obvious; it involves complex relations of a systematic kind among a number of factors; and it is not easily confirmed or disproved."
ReplyDeleteI think with what he said here, it's obvious that theory cannot be fully learned - ever. Because theory cannot be easily confirmed as he says.
We study theory, and come up with theory to try and better understand the things around us. As Culler says, "Works that become 'theory' offer accounts others can use about meaning, nature, and culture." This being said, we study theory only to, like I mentioned earlier, better understand the world around us. By putting things down on paper, it helps not only us see life better, but it offers others the chance to, in a way, exoperience something that they have not experienced.
Derek: good response, though I have a counter-question: even though Culler said this, why do you think a theory cannot be proven or disproven completely? What quality does a theory have that makes it this way? Is it simply the complexity of 'theoretical' notions, or is it something about the approach itself? Something to think about is the sheer scope of a theory. It usually cuts across several fields and ideas, not all of which the theorist can have mastery of. Some implications of a theory might be off, while others might seem spot on. And perhaps the theory will make even more sense when new fields or works emerge that seem to "fit" it. Theory cannot be easily confirmed because there are so many angles to consider. A good theory, like a good book, continues to live with each new reader and thinker. And an old theory can give birth to a new one, just as an old book can inspire a new one!
Delete4. Why, according to Culler, is theory not predictable or completely knowable? Why could you never truly master theory? And if so, why study it at all? What is the point of studying something you can--in a sense--never truly learn?
ReplyDeleteTheory is a constantly expanding field so there's no way to make it totally predictable or completely knowable. Just when we think we may have grasped a large part of it something new comes along. Theory itself suggests theory. There are an unlimited number of ways that a piece of literature can be viewed. Theory can never be truly mastered because it can't be precisely defined, new methods of analysis are always coming about, and a text can always be seen in a new light even a really old text where people used to think that they “totally got it.” You never really “get” theory in since it doesn't have any sharp boundaries. Theory is worth studying because it's an important tool that can be applied in many ways—just when we think we've grasped the full meaning of a text a new theoretical understanding can come along to expand/challenge our assumptions about that text.
--Scott
Scott: I like your comment that "theory itself suggests theory." If theory is interdisciplinary, then we can never truly "see" it--it goes into worlds we may not understand ourselves, even if we are the theorist! An idea in biology can have profound historical consequences, and however much we know about biology, we may be utter novices at history. So we can't see the entire picture ourselves, but others can use our questions and ideas to expand their own horizons. And most importantly, as you suggest, it makes texts new and interesting for future generations. New theories suggest "new" readings and works...a book is never read, it is re-read. (Dr. Grasso)
Delete