University Writing: Constructions

2008-12-02T22:16:00.000-08:00

When I went to Thanksgiving last week my parents asked me if I had heard about what happened in India. I hadn't, so they told me that there were terrorist bombings and buildings taken over and Pakistan was being accused of the attacks, etc. I was very surprised to hear of such a terrible thing and I was shocked that I hadn't heard anything about it earlier. I realized that we're in a bubble here at Columbia. Or at least I feel like it. I never watch tv and I barely ever get the chance to read the paper and if no one else does either, how will we ever know what's going on in the outside world? Question 1. Do you also feel like you're in a bubble? 2. Do you feel guilty about not being able to read the paper and watch the news and stay up-to-date with the world? 3. Does it matter if we know what's going on out there? 4. Is it our duty to be knowledgeable world citizens? 5. If we know about these horrible things what can we do about them?

I was motivated today to take a look at the paper and I saw that GM is asking for $18 BILLION to prevent its collapse. I feel like one day I'm going to look outside my window and the world will be in ruins, having crumbled while I was inside intensely focused on reading the "great books" or writing that paper.

Also watched this disturbing video today: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA98U0Csers
I just can't believe that this kind of thing goes on, it acceptable among men, and nothing is done about it. It's disgusting, how can they call themselves human?

But then, what is human? And who gets to decide what's right? Are there fundamental rights and wrongs and if so how come some people just don't see them as so? Are we allowed to go into another country and tell them what to do? Where is the line? When do we need to step in?

Monsters in Video Games

2008-11-25T18:17:00.000-08:00

During my first couple of reading of Jeffrey Cohen's "Monster Culture: Seven Theses" I was not very interested in the content. It does present a good number of ideas and theories to ponder on with a healthy selections of examples but my only interest in any of them was simply to get whatever assignment done so I can focus on whatever "more important" code I had to write or problem set I had to finish. It was not until Sunday, after reading Lytton Smith's poem "Monster Theory" and the discussion with him on Monday that I finally grew honestly interested in the theses. Of course, in traditional Stephanie fashion it took video games to do it.

I touched briefly on the topic of monsters in video games during my group presentation with Sheldon and Ridwan, but never actually thought to pull back from the Dracula monster and look at the horde of video game monsters and how they relate to each of Cohen's theses. The discussion on Monday caused me to return to "Monster Culture" and search for which theses related to the various video game monsters I could think of. Immediately I could relate "Thesis II: The Monster Always Escapes" and "Thesis III: The Monster is the Harbinger of Category Crisis" to the Flood from Halo, "Thesis VII: The Monster Stands at the Threshold... of Becoming" to Lord Vayne of Final Fantasy XII, and "Thesis VI: Fear of the Monster is Really a Kind of Desire" to Riku's relationship with the Heartless of Kingdom Hearts, just to name a few.

I guess my question to you is what other video game villains or monsters have you encountered and how do they relate to Cohen's theses? And, if you are not as intense of a gamer as I am (and I would hope not for the safety of your social life) what monsters in current television, particularly cartoons (I would name a few in that category but I do not want to take them away from you), do you see and how do those relate to Cohen's theses? The major requirement I want to place though, is that these monster not be historically prevalent monsters, but newly established monsters. I know this moves away from Cohen's monster which is historically grounded, but that is my objective.

Women with Opinions: Link

2008-11-16T12:20:00.001-08:00

1. www.youtube.com

2. Search - Jane Eyre: Interrupted Wedding

Women With Opinions Should Stay in the Attic

2008-11-13T15:18:00.000-08:00

One of Cohen's most interesting exhibits in his exploration of "Monster Culture" is the portrayal of Bertha in Charlotte Bronte's Jane Eyre. In this classic piece, Bronte creates the character of Bertha, Rochester's Jamaica born psychotic wife, who is hidden away in the attic as a dark secret. In preparation for our presentation on women in Monster Culture on Monday, please take a look at the video of Jane and Rochester's "interrupted wedding" and focus on the depiction of Bertha in comparison to that described by Bronte in the passage below. Please prepare questions and comments on the historical depiction of women, the modern presentation of such values, and how the two differ. Think of how the "monster" of feminism has changed through these examples and what it says about our current mentality. Do we inherently prejudge women of bold, foreign, or passionate nature? Will we always face this monster? How, if ever, can we make it disappear?

Textual Description:

Bertha was a "a big woman, in stature almost equalling her husband, and corpulant...virile force...purple...bloated features...exotic...Creole...of wealthy Jamaican planter...at once intemperate and unchaste."

Monsters on the Campaign Trail

2008-11-09T10:10:00.000-08:00

As I read Cohen’s essay on Monster Culture, I was very interested in how Cohen successfully delineates a number of notable events in history and describes a monster of that time period. After seeing his examples of monsters throughout history and reflecting back on the sample essays use of the terrorist as a monster, it seems undeniable that monsters play a key role in society.

Looking back on the last few days of the election and its exciting conclusion, I began to wonder if there was a monster to be found in this historic time in our nation. My mind automatically drifted back to the controversial cover of the New Yorker. I remember the time surrounding that publication, on in which all the misconceptions that Obama is a Muslim seemed true and legitimate. I also linked it to the fact that days before the election, 60% of Texans were under the impression that Obama was a Muslim. In the end it didn’t prevent him from winning, but it did help spur these misconceptions.

As for a solid monster figure, I couldn’t really come up with one. Though the campaign was lengthy and filled with epithets and recurring characters like Joe Six Pack and Joe the Plumber that were meant to represent the average American, I couldn’t find one figure that constituted a monster the way Cohen describes it. One thing that did strike me was the significance and large role that terrorism continues to play. National security was still a top issue in this election and the candidates did use vague phrases like “take them out” to calm the nations fears on a national security strike.

My question for you then is: Is the monster of the Terrorist still alive in our society today as it was eight years ago? Were there any monsters that played a major part in this election? How do monsters shape elections and outcomes? Finally, how do covers like the New Yorker help legitimize monsters, misconceptions, and ignorance?

The Monster in American Culture

2008-11-09T09:51:00.000-08:00

Recently, a friend gave me a poem by Otto Rene Castillo. This poem was entitled 'Apolitical Intellectuals' and was translated from Spanish. Here are some excerpts: (i'm taking out the line breaks to save space)

"One day the apolitical intellectuals of my country will be interrogated by the simplest of our people. They will be asked what they did when their nation died out slowly, like a sweet fire, small and alone....On that day the simple men will come...and they'll ask: "What did you do when the poor suffered, when tenderness and life burned out in them" Apolitical intellectuals of my sweet country, you will not be able to answer. A vulture of silence will eat your gut. Your own misery will pick at your soul. And you will be mute...in your shame."

I bring this poem up because we are amidst a cultural pandemic that has not culminated but begun with our economic crisis. I also bring this poem up because I found it relevant to the political drama of recent weeks and also because I found it personally inspiring.

This past week, I had the opportunity of touring the United Nations with my fellow Columbia students. We had the privilege of attending a forum where many high-ranking officials of the UN spoke. One particular man who worked for the high commissioner for human rights was particularly memorable. He fervently believed in the idea that human rights should be placed above all and was saddened by how many countries, including the United States have made excuses and abused the universally agreed rights of every human being. He received questions from concerned students from China, Afghanistan and Myanmar. What struck me was how the United States was viewed and alluded to. The speakers, on numerous occasions, referred to how they hope the 'new administration' would be better in dealing with human rights issues.

It almost seemed like to me that the United States was viewed as a sort of 'monster' by many outsiders. It seems like our culture has become this monster that we fear ourselves, but we cannot escape from it because we also desire it. Sarah in her previous post talked about harmonizing the American mindset, and Andrew talked about how we must use cultural evolution to solve our problems-- how can we find a way to change our way of thinking and our way of life?

Yet there is hope-- I mentioned the poem because I felt it speaks to what I believe in. During the UN tour, the guide also mentioned something that I found inspiring. He mentioned this food called 'plumpy-nut' (you can wiki it) that is used by UNICEF. This food is a sort of paste that contains lots of nutrients, is easy to eat and easy to digest. A french scientist developed this in 1999 and it has shown to be very effective, especially with starving children. This is the kind of work scientists should be doing. Has nobody in the last 9 years been able to develop something better? Researchers can change the issue of world hunger but instead many doctors spend their time getting rich on cosmetics, liposuction and breast implants. How can we change our mindset to focus on things that matter? Before it's too late?

Do you feel that American culture is a type of monster in itself? Is it not a monster that continues to spread across the world? How can we stop it? How can we reverse it? Cohen's monster is one that is indestructible. Is our monster any different?

A "Transformative" Trip Back Home

2008-11-05T05:30:00.001-08:00

I just returned home from my fall break in Bergen County, New Jersey- a county generally defined by its suburban nature and pleasant environment. The streets are paved to perfection, the awnings on small corporate businesses glimmer under the sun, and the expensive SUVs rarely leave the garage without a clean waxing or touch up. It was here that I spent last night's presidential election, and after this experience I feel that I must put forth a provocation and seek the class opinion on several aspects.

When my brother returned from school, a respected all boys private school in the area, he said, "Sarah, I wish you could have been in school today. There were riots all day. The Democrats said we need a new, liberal, black president and the Republicans said we will see an apocalypse if a Democrat runs this country." Not very shocked at the behavior of high school boys, I asked "How old were these kids Joe?" He responded, "They were mostly sophomores to seniors who split up by race, and my chemistry teacher who told me Obama is friends with Ahmadinejad and believes in what he said at your school." At first I was slightly jarred by the story, but I brushed it aside in hopes that this was only the result of hormonal, ignorant high school boys. Unfortunately, this was not the case.

A few hours later, I visited my aunt who seemed stressed about the elections. She told me that a woman had recently come into her shop and told her it was absolutely disgusting what was going to become of this country. She declared that we would suffer the wrath of "socialism," "terrorism," and the invasion of "illegal aliens." Ironically, she had just boasted about a manicure at a local salon by several "undocumented workers," but that is besides the point. If that wasn't enough, my youngest cousin, only seven years old, came home asking my aunt "McCain is the guy that will help us right? Obama will steal our money?"

Now, I'm aware that this might sound like somewhat of a political soap opera, but it is not the characters or the words that jar me the most, it is the overall ignorance that so many people hold at the break of a historic moment. Last night, I sat in tears as I saw New York city in celebration and I sat my living room looking at the empty streets suburban streets, with a silence broken only by the music from my neighbor's Benz.

After such an experience back home, where my "heart is [supposed] to be," I heard an announcer on television speak about his first interaction with Obama at Harvard School of Law. He stated, " I know this may sound cliche, but when you first meet Obama, you realize he is just a transformative person." I wonder, is Obama transformative enough to mend this battlefield of a bipartisan system? Do you feel that harmonizing American mindset is as important as salvaging our economy? I bring this question to the class, because I cannot explain how grateful I am to be back in an environment where people educate themselves on the issues of this nation and retain educated opinions rather than divided biases. I write this because I hope that in someway my short provocation can liberate a mind of a personal bias or surrender a barrier between the opposing political, racial, economic, or social side. Beyond just a response, I ask for a "United States of America" to be more than just a charged phrase in Obama's commencement speech. I ask that it is here and now, that perhaps we can make it a reality.

all your promises

2008-10-25T10:01:00.001-07:00

During the debates for the Democratic primaries, I remember the various candidates parsing their slightly different “plans” for American energy independence and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. The debate was something like:
“I plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 50 percent by the year 2020…”
“Well, John, my plan would actually reduce greenhouse gases 70 percent by 2030…”
In my mind, it was hardly a helpful discussion. How can a presidential candidate really make a promise when the payoff is so far in the future? Politicians are famous for making promises. Failed promises are memorable (Bush’s “Read my lips,” Clinton’s 1992 promise to reduce defense spending 33% by 1997), but so are kept ones. In 1960, John F. Kennedy promised a man on the moon before the 1970s. He never lived to see Armstrong’s steps, but the promise was fulfilled. But all three of these candidate’s promises pertained to the relatively immediate future.

This 2008 election has candidates making wild claims that are difficult to see as anything other than pipe dreams. Even the most diehard Obama supporter must be hard-pressed to declare how exactly any policies could ensure that 25% of our electricity comes from renewable resources by the year 2025, as his website promises. Both McCain and Obama have plans to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. Obama wants to reduce them 80%, and McCain (since he’s a Republican) only wants a 66% reduction. Such specificity of numbers does not even make me feel that the policy would be stronger. I would be much happier to hear that “every measure will be taken” to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and that specific goals would be set once experts assess the situation, but taking that step now is pointless and rings as phony as a three-dollar bill.

Don’t get me wrong, I would like to hear what the candidates’ plans are, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Maybe they feel that focusing only on the next four years would make them sound petty. Climate change, tied as it is to the advancement of technology, is something that must be addressed in the long-term and has no quick fix. So why not address the issue in broader, less specific terms? And it’s not only the climate change/energy independence policy areas that have these ridiculous prediction-promises. Obama promises to increase the number of high-school students taking college-level classes 50% by 2016. John McCain has plans for a manned space mission in 2020, when he will (or may not) be 84. My guess is that the “year-dropping” that goes on in the campaign is entirely rhetorical. This is saddening. I would like to think that we take our future more seriously than that. Is there anything helpful that comes from the mentioning of specific dates and percentage goals? Do we get a better picture of where the candidates’ priorities lie? Why must politicians make these promises? Why, oh why.

Cultural Evolution

2008-10-19T15:51:00.000-07:00

One of the blogs on the longnow website stuck me as particularly interesting. The title of the blog is "The Dominant Animal: Human Evolution and the Environment" by Paul Ehrlich. In his blog, Ehrlich describes human dominance as malignant, using examples of climate change and chemical toxification of the biosphere. He says, "Every cubic centimeter of the biosphere has been modified by human activity." Ehrlich also thinks the increasing global population poses a problem in the future.

Ehrlich's main point is on cultural evolution. Cultural evolution, defined by Ehrlich, is everything we pass on in a non-genetic way. He says around 50,000 years ago, humans made a great leap in cultural development, after which culture took over human evolution. After 50,000 years ago, our brains haven't changed in size. Ehrlich regards the understanding of cultural evolution as the key to providing a safe future for future generations.

Ehrlich and a graduate student at Stanford conducted a study of the progression of Polynesian canoe practices as their population expanded. He questioned whether the paddle shape changed constantly striving for a more efficient paddle shape or did the carving and paint on the paddles change more. The result of the study was the carving and paint on the paddles changed more to distinguish each group of Polynesians from one another.

According to Ehrlich, human evolution has stopped and in order to provide a safe environment for our future societies, we must analyze cultural evolution to move away from our malignant society to a benign one. So how can we accomplish this? Deep time part 2 focuses on finding a solution to our nuclear waste problem. My question is how can we analyze cultural evolution to become a more benign society? What are some solutions to our current problems by using cultural evolution? What future impact can cultural evolution provide us? And finally, how can we use cultural evolution when we don't know the culture of future generations?

A Foreign Policy Debate

2008-10-04T08:45:00.000-07:00

In last night’s vice presidential debate, Senator Joe Biden and Governor Sarah Palin were each asked to qualify the relative dangers of a nuclear Iran and an unstable Pakistan. In their responses, neither offered to declare war on, send troops to, enact sanctions against, or make demands of those countries. However, both candidates answered the question in words that legitimized US concern about developments in Iran and Pakistan. Without pause two Americans handed down judgment on the affairs of two sovereign foreign nations.

Since the terrorist attacks of 2001, America’s outlook on foreign affairs has changed dramatically. Prior to 9/11, our forays into international disputes were tentative and sporadic. Yes, the United States has supported dictators or political parties via economic backing, but rarely has our military engaged in foreign conflict unless in response to some specific targeted aggression against our country. The attacks perpetrated by Al Qaeda have given the United States a pretense for premature, unilateral military engagements. Risky, indefensible, gratuitous actions are now sold to the American public as necessary for the maintenance of homeland security. The fear embodied by Brennan’s Terrorist monster has blinded people to such an extent that they no longer question the validity of privacy-limiting bills such as the Patriot Act, or foreign initiatives like the war in Iraq. Any country revealing so much as a tendency toward disapproval of American policies is immediately blacklisted, even if such nations are the traditional allies of the United States (as in the case of France and the laughably petty replacement of “french fries” with “freedom fries”). Thus we continue to stretch our troops beyond discretion in order to quell anti-American sentiment abroad. Not since the Cold War era has America so arbitrarily invaded, manipulated, or interfered with other states.

Historically, the United States has established a tradition of reacting to real or perceived threats by attempting to suppress any group harboring hostility toward our country.
Brennan argues that America’s fear of the Terrorist has lead to a decline in the freedom and independence which we see as separating us from the extremists who have launched attacks on our soil. I would contend that not only has our fear of the Terrorist affected our right to privacy, but it has opened the gates for a flood of imperialistic foreign policy. Our modern imperialism has been pursued in Afghanistan and Iraq, and discussed in reference to Iran, Korea, and Pakistan. We send our army to conquer factions who disagree with American policies or values and instill our own beliefs in those we profess to save; this disrespect for the sovereignty and rights of other states, in turn, breeds further international disapproval of the extreme overreaction of the United States government. Is this what we can expect for America in the future? Are we justified in violating the rights of other nations in order to spread our own values of democracy?

Technological Panopticon

2008-09-27T15:29:00.000-07:00

The panopticon derives its function through the amplification and enabling of observation. Sight is a mighty weapon when wielded properly, and frightful to its targets. The evil Lord Sauron in Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings takes shape not as a man or monster, but as a great burning eye, piercing the sky with his gaze. His fiery visage is one of the most lingering images, and certainly one of the most haunting. We, though, are not in Middle Earth and our evil leaders are but human, yet the principle remains. Being watched is frightening and possessing the power of observation is pure power. In the past, physical walls and geometric tricks were required to impose such powerful observation. Such construction is now unnecessary as the use of modern technology and the proliferation of cameras make other options more feasible.

Cameras provide the ideal means of observation as the "power" is, "unverifiable: the [subject] must never know whether he is being looked at at any one moment" (Foucault, 231). Traveling through Europe last summer, it was interesting to see that there are no traffic cops. Rather, there are traffic cameras, and as I passed through I hadn't the slightest idea where they were located. All I knew is that they were there, watching.

The same idea is echoed throughout literature and movies. Be it the Will Smith blockbuster Enemy of the State or Orwell's 1984, the future is full of surveillance technologies and through them the respective governments have a way to control and deter any undesirable activities. The thought police prove fearful for it is unkown whether they are ever watching.

In the present day, similar technologies are being employed. London has a "ring of steel" around it, consisting of road blocks to slow traffic as the cars pass by cameras equipped with facial recognition technology. A very similar plan has been approved for New York City in the downtown region. Also included in the plans are numerous license plate readers, some hidden inconspicuously on mobile vehicles. Similarly, the border with Mexico is being equipped with "smart fences" with cameras. Interestingly, though, anyone can go online and watch live feed from these cameras and report his or her sightings. This example is strikingly similar to the panopticon, where any untrained individual can take up the role of observer, and where even the public shares the responsibility.

My question has two main elements. One, how accurate is it to call these modern surveillance techniques, both in literature/entertainment and in the real world, a panopticon? And two, what comfort can be had in them, what is their necessity? Is terrorism our black plague? and in this era, with the Patriot Act and all else, are we better off being in such a machine as Foucault describes?

(good reading on the NYC ring of steel: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/09/nyregion/09ring.html?ex=1343275200&en=219d15391d1af88f&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink )

The End Without Us?

2008-09-22T09:21:00.000-07:00

After watching the two videos in class and reading Weisman's oft-dreary outlook on how the world would function or exist AH or "After-Humanity", I've come to the conclusion that such a scenario or series of events could never truly be fathomed. Of course, Weisman goes into a myriad of possibilities for the reasons humans simply cease to be, but can we ever really contemplate such a fate? Take for example the movies and stories we discussed today in class.

In the movies "I am Legend", "The Day after Tomorrow", and even in "28 Days Later" we find that though the world is now in some apocolyptic state or most of humanity has been killed off in some way, there is always one person, a single individual left or even a single group of individuals. Though we as humans can describe in very vivid details, as Weisman does, our perceptions of a world AH it is nearly impossible for us to let go of the prospect of hope. Hope that "someone" survives; that it is in our very nature and instinctive pattern to survive. Darwin proclaimed, it why can't we accept it wholeheartedly? Though to many of you this idea of a world after humanity is not only scary but disturbing, Weisman seems to detach himself from the typical theme of survival to one of preservation. What I mean by this is Weisman's interest in what we leave behind on this great Earth of ours - "And what of our finest creations-our architecture, our art, our many manifestations of spirit? Are any truly timeless, at least enough so to last until the sun expands and roasts our Earth to a cinder?"

I therefore pose this twist to the puzzle. Should we as a society, a civilization, a human species be seeking an escape route from ourselves? If the event/scenario/object of our self-destruction is inherently limited to this planet, this Earth, should we not be focusing all of our attention on unlimiting ourselves and breaking the barriers of our time? I bring to your attention a recent article I read by Elon Musk, an entrepreneur out of California who was not only the co-founder of PayPal but also the founder of SpaceX, the only private company currently launching rockets into space.

As he writes, "It [making humanity multiplanetary] would also serve as a hedge against the myriad-and growing-threats to our survival. An asteroid or a supervolcano could certainly destroy us, but we also face risks the dinosaurs never saw: An engineered virus, nuclear war, inadvertent creation of a micro black hole, or some as-yet-unknown technology could spell the end of us. Sooner or later, we must expand life byeond our little blue mud ball-or go extinct" (Esquire, October 2008 p.124).

Do you agree with Elon? Are we as a species in jeopardy of extinction merely by limiting ourselves to the only home we've ever known? What would Weisman say about not just leaving Earth but moving elsewhere, would the danger still be the same? Are humans simply a virus of their own contruction?

Silence in the Senate: The Assault on Reason Provocation

2008-09-12T13:51:00.000-07:00

Silence in the senate. I remember vividly, as a child, that my mother quite often had the television on in the living room as she assembled the furniture she’d built for our house. Most often, the programming on the screen was C-SPAN (the Cable Satellite Public Affairs Network). I remember that a lot of the programming in question was unquestionably boring in nature – most often, it was votes, with numbers changing ever-so-slowly as congressmen and women cast their votes on issues I was too young to understand. I remember only a few speakers: most of the ones I remember are remembered because my parents pointed them out to me, or more often, because they were entertaining to watch or listen to.

In the introduction to The Assault on Reason former Vice President Al Gore poses what he says is a familiar question to Americans in the early 21st century: “Why do reason, logic, and truth seem to play a sharply diminished role in the way America now makes important decisions?” (Gore 1) A part of what he seems to blame is the passive reception of television news-media by a public who relies too much on the “news as entertainment” system: connecting to both the theory that television hooks into an “orienting response” (21) which survives in our evolutionary inheritance of DNA, as well as the idea from Marshall McLuhan that “the medium is the message” (20), Gore proposes what I think is an extraordinary hypothesis. Our instincts – specifically our survival instincts – are being honed in on to keep us watching the television without actively questioning the material conveyed to us.

In the course of the past few years, I’ve noticed that one of the startling “truths” within the satire of Jon Stewart’s The Daily Show or its spin-off, Stephen Colbert’s Colbert Report, is that when you juxtapose different speeches by the same politician, or different parts of the same speech, you often find interesting and contradictory evidence. My question for discussion: is there a concrete way in which television has affected our reception of the candidates for national office in this election year? Do you think commercials affect your response to candidates? What about the kerfuffles in which candidates find deep meaning in comments that are not necessarily meant to be meaningful?

My immediate reaction is that they’re trying to distract us from the actual issues: perhaps if we’re concerned about how the other campaign has wronged them, we won’t notice that no politicians really like to talk specifics. What about you guys? Can you think of examples of this in recent days from political coverage of both sides? What I'm interested in here is the effect of commercials, speeches, rather than their content: what does the medium through which the candidates present themselves do to our perception of their message?