In Wolfe’s essay, “Human, All Too Human”, he writes on the growing interest of the animal. More and more, the animal starts to appear in all sorts of subjects that, the animal, has become the main focus for it’s own area of study. However, what troubles Wolfe is how we approach this study incorrectly due to our ethnocentrism affecting the way we conduct study on the animal, stating, “just because we study nonhuman animals does not mean we are not continuing to be humanist.” (568). The problem of studying animals is that we are doing it in our own way. We look at the animal based on our perspective and ideologies. Such as focusing on how different they are compared to us with no consideration towards them. This way of studying animals then imposes that humans are more than the animal. Further, putting a greater emphasis on the divide between us and animals. I think a good example of this can be animal documentaries, specifically those silent ones that has barely any narration, allows the study solely focuses on immersing ourselves in the animal’s world and their point of view.

This then builds on another problem he goes on to mention. He explains the process of pluralism and how it works with an example on cultural studies; as it aims to search for equality by choosing to “invite” past rejected studies into the broader social sphere. The thing about pluralism is that it, “extends the sphere of consideration to marginalized groups without in the least destabilizing or throwing in to question the schema of the human that takes such pluralization.” (568) The fact that the study that was put down for so long now has been “accepted” by the community comes to shows this notion of who is really in charge? Who has the power here to say “you can join us now”? The fact that the oppressed group has to wait for the dominant to accept them just diminishes the latter even more. As a result, as Wolfe fears that this may happen the same with animal studies if not done the right way.

Wolfe suggests to take on animal studies correctly, is to find a way to leave aside our humanist way of research and think of the animal as parallel to humans. Though avoiding this may be hard, he calls on Jacques Derrida’s essay on animality, which proves to be a form of answer. Based on Wolfe’s explanation on Derrida, we must focus on finding some similarities’ rather than differences. Describing it as looking for the limits we share with animals, what we both lack, as something to connect to animals (570).  Looking at it this way makes it easier to find a form of equal ground with one another without struggling to find similarities through our many differences. When we ponder on this, we realize that we don’t really know much about ourselves either. Maybe it’s easier to study animals because we can look at them as a subject. Though, it doesn’t feel right to try to understand non-human animals when we don’t really know ourselves. I find it that it is harder studying ourselves because you just can’t do research on yourself, your bound to have biases or mistakes. Perhaps that is why studying animals interest us so much, we can look at them and research them as much as we can. Through animal research, we can use them to compare ourselves and thus, understand them in order to find a way to understand ourselves.

The mirror has always been associated as a special object. We like mirrors because it is the only way we can see ourselves at. Lacan’s “The Mirror Stage” dives deeper into why and how the mirror works with the idea of the self, as usual, rising from roots of our infancy.

During the 8-16 months, infants are very attracted to mirrors. The minute they lay eyes on it they become so immersed and excited. I’ve seen this happen with little infants who would scream at you if you yank the mirror away from them. Lacan gives a very interesting theory why. When a child looks at a mirror, they are drawn to the image produced, which is just a reflection of themselves. At first, one might think that that’s why they are so drawn because of the revelation of, “That’s me!” But Lacan says its not like this, rather, what the child interprets of this reflection is “I want to be that”. As he goes to explain, the image  “this form is certainly more constituent than constituted, but in which it appears to him above all in contrasting size that fixes it and in a symmetry that inverts it, in contrast with the turbulence movements that subject feels are animating him,” (1113). In other words, that image is not the wild, uncontrollable child, they are the idealized individual, the perfect controlled person the child wishes they could be; thus, Lacan calls this image as the Ideal-I. It is what we strive to be yet, we would reach.

He further refers this identification as a misrecognition as the infants misunderstands that this is the ideal self rather that this is just their reflection. I first wondered why this wasn’t obvious, but then I forgot that this happens to infants. A infant won’t understand that’s them in the mirror. As he explains, the mirror stage and misrecognition leaves after language is learned because then, we can begin to recognize the truth and start to form our identity based on the symbolic system of language (1112). Even so, we don’t completely leave out of this stage. As I mentioned in the beginning, the mirror is literally the only way we can see ourselves. There is not one person that doesn’t stop to look at themselves in the mirror and more commonly, right before heading outside. We look at the mirror to see if our face looks good, how our body shape is, hair, outfit, etc. All in all, we keep judging ourselves based on the image there and keep trying to fix ourselves towards perfection. The mirror stage is a interesting concept when it comes to understanding how we perceive ourselves and how that image motivates us to reach towards the “other”. No matter what time period or age, we would still use the mirror and idealize that the image is the better version of ourselves and so, the person we want to be.

Side Note: When I read this piece for the first time, it reminded me of  Cooley’s social theory on the Looking Glass Self. I might be getting this wrong (this was back in SOC 101) but what I understood, this theory is a little alike to the mirror stage with the Ideal-I becoming more based on society and so, we reach towards, like wanting to be the ideal, to building identity based on what we think society sees us as.  

From “Wretched of the Earth”, philosopher, Frantz Fanon, studies the affect colonial domination has on national culture. When a colonizer occupies on a country, there are two sorts of reactions: The native, chooses to maintain “intact traditions” and the intellectual, instead moves towards the new culture (1361). The mass natives takes like a pause with their culture and don’t produce or keep going with it. If they do, they are at risk of losing it more rather than saving it. So they choose to maintain it as it is and try to at least keep it going within themselves and untouched, even by constant pushing from the colonizers. Meanwhile, the intellectual “frantically”, chooses to integrate into this new culture and opened to leaving behind theirs. In their defense, this may be in means of survival, giving in instead of facing constant rebuttal, or as a result of their culture being so oppressed, that they “realize” that the colonizers culture may be the more “sophisticated” than theirs. This statement comes to show how not all the natives of the nation have the same response to colonization and more so, why colonizers have struggle to dominate an entire nation. For the most part, it isn’t the physical attack like a large army, but the influence, especially, the effect upon culture, that allows complete take over a country.

This then brings over to a more positive note on colonization. Since there is this different approach between the two natives; there is one group that emerges as a result and that is the key player to moving a colonized nation to fight back. Fanon calls this group the native intellectual, who are like a mix of the two. They are the ones that take in this new culture, but instead of promoting the colonizers, they change it for their benefit and use it to reach out towards their own people (1363). The native intellectual represents their people and aims to encourage them to push forward towards building something more of their own culture. This is where we get most literature that, use similar literary styles of the colonizer, but shape it to write their own work. Then, the people are taught new views and motivated for uprising, which most likely, led to revolts and fighting back for freedom (1365). We saw this same cycle occur a lot through colonized countries and are always initiated by this same group Fanon speaks of. Another example, that well, doesn’t exactly involve colonization, but I found alike to this cycle, is a poem I read in a Latinx Lit. class, “I am Joaquin”. The epic poem is written by Rodolfo “Corky” Gonzales and I remember how intriguing it was that Gonzales used poetry, specifically, the style form of the epic, to push Chicanos to protest during the Chicano Civil Rights Movement. I think its also interesting how colonizers have this image that the colonized country lacks any sense of culture. Many “white” Americans looked down on Chicanos saying how they didn’t know anything of the arts yet, Gonzalez was the example they very well did and even used it against them. The native intellectual aims to do just that: prove the colonizer wrong while “awakening the native’s sensibility,” and “make unreal…the acceptance of defeat,” (1365).

Reading the “Economic and Political Manuscripts of 1844” gave me a new perspective on Marx’s views on workers and the tolls they endure from a growing capitalist state. Marx explains the problem presented to workers is this growing sense of alienation. His first point explains the feeling of disconnect between the laborer and the object of production. As the laborer works hard to make this product, at the end of the day, the results is just an object. Thus, the laborer realizes that their “product of labour is labour which has been congealed in an object, which has become material,” and by seeing it as so, the worker devalues themselves (657). They no longer gain any satisfaction in working and in some part, lose themselves by working constantly towards every new product made. He further adds how awful it feels that everything they produce isn’t even something they can receive. A guy that works on making phones can’t necessarily afford to buy himself the latest brand (which is ironic since he literally made it!) I actually seen something alike this happen. My parents used to work as food vendors selling Mexican food. I remember how we used to order take out on the weekends, however, it was anything but Mexican food. The thought of cooking up the same stuff over and over just bored them to the point that the product itself decreased in value for them to no longer want anything to do with it.

This example also works with Marx second point: the alienation between the worker and the process of work. My parents, despite the constant stress, liked cooking. It’s a nice feeling, the process and work that is put into the food and more so that satisfaction that everyone else enjoys it too; but I know they definitely wouldn’t be too happy working in a restaurant. This new environment is different because the majority of times the food and ingredients are pre-prepared for you to use. There’s also a greater, constant pressure to keep up with loads of cooking and serving to people you won’t even see. Marx explains this as the process of work becoming no longer enjoyable but more stressing and this notion that you are being constrained to just work to work. Further, he argues how capitalism is devolving away from that essence of being part of a “natural process”, the process of making things out of nature’s resources and producing with it. He explains, “ But as nature provides labor with the means of life… it also provides the means of life in the more restricted sense— the means for the physical subsistence of the worker himself,”. Moving away from the natural way, makes the worker feel less attached, control and so, “[deprived] himself of means of life,” (657-658). I could see how this argument comes from the Industrial Revolution. Of course machines make production faster and efficient, but to whom does that benefit really? The worker is the one working with these machines which the use of it makes it feel unnatural and more like robots pushing buttons.

I do find this theory interesting and made me realize what Marx is saying, is still happening today, especially towards factory workers. Basing off of Marx, I do wonder if there is a way in which we can make this alienation feeling go away? Or is it just something we are to continue throughout the working industry?

In Barthes, “Reality Effect”, he identifies how authors of realist fiction would tend to add details that seem to be really unnecessary or just too much. This mostly happens during descriptions of settings where some details just seem to not serve any purpose whatsoever. Barthes believes this might be aesthetic choice based on how such details are added to “excite the admiration of the audience,” (1273). This actually makes sense to much of creative writing because the writer enjoys giving description because it helps to pull the reader into the author’s world. Here, he gives the example of a barometer presence from Flaubert’s work where the instrument, unlike the piano or heaps of boxes in the setting, doesn’t give any meaning. It seems to serve no purpose but rather, is just there to further add details on the room itself like a decoration.

Barthes however, dives deeper into this and proves how this superfluous information actually serves for the sake of realism. He compares this with how historical texts are written. These types of texts have loads of detailed descriptions of every little thing that go on and on. If this was a literary text, to a reader it would be a nuisance, as Barthes feels it is. But as a historical text, it is necessary to write down what exactly happened, as much accurate as possible to remain true to the reality of what happened. The same goes for realistic fiction, the author tries their best to depict what is there, to get as close as possible to telling the truth of their narrative by showing what is really there; “the incessant need to authenticate the “real”,” (275). Then, those details that have no meaning serve the purpose more so on connecting the reader to the real world. Additionally, Barthes mentions how, ” ‘concrete reality’ becomes the sufficient justification for speaking,” (275). I was a bit confused what he meant from this but from what I understand, because literature is meant to be read, the author uses “superfluous notations” as much as necessary to be able to explain themselves as equally as if they were to say it in conversation. This goes back with the concept of realism. When we describe something in speech, we naturally like to give long details about everything about it. Detail is important to us in order to have others really understand, not for a specific reason, but just so they can be in the same page with you. The same thing is being done with all the “fluff” in these narratives becoming a function, that plot wise has no function, necessary to tell a truthful story.

Saussure essay, “Course in General Linguistics” works on studying and argues how language works and further show its varies characteristics. One of the first things he mentions is how problematic it is that we associate language as just a naming process. A reasons he disagrees, is by explaining how doing this, we are assuming that ideas already exist prior to the word used to name it (826). Such as, when the word “horse” is seen, there is already an idea of what a horse is. But that’s not necessarily true because the idea of a horse is complicated because everyone has a different thought of a horse. Some may not even understand what that animal even is, making it hard to even come up with a exact idea, even more, a name for it. This point is actually related to one of Nietzsche argument in his essay, “Truth and Lying in a Moral Sense”, in which he too disagrees with the naming system because it is just a matter of labeling things, minimizing them, to the point that it is taking a way any other value and identity the thing itself holds (754).

Rather than this, Saussure describes language in which a concept and a sounds image work together. He represents this in a chart which shows how concepts and sound images function with one another and how each, “are intimately united… [recalling] the other,” (827). In this case, the sound “horse” doesn’t have to specifically relate or tied down to a certain idea of a horse, but, can be more opened to represent a broader subject of it. It also allows that words aren’t important but rather the sounds of it which help create the concept we are thinking of. This way, it helps to understand language as a more psychological thing rather than something physical (writing) or vocal (speech). Saussure shows us that language then, becomes a process that occurs more so within our mind, as we are trying to decipher and comprehend these sound-images in relation to the concept and vice versa. Reading Saussure’s essay shows how complex it really is to say something we want to say or just wanting to write it down. Basically, our train of thoughts and thoughts are working to find ways to be connect it with the sounds we make in order to allow us to effectively communicate how we want to. The argument is very interesting because language is a very important for humans not just as a means of communication but it is our way of expressing ourselves.