1. AG argues that “traditional” intellectuals are distinguished, in part, by an “esprit de corps,” a sense of themselves as “autonomous and independent.” Why is this? What is the basis for this collective sense?
2. On p. 932, AG asserts that “homo faber cannot be separated from homo sapiens.” What does this mean? How does Gramsci link thinking with working? What implications does this have for Gramsci’s definition of “intellectual” as a social type?
3. Why, for AG, can intellectual no longer be defined in terms of “eloquence”? What is the new ground AG suggests for defining the intellectual?
4. Why are education and educational institutions so crucial to modern society, according to Gramsci? What would AG think about Hunter College? CUNY? Your local P.S.? What, in other words, is the social function of education?

          In the passage from Capital Karl Marx analyzes how embedded commodities are within our society. Marx argues that it is within our nature to participate in a capitalistic society that places not only an outrageous amount of monetary value on a product but also an association with social status. I believe that this analysis still holds for today as within the new age of social media and influence, people are now more than ever being shown and marketed as commodities. FOMO is a major proprietor of this as social media promises a certain lifestyle that the buyer with have or a life that the buyer will eventually have when they buy the advertised product, “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” Under the umbrella of capitalism, the human element is lost as laborers and buyers focus on the exchange of products rather than interacting amongst themselves.

          Our entire being is centered around acquiring capital and maintaining that capital in every facet. With leading that lifestyle, everyday commodities are assigned a numerical value based on the products used and the labor that went into that product. Marx argues that in many instances, the labor that goes into a product is more costly than the product itself, “A commodity is, therefore, a mysterious thing, simply because in it the social character of men’s labor appears to them as an objective character stamped upon the product of that labor.” We see this today, as companies tend to hype up the materials used in their product in a way that makes the products seem special, different, and exclusive. The exclusivity of the materials is a huge marketing factor in today’s world as people tend to want the best of the best, the best product offered, now if they can afford the heavy price tag that product is different. The capitalistic structures that are in place that obscure the path from laborer to consumer have always been polluted as there is no free labor market. In conclusion, Marx’s analysis of set social and economic structures aims to shed light on our perceived social consciousness and control over social relationships.

In class we talked about how Ian Bogost’s Rhetoric on Video Games talks about how video games are, contrary to what other people might believe, is also a form of media that can help us learn about the world much like how books and movies do. Bogost believes that, “video games make arguments about how social or cultural systems work in the world— or how they could work, or don’t work” and I completely agree with him. He used the video game called Spore to reinforce his point but I’m going to use a different game called Baldur’s Gate 3 by Larian Studios because I think it’s more appropriate here. Baldur’s Gate 3 or BG3 for short is a turn-based action rpg (role-playing-game) that just like what Bogost says, makes arguments about social and cultural systems. In the very start of the game, you are already faced with such an issue, if you start the game with your player character being the race called “tieflings” which are a race of people commonly referred to as “the cursed people”, you are faced with immediate discrimination and sometimes even violent discrimination much like how certain races in the real world are faced with similar situations. You are seen by characters in the game as automatically evil or inferior because of your heritege and if you pick another race called “Elf” you are treated completely the opposite way NPCs (non-player characters) would treat tieflings. This is obviously a form of discrimination and a way for the game to tell us that people in this fantasy world, much like in the real world, values certain races more than others which the game critiques by showing us how, even though it’s not real, a real enough alternative to how someone would feel in this situation.

INTRO CINEMATIC – HELLDIVERS™ 2

No Description

Here’s just an example of a game called Helldivers 2 where it’s making a parody and a completely satirical lense on fascism and extreme militarism similar to how a movie called Starship Troopers does.

In class we also talked about how video games are unique in a way that sets it apart from movies or literature. Unlike in movies and books where you are told the story of the protagonist and their adventures, in video games you control the protagonist which gives a whole other dimension of immersion that traditional forms of media just can’t compare to. Just think of any rpg game and just one of them is already infinitely more complex than any book or movie can ever be, for example, when a book tells you about a city that the protagonist is in, we can only ever see what the protagonist sees, the reader is bound to the perspective of the protagonist which is set to do predetermined actions by the author and we as readers will never get to experience anything about the city beyond that without speculating. Video games on the other hand can make it so that you as the protagonist, even though you are meant to do certain things in the story as the author ordained you do so, you are given a certain bit of free will and freedom to do other things, you can explore the city through you own volition and visit places or see other events that the protagonist in the book never even saw or thought existed. Which is why I agree with Bogost when he says “educators should consider adopting video games as artifacts to be discussed alongside traditional media” because video games can explore certain topics and ideas in a way literature is never able to do and because of the fact that games are easier to get into than reading because it’s more involved and more fun in the eyes of certain people.

Ian Bogost’s “The Rhetoric of Video Games” delivers a radical and unique take on the educational benefits and rhetorical purposes that video games can serve and already serve, respectively, in our society. He begins the piece describing and outlining the game, Animal Crossing. By having the player complete menial and repetitive tasks, like fishing, farming, and foraging, “everyday” both in game and in real life to gain ample wealth and exchange it for upgrades from Tom Nook, the game develops a stance on the monotony of capitalism, the “condensation of the corporate bourgeoisie” (2654), and the “repetition of mundane work necessary to support contemporary material property ideals” (2655). Regular players normally do not realize the way that Animal Crossing is essentially a simulation of real-life facts and systems. For example, the way that Tom Nook’s shop begins as a “wooden shack general store” and ends as a “two-story department store” (2654) after enough upgrades demonstrates the way that more money and space creates a necessity for more goods to be acquired and sold, for profit to remain stable.

The fact that this family-friendly video game is able to convey so much in the rules, algorithms, spaces, and restrictions its developers created and established exemplifies the impressive ability and capability of video games to represent reality. This fact makes video games worth studying and analyzing.

Video games have this special way of taking experiences, implementing them through coding, and making that experience “experienceable” for people and gamers to undergo through their screens. Game designers and developers establish these “possibility spaces” for anyone to play through. Although these “possibility spaces” are constrained within programs, there is so much that they allow to be explored.

Video games also have this unique ability to demonstrate rhetoric and convey a particular positions. There are many on-the-nose games which were created with the intent of critiquing something about society, like the McDonald’s Vid­eogame, which blatantly critiques the malpractice and corruption of the fast-food industry through the way it sets the player in the position of McDonald, giving them control over its production environment. It permitted the player to commit terrible tactics to bring to light how “bad” the fast-food chain really is. This kind of rhetoric, which Bogost calls “PROCEDURAL RHETORIC” can be just as or even more persuasive than the traditional kinds of rhetoric that we get taught in school.

Even simple phone games like Candy Crush can tell us a lot about our society. Why do people derive pleasure from lining up candies, working towards a particular score, and moving up through a seemingly infinite number of levels? From first glance, it may make no sense. But, upon closer inspection, there is a satisfaction and an aesthetic within the simple game that keeps people hooked.

Therefore, video games are not only worth playing. They are worth studying, analyzing, and learning from. As a result, they are also worth looking into to find a possibility for incorporating them within regular education.

Antonio Gramsci’s essay, “The Formation of the Intellectuals,” redefines that very term. Right out of the gate, Gramsci finds there to be two different kinds of intellectuals already in society. The first kind, the “organic intellectual,” comes out of a social group which creates homogeneity and an “awareness of its own function not only in the economic but also in the social and political fields” (113). The organic intellectuals organize their social group and assert that group into society as a whole. A significant aspect of the organic intellectual is that he must be a jack of trades — not only proving himself to the group from which he rises, but also proving the group to society on its behalf. Like a founder, entrepreneur, or feudal lord, the organic intellectual has to possess technical ability, economic prowess, and the ability to essentially create culture. Gramsci goes on to describe a second kind of intellectual that is often at odds with the organic intellectual. The traditional intellectual is one who is a part of the existing social hierarchies, the one who essentially runs them. As the name suggests, the traditional intellectual has been a part of society throughout its many iterations. Religious scholars, writers, philosophers, and the aristocracy are typical traditional intellectuals. What makes the traditional intellectual stand out is the perceived self-autonomy and independence that he has from any other class or group. Gramsci remarks, “through an “esprit de corps” their [the traditional intellectual] uninterrupted historical continuity and their special qualification, they thus put themselves forward as autonomous and independent of the dominant social group” (114). The traditional intellectual might not run society, yet his place in society has long been secured and is not up for debate due to his independence. Both of these types of intellectuals exist in society, in some form or another, and often butt heads. Yet these two kinds of intellectuals have the same goals: to maintain hegemony in society. Rising from his social group to stand against all other social groups, the organic intellectual seeks to spread his culture and dominance through climbing the social ladder. However, the organic intellectual does not attempt to do this, and instead decides that its hegemony and prominence in society comes from creating a barrier between itself and society. In doing so, the traditional intellectual keeps itself hovering near the top of the pyramid, taking all the spoils won by the aristocracy and ruling classes, without having to bear much of the brunt of societal pressures.

In a life wrought with a search for meaning and direction, video games play on the concept of “possibility space”, which is the leftover, unmarked quandary of reality. This concept was drawn up by Katie Salen and Eric Zimmerman and is present in all mediums of art. “First they create a possibility space, then they fill that space with meaning by exploring the free movement within the rigid structure of literary rules.” Bogost elaborates on how video games and digital mediums derive their worth by mirroring the constructs and restrictions of reality, not by representing them, but by replicating their basic procedures into playable digital formats. Constructs such as capitalism or political policies in video games are revamped from real world circumstances. The universal laws of reality within a procedural rhetoric change according to the programming of the game. For video games, art imitates life, and they deserves a reevaluation.

Bogost has an arsenal of terms he revises for the purpose of clearing the path for a revamped understanding of how video game development can be framed under procedural rhetoric. He examines how language, like the words ‘procedure’ and ‘rhetoric’, needs to evolve past implication. ‘Procedure’ has become procedurality for the purposes of understanding computer programming. ‘Rhetoric’, plunging past 2,500 year history of political hot air, vapid speeches, approaches how language is actually imbued or pulled apart in intellectual description. 

“It creates meaning through the interaction of algorithms” That is the behavior of the computer. How he explains that “process instead of data” seems like a light bulb moment, a rich format for onlookers to assess what is going on rather than why it happens. Video game play and creation have almost helped create smarter computers. Video games are their own ‘thing’, necessitating its own philosophical approach. challenging how language implies meaning and researching how new meaning can fortify new learning tools, he is downloading how to intellectualize these terms with updated application for a digital artifact. His scholarly defense of the worth of video games is such of a top-tier FPS snipper. 

Rhetoric can mean “effective expression”, rather than “effective influence.”“Effective expression” conveys rhetorics basic possibility. Words entrenched by what they are in search of. For detailed analysis, if language were imitating the boundaries of visual rhetoric, it would reach a cap. Perhaps in knowing how much it falls short, Bogost implores on the importance of “visual rhetoric”as an alternate avenue for communication on video games.

“The rules do not merely create the experience of play- they also construct the meaning of the game..what the game allows and disallow make up the game’s significance”. Video games work with memory recall and visual understanding. There are no arbitrary movements in a (good) game; everything is stylized and intentionally created to arrive to specific tasks, while distinguishing each step as its own ‘level’. What in reality is this clear? Slicing bread. 

Video games crystalizes the infinity of reality by qualities of impossibilities. Knowing the future and what it beholds is unrealistic, yet a video game creates that network. That in itself is worth the consideration.

Please think about submitting something to this year’s departmental prizes and awards! Details below: whether it’s a critical or creative paper, all of you have something in your files that’s worthy of consideration:

English Department Prizes & Awards
DEADLINE: Friday, February 22, 2024 by 5:00PM

Every year the English Department offers a variety of prizes and awards for both undergraduate and graduate students. The prizes and awards program provides a wonderful opportunity for students to have their work recognized in the fields of literary analysis and criticism; linguistics and rhetoric; creative fiction, non-fiction, and poetry; personal essay; and drama. Winners are celebrated on our website, within the department, and at our Annual English Department Spring Celebration on May 22nd. In addition to recognition, many winners receive financial awards that contribute to continued academic study and travel abroad.

To apply, please see the Spring 2024 Prizes and Awards Submission Packet.
DEADLINE: Friday, February 22, 2024 by 5:00PM

In the literature The world of Wrestling and The Eiffel Tower. The signified attached to the signifier of the tower is shown in the reading in many different ways. On page (4) ” the symbol of Paris of modernity of communication of science or of the nineteenth century, rocket, stem, derrick, phallus, lightning rod or insect, confronting the greater itineraries of our dreams, it is the inevitable sign”. This quote examples how the Tower represent different things such as different phases people go through. This also represents an iconic symbol in both France and Paris and is the popular tourist attraction. This tower draws millions of people everyday to come admire the architectural beauty of the tower.

In the literature The World of Wrestling and The Eiffel tower also defines the meaning of RB and how the tower is based on structuralism. On page (9)  states ” We may recall certain admirable, moreover, promenades of Rousseau was to the midst of sensation to perceive only a kind of tidal wave of things, the bird’s eye view, on the contrary, represented by our romantic writers as if they had anticipated both the construction of the Tower and the birth of aviation, permits us to transcend sensation and to see things in their structure”. This quote explains how the tower can show a bird eye view and has a full romantic meaning.  This also tries to contrast two different perspectives on experiencing the world. This also shows the different perspectives of the tower from inside and outside.

Another quote stated in this paper is on page (9) ” losing anything of their materiality, a new category appears, that of concrete abstraction, this moreover is the meaning which we can give to the word structure: a corpus of intelligent forms”.  This quote describes the perspective on more abstract concept. This quote also talks about the structure and patters rather then just their physical appearances.  This quote also tries to show a deeper insight into the nature of reality. Last quote that is stated in this literature ” Tower makes structuralism without knowing it which does not keep prose and structure from existing all the same; in Paris spread out beneath him, he spontaneously distinguishes separate because known points and yet does not stop linking them, perceiving them within a great functional space; in short he separates and groups; Paris offers itself to him as an object virtually prepared, exposed the intelligence, but which he must himself construct by a final activity of the mind; nothing less passive than the overall view the Tower gives to Paris”. This quote explains that how the Tower is related to structuralism and how it emphasizes about human societies and cultures. This quote also describes the scene of Paris from the view of the city.  The author also tries to describe the familiar landmarks and the points of interest in Paris. Overall this quotes describes the different principles of structuralism and the different relationship within Paris.

In Conclusion this literature The World of Wrestling’s and the Eiffel Tower describes different things throughout the story. The differences of the input and output views of structuralism and what’s the symbolism of the Tower.

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.