As English majors, we are used to critically examining text by doing a “close reading.” Close reading refers to the act of reading a text, then examining a passage, usually a very brief one and interpreting it. I cannot count how many times I’ve been asked to write a six to seven page paper, while tediously and painfully dissecting two lines of a poem or a paragraph of prose. In the arts and humanities, at least, close-reading is incredibly pervasive and a highly preferred method of thinking and/or writing about a text. However, while it is often an effective way of exploring main ideas and larger themes of a novel or poem, it does have its drawbacks. Perhaps, the humanities would do well to openly embrace another critical method—distant reading, a method which takes a step back and examines a text through a socio-political-historical viewpoint, taking other works and genres into account. Distant reading is a healthy balance to the constricted approach of close reading.

The numerous times I’ve been asked to write a paper using close reading, both in college and high school, I often feel as if I am trying to conjure something out of thin air. It is difficult to take one sentence, quote, or even punctuation point and pull meaning out of it. Additionally, as a student of English, it is hard to do close readings and not try to guess what the professor is thinking. For example, when reading a poem, my interpretation might be entirely different than that of my professor’s. However, I know what the professor (really) wants (though they may deny this), from my close reading is to read the text as he/she would. Thus, my close reading is identical to that of my professor’s and my classmates, rendering any original thought and perspective useless. Close reading is unreliable if it is only full of singular thought on an outdated canon, and it is alienating to those who think differently. Further, it often misses the fuller concept of a text’s plot in favor of a more focused approach, which concentrates on one particular character or symbol. Close reading overlooks the pure joy derived from literature.

Of course, close reading is still effective—we can view the author’s use of cadence and imagery in a more precise light, we can see the complexity in a single sentence, we can view larger issues through the use of a single phrase or paragraph. However, there must be a balance. There is a different way to examine these texts, without parsing syllables and phrases and constructing meaning out of nothing. If nothing else, distant reading offers an alternative to close reading, which, as stated, is riddled with inconsistency and complications. Distant reading “zooms out” of the novel to examine the larger socio-economic or historical themes in a genre, unlike close reading which “zooms in” on a particular point or idea within the text. We can use distant reading to view the rise and fall of a particular genre, or see where the rise of a genre stems from in relation to a historical timeframe.

Because distant reading is scientific, and uses a massive amount of data compiled from thousands of books to come up with theses and conclusions, it is objective rather than subjective and leads to quantitative rather than qualitative truths. The method is data-driven—literature is fed through a computer, and novels are seen as raw numbers, thus our personal biases do not cloud our judgement, because the information is clear. Using distant reading, one can clearly understand how a novel might compare to the rest of its contemporaries through its use of words, phrases, genre or theme. Additionally, we are able to formulate new theories, ideas, and interpretations about literature-at-large because there is a much more substantial body of work to choose from. Rather than comparing the five novels a professor might assign, distant reading compares thousands. Further, distant reading is especially useful for cultural studies and multi-ethnic literature as we are able to interpret novels on a global scale, rather than only analyze the traditional western canon that most English students are exposed to. We can view, scientifically, when the rise of the novel began in each country, and can compare African literature to Chinese literature to South American literature, etc. The canon, then (which some may say is outdated and exclusionary), is simultaneously expanded and abolished using distant reading.

I’d like to be clear that while I do not believe that distant reading should supplant close reading, it should certainly supplement it. It would do the humanities, particularly English departments, well to at least examine some of the benefits that distant reading has to offer. While close reading is certainly effective and beneficial, our view of literature needs to be expanded. There needs to be another way to read, and interpret, literature.

I was listening to the NPR podcast Planet Money the other day and thought of you guys and your exams. The episode concerns the way ISIS funds itself (it’s #667) and how it runs its budget. Basically, they spend a ton of cash on what Althusser calls RSAs: soldiers, weapons, “direct domination.” And as brutal as this practice is, it would give one hope that they have no pathway to shift from repressive to ideological apparatuses as the central mode of reproducing their movement: as Althusser says in a nutshell (and Gramsci says more subtly for my money), winning hearts and minds is in the long run much cheaper and more scalable!

In looking into the Zizek’s work on courtly love, to really understand it I tried to think of the examples I had grown up with and have become familiar with over time, which can account for similar patterns of this concept. In doing so, I realized how we, women and men alike, may have been conditioned to have expectations on love, or rather the ideal lover, beginning with the tales we are told. If not learned from a Disney movie, then perhaps from another fictional tale, serving as a reference for idealization. I hint at the word tale to say that though we should not believe, we never truly question is there really ever a happy ever after? Is he really saving her or is he distracting her from her self?

We can visualize this through story of the Trojan War. In the Greek myth, love is expressed as the salvation of a damsel in distress. Helen, born of Zeus and Leda is inevitably the most beautiful woman to be known and becomes the object of desire for eligible bachelors, or “suitors”. She is the ideal, solely because of her beauty and nothing of what she may have to offer. All other conceptualizations of an ideal woman are thrown out because of her ability to mesmerize. The “abduction” of Helen by Paris (as depicted in Homer’s telling), initiates the obstacle of a war that her suitors must overcome. However, it becomes evident through this tale that the goal of the suitors is not truly to obtain Helen, but rather to receive the glories of war – the gifts, the praise, etc. This fictional idealization becomes all of their downfalls. Not much is told of the marriage between Helen and her savior Menelaus thereafter. Is she, then, saved from Paris or saved from her self?

Then, I began to recount the numerous Disney movies on the lives of princesses I had loved growing up. All include the same sort of damsel in distress theme. The Lady who needs a Knight to become her husband in order to save her from some miserable situation. Take Cinderella for example. She marries a prince who has options of women to marry. Cinderella, for that night, becomes the most beautiful of them all. However, one must think, would he have loved her the same had she showed up in her raggedy clothing, eliminating the ideal picture? And why must they go in search for the one who fits the shoe? Does he not remember her face? Clearly the answer leads to that fact that Cinderella is the idealized object of desire and since he cannot match a face, his obstacle becomes his search for the foot that fits. This is also an obstacle for Cinderella, who has to try and conceal the secret from her angry step mother and step sisters. He finds her, they get married and she is away from her step-family, but what happens after?

This also leads me to the idea that perhaps women have their own idealizations of “the knight in shining armor”. He must be unique, handsome, strong, and heroic. She to him must be beautiful and ditzy, unable to get out of her own situation alone. Courtly love is not only of the lady to whom the knight desires. It is also of the knight to whom the lady herself desires. This type of structured love will never work because of the strive for perfectionism. Truly a flaw we encounter today with the concept of love. In other words, it cannot be structured like a movie. It’s never real when it’s ideal.

Blog #7

Masculinity 2.0

Sexual orientation and gender roles have undergone many changes and the ‘norm’ is changing and even widely accepted by society at large. This is not to say its easy and everyone supports the individuals right to chose who, where and how they function in society. The individual is born male or female, according to the XY chromosomes, genitalia etc. this cant be argues really, it’s a fact. However, the psyche of the individual may think and desire things that are not prescribed to their gender and sexual preferences. Where as the acceptance to be ‘other’ has come along way the growth and progress of female masculinity has remained stagnant.

The two movies examined in Halberstams theory of heterosexual conversion narratives prove two major points regarding glorifying male masculinity. The first is the hetero male is attractive and well liked despite the unethical and repulsive traits he exhibits. The second is the hetero male is never challenged by the alternative male to preserve his precious masculine traits (will get to this in later point). The male’s heroic attributes are left in tact and the woman’s desire to love subjects her to a life of compromise. Since the man is incapable of providing the love she desires at its entirety. The woman is forced to compromise-in order to fulfill her desire to reproduce. In the Hollywood version of the story, the woman often chooses a man who is the minority and able to provide her with the love she desires as well as the tools it takes to reproduce. This minority man never challenges the leading man and his masculinity. The woman’s choice to compromise does not resign ate with a masculine female. Female’s traits of masculinity are typically undesirable-a butch lesbian who is hairy and repulsive.

Masculinity has developed and evolved in the sphere of men and their role but remains stagnant for women. The future requires work in the examination and enhancement of female masculinity in a positive light rather than the undesired image of a “butch dyke” one has come to visualize with the term masculine female.

Even the gay man’s embodiment of the properly masculine male in contemporary film has taken the place of the formerly stereotyped feminine male. This is adding more fuel to the already blazing fire of male masculinity.

Femininity needs to revamp its image. Males, regardless of their sexual orientation should happily and proudly display traits derived from a stereotypical fem female, as most women today are proud to be compared to a “masculine” male, considering that it is a sign of strength and resilience.

A man could never understand the strength of the female. The restrictions we still face today. The voice of our desires silenced for so long sound outrageous to the voice of the brave soul who shares the stories. The power-handed down from man to man to man to man is finally beginning to share a tiny sliver of its platform to the female voice. We must fight to make femininity a desirable trait associated with strength, resilience and power!

Blog #6 Gender Stuff

The shaping of self and forming an identity though to be authentic by the individual are in fact not. The formation process takes place with the nudging of institutions, particularly in the political arena, which designate the qualifications required to operate “normally” according to your gender. The trouble with this is the institution itself and the influence they have in the enabling of an identity that does not agree with the inner female desire. The desire according to contemporary theorists derives from the notion of “desire” as trouble applies to both male and female. However, these desires are rarely addressed from the perspective of the female whose voice is very new to society entirely. Feminism and the fight for equal rights.

The body according to history is imprinted in history. The man according to Foucault is subject to cultural inscription in both mind and body. Therefore the man is sufficiently able to assess himself as an individual. The coding and “writings on the wall” must be destructed for the chance of being able to self-identify.

The maintenance of self-identity is culturally bound on so many levels. The desire o be a part of the norm, to be the norm or to rebel against the norm are all in some way a clear derivative of the popular and accepted terms of society. The internal and external bounds of an individual and their identity are always subject to this public acceptance. The inner and outer conflict of the individual is a result of the desire to feel normal in order to function in society. Depending on the amount of conflict between you inner and outer desires determines the sanction of the subject to its differentiation from the abject. How does the subject conceal these desires from ever reaching the surface-how does the truth not slip from the cracks?

Gender identity and the inner and outer conflict of self-identity are perfectly executed in drag. The performer subverts the distinction between inner and outer psychic space in an effective way, “effectively mocks” the roles of each gender. The performance is allowing the audience to see the inner working of how the individual would like to perform while not performing on a stage for their amusement.

The performances seem to be over the top and outrageous in order to capture the attention of the audience, but are not so far off from the performance the individuals act out on a daily basis in order to function.

I often joke with my fiance, “you are great because I am great” and we often hear in media “behind every great man is a great woman.” My question is simply how are these thoughts any different from those of the courtly lover?

You see, in the middle ages courtly love was a huge deal, but the broader category romance was an even bigger deal. In these genres one would often find a man that is madly obessesed with a beautiful woman. It often begins with “when I saw her, I at once knew,” this is where the idea of love at first sight stemmed. And in this love, the men throw themselves at women. Some have argued that the men loses themselves in this love and are then at that beck and call of the woman who objectify these men.

In Zizec’s theory we get the understanding of how that statement is false. The person that is truly being objectified is the woman. The woman that is being loved because of her beauty, not for her wit, humor, or intellect. These men that “fall victim” to these women only use them as a reflection of themselves. The woman in a sense becomes the imago, that the men strive for. In courtly love we get the unattainable woman, the beautiful married woman that the man seeks. In a romance, we get a beautiful woman that everyone in the land wants. She is fair, she can thread, and she is usually humble, but rich. in the case of the romance the woman may be attained but only by a worthy man. She is then rewarded to him as a trophy, as proof of his valor, wit and skill.

Much like courtly love, a romance works in that it objectifies the woman. Making them the sought after perfection only to validate the man. Her sole purpose is to be beautiful, but her beauty is proof of his power. He is the id and she is the imago, while feeding into his narcissism.

So to answer my above question directly…

That statement is similar to the complex of courtly love characters. When I tell my partner he is great because I am. That is me projecting myself onto him, I am looking at him and seeing myself. The same applies to “behind every great man is a great woman.” Though this is sorta like the reversal where the man is the imago of which the woman projects herself.

We as people are constantly trying to categorize things, it is how we conceptualize and understand. Saussure says, “in language there are only differences without positive terms.” In this way we may only know what something is by what it is not. A bear is a bear because it is not a cat, a bear is a bear because it is not a dog, and a bear is a bear because it is not a book. We create this positive through a series of negations, but in a sense that “bear” means nothing. The word “bear” is something intangible, but for us it signifies the object and it only signifies that object because we have associated it to be so. The issue that becomes with the sign, signifier, and signified, is that these are all merely human constructs that were created so that things could be categorized and further understood. Language was created by man, bear does not call itself bear, and because of this man-made construction we have become subjected to it.

There are two options, you are either a man or woman. You, Professor Alred, are not a woman, so by default you are man. And in being man you must exert manliness, or else you will bring confusion to society. I as a female, must exert feminine behavior. You will build stuff, I will clean. You will watch sports, I will watch children. You will be a doctor and I will be a nurse. All of these thoughts are social constructs for your designated sex. It was not until recently that sex and gender became independent things. This social construct was created to understand people or put them in a box. Professor Alred, you have been put in a box and you are not allowed to move! I, along with the world, am holding you to that standard, you signed a contract.

The issue that now comes with words and its social construct is that not everyone fits into that box. Judith Butler explains in her theory how drags brings a differentiation between anatomical sex, gender identity and gender performance. Their performance may say my outer appearance is feminine but my inside essence is masculine while at the same time say my appearance outside my body may be masculine but my inner essence is feminine. And both of those true statements contradicts the other. In this sense they can not be put into a box, they can not be subjected to the normal construct of language. We can not do a process of elimination with them and so they belong to no box.

Language is not as fluid as people. Language, in a way eliminates all other possibilities so you and I are defined. This is the negative conotation of language, those of us that do not fit in the language box are then othered. That brings this question to mind: Can we make language as fluid as gender? and if so, would that confuse our understanding of the world?

Judith Halberstam examines masculinity, its confines and why men are so intimidated by their masculinity being seen in anyone else but themselves. She reflects on homosexuals, lesbians and their ability to function just as the straight, masculine man is able to, and how that poses a threat to the unsuspecting, masculine junkie of a man. Perhaps men just get a little twitchy when they see a woman able to take care of business, but Halberstam explains it as their inability to properly grasp the idea of their masculinity being one in the same with that of a woman’s. Men are supposed to be tougher and rougher than any lady around, so it doesn’t come as much of a surprise that a man would have a negative connotation towards a masculine female. The gender equality that has become such an argument between men and women have ‘meninists’ questioning why women don’t start doing labor themselves, holding doors for themselves or reaching high shelves for themselves… Ironically, Halberstam hits this nail right on the head.

For masculine men, their masculinity is not a social construct, but a large part of their identity. Their ability to identify as a man as a gender comes from their masculine features and actions. The manlier they are, the more man they are. Not only does it serve to solidify their understanding of what it takes to be an anatomical man, but also their actions. A man’s privilege to be ‘above’ a woman comes from the power their masculinity gives them. Masculinity is associated with power, and power is associated with being on top without any room for any others. A man’s actions are reliant on who can out man who, who can be the bigger man, who can take more pain than the other man, who has more power than the other man, etc.

Notice how I’ve done nothing but compare men to other men? Because masculine men cannot cope with being put on a level field with a woman, or worse to them, a homosexual who may be just as ‘manly’ as they are. A woman is below a masculine man, and a gay man is even lower. Both types of people are the exact opposite of ‘manly’ to a ‘manly man’. What I really loved about Halberstam’s analysis of men was her examples of movies and plots where a man must compete alongside another woman or gay man for the affection of the gorgeous leading lady. Because a ‘manly man’ doesn’t get beaten, its more wounding to get ‘beat’ by a woman or homosexual.

In 2015, it’s hard to imagine that people still live in this ‘manly man’ perception, but it is true. There are men who still feed into gender roles, and apply their expectations of individuals around them according to their gender or sexual orientation. Once again, as has been touched upon countless times within this semester, labels do a disservice. Maybe everyone just wants to be the most powerful, or maybe manly men should learn how to suck it up. Either way, everyone is entitled to what’s theirs, and to act however they want, whether it be masculine, feminine, animalistic. The social strains embedded into people’s heads should probably stopped at this point and this article was a prime example as to why. People should be threatened by others by their abilities, not because of a self denial of perhaps not being as good as getting the girl as a woman or gay man who are probably more deserving of the beautiful lady than the ‘manly man’.

In Gender Trouble, Judith Butler explains “abjection”, and how it plays a crucial role in creating the subject. The process, in simple terms, follows the formula expulsion–>repulsion. Basically, the subject takes some  aspect of their identity and  removes  it, labeling  it as “not-me”. Whatever has been expelled becomes “the Other” and because of its otherness, becomes the object of the subject’s repulsion.  For Butler, this process is crucial in “constituting a binary distinction that stabilizes and consolidates the coherent subject” (2547). Through this process the subject is able to create boundaries for itself between internal and external, where their body stops and the Other begins. Butler also explains that this process is present in homophobia, racism, and sexism, which involves expulsion, exclusion, and repulsion from society when certain identities become and symbolize the Other. From abjection, we can see that the boundaries of the subject’s inner and outer world’s is truly unfixed and isn’t innate but created by the subject.

Since, abjection helps in understanding part of the creation of the subject it can also serve as a way to understand Butler’s idea of gender performance. Most importantly, it shows that the inner and outer worlds of the subject aren’t concrete, but are made. Stereotypical held thoughts about gender view the inner and outer worlds in a one to one ratio but through abjection we can see how arbitrary that is. Different people might consciously abject different things and Butler also gave examples of how this process is can be heavily socially manipulated arbitrarily benefiting a preferred ideal. Also, gender performance often follows this process’ formula. Gender performance is centered around the idea of “I’m this, not that”, abjection of certain identities you could have for another. This expulsion can lead to repulsion or can be committed out of fear of becoming the object of condemnation. I see this all the time on social media, honestly. Straight men are the worst perpetrators; they make comments about everyone. One recent example, there is a really popular gay guy on twitter. He is always posting videos and taking pictures of his outfits. Straight guys constantly ridicule him and ask questions like “what would you do if this were your son?”; they always have something offensive to say basically. One person I followed made such a keen observation and said it seems as if these straight guys are obsessed with this guy and gay men in general and how strange that was. I thought about that too, every time there is a confident effeminate gay man around, there are straight men criticizing them. It definitely made me think of Butler and her talk of abjection with regards to gender performance and how obsessive the process of gender performance is.

Also, while reading about abjection, Butler mentioned differentiation, which immediately made me think of Nietzsche and Saussure, which I guess makes sense. We name and understand all inanimate objects and animals through differentiation. So, since we know what things are from what they are not, why wouldn’t we think of ourselves as human beings in this way as well? I guess, Nietzsche’s poetry is Butler’s drag show and the worst thing for language and identity is constriction.

“Female masculinity” is such an oxymoronic term, that one needs to break it down and analyze its parts before understanding the whole. Beyond the biological connotation, “Female” indicates femininity, which on a social and cultural level typically associates with submission and passivity. By contrast, “masculinity” culturally connotes dominance and aggression. The combining of such opposites into one term is quite bold and subversive. Judith Halberstam coins this term in her essay, “The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Men, Women, and Masculinity.” Halberstam states how female masculinity, “disrupts contemporary cultural studies accounts of masculinity within which masculinity always boils down to the social, cultural and political effects of male embodiment and male privilege,” (2639). Halberstam is arguing here how masculinity itself should not be confined strictly to the male sex, with the exclusion of women from masculinity implicitly promoting misogyny. Female masculinity has failed to see the light of day and be celebrated in mainstream culture due to both the championing of the male heterosexual narrative and the stigma associated with women assuming masculine attributes.

In mainstream films that Halberstam defines as “heterosexual conversion fantasies”, the male protagonist is a heterosexual who pursues the love of a woman. The heterosexual’s obstacle towards obtaining his love interest in this narrative is either a lesbian or a gay man that serves as, “an ideal mate for the heterosexual woman in every aspect except sexual compatibility, and this is represented as a nonissue by casting women as domestic and asexual,” (Halberstam 264). The gay man is domesticated, polite, into shopping — everything that the heterosexual protagonist isn’t. Unlike the gay man, the heterosexual only loves the woman, and despises, “everything that goes with being a woman” (Halberstam 2640-1). When the gay man challenges the heterosexual protagonist for the affections of his love interest, he, “feels justified in articulating his rage in protracted bouts of loud homophobic reaction followed by loud sexist outbursts,” (Halberstam 2641). The heterosexual male is never condemned for such blatant homophobia and indecency, facing no sort of repercussions. The film As Good As It Gets (1997)  follows this structure, where Jack Nicholson, despite his homophobic and racist antics, manages to get his love interest (Helen Hunt) in the end over his gay “obstacle” (Greg Kinnear). Just to understand the level of asinine that Nicholson reaches in the film, here’s just one scene as example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jly4dXapR9c    Here, Kinnear’s character is speaking about his father’s refusal to accept him as a gay man, with Helen Hunt affectionately listening in the front seat next to him. At the same time, Nicholson dismisses this, claiming that only the happy stories have value, and that Kinnear, “didn’t have it bad, that you’re that pissed that so many others had it good.” Not only does Nicholson’s character have a happy ending in the film, but the film itself was celebrated by mass audiences, even receiving Oscar nominations.

While homophobic heterosexual masculinity is popular, any sort of female masculinity that permeates into mainstream culture is denounced. One notable example of this is lesbianism, which has been, “figured as undesirable by linking it in essential and unquestionable ways to female ugliness,” (Halberstam 2650). Lesbianism is linked to female masculinity because both lesbians and heterosexual men possess (somewhat) the same object of desire: the woman. Lesbians (especially those with more obvious traits of masculinity) challenge male heterosexuality in a) providing an obstacle towards obtaining women and b) placing masculinity (including its typical attributes of dominance and aggression) to a sex that is culturally relegated to submission, passivity, and domesticity. Such a juxtaposition is seen as “ugly” or “unnatural”, and thus does not see the same popularity as the heterosexual male bigot. This stigma also includes women with physical attributes that are masculine, such as hirsute females, who are slandered as “witch” or “freak” (Halberstam 2650). Thus, female masculinity is unnatural.