In “The Wife of Bath’s Tale” the knight is told by the hag that he must choose whether he would like her to be an old, true, and humble wife or have her young and fair. He responds in lines 1232-1235 with, “…’Cheseth youreself which may be moost plesance And moost honour to yow and me also. I do no fors the wheither of the two, For as yow liketh, it suffiseth me’ “. Was the knight’s decision influenced by what the hag had said earlier about wives wanting to be in control of their marriages or does he simply give that answer because he believes it is the right thing to do?

Throughout “The Wife of Bath’s Prologue” Alisoun establishes a strong character that is revolutionary for Geoffrey Chaucer’s era. Near the end of the prologue Alisoun shares a memory from her relationship with her fifth husband; the husband begins, ” ‘Deere suster Alisoun, As help me God, I shall thee nevere smite. That I have doon, it is thyself to wyte. Foryeve it me, and that I thee biseke.’ And yet eftsoones I hitte him on the cheke, And seyde, ‘Theef, thus muchel am I wreke. Now wol I die. I may no lenger speke.’ ” (Chaucer, page 72, lines 804-810). Considering the reactions the other pilgrims have to the wife of bath throughout her prologue, what does Alisoun’s behavior in this scene suggest about the nature of men and women in Chaucer’s culture? Also, how does this incident relate to the statements the wife of bath makes about self-worth in the prologue?

In “The Wife of Bath”, Geoffrey Chaucer succeeds in expressing the Wife’s unique viewpoint on marriage in that time period. For example, starting at line 154, the Wife states that “An housbonde wol I have, I wold not lette, Which shall be both my dettour and my thral, And have his tribulacioun withal Upon his flessh whil that I am his wif.” How does the author use this sentence to establish the Wife’s authority in her marriages? Does her usage of sexual power in the relationships portray a longing for control over the men in her life or is she simply afraid of getting taken advantage of?

Near the beginning of the chapter the authors state on page 231 a line they pulled out of “Environment and Social Theory” that reads “So in the end, the concept of nature can work to remove or separate humanity from the nonhuman or natural order, or it can bring them together in a kind of organic unity.” (Theory Toolbox) Both of these possibilities are brought up and discussed throughout the chapter so what did you interpret the authors opinion on these to be? Did you interpret one idea to be thought of as better than the other by the authors? Did you interpret a need for a balanced existence of both? How do you think this idea would link back to English when referring to popular theme of Man vs. Nature that is often found in literature, which is a debate that the authors came close to by mentioning other works of literature throughout the chapter?

The Toolbox states that “life–whatever that may be, mean, or do in a particular context –is always inexorably subject to external practices of power,” (213). In the recent U.S. presidential elections the slogan “make America great again,” was used by the Trump campaign. How did the social power of this slogan appeal to your life? How do you think it appealed to the “life” of other Americans that may or may not support it?

Is race just a box you check on a government form? If I check Native American continuously will I become Native American in the eyes of others? The Toolbox states that “race is anything but natural and eternal. It is, on the contrary, quite profoundly social and political,” (191). How do you see race as a malleable concept used in current American society to establish a social or political structure and why do you think it is used in this way? What are the possible outcomes of this type of power structure on social class?

In the chapter about Posts the authors state “There seems to be a certain sense of style shared by many of the things labeled “postmodern” a sense of disjunction or deliberate confusion, irony, playfulness, reflexivity, a kind of cool detachment, a deliberated foregrounding of constructedness, a suspicion concerning neat or easy conclusions.” (Theory Toolbox pg.140) What do you take away from this? Why does the idea of postmodern come with “a suspicion concerning neat or easy conclusions”? What is an example of postmodern that you used personally to help clarify this idea while you were reading and what sense of style do you think your example showed?

On page 138 of The Theory Toolbox, the authors state that “the social meanings we assign to spaces and times and the ways they are organized or produced in the material world tend to reproduce the existing social order”. What social meanings have you given to space and time and how do you think this has affected the way you view society? Can our definitions of space and time sufficiently measure human experiences? If not, then why do we try to do so anyway?

On p. 111, the textbook states,”To say that history is open to interpretation is not, however, to say that historical events mean anything at all; it is rather to say that history itself needs to be historicized-or that historical events need to be subjected to the same scrutiny as other ideological truth claims.” Do you agree or disagree that we should put that much effort into things that happened long ago? Do you think we should we be more focused on the present issues instead?

On p. 97, the book states that “Ideology is that group of intertwining beliefs that makes possible certain kinds of cultural consensus or knowledge, but precisely because it is everywhere and nowhere, ideology tends to disappear-so to speak- “into” the things that it makes possible.” Do you agree or disagree that Ideology has the capability to create things, or is it just a group of thoughts that generate discussion?

[This is Will’s question for Tuesday’s reading, posted by me.]