Tag Archives: Theory Toolbox

Puntastic

Posted on by
1

I have to admit that the chapter on Agency, well, it definitely wasn’t one of my favorites.

For starters, the cheesy line at the end: “And that’s why we need a toolbox, to work on the present, to affect it, to build a present to live in.” (205) I’ve already bought the book, you don’t need to sell me on why I need a toolbox to get me through life.

The whole crux of the argument annoyed me too. Though they were trying to say that life is more than the constructs we make of it, they have not made me a believer. After all “Would a rose by any other name smell as sweet?” Yes, of course it would. Just because we have named it rose does not mean that it behaves in a rose like way. If the flower had been named ‘skunk’, it would smell the exact same. But then this all goes back to what we perceive as sweet smelling, and that itself opens up a whole other can of worms about the whole idea of human construction.

However, I will give them this. After reading about differences, ideology, subjectivity, etc., I do feel that I have a better grasp on what ideas form the world around me. So while that last line is so punny and awful, I guess they have a point. It would be impossible to consider any of these ideas and not consider the incredibly amount of social construction that has gone into them.

Degrees of Agency

Posted on by
1

The final chapter in The Theory Toolbox about agency explains that agency “is always a response to given contexts,” meaning that we are always reacting depending to specific contexts (204). Even if you choose to ignore someone greeting you instead of acknowledging them, that act of ignoring them in itself is a reaction. In this way, it seems to me that we are not preemptive but instead always reacting to our surroundings depending on contexts. Even though our reactions are triggered by contexts that are out of our control and are “not of our own creation,” we have the agency to choose our individual reactions (204). Calling back to ideas behind self versus subject, even though we are subject to different contexts depending on situations, we do have a degree of agency because we can choose to some extent how to act within these contexts. Although subjects are influenced by contexts, “subjects are not merely or simply determined by their contexts” (202). While one may lament our lack of individuality to some extent because of different contexts, in the end we are still relatively independent selves because we do have the agency to not conform entirely to these contexts.

The Phantom Time Theory

Posted on by
1

I recently came a across an article about a group that believes we’ve managed to make up 300 years of history between the years 600-900 A.D.. They say this happened because Otto II wanted to have his ruling in the auspicious year of 1000.

So why does this matter? When I brought this up in class, Dr. Seaman noted that it wouldn’t change anything. It’s not like three hundred years would be ripped away from us, because it never existed. It would mean moving our calendars back to 1712 on the new year rather than moving forward 2012. At first, I agreed, it really would mean nothing. These are just numbers after all, not real definitions of anything. Even Theory Toolbox notes that time is just a social construction rather than a part of nature.

But that’s just the problem: it’s a social construction. The same article also talked about when England switched to the Gregorian calender in the 1700s they technically lost 11 days and people, believing that this had been stolen from their lives, rioted over it. We are so attached to our perception of time, that to lose 11 days seemed horrific. Imagine if the world was suddenly told we had lost 300 years. True, it’s not an actual lost, just an adjustment, but time is so intricately tied to our sense of being that we can’t see it as just a number anymore.

This also brings up the question of what to do with the apparent history that exists in that time frame. It could be that, over time, occurrences that previously had no set year were put there and that, over the course of hundreds of years, we have just accepted what were originally guesses as truth. This reinforces Theory Toolbox‘s stance that history is never completely subjective or true. If this theory of ‘phantom time’ is to be believed, we would essentially be accusing Otto II of making up history. So often we see this idea that history is written by the victors, and, as the Holy Roman Emperor, Otto II certainly was a victor. However, I still wonder at how he would have grappled with the knowledge that he was moving the calender three hundred years. Just as those in England in the 1700s had trouble with 11 days, I believe Otto II would certainly have found it hard to wrap his mind around 300 years, even if the measurement of time back then was, at best, guesswork.

Here’s the link to the article if you’d like to read it: http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/transcript/do-we-live-in-the-18th-century/

Perceptions on Space and Time

Posted on by
2

I think it’s interesting to see the difference in how people measure and objectively view time and space in comparison to how people feel and perceive them. The Theory Toolbox explained using several examples that although within society we have numerical measurements for time and space, whether it is seconds or days and different lengths of distance, how time and space is experienced often depends on the individual. In regards to the idiosyncrasies of personal experiences, many people can relate to the idea of time moving ridiculously slow during one activity but flying by in the next just depending on one’s attitude or perspective. For instance, a student who has done all the reading and understands the chapter on Space/Time for this class may have felt the discussion time move quickly because they were fully engaged. However, the exact opposite could be said for the student who didn’t read the material and had absolutely no desire to even be in a classroom, let alone talk about The Theory Toolbox. What appears to be a set one hour and fifteen minute class can actually feel completely different depending on a student’s attitude and perspective.

In the same way, Nealon and Giroux propose that space can also be dependent on the individual instead of just basic dimensions and measurements of distance. Take, for instance, the idea of the city as a space. In regards to a class system, some would view the city through its positive and “high-culture” characteristics such as fine dining and cultural works like art and the ballet. However, the same city can be seen as dangerous and run-down due to high poverty, crime, and poor infrastructure in lower-class neighborhoods. Space relative to an individual’s perspective is interesting because people often view space as a static backdrop for the events of our lives, yet it constantly changes due to how we perceive it.

The Art of Reading

Posted on by
Reply

I know this is probably the point of this class, but I keep finding it somewhat strange how things I read in here end up applying so well to the other classes I’m taking.

In this instance, as I was reading Pat Conroy’s ‘The Water is Wide’ for my ‘Deconstructing Literacy in the South’ (Much more interesting than it sounds by the way), I was constantly struck with how such simple concepts to us, things we probably don’t even remember learning, such as the lines in the road, were completely foreign to the children of the Island that Conroy taught on. If you are unfamiliar with the story, I’ll direct you to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Water_Is_Wide_%28book%29 and suggest that you read it because it is something that will really make you think.

Theory Toolbox made me really sit back and think about the effect that culture has on how we relate to people outside our own social constructs. While I’ve always used the phrase ‘reading emotion’, I’ve never thought of it as something that had to be taught like reading does. Finding meaning in any sort of work is also a sort of reading. As we’ve learned with Tompkins, meaning in texts is all about what the reader values and looks for. Ultimately, we’re going to read symbols in a way that’s in accordance with what we value and find important.