So did we make matter matter?

Posted on by
Reply

That was the point of this course, wasn’t it?  To open the eyes of the class to the power of objects as things?  I don’t think I was the only one who was skeptical going into this course.  I mean, the idea that non-sentient objects can exert some sort of agency on sentient beings such as myself is a tough pill to swallow.  To follow object-oriented ontology is to reduce the specialness of the human.  Yes, it’s meant to elevate the object rather than diminish the human, but by decreasing the the difference between the two planes, people just don’t seem as important.  As a human being, I’m unfortunately biased towards caring about other humans.  I may feel for the environment and care about a photo of my deceased grandfather, but in the end nothing can close to my love for my friends and family.
Another obstacle in adopting and maintaining an object-oriented outlook is the superficial silence of things.  People openly exert their liveliness, their agency, their ability to make decisions and change the world.  No matter how vibrant materials are, one has to search for this liveliness and find it in order to appreciate it.  This takes a constant effort which I’m not sure I possess, while ignoring the power of objects is painfully easy.  I’m not saying that it’s impossible to adopt object oriented ontology, as we’ve seen Bruno Latour and his steadfast fight for this worldview.  Nor am I saying that this class has failed to do its duty for me, an ignorant college student who’s yet to establish his own identity and place in this world.  This class has made a difference in my outlook, and gotten me to appreciate the importance of objects in my life.  I believe that that is enough to call this source a success.  As a human, I’ve failed to be completely “objective,” a word that I will forever associate with this course.

Dust in the Wind as an Actant in the Creative Projects

Posted on by
Reply

I’m glad I presented first, because every presentation from our class was a tough act to follow.  The amount of thought, time, and effort each group put into their work was clearly evident, as was the importance of things in each presentation.  Again and again we return to the idea that we open our eyes to objects as things when they fail to perform their expected functions.  In class, those objects were the projector, speakers, and computers used in the electronic presentations.  When the class computer failed to perform its expected role, the chain of events and order of presentations were disrupted, and only when its function was restored could some groups complete their goals.  The very functionality of the equipment affected our perspective of the presentations, such as the low audio of John’s video.  The speaker’s inability to provide us our desired audio level forced us to react, as our entire class shifted forward, bringing our desks with us in order to get closer to the sound.  The video was influenced not only by the computer’s ability to translate to the projector, but the projector’s ability to replicate that image.  Once translated, the projector sent out light that was influenced by dust particles in the air, and this sheet of light blended with the impure white screen in order to create the actual image which our eyes interpreted into what we saw.  Before taking this class, I would have likely never considered the importance of something as seemingly insignificant as dust particles in the air in crafting a visual presentation.  But in class they seemed impossible to ignore, as group after group blatantly stated the importance of even the smallest of things in our lives.  To me, beyond the apparent skilled rhetoric and creativity of the projects, my awareness of the dust in the air signified the success of these presentations.

Comparing Freudian and Object-oriented Readings of Marie de France’s “Equitan”

Posted on by
Reply

I’d forgotten about Dr. Seaman’s request for our paper proposals, which seem so far back now that my paper’s all done with and only three finals separate me and home.  But here it is, as requested.  I took Marie de France’s lai, “Equitan,” and performed both an object-oriented reading (ANT) and a psychoanalytical (Freudian) reading of the text.  I chose a Freudian analysis as my second contemporary critical reading approach as I couldn’t think of any reading less concerned with objects than Freud’s, especially when examining the id, ego, and superego.  By reading characters in a work as representatives of the psyche and focusing on the importance of an individual’s mind, objects lose their importance. For example, a bath is no longer a bath, but a representation for a man’s desire to return to his mother’s womb which reflects his immaturity.  The bath is a product of the mind that isn’t really there and has no agency whatsoever.  Even when an object is important to the tale, its power is merely a reflection of the subconscious.  So reduced are things in a Freudian reading that they no longer can be called objects- they’re visible but aren’t really there.
I argue that a Freudian reading of a text diminishes the power of things to a level below even that of objects, and as such, analyzing a text via an object-oriented approach adds new depth and meaning to a work.  The relevance of ANT and other object-oriented approaches can be verified through this comparison.

Eternal Darkness of the Objectless Mind

Posted on by
2

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind invites us to speculate on memory’s permanence and importance. It also invites us to practice an object oriented reading (or viewing, I suppose). For those of you unfamiliar with it, the film tracks Joel and Clementine’s romantic history as it is actively erased from Joel’s mind. Midway through Dr. Mierzwiak’s “Lacuna” operation, Joel regrets his decision to erase Clementine and must navigate through his memories to preserve as much of her as he can.

Much of Dr. Mierzwiak’s success in eradicating Joel’s memories draws from his manipulation of the objects associated with those memories. Rather than having Joel simply recount his soon to be forsaken memories of Clementine, Dr. Mierzwiak presents him with the physical objects that Joel identifies with her. In the presence of these things (a hodge-podge of souvenirs) Joel’s recollections of Clementine are much more vivid and extensive, and easier for Dr. Mierzwiak to map. Dr. Mierzwiak tells Joel, “We’ll dispose of these mementos when we’re done here – that way you won’t be confused by their unexplainable presence in your home.” Dr. Mierzwiak’s reason, though, is likely two-fold. Yes, unexplainable pictures and purchases may cause confusion, but altogether they may work to provide answers. The objects that littered Joel’s house throughout his relationship with Clementine created the context in which he learned to love her, the assemblage that brought them together. Outside of this assemblage, Joel may never have fallen in love with Clementine. To return to this assemblage, though, would make a flood of loving memories, and possibilities, readily accessible to him.

As the assemblage is stripped down, Joel nearly falls out of love. His resistance, though, attests that true love can never truly be relinquished. I think Marie would approve.

The Ripping away of Bisclavret’s Insignia

Posted on by
2

While writing my paper analyzing Bisclavret, among other texts, I found an article that brought up some interesting thoughts about the symbolism of the removal of his clothing by his wife:

Premodern English society was based on a courtly system where the King reigned, Queen on arm, followed and supported by a tightly-knit group of knights who were completely devoted to him. These knights bore his insignia and fought his battles in return for land, money, and other bounty that was given in a gift-economy as a reward for their loyalty. In Bisclavret,the removal of this clothes does not only force him into his animal form, it removes his human form and this his insignia, identity, and ability to bear arms in honor of his King. Because he is unable to perform his knightly duties, his animal existence then becomes shameful because he is forced to be absent from the court for an entire year.

However, he is able to gain some of his pride back as he is able to show the king by licking his boots that he is in servitude to him and therefore has a rational mind. He then becomes the King’s loyal companion, accompanying him everywhere, able to protect him as he would in his human form.

When the wiseman realizes that Bisclavret must have attacked his wife for a reason and her torture leads to her admittance that she took Bisclavret’s clothes and the wolf before them is in fact him, he is given back his clothes. This return of the clothing allows him to return to his human form but he will not put them on. The wiseman, ever wise, suggests that he to do so in front of the king would be shameful. There are two possible reasons that he will not put on the clothes in front of the King and the court. The first is that by doing so he proves that he is in fact a hybrid and the removal of his clothes will turn him back into an animal, thus making him vulnerable again in the same way that he foolishly did to his wife by telling her his secret. The second, is that because he has been so shamed in the year that he was unable to fulfill his role as a knight that he fears returning to his human form where he can be blamed for his absence.

This idea ties the clothes together with humanity and the insignia that ties the knight to the king, all of which would function well in an object oriented approach.

Latour and ‘Greening’ Our State’s Public Schools

Posted on by
1

I read an interesting article today about South Carolina refusing to nominate “Green-Ribbon Schools under a new federal awards program.” Essentially, the nomination would fund, as well as “encourage schools to improve their energy efficiency” and “create healthy environments.” The state superintendent seemed to summarize South Carolina’s opposition to the nomination by saying the “initiative has too many “burdensome” requirements… a dollar spent ‘greening’ a school is a dollar not spent in the classroom improving educational outcomes for students.” I feel that this article provides an interesting example of the ways in which we divide the modern world into the natural and the human, which relates to Latour’s theories (I know my past few blog posts have all been about his theories, but I’m primarily using him in my paper so they have been on my mind).

It seems here that the two worlds are in opposition with each other. The human world is seen as distinctly different, which allows it to become much more important in the eyes of our state’s Superintendent. In his opinion, making sure that the students of our state get a quality education is more important than making sure our schools are environmentally friendly, and that the so called natural world is harmed as little as possible. I’m certainly not saying he should be condemned for his opinion, because this is a very complicated decision to make, but what if the two worlds were not seen as distinctly different, but in a common assemblage? What if one world was not seen as more “real,” or more “unstable,” or even more important, because the divide simply didn’t exist? Maybe then, our education system would be more aware of the detrimental effects that civilization currently has on the planet, which inadvertently has a detrimental effect on us as humans. Still, from a modern perspective that acknowledges a distinct social and political world, ‘greening’ our schools, and improving education systems are both great ways to distribute funds. However, it doesn’t seem that we are spending dollars “in the classroom improving educational outcomes for students” anyways.

Edible Matter and Joseph Conrad

Posted on by
2

While researching an essay for another class, I came upon a miscellaneous document by Joseph Conrad that connects quite well with Jane Bennett’s “Edible Matter” chapter.  The essay, which is actually the introduction of his wife Jessie’s cook book, describes the the art of “good cooking” as a “moral agent” (146).  And, in a very edible matter-esque description, Conrad describes good food as:

“[t]he intimate influence of conscientious cooking by rendering easy the process of digestion promotoes the serenity of mind, the graciousness of though,  and that indulgent view of our neighbors’ failings which is the only genuine form of optimism. Those are its titles to our reverence”  (147).

This description truly made me think of how food is part of a massive assemblage that ultimately manifests its effects in myriad ways, but most importantly, it can influence how we feel.

Moreover, Conrad —in utilizing rather absurd pseudo-scientific claims— instists that the Native American Indians acquired their “sombre and excessive ferocity” from “perpetual indigestion,” which he argued was because their “wives had not mastered the art of conscientious cooking” (147).

given this description of Food, from Conrad, and Marion’s post on Virginia Woolf, it seems like there may have been more thoughts about the vibrance of matter and the fallacy of modernism going on than we would like to think. Reading essays like this make me believe that perhaps recent work in OOO and Actor-Network theory is actually giving a name to something that has long been thought about?

 

For further reading, the book and chapter is:

Conrad, Joseph. “Cookery.” Last Essays. Ed. Richard Curle. Freeport: Books for Libraries, 1970. 146-148. Print.

Response to Creative Projects

Posted on by
1

When we were told that we would be able to demonstrate what we learned throughout the semester in the form of a creative project, I was excited because the material we have been dealing with is so hard to contain on a sheet of paper. Though it took a little while to pin down exactly what we wanted to do, because the choices were practically unlimited, it was so fun working with my group to try to portray Bennett’s ideas of edible matter and agency through a medieval-themed cooking show. It was also so interesting, surprising (in a good way!), and enlightening, to see how the other students in the class dealt with the concepts we’ve talked about this semester. It really made it clear that traces of these theories can be found pretty much everywhere from Lady Gaga to pecan pies.

A lot of people dealt with similar concepts as my group did, dealing with assemblages and how individual parts come together to create a whole action or ‘thing’: Thomas’ kinexs (sorry if I spelled this wrong Thomas!), our pottage, Austin’s writing process etc. Some of the projects that interested me the most in a “wow I never would have thought of that!” sort of way was Autumn’s re-naming of the lais and Victor’s Lady Gaga presentation. Not only were Autumn’s books beautiful but they really made you think about how the lais we read would have been greatly altered if their object of focus was not human action but some of the actants we talked about. For example, In Guigemar, if the hermaphroditic deer was the center of the story, the story would end when she/he died. We would never know or really care what happened to Guigemar except that he was cursed for killing this deer. Also I felt so much more for the poor nightengale who was so wrongly killed and never wanted to be involved in these neighbors love affair when Autumn put it in her new lais perspective.

When Victor got up to present and Lady Gaga came on the screen I thought, “Ok, how on earth is he going to make this work?” and he did! So well too! I can completely see how Lady Gaga has removed her human identity from herself and taken on so many different personas and even objects to make a cultural, political, or environmental point. She was a great example of how a person can un-objectify herself and, to use Jane Bennett’s description, shimmy back and forth between object and thing.

Basically, good job everyone! I very much enjoyed listening to/painting/eating/watching your presentations!

Paper Proposal: “Debunking Traditional Chivalric Acts in the Medieval Court’s of Bisclavret and The Greene Knight”

Posted on by
Reply

My essay, “Debunking Traditional Chivalric Acts in the Medieval Court’s of Bisclavret and The Greene Knight”, in response to prompt A will use Brown’s “Thing Theory” along with some of Jane Bennett’s ideas about Thing-power and assemblages found in the first two chapters of Vibrant Matter to conclude what the untraditional examples of a challenge, mercy, shame, and violence found in Bisclavret and The Greene Knight say about the act itself and the ones performing it. I intend to investigate each act separately and make individual conclusions about the thingness of each and how it reflects on the protagonist. Both lais are medieval texts whose knightly protagonists must overcome the traditional knightly tests of allegiance to the king, keeping one’s word, mercy, and honor. In both Bisclavret and The Greene Knight, the knights either act in a way that is untraditional in the courtly practice of knighthood. I intend use two of Bill Brown’s key ideas in his theory to challenge the conventional modes of chivalry addressed in many of the critical literary texts I read. Continue reading →

Material Engagement with Text

Posted on by
1

I found Erin’s presentation, “The Writing’s on the Skin – The Medieval Agency of Animals”  particularly provocative in light of the recent shift towards electronic texts. While Dr. Seaman and her fellow tech savvy Medievalists seem immune to it, many of us loyal print readers are feeling extreme anxiety over the shift. I agree with Erin’s assertion that when we engage in a text we also (if inadvertently) engage with the materials through which the text is communicated. Loosening binding, yellowing pages, even dog-eared corners add a sense of community to our reading of a text, an awareness of a shared experience (an assemblage, even). I imagine that engagement is even more intimate with paper as raw and organic as animal parchment, print as personal as handwriting.

I do not, though, quite feel that this gives the animal of the parchment, or even the scribe of the handwriting, much additional agency. For while they enrich the text with their own texture and style, they are ultimately tools for communicating the ideas of the text. Their most powerful influence over our reading (as I’m sure Bill Brown would agree) is the occasional disruptive, negative influence, the interference with our intentions for them.  The parchment may rip or blot, the handwriting smudge. Otherwise, they seem to obey the command to communicate. While it’s a romantic notion that an animal’s agency transfers to its hide, I’m afraid it’s stripped and appropriated to suit the text. Erin presented our class with an interesting topic that we’re debating as a literary community today!