Miss Representation youtube link and a new article about women's wealth

"Woman is determined not by her hormones or by mysterious instincts, but by the manner in which her body and her relation to the world are modified through the action of others than herself...We must not believe, certainly, that a change in woman's economic condition alone is enough to transform her, though this factor has been and remains the basic factor in her evolution; but until it has brought about the moral, social, cultural, and other consequences that it promises and requires, the new woman cannot appear."
--Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex

Miss Representation, extended trailer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S5pM1fW6hNs&feature=related

Review of Liza Mundy's The Richer Sex
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/15/books/review/the-richer-sex-by-liza-mundy.html?pagewanted=all

Came across these...thought you all might be interested...

http://www.npr.org/2011/06/15/137106354/in-asia-the-perils-of-aborting-girls-and-keeping-boys

In Asia, The Perils Of Aborting Girls And Keeping Boys

by NPR Staff

June 15, 2011

Listen to the Story

Morning Edition

[6 min 26 sec]

• Add to Playlist
• Download
• Transcript

 

Courtesy PublicAffairs Mara Hvistendahl writes that women in Asia with access to technology are choosing to have boys over girls, which has led to an imbalance of gender that has left the region "missing" 160 million women.

text size A A A

June 15, 2011

In her trip through China's Suining County in Jiangsu province, journalist Mara Hvistendahl saw plenty of familiar signs of economic growth. But she also saw something at an elementary school that startled her: There were far more boys in the classrooms than girls.
After months of research, she discovered a wide gap in the ratio between boys and girls, not just in China, but in other parts of East and South Asia. In her book, Unnatural Selection: Choosing Boys Over Girls and the Consequences of a World Full of Men, Hvistendahl writes that wider access to ultrasound technology and abortion has allowed parents in these developing countries to abort daughters in the womb and keep sons.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/magazine/the-criminalization-of-bad-mothers.html?_r=1&ref=magazine
The Criminalization of Bad Mothers

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

Timmy Kimbrough at home with his daughter Josie, 2, and his stepdaughters, Nicole, 13, and Brooke Borden, 10, left. His wife, shown in the framed photograph, is in jail.

By ADA CALHOUN

Published: April 25, 2012

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Email
• Share
• Print
• Single Page
• Reprints
• 

On a rainy day just after Thanksgiving, Amanda Kimbrough played with her 2-year-old daughter in her raw-wood-paneled living room, petting her terriers and half-watching TV. Kimbrough, who is 32, lives a few miles outside Russellville, a town of fewer than 10,000 in rural northwestern Alabama, near the border of Franklin and Colbert Counties. Textiles were the economic engine of the area until the 1990s, when the industry went into decline and mills shut down. Now one of the region’s leading employers is Pilgrim’s, a chicken supplier. The median household income is $31,213, and more than a third of children live below the poverty line.

Enlarge This Image

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

Heather Capps, 25, and her 5-month-old son, Malice, at a halfway house in Albertville, Ala. She was arrested after her son tested positive for Oxycodone.

As family members came in and out of the room and one daytime show slid into another — “The People’s Court,” “Intervention,” “Jerry Springer,” “The Ellen DeGeneres Show” — Kimbrough talked about her arrest following the death of her third child, Timmy Jr. Born premature at 25 weeks on April 29, 2008, Timmy Jr. weighed 2 pounds 1 ounce, and lived only 19 minutes. When Kimbrough tested positive for methamphetamine, her two daughters were swiftly removed from her custody, and for 90 days, she was allowed only supervised visits. Social services mandated parenting classes and drug treatment.

Chris's Thoughts on Simone de Beauvoir's Writing

I found this reading rather interesting, both for what I agreed with and for what I disagreed with, and in seeing the diversity of opinion of what others have posted I imagine tomorrow will be a lively and diverse discussion. I apologize for quoting the same paragraph as  Steven, but it too stood out to me, particularly having read this blog before I did the reading and having had this paragraph in mind:


The reason for this is that women lack concrete means for organizing themselves into a unit which can stand face to face with the correlative unit. They have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat. They are not even promiscuously herded together in the way that creates community  feeling among the American Negroes, the ghetto Jews, the workers of Saint-Denis, or the factory hands of Renault. They live dispersed among the males, attached through residence, housework, economic condition, and social standing to certain men – fathers or husbands – more firmly than they are to other women. If they belong to the bourgeoisie, they feel solidarity with men of that class, not with proletarian women; if they are white, their allegiance is to white men, not to Negro women. The proletariat can propose to massacre the ruling class, and a sufficiently fanatical Jew or Negro might dream of getting sole possession of the atomic bomb and making humanity wholly Jewish or black; but woman cannot even dream of exterminating the males. The bond that unites her to her oppressors is not comparable to any other. The division of the sexes is a biological fact, not an event in human history. Male and female stand opposed within a primordial Mitsein, and woman has not broken it. The couple is a fundamental unity with its two halves riveted together, and the cleavage of society along the line of sex is impossible. Here is to be found the basic trait of woman: she is the Other in a totality of which the two components are necessary to one another.


I agree with a lot of what is in this paragraph but I also disagree with some. While this was written a while ago (1949 to be exact), Simone de Beauvoir does seem to have a very strong view that may not be entirely true. While "extermination" of the males is probably not something that is achievable due to greater average physical strength of men, the fact that in the vast majority of Earth's countries women are in the majority, and women have the right to vote in the vast majority of Earth's democracies, so if a kind of peaceful gender conflict were to arise (which I highly, highly doubt it will because the vast majority of men and women fundamentally care for each other and want to be together due to attraction) women could easily be victorious at the ballot box, provided they voted as a block. Granted, this would only happen if there was a massive contestation and the sexes were radically Balkanized, and as Simone de Beauvoir points out (and I agree) in this paragraph that women are split up in different parts of society based on race, ethnicity, religion, and affluence. What this suggests to me, however, is not that women are oppressed, but rather that issues of racial, ethnic, religious, and class status/income level are more important to women than issues of gender.


I would also agree with her view that women, at least traditionally, have sort of been an "other" in a relationship of two. Considering that men have had higher rates of employment and much higher rates of participation in leadership roles in the military or in religious, political, and many civic organizations and women have largely been confined to the home, that women are not as noticed, or as noticeable, nor as influential as their male counterparts. When we look at the vast majority of the great leaders of history, particularly the further back we go, be it military, political, or religious leadership have been men. As Simone de Beauvoir states, women have no (I would argue there is a little bit, but still) history. Every author and signer of both the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was a male (they were also all middle-aged or older, white, free, Christian or Deist, educated, and had more financial means, but that's for a different discussion). This shows truly how far women have come in society. The fact that it now seems strange and wrong to many and has generated a great deal of attention that the writers of the new Egyptian constitution are all male is a sign that this is a rather unusual and controversial event for today.


I would also disagree that women have no ability to organize. What about the Suffragettes? And more contemporarily, what about the League of Women Voters, the National Association of Women, and the National Association of Democratic Women and the National Association of Republican Women? As the backlash to the recent issues surrounding the "war on women" and the response suggest, women are organized, have an opinion, and will be heard. To go back to my earlier point about having a greater share of the electorate, women will decide the outcome of this November's elections, and given the war on women, they will "remember in November" and prevail on these issues of contestation. Polls are already showing a massive gender gap in terms of support for President Obama versus Governor Romney.

What is a woman?

I read this week’s readings after having recently watched a video about being transgender in America. The video is a 20min panel that started off talking about the Canadian women who was not allowed to compete in the Miss Universe pageant because she was not a naturalized woman. With that discussion in the back of my head many of Beauvoir’s remarks sounded limiting.

From the beginning of the introduction Beauvoir asks the question, “what is a woman?” Then she goes on to answer her own question in a variety of ways. However, none of her answers adequately include transgender individuals. Many of her explanation about what it means to be a woman include the reproductive organs of being female. Since transgender women do not have the same reproductive organs as a “naturalized women” then Beauvoir’s explanation excludes them.

At one point Beauvoir says, “the hermaphrodite is not really the combination of a whole man or a whole woman, but consists of parts of each and thus is neither.” This sentence is very troubling. If hermaphrodites and transgender people are neither men nor women, then what are they?

Since this book was published in 1949 many issues in relation to transgender were not being discussed, and so Beauvoir’s perspective makes sense in the context. Many scholars now refer to gender as a social construct instead of a person’s biology. I think if Beauvoir was writing today she would be interested in writing about transgender because of her discussions of “the Other”. By saying there is only men and women, Beauvoir herself is creating an Other, which she probably does not intend to do.

[Here is the video I mentioned earlier if you want to watch it: http://video.msnbc.msn.com/melissa-harris-perry/47054424]

Oakeshott- On being conservative

On being conservative is well written. I applaud its form and I think that Oakeshott is tapping into something very warm and sensible in his writing. I do agree with him that humans have a tendency towards conservatism and maybe people do want change when they're younger as some sort of thirst for adventure or a way to stake a claim in the world's future. But I don't think it need stop, in fact I think that while measured change must be considered, at a certain point there must be a smashing of tradition if that tradition is in the way of an emancipatory movement.

Also in a way, fast, energetic rebellion and hastened change can be a form of conservatism in itself, in a certain sort of context. It seems to me that shades of what seem people would call counter culture have their own values and traditions that seek to criticize or flout the norms of the larger society they abide in. To some punks and hippies and various others are conservative because they hold on to the flame of their sub cultures their identity. However, they can soon be seen as radical by the larger culture they're a part of.

As it is my facilitation day tomorrow, I will try to condense my Blog questions and thoughts because we will hopefully be discussing them in class Thurs.  I found the Intro very interesting.  I am specifically interested in the implications of the unique relationship women have with men.  Beauvoir highlights this "bond that unites her to her oppressors is not comparable to any other"  I agree with this.  Men and women are completely tied to each other in this society, and in many cases men and women depend on each other.  Beauvoir relates the subordination of women to that of the master and slave, saying they are both "united by a reciprocal need".  How can women change their status in our society while they are continually dependent on men and immersed with them within our society?  While Beauvoir suggests declining to be the other, she also states that this would mean women would have to "renounce all the advantages conferred upon them by their alliance with the superior caste."  Is this even possible in our society?  Could women completely separate from men and would that have any beneficial effects?  Another extremely vital point Beauvoir makes is that many women are "often very well pleased with her role as the Other."  While I think many women would not say they were necessarily subordinate to men, or that they were the other, I do believe that there is a general feeling of contentment from women in our society.  If there wasn't, how could something like the War on Women be taking place in 2012? How could women currently be, time and time again, subordinate to men made clear by our politics and mainstream media if this wasnt the case?

I was struck by the contemporary feel of de Beauvoir. I feel like almost everything she says is applicable in today's world. In the Introduction, she says "[...] we must face the question, "what is a woman"? To state the question is, to me, to suggest, at once, a preliminary answer. the fact that I ask it is in itself significant. A man would never set out to write a book on the peculiar situation of the human male... A man never begins by presenting himself as an individual or a certain sex." This is part of privilege.

When we talk about white privilege, part of it is never having to ask yourself "What does it mean to be white? What does my ethnicity/race mean?", which is why many white people don't think about themselves as "raced". White privilege is parallel to male privilege (and any other kind of identity privilege). Privilege is conferred by power and confers power. Our society, culture, and structures were created by white people/men for white people/men and the same people continue to shape it. This means they can go about their lives without ever encountering a structure that challenges them or denies them an opportunity, and, therefore, they can live comfortably without constantly being confronted by their race/ethnicity/gender. As de Beauvoir points out, the very fact that she must examine her gender is an example of the "otherness" of it. "Man" is default. Everything else must be defined, measured, and differentiated against it.

In an unfortunate way many of the Beauvoir's observations about are more relevant now than they should be. In the introduction she has this to say about anti-feminism:
"In proving woman’s inferiority, the anti-feminists then began to draw not only upon religion, philosophy, and theology, as before, but also upon science – biology, experimental psychology, etc."
Modern day feminists and other people can easily draw comparisons between this statement and the increased scrutiny of women with regards to reproductive rights, lack of emphasis on childcare rights with regards to employment, and increased rhetoric enforcing the traditional roles of women. While it is hard to argue against the idea of a fundamental biological difference between the sexes, the fact that these same issues are being discussed today and have not been resolved over the past 60 years indicates that advocacy for various groups rights will continue to be necessary well into the future. With lobbying for rights of groups such as women and minorities it seems very likely that their views will be overlooked or ignored. Feminism will continue to be an important voice as it faces challenges of changing times and pressure from men and perhaps other women as well.
She goes on to compare the state of women to the situation faced by African Americans in the Jim Crow era south. I would argue that this is a different, much more overt kind of discrimination face by women. However in some ways discrimination against women runs even deeper and has taken longer to be addressed by American society. We applaud the civil war for ending slavery and granting African Americans the right to vote yet women were not allowed to have this right for another half century. The more overt forms of discrimination faced by African Americans manifested in the form of restaurants and drinking fountains being racially segregated which has not been done against women.

Changing times and Philosophical Weirdness

First of all, before people start getting angry with me, I am not going to argue that sexism is dead or that women are regarded entirely as they should be (which in my opinion would be as normal human beings, same as us men).  However, many of the social norms and examples that De Beauvoir gives in the introduction are not nearly as true as they were when she was writing in 1949.
For instance, she gives the following example:

"In the midst of an abstract discussion it is vexing to hear a man say: ‘You think thus and so because you are a woman’; but I know that my only defence is to reply: ‘I think thus and so because it is true,’ thereby removing my subjective self from the argument. It would be out of the question to reply: ‘And you think the contrary because you are a man’, for it is understood that the fact of being a man is no peculiarity."


It is not out of the question for a woman to say 'you only think that because you're a man.'  In fact, that response has been used against me in abstract discussion.  It is not a good or logical response, and it annoys me as much as it probably annoyed De Beauvoir, but has happened more than once.  Also, legal equality and the integration of women into higher education and the work force (this hasn't been full integration--wage gap still exists), and social changes associated with these shifts, have greatly reduced the sense of  dependence on men for identity. I know plenty of unattached women who are not lacking in identity, and who find the idea of depending on anyone to validate their identity to be extremely distasteful, even shameful.  While De Beauvoir's conception of women as the other sex might be true, changing cultural norms, at least in some places and for some people, have taken much of the force from her supporting arguments.
-------------
De Beauvoir also talks about the trouble with saying exactly what femininity is.  She rejects thinking of it as a Platonic essence, because such essences are eternal, unchanging, and probably don't exist.  In my philosophy of aesthetics class (this is about to get abstract...sorry), we've recently been covering a theory by Amie Thommason about cultural artifacts that I think could apply nicely here.  According to artifactual theory, femininity would be an abstract real thing (no location in time or space, but it does exist) similar to a Platonic essence.  It may be embodied in various times/places, but the thing itself is never located.  More importantly for us, it means whatever competent users of the language and the culture meant it to mean--it is created by the intersection of language and culture, and so as those things change so would femininity.  This maintains the idea of femininity as an abstract idea, while allowing it to change as people do.

Friendly Reminder

...just a quick reminder to post to the blog tonight.

Also, I came across this article...
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/25/us/marines-moving-women-toward-the-front-lines.html?_r=1&hpw

Marines Moving Women Toward the Front Lines

Stephen Morton for The New York Times

Two Marine recruits loading the magazines of their M16A4 rifles on the shooting range last week at the Recruit Training Depot at Parris Island, S.C.

By JAMES DAO

Published: April 24, 2012

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Google+
• Email
• Share
• Print
• Reprints
• 

The Marine Corps, the most male of the armed services, is taking its first steps toward integrating women into war-fighting units, starting with its infantry officer school at Quantico, Va., and ground combat battalions that had once been closed to women.

Related

• Air National Guard Lobbies Successfully Against Budget Cuts (April 24, 2012)

Connect With Us on Twitter

Follow @NYTNational for breaking news and headlines.

Twitter List: Reporters and Editors

Enlarge This Image

Stephen Morton for The New York Times

Recruits on the range at Parris Island. The Marine Corps plans to assign 40 women to six types of combat battalions, but infantry won’t be among them.

Enlarge This Image

Lynsey Addario for The New York Times

Capt. Emily Naslund of the Marine Corps after shots were fired upon a patrol in Southern Marja, Afghanistan, in 2010.

The moves — announced by Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, in a message sent to all Marines on Monday night — are intended largely to study how women perform in formerly male-only units, and reflect new Pentagon rules released in February allowing women to serve closer to the front line.

The new Pentagon policy continues the ban on women serving as infantrymen, Special Operations commandos and in other direct-combat positions. But it has opened the door to thousands of new jobs for women, who represent about 15 percent of the force.

The Army, which like the Marine Corps has excluded women from many jobs because of the physical demands or proximity to combat, is also studying ways to integrate women into ground combat units.

In the coming months, General Amos said in an interview, the Marine Corps plans to assign about 40 women to 19 battalions of six different types: artillery, tank, assault amphibian, combat engineer, combat assault and low-altitude air defense. Infantry battalions, however, will remain closed to women.

General Amos said he would limit the initial group to more mature Marines: gunnery sergeants, staff sergeants and company-grade officers, meaning lieutenants or captains. Navy medical officers, chaplains and corpsmen could also be assigned to those battalions.

4/25 Thoughts

I think what jumped out at me the most after reading Beauvoir’s introduction was her thoughts about the nature of women’s relation to their oppressor:

Women live dispersed among the males, attached through residence, housework, economic condition, and social standing to certain men – fathers or husbands – more firmly than they are to other women. If they belong to the bourgeoisie, they feel solidarity with men of that class, not with proletarian women; if they are white, their allegiance is to white men, not to Negro women. The proletariat can propose to massacre the ruling class, and a sufficiently fanatical Jew or Negro might dream of getting sole possession of the atomic bomb and making humanity wholly Jewish or black; but woman cannot even dream of exterminating the males. The bond that unites her to her oppressors is not comparable to any other. The division of the sexes is a biological fact, not an event in human history. Male and female stand opposed within a primordial Mitsein, and woman has not broken it. The couple is a fundamental unity with its two halves riveted together, and the cleavage of society along the line of sex is impossible. Here is to be found the basic trait of woman: she is the Other in a totality of which the two components are necessary to one another.

Beauvoir makes a great point about the major disadvantage that women face in gaining equal representation in the world in comparison to other oppressed groups.  It is really a situation unlike any other since the very existence of the human race makes the sexes dependent on each other.  Certainly the implications of that bond will mean unconventionality and creativity in the routes women choose to take to address the problem of patriarchy in the world.

Week 5 -- Blog Directions and Readings for Thursday

Post to Blog by Wed @9pm
everyone with last name A-M

Comments on Posts by Thurs @8am
everyone with last name N-Z

Blog posts should focus on the Oakeshott or the Beauvoir readings.

On Thursday, we will be discussing Simone de Beauvoir's The Second Sex, Introduction, and Chapter 1, pgs. 1-4, 22-39. (My apologies -- I realized that the page numbers are based on printing out Chapter 1. Unfortunately there aren't any convenient markers in the online text.
If you can, for the first assigned section of Chapter 1, please read the first five paragraphs.
For the second assigned section of Chapter 1, please read all the materials that follow the paragraph that begins "But the fundamental difference between male and female mammals lies in this: the sperm, through which the life of the male is transcended in another...")

Week 5 -- and Reading Assignment Change

Paper #1 Due on Tuesday, 4/24 by 6pm in my office. Please include the final 5-7 page paper, rough draft (with or without notes), and both sets of peer review (typed or handwritten is fine). Please remember to include the names of both of your peer reviewers. 

If you need to come talk to me before the paper is due, I will have office hours on Thursday, 4/19 between 2-4pm and next Monday 2-4pm. All other office hours are as listed in the syllabus.

Next week we will be starting on Michael Oakeshott and Simone de Beauvoir. See below.

Thanks! 

Week 5—Questioning Tradition; **PAPER #1 DUE in my office by 6pm**

4/24, Tuesday

--Michael Oakeshott, “Political Education,” p. 43-69 from Rationalism in Politics. ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website.

--Oakeshott, “On Being Conservative,” from The Portable conservative reader, edited, with an introduction and notes, by Russell Kirk, p. 567-599. ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website.

NO LONGER ON THE SYLLABUS. LET OTHER SEMINAR MEMBERS KNOW IF POSSIBLE.

--Oakeshott, “The masses in representative democracy,” from The last best hope: a democracy reader, Stephen John Goodlad, editor, p. 75-91. ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website. 

**PAPER #1 DUE in my office/mailbox by 6pm**

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Wednesday at 9pm

4/26, Thursday

--Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949, trans. H M Parshley, Penguin 1972.

--“ Introduction,” The Second Sex

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm

--Chapter 1, Biology, PAGES 1-4, 22-39 ONLY

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch01.htm

--2^nd paper topics distributed

Example of a good sentence since I was under the impression we didn't have a posting this week.

The profound connection between private and public, manifest on its elementary level in the question of private property, is likely to be misunderstood today because the modern equation of property and wealth on one and propertylessness and poverty on the other. This misunderstanding is all the more annoying as both, property as well as  wealth, are historically of greater relevance to the public realm than any other private matter or concern and have played at least formally, more or less the same role as the chief condition for admission to the public realm. (p.61)

I find that sentence easily conveys the notions Arendt was trying to convey here. However, I would go on to say that I agree that wealth and property are necessary for admission to the public realm, but would add that the amount of wealth influences the role that individual would have.

Week 4 Blog / Comment Assignments

Post to Blog by Wed @9pm
everyone with last name A-M

Comments on Posts by Thurs @8am
everyone with last name N-Z

Rough drafts tomorrow! Thanks.

Gershom Scholen v Hannah Arendt

While I understand Gershom Scholen is suggesting Hannah Arendt embrace her Jewish identity as it specifically relates to her work and what influenced her perceptions,  I admire Arendt's stict adherence to her own conceptions about the appropriate place to practice different portions of one's life. In her mind, Arendt would not be capable of living the Vita Activa if she practiced, or apparently even acknowledged, her religion anywhere except the private sphere. For to Arendt, her Jewish identity is not and never should be open for any type of discussion. It should not affect how she is treated, and it should not be perceived as the motivating factor behind any type of "action" taken in the public sphere (lest it be considered a means to achieve an end). Having lived through the historical period that she did, it would be naive to say Hannah Arendt completely transcended her experiences and was in no way shaped by them. However, I suppose it could also be true that Arendt would feel that the cause of societal degradation in the first place was the blurring of the lines between the public and private, and work, labor and action.

4/18 Post #2

Constative vs Performative

After reading Honig and discussing it in class, I have found this distinction to be of particular interest when talking about Arendt. Arendt’s unwillingness to publicize her religion and background makes a lot of sense to me and I understand that she does not want to draw attention to it because it could detract from her overall message. This fits because she already talks about how the realms of labor of work have become excessively interwoven with the public but on some level I think that she has to address constative facts about herself which have a great effect on the performative statements she is trying to make. Surely, living through two world wars, one in which her entire religion was persecuted, influences what she is saying and why she is saying it. Like Scholem, I do not think that she necessarily owes anything to the Jewish faith, but along the lines of Honig I think she can integrate it, or at least directly address it in her writing. Conceptually, I do not accept Arendt completely shutting out the private realm from politics but I feel that that is mostly because her idea of what should be in the private realm is significantly larger than what I consider it to be.

4/18 Thoughts

Among other things, Honig takes a critical look at an exchange between Arent and Gershom Scholem which veers into questions of identity politics. Scholem believes Arent has a political responsibility to the Jewish people while Arent believes not only that she does not, but that politics can only be meaningful when homogenization of identities is disgarded. It's an interesting debate. While I agree that no one has any responsibility to the homogenized identity groups that current "politics" (not the Arent definition of politics) lumps people into, I agree with Honig that Arent's arguments become problematic because she overlooks the political leverage that can only be gained in such groups. Arent herself defines power as something that only comes from a large group of people coming together. If this is true, she ought to see the "power" in homogenized groups. Of course one could argue that political bodies that partake in "action" should not form out of having in common certain characteristics, but out of sharing similar ideas; but it could also be argued that the members of any kind of organization united by homogenized identity probably share somewhat similar ideas if they are partaking in an organization that acts on specific ideas.

On Art and Politics

After reading Arendt a little more closely, and formulating my response to the 'art of politics' question posed in class, I have come to the conclusion that Arendt's argument is accurate- but with a few caveats.
Arendt's argument that politics exists solely to bring forth in men that which is 'great and radiant' (pg. 206), is entirely on topic. Arendt seems to be focused on the belief that the goal of politics is to further the human race, to allow those who are great to 'dare the extraordinary' (pg. 206). What she doesn't say explicitly (but what seems to be implied) is that the goal of politics is to allow those who are great to be discovered, to be taught, to be equals, to succeed. In our own society, the entire political sphere is dedicated to the 'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness'. Arendt is simply arguing that the pursuit of those ideals which allow us to prosper as individuals and as a polity are the only reason to come together in a public setting... by crowd-sourcing our ideals and ideas and separate perspectives we are lending power to the political body, which in turn illuminates those concepts and ideas that forward us as a people, as a country, and as a race. Arendt fleshes this out by discussing Aristotle's notion of actuality- where he states that politics is in the best interest of mankind precisely because mankind is coming together to bring out the best in itself. Although one can argue that Arendt ignores social issues in her discussion of politics, I would support the notion that Arendt was simply including them in the catch-all of problems and obstacles that 'great and radiant' solutions are meant to solve- and which are her entire rationale for the existence of politics itself.

"The Art of Politics is the Ability to Control Your Environment"

Example of a bad sentence:
"Power is actualized only where word and deed have not parted company, where words are not empty and deeds not brutal, where words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities, and deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities" (P. 200)

This sentence, as we discussed in class, came off to me as nothing more than an oversimplification and idealization of how the world really works. Arendt paints the world in a shade of white and black in this sentence, when reality is nothing but a shade of moral grey. As I mentioned in class, while discussing this question, "the art of politics is the ability to control your environment" (a quote from the late Hunter S. Thompson in "Kingdom of Fear"). It is impossible to control an environment in a situation where you are not willing to use force to destroy, or use words to veil your true intentions. To say politics is anything less than careful and strategic use of knowledge and trickery is nothing short of...to put it sharply, naive. It is unfortunate that we live in a time where this quote, which serves as a model for an ideal form of politik, presents itself as an unobtainable dream in the current age.

I don't want to seem like a complete pessimist, because in reality I'm not. However, I think with any type of optimism should come a heavy dosage of reality, and this quote lacks it. We live in a society today where honesty and transparency is a crime. My example is Wikileaks.

Wikileaks has published thousands upon thousands of cables and documents that incriminate world leaders in heinous acts of violence and corruption on a daily basis, outright proving politicians as liars, and opening the public's eyes to the horrors that ours and other country's militaries have committed at war. How was Wikileaks rewarded for their devotion to governmental transparency? Lawsuits, arrests, trials, and even some U.S. Senators called for the assassination of Julian Assange, the leader of Wikileaks.

I feel this is ample evidence alone to prove my point that politics is not run by the idea that "words are not empty and deeds not brutal", and where "words are not used to veil intentions but to disclose realities", but most importantly, where "deeds are not used to violate and destroy but to establish relations and create new realities." These statements may have been true in 1958, but it is not true today.

Times Have Changed

(This post was originally written as a comment on my post but was meant to be another post by Sarah I believe)


Given that the Human Condition was written in 1958, times have greatly changed and I disagree with Hannah Arendt’s focus on speech and action. In the modern world we live in today, our society is very much focused on the visual. Therefore, much political argument is shown through visual practices, such as, political cartoons, documentaries, street art, protests, film, and so much more. I think these mediums are so prevalent in today’s society because they are so easily accessible to the general public, but are still able to get a political message across. It is much easier for someone to watch a documentary that investigates corporations rather than go to a speech or a discussion panel concerning the same issue. However, according to Arendt, the simple act of someone watching a political documentary would not suffice to their active engagement in political discourse, or in her words, action. Moreover, must a person actively engage in public discourse to be political, as Arendt would argue, or is it possible for a person to be political without engaging in public discourse?

Arendt: Power & Strength (Post #1)

Blog Post On Week 3 Readings

Example Of A Good Sentence:

"While strength is the natural quality of an individual seen in isolation, power springs up between men when they act together and vanishes the moment they disperse." - (Arendt, page 200)

What is really important to me is clarity. I like this sentence because it clearly defines that strength is an individual attribute. In contrast it denotes power as something that springs up, more so a quality of the time. I like how these terms are quite different, seemingly on a different spectrum. Strength is referred to as one's individual's capacity overall, this is mostly stable. In contrast power is something that comes about, so it incredibly unstable and fleeting. Further power is different in that it can be such when multiple men act, no single individual according to her passage can enact it, instead multiple persons are necessary. Beyond her meaning, I like the sentence because it sounds passionate particularly so when speaking of power. I can almost feel the tone of amazement and intrigue as she describes powering springing up, and then such power vanishing once the people disperse. It moves one to recognize the capacity of the collective, and yet how fragile such power can be.

Example Of A Bad Sentence:

"Under the conditions of human life, the only alternative to power is not strength-which is helpless against power-but force, which indeed one man alone can exert against his fellow men and of which one or a few can possess a monopoly by acquiring the means of violence." - (Arendt, page 202)

The thing that bothers me about this sentence is the amount of newly defined terminology employed. As we discussed in lecture it's hard to keep in my Arendt's versions of these words clear and consistent in speech. So, for one looking over this sentence, you must comb through it thoroughly and keep in tact what definitions she laid out earlier in the reading. Essentially you must over-ride your instinctual understanding and actively apply the new found definitions. I feel like this sentence could also be broken up into two sentences to make it easier to contemplate. One could also condense it by eliminating "not strength-which is helpless against power-but", doing so would make it flow better logically. This piece of information can be then stated in another sentence in the text.

Art and Action

I think that art can be seen as "action" depending on the interpretation or meaning drawn from the art. Art is a medium that is so often open for interpretation from so many different people. Some might see art as action while others see it as simply self expression.

I don't think Arendt would see art that is made to be self expressive as "action" through her definition and reasonings. Self expression, in some ways, is the most personal thing that someone can do.

Some art can be seen as action depending the the intentions of the artist or the interpretations of the viewers.

4/11 Thoughts

This week I'd kind of like to do a throwback post to last week and talk about some good and bad passages from Arendt.  I feel like we missed a lot of confusing and brilliant quotes after our discussion about power, force, and strength.

A passage I thought was really great and that we missed in class is on page 201.  "If power were more than this potentiality in being together, if it could be possessed like strength or applied like force instead of being dependent upon the unreliable and only temporary agreement of many wills and intentions, omnipotence would be a concrete human possibility."  I felt like a lot of people were still grappling with the idea of force after our discussion (myself among them), and  I just really liked how Arendt touched on force being applied rather than being just a potentiality like power.

My choice for a really bad passage would have to be on page 202.  Arendt says, "Under the conditions of human life , the only alternative to power is not strength, which is helpless against power, but force, which indeed one man alone can exert against his fellow men and of which one or a few can possess a monopoly by acquiring the means to violence."  I dislike this quote for a few reasons.  Like we talked about in class this is the first time Arendt brings up a relationship between violence and force.  After this passage they become almost interchangeable where I feel like they are two different things.  She also says that power is very independent of material factors such as numbers or means.  Yet she then seemingly contradicts herself by saying power can be broken up by tyranny, and by extension isolation.

A few further thoughts about these three concepts.  First I felt like many people touched upon this in class, but it seems to me that strength and power have the same limitations.  Both of them are limited by numbers.  Power is limited by the number of people you have in a real world scenario, and strength seems to matter less and less the more people there are.  Secondly (this occurred to me after class), does anyone else think that in some cases strength and force are ways to gather power?  We touched upon how stronger people might be able to gather more power up to a certain point (see limitation of strength above) but I don't think that anyone mentioned how it seems like in corrupt societies/governments/groups force can be equally as potent as strength for gathering power. Does anyone have any thoughts on that?

Beltran Article

On page 597 Beltran mentions that capacity for new beginnings is what Arendt describes as political freedom. While describing the demonstrations she comes back to the idea of beginnings on page 601.

The power of beginnings can be seen in the formation of the 2006 dem-
onstrations, as immigrant advocates and organizers consistently found
themselves surprised by the spontaneous participation of so many who had
not demonstrated before. The protests were exceptional in both their size
and intensity, often leaving organizers scrambling to keep up with the
popular momentum of each subsequent event.

 I thought this was interesting because it is a fresh start for many of these immigrants. I took the idea of political freedom in this context to mean they are able to express their political freedom by being able to voice their cause. While as non citizens they may not have political rights, they are still putting on political pressure by gaining support and spreading their views and beliefs.  It also allows others to come out and support them giving a stronger voice to their demonstrations who may have the rights to try and make a change but demonstrations and protests always seem to bring about more reactions than simply a written article or other source of information. While their freedoms may be limited they still have political freedom and the ability to use that freedom to put pressure on politicians.

While thinking about the 2006 demonstrations I started thinking about how Arendt would describe these in the sense of are they action? People are putting themselves in the public realm to be seen and heard with some risk taken. However, I would not say they are having open discussions. They want people to see their views and agree with them, they do have an end goal in sight. But then once again it is hard to define where these demonstrations would land according to Arendt. I do not know where they should be considered to go.

The Reversal of Private and Public

On page 210 Arendt writes,
"It is this lack of relatedness to others and this primary concern with exchangeable commodities which Marx denounced as the dehumanization and self-alienation of commercial society, which indeed excludes men qua men and demands, in striking reversal of the ancient relationship between private and public, that men show themselves only in the privacy of their families or the intimacy of their friends."

My interpretation of the above section is that the commercial society that exists today does not allow men to act as men but requires instead that they only "show" themselves in the privacy of their family and friends.

I may be misreading her intended diction, but through her explanation of this change as a "striking reversal of the ancient relationship between private and public", it appears that she views this as an unfavorable change.

If my above assumptions and interpretations are correct, then I would have to argue with Arendt. I do agree that the behavior of men in the public and private realms have switched places, but I do not agree that it is necessarily an unfavorable switch.

Arendt describes the traditional public to be a place where men must put themselves out there, take risks, and act as unique individuals around others who are equally unpredictable. If I am going to be honest, I am not sure the public is somewhere I want to "show" myself.

The realm of family and friends is where I "show" myself and it is a place I feel comfortable doing so and I find it interesting that there was ever a time where people were expected to be more formal at home than when interacting with strangers.

At the same time, if individuals were to "show" themselves elsewhere such as in the work place or school more frequently I wonder how differently the commercial society would have evolved?

Should it be this way? Where people must hide themselves in society? I do not think so. I would propose a society where it is not only permissible, but encouraged, to show ones self in the public as well as the private realm.

Post 4/11

In this post I will look at the four articles provided, which were on: the abortion issue in Britain, Kony 2012, the Chilean student protests, and the killing of Trayvon Martin. I will be considering whether any of these may be classified as Action, under Arendt's definition.

In my opinion the abortion debate in the UK has two distinct parts, on of protest and one of discussion. The protest portion presumably is organized in order to outlaw abortion in the UK. I believe this would not qualify as action because it has an end goal, due to this goal it seems to qualify as Work. However, the discussion side, that is the question of whether abortion is morally permissible or not, may fit Arendt's view of Action. Although their is a goal, to answer a question, it is abstract and possibly does not have an answer. Moreover, the rightness or wrongness does not have a bearing on the Labor world of Arendt's, but the passage of law might. Although the debate does not necessarily occur in some atmosphere like the Polis, although it may occur in parliament, I think with the advances in technology that newspaper articles, online discussion, etc. may be able to make the whole population into a group, which is necessary for Action. Therefore, I would classify the discussion of the issue as Action.

The Kony 2012 new video release calls for more 'action' in struggling against Joseph Kony the Ugandan Warlord. I argue that a call to action like this would be classified as Work; it has a goal, it has an end, it is not an open ended discussion. Even though the video ends on a note about justice (whose definition was a debate in ancient Greece, a debate which I believe would be classified as Action by Arendt) I don't think it can classify as Action because it is saying that to be just is to help us stop Joseph Kony. That is, rather than asking what Justice is and starting some sort of discussion.

The article about the Chilean student protests gives us a summary of the events involved and interlaces this with a journalists experience in Chile and with some of the leaders and members of the movement. I think Action may be occurring in some arenas. Possibly if there are discussions without the purpose of education reform, perhaps something like what makes education good? why do we educate? However, the protests themselves are so tied up in the idea of causing a change that it is Work or maybe even Labor (since it has to do with the jobs people will have). Therefore I do not think that the protests represent Action.

The article about the shooting of Trayvon Martin represents some areas that I think might be action. Primarily those living in Sanford who are discussing the rightness of the actions of that night and maybe of past actions in the city, be that by Zimmerman or the Police or the local courts. If these debates are open ended discussions, ethical considerations, or questions about the effects this incident might have on our nation then I think they can be called Action. The problem of a definable group for this action may prove troublesome to its classification. However, I think that the debate could have some effect on future political action, no matter what group the discussion takes place in. When we look at people who are just saying, "send him to jail!" or, "he is innocent!" or other similar statements what should be done, then I think it ceases to be action, and may be more like work. There is definitely a goal in these sorts of statements, and this goal does not deal with necessity so it must be a Work oriented one.

Overall, it seems to me like many situations in today's world that we might call political action of sorts should be classified more as Work or maybe as considerations of Labor. This is of course just my opinion.

On the second question, about whether art is as much if not more political than speech or action, I think that art, if it it meant to be political, is speech and action. A film, for instance, that inspires political debate, or even convinces others to agree with a certain position on an issue or take a political action is very much what Arendt would see as "action," in her definition. Films that don't do this, and instead focus on personal feelings (like most romantic comedies) or that exist purely to make money (plotless action movies, horror films, etc.) are in her definition, "work," because they are just there for consumption and making excessive amounts of money.

On the fourth question, about it being horrible to live life in a consumer society, I think that ignorance is bliss, and if you know nothing and care nothing about politics, and are completely focused on materialism, then that's what will make you happy. Being engaged in political thought isn't going to do much for you.

Paper #1 Topics and Presentation Sign Ups for Upcoming Weeks

Paper #1 Topics

1.      What is Arendt’s conception of action in The Human Condition and is it relevant today? Your essay should describe and identify the characteristics that Arendt assigns to action, including appropriate quotations and selections from the text. Your essay should also discuss how, why, and if Arendt’s conception of action is relevant. To do this, you could might incorporate examples, modify Arendt’s conception, and/or tease out the implications of her argument. Feel free to include reference to the writings in Honig, Cavarero, Beltran, and the “Occupy Wall Street” blog.

2.      In The Human Condition, Arendt criticizes “society” and, more specifically, “the rise of mass society.” (p. 41) What is her critique and do you agree or disagree with her position? Your essay should describe and identify the characteristics that Arendt assigns to mass society, including appropriate quotations and selections from the text. Your essay should also discuss how, why, and if Arendt’s critique of society is relevant. To do this, you could might incorporate examples, modify Arendt’s conception, and/or tease out the implications of her argument. Feel free to include reference to the writings in Honig, Cavarero, Beltran, and the “Occupy Wall Street” blog.

3.      Is Arendt’s critique of the “private” realm appropriate? Does “the private” have a political relevance? Your essay should describe and identify the characteristics that Arendt assigns to the private realm, including appropriate quotations and selections from the text. Your essay should also discuss how, why, and if Arendt’s conception of privacy is relevant. To do this, you could might incorporate examples, modify Arendt’s conception, and/or tease out the implications of her argument. Feel free to include reference to the writings in Honig, Cavarero, Beltran, and the “Occupy Wall Street” blog.

4.      If you have a specific paper topic on The Human Condition that you would like to pursue, we can discuss it for approval by email or in person 4/11 (Wednesday).

**

Week 3—Action

4/10, Tuesday

--Arendt, The Human Condition, pp. 199-247, pp. 320-325.

--1/3 class to brainstorm and compare

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Wednesday at 9pm

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1._____Jessica Moore_______

2.___ Tom Smith___

3.___________________

4/12, Thursday

--Cristina Beltrán, “Going Public: Hannah Arendt, Immigrant Action, and the Space of Appearance,” Political Theory 2009 37: 595 originally published online 16 June 2009.

http://ptx.sagepub.com/content/37/5/595. USE WWU LIBRARY SUMMIT DATABASE TO ACCESS

--“Occupy Wall Street” blog / Hannah Arendt Center, Bard College

http://www.hannaharendtcenter.org/?tag=occupy-wall-street

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1._____Matt Benson_____

2._Jeff Cedarbaum____

3.__Steven Gilbert_____

Week 4—Politicizing Theory

4/17, Tuesday

--review of writing strategies

--Bonnie Honig, “Toward an Agonistic Feminism: Hannah Arendt and the Politics of Identity” in Feminists Theorize the Political ed., Judith Butler and Joan Scott, Routledge, 1992. ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website.

--Adriana Cavarero, “Politicizing Theory,” Political Theory, Vol. 30, No. 4, pp. 506-532.  

Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/3072619. USE WWU LIBRARY SUMMIT DATABASE TO ACCESS

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Wednesday at 9pm

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1.________Lauren Raine (Toward an Agnostic Feminism)___________

2.________Sara Rosso___________

3._______Chris Brown (Politicizing Theory)__

4/19, Thursday

--review of writing strategies

--rough drafts due

--peer evaluations in class

Week 5—Questioning Tradition; **PAPER #1 DUE in my office by 6pm**

4/24, Tuesday

--Michael Oakeshott, “Political Education,” p. 43-69 from Rationalism in Politics. ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website.

--Oakeshott, “On Being Conservative,” from The Portable conservative reader, edited, with an introduction and notes, by Russell Kirk, p. 567-599. ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website.

--Oakeshott, “The masses in representative democracy,” from The last best hope: a democracy reader, Stephen John Goodlad, editor, p. 75-91. ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website.

**PAPER #1 DUE in my office/mailbox by 6pm**

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Wednesday at 9pm

4/26, Thursday

--Simone de Beauvoir, The Second Sex, 1949, trans. H M Parshley, Penguin 1972.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/index.htm

--“Introduction,” The Second Sex

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/introduction.htm

--Chapter 1, Biology

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch01.htm

--2^nd paper topics distributed

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1.____Julia Canty_______________

2.___________________

3.___________Amelia Woolley________

Week 6—Power and Oppression

5/1, Tuesday

--Conclusion, The Second Sex

http://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/ethics/de-beauvoir/2nd-sex/ch04.htm

--excerpt, from Lori Jo Marso and Patricia Moynagh (eds), Simone de Beauvoir’s Political

Thinking (Urbana and Chicago: Illinois University Press, 2006). ON ELECTRONIC RESERVE at WWU Library website.

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Wednesday at 9pm

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1._____Brenna Wyatt______________

2._____Madeline Cavazos______________

3._____Andrea Farred______________

5/3, Thursday

--Jean Paul Sartre, Preface to the The Wretched of the Earth.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/sartre/1961/preface.htm

--Fanon, “Concerning Violence,” from The Wretched of the Earth, p. 35-106

http://www.openanthropology.org/fanonviolence.htm

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1._____Emily Cross______

2._____Tyler Adams______________

3._____Andrew Williams______________

Week 7—Sandison; Sovereign Power and Punishing the Body Politics

5/8, Tuesday

–Film: The Farms, Angola USA

--attend the Sandison lecture and luncheon

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Wednesday at 9pm

5/10, Thursday

--Fanon, “Reciprocal Bases of National Culture and the Fight for Freedom,” http://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/fanon/national-culture.htm

--Black Panther Party, 10 Point Plan

http://www.blackpanther.org/TenPoint.htm

--Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 1-69

--http://www.egs.edu/library/michel-foucault/biography/

Background information on Foucault.

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1._____Will Dethlefs________

2.____Spencer Sunderland_______________

3._____Sara Salz________

Week 8—Sovereign Power and Punishing the Body Politics

5/15, Tuesday

– Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 73-103, 131-169

--1/3 brainstorm and examples

--http://teachingthursday.org/2010/02/18/online-teaching-the-panopticon-and-the-unequal-gaze/

--http://teachingthursday.org/2010/01/21/the-panopticon-and-online-teaching/

--All seminar participants are to post their response to readings on Blackboard by Wednesday at 9pm

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1.____Gabriel Peterson_________

2._____Micah Christie______________

3.___________________

5/17, Thursday

--Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 170-228

--1/3 brainstorm and examples

--http://weber.ucsd.edu/~pmichelb/Bartky.pdf

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1._____Blair Peterson______________

2.___________________

3.___________________

Week 9—Disciplinary Power

5/22, Tuesday

--Foucault, Discipline and Punish, p. 293-308

--1/3 brainstorm

--http://phaidon.philo.at/~iaf/Labyrinth/Kruks.html

--International Day Against Video Surveillance http://www.notbored.org/IDAVS.html

PRESENTATION SIGN UP

1.___Julia Kowalski________________

2._______Miles Bludorn____________

3.___________________

5/24, Thursday

– rough draft due

--peer reviews

Week 10—Power and Politics

5/28, Monday

--student paper meetings, 10am—3pm

--7 appointments

5/29, Tuesday

--student paper meetings, 10am—3pm

--7 appointments

5/30, Wednesday

--student paper meetings, 10am—3pm

--7 appointments

5/31, Thursday

--student paper meetings, 10am—3pm

--7 appointments

Week 11—Finals Week

**6/5, Tuesday – FINAL PAPER DUE IN MY OFFICE/MAILBOX by 6pm**