This shirt brought to you by capitalism

I have a friend who owns this t-shirt. This was the first thing I thought of after reading Christopher Craig’s post. This friend wears the t-shirt proudly, as if he’s pointing out to those Reds that they’re trapped within the system of capitalism. I find this to be a similar example to Communist Manifesto marketed with trendy jeans. This shirt takes it a step even further. It blatantly points out that Che Guevara has become a commodity. My friend is a supporter of a capitalist system, but what does his shirt really say? Maybe his actions are slightly misunderstood in the respect that he is pointing out that Guevara is a commodity. Most people view the shirt and have a good chuckle, not even considering the complications posed by the statement. In the end, my friend still paid his hard earned $15.95 to a company in exchange for some twisted consumer item.

Has capitalism eaten up activism? I seem to think so. I’m required to express a radical idea through clothing. I could wear the classic Che Guevara shirt. Capitalism already has that base covered. Or I could wear some trendy jeans that are marketed to me as revolutionary. The fact that clothing has become a symbol of activism is a sign that marketing companies are doing their job right. People look right back into capitalism to spend their dollar in attempt to make a statement.

Another example expressed was the type of English course taught in a public high school. I am a graduate of not just any public high school, but a regionalized one, home of the foreign language department budget cuts. When we first discussed liberal humanism, I thought “These ideas seem to go back to junior year English class.” We were sent home with a copy of Hamlet and told to find these great themes. After my first exposure to theory, I then thought “Why didn’t anyone tell me this before?” Not once was I told to do a Marxist reading of Shakespeare, nor had theory ever been mentioned. I feel like that sums up what Marxist criticism is trying to say. My high school teacher was instructing me to consume a text that coincides with the dominant ideology.

I also appreciate the last line. “Hence, our ability to grasp and practice Marxist criticism provides us with the tools necessary both to understand literature from a class-based perspective and also to acknowledge the ideological forces that consistently attempt to shape our lives.” Theory is actually practical in this sense. If a person can do a Marxist reading of Shakespeare, for example, I would believe it would be hard to avoid not analyzing other things around us. When learning abstract theories, knowing that this can affect my life outside the classroom gives me an extra boost when reading dense material.

I think I need a follow-up

Right after class today, Spencer and I had a conversation and we realized we both had the same questions regarding Marxist theory. Must write down ideas quickly before we forget.

Immediately, we both considered creativity. I had mentioned Guy de Maupassant last entry. After this discussion, it seems the author is less important when the message is carried through the text. Does this completely remove creativity from the author?
Is he just a medium for the message of the text?
Does he not impose any creativity on his text?

Next, Spencer and I discussed when the text is consumed. It seems the only creativity that exists in a text is through analysis.

Help?

This thing called human nature

All of my classes this semester seem to link together in a very smooth fashion. The topics have been coinciding and building off of each other. This week, the topic of human nature snuck into every discussion. In philosophy, we discussed if people are born good or bad. In speech, we touched upon post-structuralism theory, and that people are constantly changing and shifting. I wouldn’t be surprised if we were to come across the subject in French class. Maybe when my vocabulary improves.

The idea of human nature has really been lingering in my mind. This is literary theory, but I can’t help thinking about this elsewhere. Liberal Humanism holds the idea on a high level. Tenet #4 states that human nature is unchanging. Take philosophy class for explain. Does that mean I would have to pick either “humans are bad” or “humans are good”? Immediately, I don’t feel comfortable sticking to one side or another. I would have to take off my American lenses and try to determine exactly what behavior is acceptable here and everywhere else in the world.

This directly relates to tenet #6. The purpose of literature is to transmit human values. A piece of literature must (silently) identify some great truth about humans, and then present this value to us. That piece must also speak to any culture of any time. Again, my French vocabulary isn’t great, but I can already sense that this would be difficult. One of the French authors I’ve most recently enjoyed is Guy de Maupassant. I can’t see an American reader getting the same values out of a text set during the Franco-Prussian War. I know next to nothing about his time period, but I can read his literature and I can find something to take away from it. I think certain texts have meaning outside of their respective culture, but I don’t think it’s as transcendent as Liberal Humanism describes. I don't think his literature, or any, could really escape that environment with little influence.

Marxist theory takes a more realistic perspective on literature. The ever-so-important of class struggle will always come through in literature. Not only is the time of the text important, but also when it is consumed. If the time and culture of texts has this much importance, there wouldn’t be one big human nature truth. When I read Guy de Maupassant, I could relate the piece to his 1880s time period. Some voice is coming through in his literature, whether on purpose or not, as an insight to his situation whenever he was writing. Wanting to know his struggle is much more appealing and realistic to me than trying to find one major truth that we all live by.

I feel more comfortable with the idea that there is no such thing as human nature. Truths are temporary and culturally specific. I'm not obligated to raise my hand in philosophy class and say that all humans are bad. While I read my French books, I'm not forced to find one unified meaning. Instead I can study the products of a culture and time.

Hello world

My name is Racquel Morin and this is my junior year. I live in an apartment, so the hand of responsibility has recently slapped me in the face. I've never had a blog before, so we will see where this goes. I'd like to keep track of some progress I make this semester.

I find theory a bit intimidating. I see it as something that only certain people have access to. Sure, we all use theory, but we don't exactly identify it. My college career thus far has been a big introduction to "theory", so that leads me to believe that it's giving me some great insight into my school work. Marxist theory is by far the most appealing to me. I see it as having the most relevance in my life and studies. I'm looking to see more theory have actual meaning, not just some concept in a text book.

So I can start on a good note, here is a picture of my adorable kitty!