How do you guys usually go about concluding humanities papers? My go-to strategy is to briefly philosophize on the broader implications of the argument or to suggest other potentially fruitful avenues of inquiry. Both seem kind of cheesy and inappropriate in the case of these papers, however.
My Rhetoric 103A teacher says that summarizing the preceding arguments in a short paper is insulting to the reader's intelligence. I'm not sure I buy this, since at least some crystallization of the thesis seems useful.
Any ideas?
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Monday, June 29, 2009
About the Prompts
This morning I have given you at last, the last minute gift of some added prompts for the final due so soon. I will admit that I am hoping that nearly all of you are already so well along in your writing that you will have no need or interest in taking up these new prompts, but I also suspect that at least some of you will turn to them, whether because you are are stymied or uninspired by the already available topics, or perhaps because you have been putting things off to the last minute. But whether you actually write about these topics in your finals or not, I do hope that everybody will give some thought to them, because taken together they also function as a kind of preliminary map of the terrain to which the last lectures of the course will be devoted. It seems to me that it is only now, in the end, that it makes good sense for you to be turning your thoughts to these connections in particular as a way of beginning to take stock of the texts, themes, and problems of the course as a whole.
Final Prompts:
For Essaylet Two:
In "Relfections on Violence" Hannah Arendt writes
How does this viewpoint comport with Judith Butler's elaboration in the essay "Precarious Life" of a connection between politics and an awareness of the precarity of human life? In the essay Butler draws our attention to a provocative claim by Emmanuel Levinas, namely: "To be in relation with the other face to face is to be unable to kill. It is also the situation of discourse." How does this assertion differ (if it does) from Arendt's insistence that "to speak of nonviolent power is actually redundant"?
For Essaylet One:
Option A -- Make and defend any strong claim about the situation of the colonized and their political prospects in the chapter "Concerning Violence" from Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, but you must substantiate that claim primarily through a close reading of the unusually long passage Fanon recounts (curiously without providing much in the way of a reading himself) from Aime Cesaire's Les Armes Miraculeuses, the exchange of the Rebel and the Mother. How do the arguments and details in that passage illuminate the problems, ambitions, characteristics of the text as a whole to which you want to draw our attention?
Option B -- Make and defend any strong claim about the relation between the "doing" of gender, our "undoing" by gendered desire, and the differences (or not) between these doings and undoings and the way in which violence can "do us in" as Judith Butler elaborates these paradoxes in Undoing Gender, but whatever case you make, you must substantiate your claim in a way that takes into account, among other things, the following provocative claim:
Although there is no necessity about this, it may be useful, in responding to either of these options for Essaylet One, to bear in mind (even if you do not address it specifically in the resulting reading) the passages on the relation of mortality and freedom from Arendt's "Reflections on Violence" to which I have already drawn your attention in the prompt for Essaylet Two, above.
In "Relfections on Violence" Hannah Arendt writes
The experience of death, whether the experience of dying or the inner awareness of one's own mortality, is perhaps the most anti-political experience there is, insofar as it is usually faced in complete loneliness and impotence, signifying that we shall leave the company of our fellow men and with it that being-together and acting in concert which makes life worthwhile… What is important is that these experiences, whose elementary force is beyond doubt, have never found an institutional, political expression. No body politic I know of was ever founded on the equality before death and its actualization in violence.
How does this viewpoint comport with Judith Butler's elaboration in the essay "Precarious Life" of a connection between politics and an awareness of the precarity of human life? In the essay Butler draws our attention to a provocative claim by Emmanuel Levinas, namely: "To be in relation with the other face to face is to be unable to kill. It is also the situation of discourse." How does this assertion differ (if it does) from Arendt's insistence that "to speak of nonviolent power is actually redundant"?
For Essaylet One:
Option A -- Make and defend any strong claim about the situation of the colonized and their political prospects in the chapter "Concerning Violence" from Frantz Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth, but you must substantiate that claim primarily through a close reading of the unusually long passage Fanon recounts (curiously without providing much in the way of a reading himself) from Aime Cesaire's Les Armes Miraculeuses, the exchange of the Rebel and the Mother. How do the arguments and details in that passage illuminate the problems, ambitions, characteristics of the text as a whole to which you want to draw our attention?
Option B -- Make and defend any strong claim about the relation between the "doing" of gender, our "undoing" by gendered desire, and the differences (or not) between these doings and undoings and the way in which violence can "do us in" as Judith Butler elaborates these paradoxes in Undoing Gender, but whatever case you make, you must substantiate your claim in a way that takes into account, among other things, the following provocative claim:
[O]ne mourns when when one accepts the fact that the loss one undergoes will be one that changes you, changes you possibly forever, and that mourning has to do with agreeing to undergo a transformation the full result of which you cannot know in advance.
Although there is no necessity about this, it may be useful, in responding to either of these options for Essaylet One, to bear in mind (even if you do not address it specifically in the resulting reading) the passages on the relation of mortality and freedom from Arendt's "Reflections on Violence" to which I have already drawn your attention in the prompt for Essaylet Two, above.
Saturday, June 27, 2009
One day, at Disneyland...
...I met Michael Jackson. I was about 7 years old and he was in a wheel chair and wearing an oft-donned surgical mask. I remember it very vaguely and my memory has been strengthened by the snapshots taken of this meeting (which are now in some Rubbermaid bin at my parent's house). But I do remember his lit up eyes and, of course, a very gentle disposition.
Anyway, the truly interesting part of this, to me, is when I met M.J., I was exiting the ride "Peter Pan" while he was just about to board the flight to Never, Never land. Rapidly, a huge group of people formed around the exit from the ride, waiting for Michael to appear. After a long time of waiting, much longer than it takes to fly to Never, Never land and back, people began to leave, it seems Michael never found the exit.
True story.
Friday, June 26, 2009
How to cite graphic novels
What is the appropriate way to quote Maus (or any g.n.)? Page numbers? Does each box have a special marker?
Thursday, June 25, 2009
A History of Violence Alternate Edition
I stumbled across this in my research... I figure it would resonate with some of you and give you a little break as well.
Question
Does anyone know if Dana is right or left handed? Can anyone remember any possible references in the text?
Gender/Sexuality question?
Hi Professor,
I was wondering if you were still going to post a 'gender' question for the final?
-G-
I was wondering if you were still going to post a 'gender' question for the final?
-G-
Wednesday, June 24, 2009
Prompts for Second Essaylet for the Take-Home Final
1. The very first words of the novel Kindred describe the loss of the protagonist Dana's arm. Octavia Butler subsequently wrote of Dana's loss, "I couldn't let her come back whole."
****What do you take to be the significance of Dana's loss? What is the significance of the necessity of this loss to what you take to be Butler's project in Kindred?****
How does the mysteriousness that surrounds the depiction of this loss -- its specific cause, the mechanism through which it occurs, the suspicions it inspires in authorities, and so on -- contribute (if it does) to the expression of this significance? Is the loss of Dana's arm an adequate registration of the loss of wholeness that Dana has suffered? How can we reconcile the ways in which the representation of this loss seem at once literal, figurative, and euphemistic -- and what (if anything) does this tell us about the anxieties, ambitions, problems the novel is tackling?
2. In Section Two of On Violence, Hannah Arendt repeatedly insists that "power and violence are not the same" -- indeed, she finally insists on the stronger claim that they "are opposites." Similarly, in his Introduction to The Will to Knowledge Michel Foucault doubts whether "prohibition, censorship, and denial [are] truly the forms through which power is exercised in a general way, if not in every society, most certainly in our own[.]"
****Make a case (and substantiate it with evidence from the texts themselves), either, that through these claims Arendt and Foucault are formulating complementary understandings of power and of the political sphere, or that the differences in their understandings of power are nevertheless more salient in their separate conceptions of the political.****
3. Hannah Arendt focused considerable attention in On Violence on the work of Frantz Fanon. Even if she qualified her judgments of Fanon with grudging concessions about the clarity and realism of his thought compared with many others (including Sartre), she still accuses him of "irresponsible" views "praising" or even "glorifying" violence. Now that you have read the Fanon piece Arendt discussed, do these accusations seem accurate and fair, on Fanon's terms? Or even on Arendt's own terms?
****Produce a close reading of Fanon's "Concerning Violence" that either (1) suggests their two pieces provide complementary visions of political power, even if Arendt herself may have overlooked their affinities in her own critique of Fanon, or that (2) shows how the concrete differences in their treatments of the realities of oppression and discontent help us understand larger differences between Arendt's and Fanon's ideas concerning what political freedom is about and what it is for in the first place.****
****What do you take to be the significance of Dana's loss? What is the significance of the necessity of this loss to what you take to be Butler's project in Kindred?****
How does the mysteriousness that surrounds the depiction of this loss -- its specific cause, the mechanism through which it occurs, the suspicions it inspires in authorities, and so on -- contribute (if it does) to the expression of this significance? Is the loss of Dana's arm an adequate registration of the loss of wholeness that Dana has suffered? How can we reconcile the ways in which the representation of this loss seem at once literal, figurative, and euphemistic -- and what (if anything) does this tell us about the anxieties, ambitions, problems the novel is tackling?
2. In Section Two of On Violence, Hannah Arendt repeatedly insists that "power and violence are not the same" -- indeed, she finally insists on the stronger claim that they "are opposites." Similarly, in his Introduction to The Will to Knowledge Michel Foucault doubts whether "prohibition, censorship, and denial [are] truly the forms through which power is exercised in a general way, if not in every society, most certainly in our own[.]"
****Make a case (and substantiate it with evidence from the texts themselves), either, that through these claims Arendt and Foucault are formulating complementary understandings of power and of the political sphere, or that the differences in their understandings of power are nevertheless more salient in their separate conceptions of the political.****
3. Hannah Arendt focused considerable attention in On Violence on the work of Frantz Fanon. Even if she qualified her judgments of Fanon with grudging concessions about the clarity and realism of his thought compared with many others (including Sartre), she still accuses him of "irresponsible" views "praising" or even "glorifying" violence. Now that you have read the Fanon piece Arendt discussed, do these accusations seem accurate and fair, on Fanon's terms? Or even on Arendt's own terms?
****Produce a close reading of Fanon's "Concerning Violence" that either (1) suggests their two pieces provide complementary visions of political power, even if Arendt herself may have overlooked their affinities in her own critique of Fanon, or that (2) shows how the concrete differences in their treatments of the realities of oppression and discontent help us understand larger differences between Arendt's and Fanon's ideas concerning what political freedom is about and what it is for in the first place.****
Foucault readings?
Is anyone else super confused by the reading titles? They don't correspond to the syllabus. Dale, perhaps you have some insight?
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
Monday, June 22, 2009
Alexia and Yin's workshop piece
scene: Tom daughter screaming as sub for screaming of girl at Motel before she got shot
claim: text emphesises the ubiquitous nature of violence. Every act of violence produces another act of violence
objection: Violence does not solve anything, one act of voilence causes more
Rebuttal: without Tom's act of violence at the dinner more violence would have enssured from the incremental perspective, his violence decreased the possible sphere of violence
claim: text emphesises the ubiquitous nature of violence. Every act of violence produces another act of violence
objection: Violence does not solve anything, one act of voilence causes more
Rebuttal: without Tom's act of violence at the dinner more violence would have enssured from the incremental perspective, his violence decreased the possible sphere of violence
Sunday, June 21, 2009
Food, Inc.
I just saw the new film by Robert Kenner Food, Inc. It is, not surprisingly, a very sobering film. You can watch the trailer here. Essentially it chronicles the massive flaws and abuses in our food industry. The film called my attention to (among other things) the different violences that are inherent in the way our food industry is currently working.
It is expensive to buy healthy (meaning not injected with all kinds of growth hormones and crawling with E coli) food, but, it is hard for poor people to afford it. They are violated by the high prices of healthy food. Not because of the high prices themselves but of the effect that the high food prices have. It forces them to buy fast food, food that makes them diabetic over sustained periods of consumption or kills them quickly if it is infected with e coli. The fast food, is less healthy and it's cheaper. It is a violation of their health that they must buy fast food. But it is a violation of other aspects of their life to buy healthy food, because it is more expensive. If buying fast food allows that person to be able to buy books to send their kids to school, or to buy medicine to stay alive they may do it to avoid the violence of non-education, or of death from a contagious disease. For them to contradict the system is a form of violence they do to themselves.
Yet, at the same time, the industry that is producing the fast food is doing violence as well. The industry is plunging the farmers that work for them into massive debt, it is abusing animals, and paying for laws to be passed (or that have been passed) in Congress that violate our freedom of speech.
It appears we face the individual eating fast food to avoid the abuse of not being able to have other basic things in life, or the more widely abusive food industry. I realize that this is a kind of a false dilemma. I had the vague notion that the violation of the farmer was a subjective violence, and the violating that the industry does was an objective violence. The good news is it's not. Because the violence the industry does is not the discourse through which we come to understand the violence that is done to the person who must buy the fast food. They are both subjective violences, the latter is just ironic.
This means that there is hope in the message of the film. What we have to do is change the system so that healthy food is cheaper. No small task right? Especially considering the way we will get the food industry to change is if all consumers start to buy healthier food (thereby increasing demand and reducing price). But, it will initially be expensive. And, there are also bigger forces at work, like all of the subsidies the federal government gives the corn industry, which is part of what makes the fast food so inexpensive. Even so, there is a possibility for both described violences to be ended, because the distinction between objective and subjective violences actually exists between the suffering of the consumer and the suffering of the industry. And that is another story.
It's a fascinating film.
It is expensive to buy healthy (meaning not injected with all kinds of growth hormones and crawling with E coli) food, but, it is hard for poor people to afford it. They are violated by the high prices of healthy food. Not because of the high prices themselves but of the effect that the high food prices have. It forces them to buy fast food, food that makes them diabetic over sustained periods of consumption or kills them quickly if it is infected with e coli. The fast food, is less healthy and it's cheaper. It is a violation of their health that they must buy fast food. But it is a violation of other aspects of their life to buy healthy food, because it is more expensive. If buying fast food allows that person to be able to buy books to send their kids to school, or to buy medicine to stay alive they may do it to avoid the violence of non-education, or of death from a contagious disease. For them to contradict the system is a form of violence they do to themselves.
Yet, at the same time, the industry that is producing the fast food is doing violence as well. The industry is plunging the farmers that work for them into massive debt, it is abusing animals, and paying for laws to be passed (or that have been passed) in Congress that violate our freedom of speech.
It appears we face the individual eating fast food to avoid the abuse of not being able to have other basic things in life, or the more widely abusive food industry. I realize that this is a kind of a false dilemma. I had the vague notion that the violation of the farmer was a subjective violence, and the violating that the industry does was an objective violence. The good news is it's not. Because the violence the industry does is not the discourse through which we come to understand the violence that is done to the person who must buy the fast food. They are both subjective violences, the latter is just ironic.
This means that there is hope in the message of the film. What we have to do is change the system so that healthy food is cheaper. No small task right? Especially considering the way we will get the food industry to change is if all consumers start to buy healthier food (thereby increasing demand and reducing price). But, it will initially be expensive. And, there are also bigger forces at work, like all of the subsidies the federal government gives the corn industry, which is part of what makes the fast food so inexpensive. Even so, there is a possibility for both described violences to be ended, because the distinction between objective and subjective violences actually exists between the suffering of the consumer and the suffering of the industry. And that is another story.
It's a fascinating film.
Anthony and Nuveen's claim
scene: Tom/Joey cleansing himself in the pond outside of Richie's mansion in the penultimate scene.
claim: True rebirth can only occur through dealing with unresolved tensions from one's history.
objections: We cannot be certain that Tom/Joey's "baptism" in the pond can actually be considered a rebirth. He comes back to the dinner table in the ultimate scene and based upon the actions of the son and daughter, he seems to have returned to his constructed America, but we don't know if his wife has accepted him as a new person, or if he cannot escape the ghost of Joey.
claim: True rebirth can only occur through dealing with unresolved tensions from one's history.
objections: We cannot be certain that Tom/Joey's "baptism" in the pond can actually be considered a rebirth. He comes back to the dinner table in the ultimate scene and based upon the actions of the son and daughter, he seems to have returned to his constructed America, but we don't know if his wife has accepted him as a new person, or if he cannot escape the ghost of Joey.
Jonathan, Eamon, Pamela
Scene: closing sequence at the dinner table
Claim: The inability of the family to speak about and to recognize the recent violences and the father's history of violence is an attempt to recreate the false sense of domestic security and non-violence.
Objection: In remaing silent about past violences the family is returning to a normal life of domestic security.
Violence to end violence
Scene: Son saves father by unexpectedly shooting mobster
Claim: The legacy of violence is inescapable; It is only a matter of time before people are forced to resort to violent means.
Objections: The film also showcases substitutes to violence, such as the son's effective use of rhetoric to ward off the bully and the mom's verbal threats to the mobster (arguably also a form of violence). Also, despite the fact that the characters often seem to be in situations where force is the only option, there are usually foreseeable alternatives to murder available.
Claim: The legacy of violence is inescapable; It is only a matter of time before people are forced to resort to violent means.
Objections: The film also showcases substitutes to violence, such as the son's effective use of rhetoric to ward off the bully and the mom's verbal threats to the mobster (arguably also a form of violence). Also, despite the fact that the characters often seem to be in situations where force is the only option, there are usually foreseeable alternatives to murder available.
Tim, Elena, and Zach: A History of Violence
Scene: Tom's self-baptism in the lake outside Richie's house.
Claim: Tom carrying out this ritual does not make his rebirth final and true. Even after killing Joey in the desert, Tom had to revert back to that lifestyle when faced with his violent past. It is possible that Tom will, one day, again have to become Joey once more.
Objection: The ritual of something may not make it true, but the act is a demonstration of a willingness to change. Tom has finally dealt with his past, and hoping he will never have to confront it again, washes the blood from his hands, and is able to return to his family. Even though his family has witnessed him as he never wished they would, he has finished his business and wants only to live in peace.
Claim: Tom carrying out this ritual does not make his rebirth final and true. Even after killing Joey in the desert, Tom had to revert back to that lifestyle when faced with his violent past. It is possible that Tom will, one day, again have to become Joey once more.
Objection: The ritual of something may not make it true, but the act is a demonstration of a willingness to change. Tom has finally dealt with his past, and hoping he will never have to confront it again, washes the blood from his hands, and is able to return to his family. Even though his family has witnessed him as he never wished they would, he has finished his business and wants only to live in peace.
Alexia and Min's workshop piece
scene: Tom daughter screaming as sub for screaming of girl at Motel before she got shot
claim: text emphesises the ubiquitous nature of violence. Every act of violence produces another act of violence
objection: Violence does not solve anything, one act of voilence causes more
Rebuttal: without Tom's act of violence at the dinner more violence would have enssured from the incremental perspective, his violence decreased the possible sphere of violence
claim: text emphesises the ubiquitous nature of violence. Every act of violence produces another act of violence
objection: Violence does not solve anything, one act of voilence causes more
Rebuttal: without Tom's act of violence at the dinner more violence would have enssured from the incremental perspective, his violence decreased the possible sphere of violence
Saturday, June 20, 2009
A History of Violence
Scene: Joey/Tom Stalls kills out-of-town robbers in his diner.
Claim: It is human nature to resolve conflicts through violence.
Objection I: Settling disputes through violence does not solve conflicts because the repercussions follow one mentally, emotionally, and/or physically. Non-violent actions are morally superior and/or pragmatically more effective.
Objection II: Not all human beings resolve conflicts through violence.
Ex. Pacifists, Martin Luther King, Jr., Ghandi, Dalai Lama
Friday, June 19, 2009
A History of Violence Claim and Objection
A detail on which this depends: The one, lone, chubby older Sheriff goes out (on a long desolate road) to confront 3 or 4 scary, fierce mobsters.
What we first decided this meant:
The Sheriff is symbolic of the town's almost childlike innocence and simplicity. He is totally out of his element and unprepared to confront these other-worldly vicious men.
The objection to this claim that stuck out the most and was pretty damn cool:
Actually, the mobsters are wholly out of their element and unprepared to confront the town.
Prompts for the First Essaylet of the Take-Home Final Exam
For the Final Examination you will be producing two short essays, each 4-5pp. long. Each essaylet will be a close argumentative reading of your chosen text, and should demonstrate your facility with the four habits of argumentative writing. For each of the two essaylets I will offer you three prompts that will provide you with points of departure for your reading. If a prompt asks many questions, it is not demanding an answer to all of them, but providing different avenues of argument. The second set of prompts will arrive on the blog in a few days. Both essays constituting your final exam will be due at the beginning of our final scheduled class meeting.
1. ****Make and defend any strong claim you like about director David Cronenberg's film "A History of Violence," but you must substantiate that claim primarily through a close reading either of the opening sequence of the film (at the motel) or the closing sequence of the film (the wordless sequence at the lake and around the dinner table). Your essay should include a plausible case as to why the opening or closing scene is especially key or exemplary for the film as a whole for whatever it is you are illuminating through your reading of it.****
How does a history of violence shape the history that is made in its aftermath? Is the making of history always violent? Is history a kind of madness? What are the violences that suffuse the everyday rituals and familiar/familial exchanges that form the quotidian backdrop against which we need to compare the disruptions and violations we name violences? Can the substance of violence be represented without being exercised?
2. In Chapter 5 of Part One of Art Spiegelman's Maus, the living narrator-protagonist of a comic-within-the-comic accuses his Mother -- who has committed suicide -- of murdering him, while with his last word the (same?) narrator-protagonist concludes Part One by accusing his father of being a murderer as well, this time for destroying his dead Mother's diary.
In what sense might the completion of the book that is Maus come to substitute for the diary that was destroyed? In what ways do these books substitute for the lives they memorialize? In light of your answers to these questions, what is the significance of the tombstone which constitutes Maus's last image? Just what is it that is captured in the testimony that is Maus? What is captured (differently?) in the photographs that are reproduced throughout the narrative? What is lost? What is recaptured that was lost? Who survives?
****Focus on just one of these dimensions of Maus, survival, memorialization, testimony, or representation, and make a strong claim that you substantiate through a close reading of at least one of the moments in the text alluded to above and including at least one moment or element that is not included above.****
1. ****Make and defend any strong claim you like about director David Cronenberg's film "A History of Violence," but you must substantiate that claim primarily through a close reading either of the opening sequence of the film (at the motel) or the closing sequence of the film (the wordless sequence at the lake and around the dinner table). Your essay should include a plausible case as to why the opening or closing scene is especially key or exemplary for the film as a whole for whatever it is you are illuminating through your reading of it.****
How does a history of violence shape the history that is made in its aftermath? Is the making of history always violent? Is history a kind of madness? What are the violences that suffuse the everyday rituals and familiar/familial exchanges that form the quotidian backdrop against which we need to compare the disruptions and violations we name violences? Can the substance of violence be represented without being exercised?
2. In Chapter 5 of Part One of Art Spiegelman's Maus, the living narrator-protagonist of a comic-within-the-comic accuses his Mother -- who has committed suicide -- of murdering him, while with his last word the (same?) narrator-protagonist concludes Part One by accusing his father of being a murderer as well, this time for destroying his dead Mother's diary.
In what sense might the completion of the book that is Maus come to substitute for the diary that was destroyed? In what ways do these books substitute for the lives they memorialize? In light of your answers to these questions, what is the significance of the tombstone which constitutes Maus's last image? Just what is it that is captured in the testimony that is Maus? What is captured (differently?) in the photographs that are reproduced throughout the narrative? What is lost? What is recaptured that was lost? Who survives?
****Focus on just one of these dimensions of Maus, survival, memorialization, testimony, or representation, and make a strong claim that you substantiate through a close reading of at least one of the moments in the text alluded to above and including at least one moment or element that is not included above.****
Saturday, June 13, 2009
Need Precise Definition
Hi folks,
I am looking for a Dale delineated definition (name that figure) for Declarative/Indicative Utterance and Performative Speech.
Can anyone help? Please just post it if so. I also posted this question to the Google group newly created.
Thanks and good luck,
Dre
Friday, June 12, 2009
Google Group Rhetten Summer 09
I've created a google group for a class. You can get to it by clicking here
With the midterm on Monday, feel free to ask and to answer questions on the google group.
Good luck on the midterm everyone!
Friday, June 5, 2009
God is (sort of) Great
All three texts that we have read so far have made arguments which appealed to invisible authorities. This sort of appeal is perhaps most clearly present in Martin Luther King's "Letter From a Birmingham Jail," in which King posits God's moral law as the foundation of the justice with which man's law ought to align itself ("A just law is a law that squares with the moral code of God," - "of" here denoting both the moral law that belongs to God and the moral code that God is). We can find similar moves in Hecuba, where Odysseus justifies the sacrifice of Polyxena ("'of' here denoting...") on the grounds that it is the wish of Achilles', who functions as a kind of absent presence in the Hellene's arguments. Kant too posits "Nature" and "her secret" as being the driving forces behind human history as a way of interrogating the shape that such a history might take.
Appealing to an invisible authority, whether it be God, ghost, or Nature, seems to be a particularly tricky strategy as it allows the rhetor to fabricate an essential piece of the argument (I wonder too, what it says that in all three arguments this kind of appeal, which I think is at base an ethos appeal, is so central.) By "fabricate," I mean something like this: when Martin Luther King explains that he urges people to follow the law regarding the Brown v. Board decision because it is morally right, but to break the law in other cases that are morally wrong, is he not saying: obey God's law whether or not it coincides with federal, state, county or municipal law? In this argument, he entirely side-steps any law other than the law of God, in whose absence King will explicate. The appeal to a lacking authority grants the rhetor the power speak ethically in that authorities name.
It is also worth noting however, that none of the three arguments noted above rely solely on the invisible authority they invoke for their ethical effect. In the same paragraph that I quoted from King's letter above, he goes on to characterize God's law as being something that appeals to the dignity inherent in every human being - a very different kind of ethos move. Similarly, Odysseus buffets his argument with a claim about the undesirable effect that sparing Polyxena will have upon the Greek soldiers, and indirectly, upon Troy itself (an argument behind which lies brute, patriarchal, force as we discussed in class.) And while Kant uses claims about Nature to try and prove the rest of his case about human history, he tries to prove that his claims about Nature are true with a pathetic appeal to the effect that their being false would have upon the human subject.
Thus it seems that in a strange way these appeals to an absent, invisible, or otherwise lacking authority, are supported by appeals to present, tangible, utterly available subjects. In other words, an appeal to God sometimes conceals an appeal to humanity.
Appealing to an invisible authority, whether it be God, ghost, or Nature, seems to be a particularly tricky strategy as it allows the rhetor to fabricate an essential piece of the argument (I wonder too, what it says that in all three arguments this kind of appeal, which I think is at base an ethos appeal, is so central.) By "fabricate," I mean something like this: when Martin Luther King explains that he urges people to follow the law regarding the Brown v. Board decision because it is morally right, but to break the law in other cases that are morally wrong, is he not saying: obey God's law whether or not it coincides with federal, state, county or municipal law? In this argument, he entirely side-steps any law other than the law of God, in whose absence King will explicate. The appeal to a lacking authority grants the rhetor the power speak ethically in that authorities name.
It is also worth noting however, that none of the three arguments noted above rely solely on the invisible authority they invoke for their ethical effect. In the same paragraph that I quoted from King's letter above, he goes on to characterize God's law as being something that appeals to the dignity inherent in every human being - a very different kind of ethos move. Similarly, Odysseus buffets his argument with a claim about the undesirable effect that sparing Polyxena will have upon the Greek soldiers, and indirectly, upon Troy itself (an argument behind which lies brute, patriarchal, force as we discussed in class.) And while Kant uses claims about Nature to try and prove the rest of his case about human history, he tries to prove that his claims about Nature are true with a pathetic appeal to the effect that their being false would have upon the human subject.
Thus it seems that in a strange way these appeals to an absent, invisible, or otherwise lacking authority, are supported by appeals to present, tangible, utterly available subjects. In other words, an appeal to God sometimes conceals an appeal to humanity.
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Misconception of Time
I am curious to learn if any of you connected King's repudiation of the recommendation to "wait for justice" (as if justice is an inevitable effect of time's passing) and the decision of lawyers Olson and Boies to file a federal lawsuit seeking to invalidate Prop. 8. Many folks, including those who arguably hold leadership positions in the gay equality movement, deride this lawsuit as rushed and probably harmful to the acquiring of equal access to marriage for all, arguing instead for a state by state focused movement.
For my part, while I am terrified by the possibility of the Supreme Court closing down the discussion around equal access to marriage on even the state wide level, I am also interested to see how a federal lawsuit would actually play out. But, since this isn't a game and the stakes are too high to "play" I am pulled back toward the voices that say "wait" out of fear for losing the little we have. But then, considering King's words that "the time is always ripe to do right", I reconsider.
I guess it is also a matter of what the "right" in doing "right" is. Are there any instances where waiting is "right"?
My Dear Fellow Clergymen
Following is the public statement directed to Martin Luther King, Jr., by eight Alabama clergymen, which occasioned the reply assigned for tomorrow's discussion, "The Letter from the Birmingham City Jail."
April 12, 1963
We the undersigned clergymen are among those who, in January, issued "An Appeal for Law and Order and Common Sense, " in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts, but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed.
Since that time there had been some evidence of increased forbearance and a willingness to face facts. Responsible citizens have undertaken to work on various problems which cause racial friction and unrest. In Birmingham, recent public events have given indication that we all have opportunity for a new constructive and realistic approach to racial problems.
However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and lead in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.
We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area. And we believe this kind of facing of issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area, white and Negro, meeting with their knowledge and experi- ence of the local situation. All of us need to face that responsibility and find proper channels for its accomplishment.
Just as we formerly pointed out that "hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions." We also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.
We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement officials in particular, on the calm manner in which these demon- strations have been handled. we urge the public to continue to show restraint should the demonstrations continue, and the law enforcement officials to remain calm and continue to protect our city from violence.
We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. when rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense.
Signed by:
C. C. C. Carpenter, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Alabama
JOSEPH A. DURICK, D.D., Auxiliary Bishop, Diocese of Mobile-Birmingham
Rabbi, MILTON L. GRAFMAN, Temple Emanu-el, Birmingham, Alabama
Bishop PAUL HARDIN, Bishop of the Alabama-West Florida Conference of the Methodist Church
Bishop NOLAN B. HARMON, Bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the Methodist Church
GEORGE M. MURRAY, D.D., LL.D., Bishop Coadjutor, Episcopal Diocese of Alabama
EDWARD V. RAMAGE, Moderator, Synod of the Alabama Presbyterian Church in the United States
EARL STALLINGS, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama
April 12, 1963
We the undersigned clergymen are among those who, in January, issued "An Appeal for Law and Order and Common Sense, " in dealing with racial problems in Alabama. We expressed understanding that honest convictions in racial matters could properly be pursued in the courts, but urged that decisions of those courts should in the meantime be peacefully obeyed.
Since that time there had been some evidence of increased forbearance and a willingness to face facts. Responsible citizens have undertaken to work on various problems which cause racial friction and unrest. In Birmingham, recent public events have given indication that we all have opportunity for a new constructive and realistic approach to racial problems.
However, we are now confronted by a series of demonstrations by some of our Negro citizens, directed and lead in part by outsiders. We recognize the natural impatience of people who feel that their hopes are slow in being realized. But we are convinced that these demonstrations are unwise and untimely.
We agree rather with certain local Negro leadership which has called for honest and open negotiation of racial issues in our area. And we believe this kind of facing of issues can best be accomplished by citizens of our own metropolitan area, white and Negro, meeting with their knowledge and experi- ence of the local situation. All of us need to face that responsibility and find proper channels for its accomplishment.
Just as we formerly pointed out that "hatred and violence have no sanction in our religious and political traditions." We also point out that such actions as incite to hatred and violence, however technically peaceful those actions may be, have not contributed to the resolution of our local problems. We do not believe that these days of new hope are days when extreme measures are justified in Birmingham.
We commend the community as a whole, and the local news media and law enforcement officials in particular, on the calm manner in which these demon- strations have been handled. we urge the public to continue to show restraint should the demonstrations continue, and the law enforcement officials to remain calm and continue to protect our city from violence.
We further strongly urge our own Negro community to withdraw support from these demonstrations, and to unite locally in working peacefully for a better Birmingham. when rights are consistently denied, a cause should be pressed in the courts and in negotiations among local leaders, and not in the streets. We appeal to both our white and Negro citizenry to observe the principles of law and order and common sense.
Signed by:
C. C. C. Carpenter, D.D., LL.D., Bishop of Alabama
JOSEPH A. DURICK, D.D., Auxiliary Bishop, Diocese of Mobile-Birmingham
Rabbi, MILTON L. GRAFMAN, Temple Emanu-el, Birmingham, Alabama
Bishop PAUL HARDIN, Bishop of the Alabama-West Florida Conference of the Methodist Church
Bishop NOLAN B. HARMON, Bishop of the North Alabama Conference of the Methodist Church
GEORGE M. MURRAY, D.D., LL.D., Bishop Coadjutor, Episcopal Diocese of Alabama
EDWARD V. RAMAGE, Moderator, Synod of the Alabama Presbyterian Church in the United States
EARL STALLINGS, Pastor, First Baptist Church, Birmingham, Alabama
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)