Seminar in Liberal Studies, Essay 03, Final

Patrick Masson

Elaine Handley

Seminar in Liberal Studies (East)

December 15, 2008

She, Not We, Will Prevail: Feminism in Postmodern Technology

Today, we celebrate the first glorious anniversary of the Information Purification Directives. We have created, for the first time in all history, a garden of pure ideology. Where each worker may bloom secure from the pests of contradictory and confusing truths. Our Unification of Thoughts is more powerful a weapon than any fleet or army on earth. We are one people, with one will, one resolve, one cause. Our enemies shall talk themselves to death and we will bury them with their own confusion. We shall prevail! (1984)

Seminar in Liberal Studies Essay #2, Final

Ambiguity in Meaning for Understanding

Who are you? The simplicity of these three words belies the complexity in understanding the sentence’s meaning, that is, the potential within the question and the possibilities for a response. This simple example illustrates the unappreciated relationships between the requester, the respondent, their shared environment, and even their separate histories. Each of these must be identified, interpreted and agreed upon in order to assign meaning, transfer knowledge and gain understanding. Again, consider “Who are you?” What ideas, concerns, or knowledge, could promote such an inquiry? Once the question is put forth, it is subject to interpretation by the respondent, from the literal, “I am Patrick Masson,” to the conceptual, “I am with you.” Beyond this initial exchange lies the potential, or, how the inquisitor, in return, may interpret any of the possible responses. Jonathon Culler, states, “communication depends on the basic convention that participants are cooperating with one another and that, therefore, what one person says to the other is likely to be relevant” (25). A relevant response to “Who are you?” cannot be provided unless one considers the context in which this question is asked. Where am I? What is my relationship to the person requesting the information? What will my response illicit in return? For example, upon entering a room I would not at all be surprised to hear, “Who are you?” from a person standing in front of others, especially if this where the first day of school and I had just entered a classroom. But what if, rather than a classroom, I had entered a bank with a robbery underway? How might I respond differently to that same person standing in front of others if I were a mere citizen, a uniformed police officer, or a psychiatrist? And going further, consider an alternate perspective, how might my response change if the question came from the bank robber, an injured victim or, perhaps a police officer? My interpretation of the question, the response I might give, and my expectations for the future—the meaning I attribute to the words, the knowledge passed and understanding derived—would surely vary in each of these scenarios. As interpersonal and cultural norms are established meaning and even context are assigned, often despite the literal translation of the words or the specific situation those in discussion may find themselves. To my point, consider another common question, “How are you?” Are we always as “fine” as we attest in response, or do we (have we come to) understand this question and its response as simply salutations?

Subject for Essay: Exile or Truth?

I’ve been thinking a lot about my first writing assignment for Seminar, and was initially thinking about Edward Said’s role of the exile. I was wondering if the exile can still exist considering todays open communities. One of Said’s observations was that the exiled individual is removed from both the physical and metaphysical world. Most obvious is the physical exile, in that they can be physically removed, for example, from an organization and no longer able to attend functions, or from a country, unable to participate in government/society.

Intellectualism?

Last weekend our cohort attended a required Residency. It was a great opportunity to meet everyone (most of the work is online). Several folks have begun to post comments online about the discussions. I have to admit, I was pretty disappointed. It seems apparent that one of the course objectives for us in these introductory graduate courses is to learn to reason, investigate, question, etc. at a graduate level. However, throughout the Residency, emotional pleas, national pride, personal anecdotes, etc. made their way into the conversations.  I agree with Edward Said, “…the principle intellectual duty is the search for relative independence from such pressures” [personal, religion, nationality, race, etc.] and contrary to “a single universal standard.” I posted:

To be brutally honest, I was very disappointed with many of our discussions. Several times, personal stories and anecdotal evidence were cited to either preface comments (perhaps to avoid being judged), to add credence to an interpretation of an issue, or even make a point.

This, the inability to make an argument based on evidence, rather than evoking emotion or appealing to the group, was really much more interesting to me than the actual topics, and highlights our deficiencies in our ability to carry out an intellectual exorcise. I know I would very much like to reach a point where my outlook, decision-making and direction are free of emotional, national, personal, etc. influences.

It is important to admit that one may never reach this point, however we must acknowledge that this is the goal.

Hey, I am completely willing to admit that I may have this all wrong. With a solid four weeks of graduate work under my belt, I hardly think I am in position to comment intellegently on the role of, or even making of an intellectual. I wonder how this will be percieved by the class?

The Intellectual as an Exile

I am very interested in Said’s ideas around the exile. Looking at the quote, provided, “Insiders promote special interests, but intellectuals should be the ones to question patriotic nationalism, corporate thinking, and a sense of class, racial or gender privilege,” I am drawn to the result of this questioning: exile. Both Said and Du Bois provide accounts of those who have questioned accepted practices, resulting in exile–often from not only the groups they would hae expected, but those with whom they may have felt a closer relationship to. I am think of Du Bois account of the John.

In my paper I would like to explore if, considering todays gloabal connectivity, one can actually be an exile. That is, can a group shut out those that desent? And, can those who desent actaully affect a group who shuns them?

Seminar: First Essay, “What is an Intellectual?”

Well we have our first assignment: an essay of 2000 words (approximately eight double-spaced pages; please keep your paper as close to 2000 words as possible) that engages issues from DuBois, Said, and possibly Pratt.

Discuss the following quotation from Said’s introduction:

One task of the intellectual is the effort to break down the stereotypes and reductive categories that are so limiting to human thought and communication… .Insiders promote special interests, but intellectuals should be the ones to question patriotic nationalism, corporate thinking, and a sense of class, racial or gender privilege. (xi-xiii)

Explore similarities and differences between the authors, and analyze each author in terms of his/her historical and cultural context.

A Reaction to Said

One post within the Seminars’ discussion stated, “To watch and comment is to remove oneself from the experience. To advocate for a cause or corporation is to conform to a policy, therefore no longer challenging or questioning reasons for actions. Once you conform, the motive for advocating becomes a profession or a mission for another’s cause, are you an intellectual or a lobbyist?”

I offered, “There is always room for reflection.“

Said’s Human Freedom and Knowledge

In another Seminar post, the role of the intellectual came up. Throughout the thread folks touched on a variety of issues revolving around how an individual intellectual lives in, reacts to, participates in, is informed by the group in which they are commenting.

There were some great questions that came up. “How does the intellectual stand both outside society and inside society? How does the intellectual find common ground between what is of deeply personal and private interest? What is of public interest? and how does the intellectual take on him or her self with the changing issues of society, and at the same time remain true to certain unchanging principles?

My comments, while brief, tried to emphasize the metaphysical (ideas, perception, adoption, agreement, etc.) rather than the physical (location, membership, etc.), “If one is not in a society (group) they could not comment about it? I believe Said is describing the consequences of speaking “truth to power.” That is, once the insider within society learns of an issue and raises it to the authorities, they become an outsider in exile.

Going Public with Language

In a recent post to the Seminars course and within the following thread, the language of the intellectual was discussed. Folks in class were discussing the specific language, vocabulary, vernacular and jargon of, not intellectuals as a whole, but even within specific disciplines or professions. I suggested that it might be appropriate to extend language to communications, and include the mode of communications.

I think language is just another part of society and, looking at [another student’s] post regarding the common theme of “social disconnect,” would extend language to communications, that is, not only what and how something is said and who says it, but the channel through which it is conveyed. Adding to Gouldner’s observations of the vernacular or jargon of specialized groups, I would offer groups each use specific channels to communicate, which add to or distract from the message. Examples might include: journals and lectures for academics; news papers, television and magazines for the government; the internet (blogs, wikis and email) for conspiracists.

Intellectual Faith???

In response to my post regarding faith and God, another classmate wrote, “I agree with your observations and tend to think that an intellectual has to have faith…”

To which I responded, “Just to be clear, I do not think faith is an intellectual trait. If an intellectual were to rely on faith, they would never question, reflect, assess, etc. the current environment of the established doctrine. They would take it on faith that the current practices are correct.”