Signing Off the Blog ...

Dear Everyone:

Thanks for a thoughtful and engaging semester, on and off the blog. Your propensity for working through critical problems was wonderful for me to witness. I hope you feel the benefit as keenly as I have felt it. Good luck finishing up this week. In my "spare time," I'm going to see if I can convert our blog into an e-book -- or, at the very least, into a PDF -- and make it available to you as a memento of the course, particularly for those posts that became your favorites.

Stay tuned,
-Prof. Graban

The Dam: Chinese Communist Party

If you love TED talks, or are perplexed by how a third world communist country can grow so fast, or are interested in how Confucius is inextricably connected to China's cultural identity, or you doubt whether Chinese Racial Superiority exists: Watch this entire video. You will be enlightened and you may find something you would like to look deeper into.
://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/martin_jacques_understanding_the_rise_of_china.html

"The Chinese view the state, not just as an intimate member of the family … but as the head of the family.”

The Chinese people represented in the documentary were presented in multiple lights. The farmers seem to be fatalistic. They are unhappy with their lives, without education, and by the nature of their very philosophy, they are hopeless. They feel that by sending their daughter to work they are exploiting her, when in reality, this is a result of the state exploiting them. Even with these feelings, their belief in fate gives them no sense of agency. I believe in this section of the film we see the oppressiveness of an authoritarian communist state. Instead of seeing the money trickle down from a regulated enterprise into the pockets of the workers, we see that the state's main financial interests is in maintaining a strong national symbol, a dam.


While the dam may represent a powerful economy, it does not represent individual freedom.

We see never see a strong sense of cultural identity like Jacques discusses (the ideological origins are explained in the video I introduced at the beginning of this post).But in one scene, where a state representative is showing us fake relocatee homes, he tells us that all Chinese are happy. This is clearly a lie. It is a form of national propaganda. Espousing the feat of having created a utopia has been done by many communist governments in the past, up until their final days.

The entertainer seems to be the only other Chinese person represented in the film who is not miserable. He is portrayed as being "westernized" in order to gain capital.  All of his mannerisms, etiquette, seem artificially western. The director may want to present the idea that authentic Chinese culture is being washed away by free market modernization. Is this for the greater good? Is this even what is really happening? Isn't it just as easy to say that the ideals of a communist government are responsible?  There is not a single message to take away from this film, nor a single exploiter, however, the families along the Yangtze are definitely victims.

"Up the Yangtze" definitely supports my view that the unlimited authority of the state exploits/marginalizes its laborers in order to create a strong symbol of state power. Instead of seeing a good example of trickle-down economics, we see the working class being exploited and ignored by the state. The state controls most of the enterprises and therefore most of the money. This is why instead of seeing the worker's receiving humane wages and pursuing happiness, we see them being forced off of the state's land. We see them, but their government does not. The damn is supposed to be a symbol of economic progress, but can also be viewed as a symbol of state oppression. Here we see Burke's example of symbols using people instead of people using symbols.

Psycho vs. Psycho

In 1960, Alfred Hitchcock introduced one of the most influential killer thriller's of the 20th century.  Of any century really.  Psycho.  This film currently has a %99 on rottentomatoes.com for you film critics.  In 1998, director Gus Van Sant made the equivalent of a carbon copy of Hitchcock's original, beloved horror classic.  This film, which completely replicated everything Hitchcock did from angles to the way in which the actors performed their lines.  This film currently has a %36 on rottentomatoes.com.  That's a hell of a difference between two films which are arguably the exact same...save for the fact that one's in color and the other's eerily in black and white.

What does this say about replicating art in Benjamin's essay?  According to him, "Even the most perfect reproduction of a work of art is lacking in one element:  its presence in time and space" (1234).  What does this mean?  Just because Hitchcock made his in 1960 it's suddenly better than the exact same film made in 1998?  Maybe.  He elaborates on the reproduced work of art and claims that the "quality of it's presence is always depreciated" (1235).  The vast difference between the success of the films demonstrates how complicated the relationship is between the original and its replica.  It makes me wonder if there's every a way in which replication can be accomplished in a positive light.

McCloud

There's a distinct relationship between Locke's "mixed modes" (818) and McCloud's icons.
Most notably when thinking about words as icons.  Consider the image on page 28 of McCloud's deconstruction of icons.  We see the image of a man's face donning the image of an anatomical eye and then the word eye--but we understand that they both mean the same thing despite one of them having no place on a person's face.

I feel as if this illustrates the problem with language and emphasizes Locke's notion of the "arbitrary imposition of men" (817).  It many ways it both complicates and celebrates it. We assign signification arbitrarily as depicted in the image.  There's no reason to indicate that the anatomical 'eye' should be called 'eye'--e-y-e.  But at the same time...it is "e-y-e."  We've come to recognize it so therefore it has essence.  But our eyes are arguably very concrete--when we introduce "mixed modes" that gets slightly more complicated.  We cannot draw hope, yet we understand the implications behind it.  We can adapt symbols such as say...a dove...well I guess that's peace...I digress.  We'll just use a dove.  A dove can symbolize hope, and we understand the implications, yet there's no concrete evidence of hope because it's merely a concept.    

Takarazuka and Gender

I was staring at the poster in my room I bought after watching Takarazuka for the first time in Japan, and I couldn't help wondering how Butler might apply to the theater troupe.

First, Takarazuka is an all-female musical theater group, famous for its otokuyaku (male role-players). Typically, the musicals staged by Takarazuka follow similar plot lines: a man falls in love with a beautiful and innocent young woman, but before their feelings for each other can become manifest, some villainous type comes to stand in their way (there are often love triangles).  I watched the troupe's staging of The Great Gatsby on DVD, and I was surprised to see Daisy transformed into a young, selfless woman who only wanted to love her daughter and true love, Gatsby. I didn't remember the story unfolding quite like that...

Butler writes, "It would make no sense, then, to define gender as the cultural interpretation of sex, if sex is itself a gendered category.  Gender ought not to be conceived merely as the cultural inscription of meaning on a  pregiven sex (a jurdical conception); gender must also designate the very apparatus of production whereby the sexes themselves are established."(10)

An interesting aspect to Takarazuka is that both musumeyaku (female role-players) and otokoyaku (male role-player) must undertake rigorous training to learn how to act feminine and masculine, demonstrating Butler's concept that gender is performative. The Revue often deflects questions about sexuality presented in their performances by repeating their motto (typically, there is nothing beyond kissing on the cheek in a performance, but in regards to fans' fascination with Takarazuka, the Revue insists that, despite whatever reason fans may come, their performances are not sexual): "Modesty, Fairness, and Grace." In maintaining the legitimacy of this motto, the Revue depends on sex as "a gendered category."

In their need to teach both actresses how to perform their respective genders, the Revue reveals their motives to promote certain ideals through gender. The behaviors they teach are not so much what is real (if their gender were representative of reality, then why would the musumeyaku need such rigorous training?), but what will best promote their motto.

They rely on "sex" as a "gendered category" to hide their particular structuring of gender. They demonstrate gender is performative, but deflect questions about sexuality by insisting on their actresses "real" sexes as females, implying that within that category of sex is a natural inclination toward heteronormativity. They genderize sex, relying on its definition as a natural construct, in order to hide the true unstable nature of gender made evident  through their performances.

The Viewer's Broken Mirror

I found it rather interesting that during our in-class discussion regarding Up the Yangtze we took some time to assess the ways in which the film effected the viewer emotionally.  The assessment, however, was not simply directed at the way in which the emotionally charged film drew tears, but the ways in which it could actually make us feel bad based on the ground that we shared even the slightest thing in common with some of the more villainous characters.

It is not an easy thing to do to admit ones faults in a manner such as this.  The number of critics who have praised this film is practically without number, but very few of their reviews actually touch on their own feelings of self-insufficiency in watching the film.  I suppose that it is possible that some viewers simply see themselves as too far removed from the terrible passengers of the cruise to take note of this, but it is also possible that it is a result of the human being's nature to avoid things that are unpleasant and through praising the film remove any pent-up feelings that they may have accrued throughout their viewing. 

This idea of self-awareness skewed is something I find particularly interesting in regards to not only this film, but a great deal of media in the United States.

In a way, the idea detailed here can be seen through the eyes of Burke's idea of terministic screen.  His ideas regarding the importance of past events on the formation of our opinions and expression can be seen as relating to the viewers, while his exploration of the ways in which the different terministic screens of different people can result in a great deal of controversy and sadness.  A controversy and sadness that is very difficult to remedy due to the fact it is so deeply ingrained into our being.

Yangtze Dam: A Split Towards Capitalism II

The corrupted communistic ideal is presented clearly in the Yangtze dam.  As the dam splits the Yangtze, so does it split the country further from this ideal towards capitalism.  The dam steals the voice of those along the river and redistributes it back to those in power.  Those along the river have no say, no voice, concerning the impact such a construction will have on their lives.  This is how corruption works in capitalism and communism.  At the beginning, the cause is the purest.  Those who are placed in power seek to better the entirety of the community and progress together towards a brighter future.  However, they also far to often fall into the trap of corruption and see something they want, or the few would like.  Decisions made will always divide groups between the benefactors and those that take a loss.  What happens in corruption is that the same groups always benefit, while the others take the loss.  This happens until all of the representative power of the lessor is lost with the exception of their labor and physical power, which is suppressed by the benefactors.  Those along the banks of the Yangtze are a sample of the downtrodden, those who always lose.  If this process took place randomly, then there would be the greatest distribution of power and wealth to the middle.  Unfortunately, that is how the world works.  People will say "life isn't fair", but shouldn't it be?  We should level the playing field, but first we must try.

Up the Yangtze, Education, and Agency

     Awhile ago I talked about education vs agency. Now I want to talk about education vs agency vs representation. It seems to me like a person's level of education will greatly affect a person's ability to represent themselves which increases their agency. Cindy's father makes this fairly clear in Up the Yangtze. He seems to be represented by everyone but himself. The tour guide speaks for him when he goes to visit the dam and says that he is poor and uneducated so he doesn't understand and he is angry at the government. It is true that he is poor and uneducated but that doesn't mean his voice should be stunted like that. Later we hear Cindy's father talking about the government and saying something about the fact that he can't read and doesn't have a TV to watch the news so he can't pass judgment on such things. He even stunts his own voice here.

     Cindy's father is capable of recognizing his injustice and his tough situation but it's almost as if he doesn't recognize his own ability to speak because he is uneducated. It's hard to pinpoint the exact reason but I imagine that if he were able to learn about all the people around the world that were struggling just like he is, he would not be so willing to write off his own opinion. If he were only more aware of others in his plight he would make his voice just a little louder and not allow others to misrepresent him. Instead he would be able to represent himself in the midst of his troubles. I think the education would lead to agency which would lead to representation.

Up the Yangtze: a careful representation of Chinese peasantry.

Throughout the duration of the film Up the Yangtze, I was overwhelmed with Cheng's careful attention to  his representation of Cindy's family, and the other members of their economic class. Carefully, Cheng's interview with these people developed a unified voice for those whose stories are usually never heard, or are often oppressed by their economic standing. Here we uncover in this film, that those whose lives are most immediately and deeply affected by the Chinese government's dam project are those whose voices are not heard, their woes shrugged off for the greater good of the country.


If Cheng had not approached his work in this documentary carefully enough he could have falsely  and mistakingly represented these people in the trope the western world associates with the chinese peasant. A trope all to loudly represented in the comic "The Blue Lotus" by Tin-tin's author Hergé. This comic series has been sited as a good place to expose the ins and outs of post colonial racism, in this specific comic the trope of chinese peasant appears only as: an impoverished man with deeply cut cheek bones, ribs that stick out, always running barefoot in the streets, making his money by transporting western tourists.

This trope of "The Blue Lotus" is connected in the role Cindy is asked to play on the tour boat, but instead of representing Cindy as another basic representative of chinese peasantry, Cheng allows us to understand the troubles of the class of people she and her family represent by inviting us directly into their home. As if answering Johnson's call Cheng does not settle for the "'dog-like', 'fawn-like'"(Johnson 388) basic representation of a people and allows the story to unfold how we understand Cindy's position. A girl forced into working a cruise boat in an effort to help her family, at the price of submitting herself constantly to an imperial regime. She is taught to wear make-up, smile constantly, and never discuss politics in order to make more tips. As Burke to clearly explains, "A can feel himself identified with B, or he can think of himself as disassociated from B" (Burke 49). Cheng builds on this binary first allowing us to see for ourselves the deplorable poverty Cindy and her family live, completely separated and juxtaposed from the grandeur of the cruise ship. And then he asks his audience to chose who to identify with, the lower classes he interviews or the Tin-tin like character, the westerner who turns in Jerry for asking for a tip, the westerner who wishes to visit a country and be guided blindly through so they may leave believing "Everyone is Happy. "

Yangtze Dam: A Split Towards Capitalism I

Let's face it, there has never been a truly communistic country.  Sure, there have been countries that consider themselves communist, but by human nature the ideal of a communist country has always been corrupted.  A true communism is not one for all or all for one, it is all for all or none for none.  This puts responsibility on everyone, but at least the burden is spread out.  This is opposed to capitalism where much the decision making power is distributed to the most influential and wealthy, while the poor bear the brunt of the labor.  That is human psychology for you.  Thinking can be too hard for some individuals, so they give up their power in exchange for security, at least for a while.  But it is too easy to forget this exchange and often those in power thirst for more and press on those beneath them to extract what little value they can at a much greater cost.  There is a paradox involved with the Yangtze dam, however.  The dam is constructed for the good of the country and provides electricity for many homes, but at the cost of the homes of the poor along the river, who receive little compensation for their great sacrifice and contribution to the country.  At what point does hurting the little guy hurt the country?  This is a numbers game, I would not like to play because it deals with human emotions and lives on which I dare not place a specific value.  But decisions must be made, so what are the ethics we should go by?  The Yangtze dam both hurts and helps the ideal of communism by displacing the poor and providing electricity to many homes.  However, if we were to look at who benefited the most from its construction, I am certain we would find a few individuals who received much more for their labor than would be justified in comparison to the meager amount payed to those displaced.  This is the power of corruption and it inherently exists in any capitalist system.  Too many capitalize on the broken backs of the peasants along the Yangtze for it to be anything close to true communism.

Up the Yangtze- Thoughts on Jerry

One question that I seem to be struggling with is whether Jerry can be considered part of the subaltern.  A reigning factor in what makes someone part of the subaltern is their "voicelessness."  The inability to voice their own words and the natural inclination for misinterpretation goes against the idea that the subaltern are not a simple categorization of “being postcolonial or the member of an ethnic minority,” (Spivak 808).  This leads to my question on what Jerry is really a part of.  He states in the movie that he is part of a higher social position than Cindy and that his family has more money.  In my personal opinion, Jerry is a spoiled brat who is self centered.  However, I do not think he is part of the subaltern.  His ability to strongly voice his opinions and his motive is directly stated for others to hear.  His motivation is to make more money.  With this statement alone, it doesn't leave any room for misinterpretation.  However, there is the argument that he is also part of the subaltern because he is unable to state his voice of concern to the flooding of the river.  Although the movie's main focus was not on Jerry, I think the movie does a great job in putting the concern on what position Jerry fits into.  
 

D'Etre

I’m trying to figure out why Cooper chose the title of the excerpt from A Voice from the South entitled “Our Raison D’Etre” (Our Reason for Existence). I’m assuming that “our” is referring to Black Women.  Cooper’s article clearly states that there is “no word from the Black Woman” (379).  There is a void left open in literature that comes from an absence of an authentic take on the Black Woman.  Instead there is a representation of the Black Woman based on others’ experiences with Black Women.  I suppose the Reason for Existence could be to be sure that their true voice is put out there and heard. Cooper notes that she wants not only “a black man honestly and appreciatively portraying both the Negro as he is, and the white man, occasionally, as seen from the Negro’s standpoint” (383).    Now that I’m thinking more about it, I think that the “our” is referring to everyone.  Everyone needs to make sure that there are accurate portrayals instead of representations of many based on small encounters.   Cooper also sees nobility in the soul.  She quotes Shakespeare “Tis not only safer, but nobler, grander, diviner, to be that which we destroy than, by destruction, dwell in doubtful joy” (384).  The existence of Black Women seems to be based on choosing to be the object of criticism instead of trying to find happiness through breaking down others.  Our Reason for Existence seems to have multiple levels.  Perhaps Black Women would rather stay silent over using words to inaccurately portray others.  In the end Cooper wants the voice of the Black Woman to be heard, so I think Black Women exist therefore they should be heard.