I just realized I never really blogged about the final presentations we did last week. My group focused on comparing the graphic novel of Jane Eyre to the BBC series we watched earlier in the semester. I thought it was incredibly fascinating to look at something that is entirely based in the visual rather than the visual. The assumptions and conclusions that one makes from a written work are based off of textual evidence and imagination. However, when words are sparse and visuals are everywhere, you are being told in a different way, how you should think.

So going into the graphic novel with that understanding, I was still incredibly surprised at what we were being told to think. Bertha Mason, as we discussed in our presentation, made a complete transformation into the 'other'. The only semblance of humanity she retained was her feminine figure--the rest was completely transformed into animal (of the gorilla variety). Why did the artist choose to do this? Why did he keep her figure, but make her walk on the tops of her hands?

While it was funny to talk about it in class, I was really disturbed by her depiction--as well as the female depictions in general. Jane was wearing an incredulous amount of makeup, Blanche looked more like a sculpture than a live human being, etc. What was the intent? Here we are given the madwoman in the attic and the 'angel in the kitchen' (is that what the other one is called? i can't remember). It is very clear what the artist is trying to say about gender roles. However, it is curious that Blanche should be the most regally depicted character. Under what I assume to be a gender bias, one would almost think that Blanche should be the one Rochester chooses in the end--based on the artist's depictions.

It is unnerving to think that some people will only ever be exposed to radically hurtful images such as the ones presented in this graphic novel. The perception and treatment of women can only be perpetuated by ignorance/complicity/etc. and pictures like these almost give permission for it.

Now that the semester is coming to a close, with all of my classes finished (holy shit!) and only three final projects to turn in--I'm left feeling pretty satisfied. While I was technically only in two classroom setting classes this semester, I feel like I learned more this semester than I did in any other. Specifically, this class has taught me to open my eyes towards places I would have never believed I was blind to. After being able to read the variety of texts that we did, I definitely have a lot of theories that I'll be able to carry with me and hopefully apply in any context that I can.

I think using this class in the context of Jane Eyre was the means for grounding us in theory. While we could have just read through De Beauvoir, hooks, Lorde, Mohanty, Spivak, etc. we instead used Jane Eyre as the common ground between all--complicating our understanding of both the story and the theories through the use of a grounded example. I really liked this method of learning, because I know I definitely learned.

Another method that genuinely helped my ability to grasp certain concepts was the Zine projects that we worked on. Being able to talk about theory in class is one thing, but to convey it with far less words and perhaps more images is something else entirely. You have to be very economical with your choices if you want your point to get across. I definitely learned a lot just from looking through the various zines we made.

Overall I'm crazy satisfied with how this class went--I wish I had taken more like it throughout my MSU career, or at least had more access to theory.

I remember Dr. Renzi talking about an email she received not too long ago from MSU administrators. The email stated that Professors have an obligation to report cases of sexual assault that has either been admitted to them by the student, or perhaps a case of suspected assault. I just read this article from the Huffington Post about Title IX--a 40 year old federal gender equity law that also talks about cases of rape.  Essentially, I found out that if a school does too little to enforce this law or does too about sexual assault can lose federal funding.

I thought that was really interesting--especially tied to the email that Dr. Renzi received. Is this recent administrative awareness about sexual assault on campus due to the controversy that happened on campus last year (where two MSU basketball players were accused of taking turns raping a woman) even though no criminal action was ever taken? I doubt it. It seems, like aways, that there is a power structure in place. And when it is beneficial--or required--to act a certain way, that is the way in which people/whatever act.

I realize this is a pretty cynical take, and hopefully this stronger awareness of sexual assault can lead to a decrease in such acts, but I'm not sure that forcing professors to 'tattle' on their students is what is best for the students who have already been through something unimaginable.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/23/for-colleges-rape-cases-a_n_1445271.html?ref=college

Yesterday's class was really interesting for me. I couldn't stop thinking about the classroom dynamic. I feel like there is this propensity to believe that if there is a 'diverse' classroom, then there needs to be an acknowledgment--either upfront or by yourself--of the diversity. However, this usually happens on an individual level. If we were taking me for example, I would be seen as the "Jewish" one, and would have the ability to speak for the Jewish people in terms of my own personal experiences in class discussion. It doesn't really seem fair that I have to represent an entire religion. Likewise, it doesn't seem fair that someone would have to speak for their own cultural group based off of color, religion, geographic location, sexual preference, gender, age, etc.

In class I said I think it ought to be mentioned in the beginning of any class that a disclaimer should be mentioned. It should be an acknowledgment of the individuality within the room, but that no individual should ever have to speak for whatever group they may or may not wish to be associated with.

While it may seem like one of those statements that don't need to be said, because everyone just assumes it, those are often those most forgotten sentiments. For the sake of knowledge, identifying structural concepts is more important than a spokesperson. What I mean by concepts is understanding the historical and structural background that has formulated the spokesperson's experiences. We cannot pretend that by getting one person's viewpoint on a certain matter means we understand the matter entirely. Yes, learning from each other's personal experiences is important for many reasons (a key reason that is slightly unrelated, is the mere ability to have effective communication and listening abilities), however, it is not a holistic understanding.

This is where I think detrimental knowledge comes into place. When one claims to have knowledge of a certain topic, but really this knowledge came from a singular perspective--there is much that is missing. This missing information, or the misinformation the individual holds, can be dangerous.

I don't mean to cut this off short, but my computer is about to die! I hope some of this makes sense...

So I've been thinking about what I can do for the creative portion of my final project, and I think I have a pretty good idea. I was thinking about how all we've read is theory so far in this class, which makes sense as it is a theory class. However, I've been a little frustrated throughout the class trying to reconcile theory and real life application. Yes someone may have a flawless feminist theory, and it could be the most beautiful piece of writing ever seen--but can it actually be transformed outside of the page and into people's physical actions? I'm not so sure. I do hope it is possible though!

So going along with that, I think that my creative portion will be a 'Campaign in a Box.' I'll create an entire campaign along the lines of my theory of complicity so that there isn't just the theoretical, there is the empirical as well. The campaign box will include a full campaign plan--targets, tactics, strategies, goals, coalition partners, events, timelines, sample petitions, etc. It'll also have a how-to guide for starting a new campaign either by yourself or with a group of people. I will do my best to have this be as realistic as possible so that if anyone were ever interested in using the materials for the campaign I create, or any campaign at all, they could utilize my 'Campaign in a Box' and not only talk about change--but facilitate it as well.

What do you guys think?

So I was really interested in our class discussion today and the issues brought up from our reading. I thought Mohanty did a good job at finding a new facet through which to understand solidarity beyond the confines of sisterhood. I think the most important aspect of her explanation, and the aspect that I most agreed with, was that of mobility. Someone needs to come from somewhere before they can be in solidarity with you. Where was it? It could have been on the side you are opposed to. But because Mohanty stresses the possibility of mobility, it means that we are not stuck in the same rut that previous understandings have caused.

I think that is also what keeps the individuality within the 'we.' If the individual decides to move to the side you are on, then it was their individual choice. Now that they're in a group, though, some would say that their individuality is lost. However, they can make the exact same choice to leave your group. That freedom will always be there (oh god, I hope!). This is not the case with the example of sisterhood, as Professor Renzi brought up today. If you have a sister, than you will always have a sister--that cannot change. However, with reflective solidarity, it calls for the constant reexamination of what it is you are in solidarity with. I can dig that :)

After finishing Wide Sargasso Sea, by Jean Rhys, I couldn't help but feel a little overwhelmed. The story of the mysterious "madwoman in the attic" is revealed in these 100 or so pages. Her name is not Bertha, but Antoinette, like her mother. Antoinette (jr)'s story is told in three parts. The first is of her upbringing, how she grew up in a home of slave owners falling into disarray because the Emancipation law had been passed. Her time was spent isolated but filled with the beauty of her surroundings. The second part of her story is told mostly in (who we assume to be) Mr. Rochester's voice. His story fills in the details of how the two came to be met in matrimony. But more importantly, it tells the story of their rapid decline as companions and the complete deterioration of any remnants of naiveté either of them had. Then, the third part of the story, which is only a handful of pages, is the only portion of the novella which takes place in England. It chooses a couple of important characters to place in the story (Grace, Richard, Jane, Rochester) to give the reader a sense of timeline in terms of Jane Eyre itself. 

What I found most interesting throughout the novella, was the theme of insanity. Bertha in Jane Eyre is normally the character most associated with insanity--the madwoman in the attic. However, Wide Sargasso Sea, provides the opportunity to take a closer look at what it means to be insane--and whether our eye has been too carefully locked on Antoinette. While Antoinette's narrative in the first portion of the novella is disjointed and unreliable, it is the unnamed Mr. Rochester who's narrative we call even further into question. This happens because his narrative demands that we believe he is the sane one--that he is the victim. However, as the story progresses, he is the one who starts falling apart in a much more visible way. He begins hearing the thoughts of Christophine during a lengthy conversation at the end.

But what is most interesting about this look into the 'insanity' of any character, I think, is the environmental impact that led up to such a claim. Antoinette's mother was believed to have always been insane, however, from the story Antoinette tells, we are led to believe that it could have been the events happening around her which caused it--or at least exacerbated it. Antoinette seems to be following down the same path.

While this story precedes the 20th century, I think it's interesting to compare it to the massive popularity eugenics policy had during that time. Most scientists, Robert Yerkes for example, did not believe that the environment had any impact on a person's intelligence. That has since been disproved. But the implications of ignoring people's experiences are massive. They have led to the dehumanization of characters such as Bertha, because she is written off immediately as the insane one. It takes a closer examination (albeit even a fictitious one) to understand that things are never as simple as they may seem.