FYI: for Monday and the final

November 30, 2017

The final exam has been posted on Blackboard. The assigned reading for Monday is Sara Ahmed’s essay, “Affective Economies.”

See you then,
Elizabeth

Assignment #13

December 3, 2017

Sara Ahmed discusses emotion and its significance to human connection in her article, “Affective Economics”. When analyzing the concept of hate and love, Ahmed shows how much of the tension and political uproar we see in America today against migrants, is not necessarily due to hatred. She says how hatred is never the core emotion, but that it is concocted thru feelings of endangerment for the things we love. When it comes to migrants, white nationalists don’t hate them for who they are, but hate how the things they love (their idea of a perfect nation, jobs, and society) feel threatened. It almost seems that hatred is a key effect of fear of change. Ahmed discusses how this is a significant problem among many white people and their collective passionate hate against threats to nationalistic ideas. Many share a strong love for their society, nation, and shared whiteness, and any intimidations to such cause combined chaos amongst them. Ahmed also notes how many people don’t have significant rights against accusations associated with this hatred. For example, many can be accused of terrorism and detained even if their connection to terrorist groups are very weak (like similarity in names, race or residences) with no real rights to fight against such detainment without prominent cause. I think Ahmed is trying to note how these false accusations and detainments are in a large way the effects of irrational hatred. She also explains how people concoct impressions of entire racial groups, for example middle eastern people are painted as terrorists; and how this can cause unnecessary fear on all sides of the equation. When discussing “grounds” Ahmed notes how unsupported racist evidence such as a person being middle eastern with a similar name to a terrorist could very well be the grounds for detainment today and how this is unacceptable.

Assignment #13

December 3, 2017

In Sara Ahmed’s article, “Affective Economics,” she discusses how emotions such as love and hate play a role in defining the person that we become and how society perceives us. These emotions often take us to new boundaries and make us do things that we wouldn’t do if we thought it through, but these feelings often make us act out of emotions instead of rational thinking. She explores how love and hate are correlated, more so than we know of. When people act in situations based off of hate, they usual do for a particular reason. When Ahmed, talks about people acting out of hate such as child molesters and rapists she talks about them acting out due to threat of loss. People often see hatred as an emotion that is a psychological nature, but it is important to see how they work and how they develop. There are certain economies of hate that she discusses, such as how emotions reside in objects and subjects, rather than how another person makes you feel. She also discusses how capitalism plays an important role in our emotions, how people strive for success and money often makes us think about ourselves only. Certain emotions are motivated by other feelings. The feeling of fear often makes a person act off of instinct. Fear is strong emotion, because it is what you are afraid of what is coming, but not what is actually going to happen. Fear can often take over your whole body both physically and mentally. It is not necessarily about overcoming the fear because often times even when you face that fear, it still never leaves your mind. The discussion of how a white boy was scared by a black man, shows how fear does not reside in the subject. The white boy begins to shiver and recognizes his shiver as a fear, while the black man himself feels fear, because his existence is threatened. People are not scared by others because they are fearsome, but rather fear is contained in the body. This leads to people acting involuntary due to the fact that the brain sends signs that the body is afraid. It is often that people’s emotions are based off of a related subject and for that reason together we feel and these emotions are what bring us together.

December 3, 2017

In “Affective Economies” Sara Ahmed determines emotions, such as hate, as part of an economic model that have the ability to gather people together. Emotions do not reside within an object even a single person. Emotions are affected by the slightest detail that occurs in one’s surroundings. Often times emotions, like hate, are based of their counter emotions, love. For example, in the beginning of this excerpt Ahmed shines a light on the Aryan Nations Website. These groups of individual are embodying the emotion of hatred according to the minorities that the Aryan Nation protest against. Although the Aryan Nation participate and organize rallies and chants against minorities, they truthfully believe they are doing it for the well being of “their” country. They believe these sets of minorities are taking jobs, thus, devaluing their country. This in turn rallies together all “whites” who believe in this ideology and creates a community. Furthermore, Ahmed goes on to describe the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The terrorists acted out of love of their religion and beliefs. The dedication and love they had for their religion and beliefs brought the terrorist of September 11 together. For the American people these acts were an act of hatred and provoked fear among the country. Likewise, Americans united themselves as a result of the terror attacks. Politicians and the media then used the U.S vulnerable state of fear as a chance to promote the war. The vulnerable state the American public was in allowed the war to receive positive feedback. The American public believed the terror attacks of September 11 needed to avenged. Furthermore, soon after the terrorist attacks the American public perceived anyone who appeared to be Middle Eastern, Arab or Muslim negatively. Again, fear was able to collect another group of individuals together to create a community but in this case a negative notion was created against them.

Assignment 11

November 20, 2017

In Cabeza’s passage “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic”, she discusses how the sexual relationships may be viewed as forced or cultural. Some ways in which sexual relationships were viewed as cultural was that because of the citizens of Cuba having interracial sexual relationships it attracted a huge pool of tourists which in turn has spurred their economy. Because of these vast array of sexual relationships, it was seen as a cultural movement because it was a regular occurrence that everyone seemed to be doing. It was also seen as forced because of the dramatic difference in social and economic inequality. It was a way for those who were considered minorities to make a living since they saw that tourists were paying money to fund sex – trade relationships. Additionally, since this is what most people were doing to rise up the social ladder some of the minorities may have felt forced to do the same. Cabeza makes an implication that women were seen as those who were monstrous and were capitalistic invaders. On the other hand  she compares men as those who stole capital and attempted to get sex for free. It was also seen as an economic movement in that women refused to give away sex for free. Not all minorities were capable of having a sexual relationship. Physical appearance and where one went in Cuba or even the Dominican Republic had a lot to do with who would be able to rise up the social ladder and who would feel forced to stay where they were. Cabeza explains that some women felt a sense of sexual citizenship in  that in order for women to be protected from oppression that they had to have felt threatened first. On the other hand, some women did not see themselves that way, instead, they felt that not  being able to make a family and not being able to procreate was a huge concern/central focus for them.

Alfie Corteza Assignment #13

December 3, 2017

Alfie Corteza

Professor Bullock

Assignment #13

In Sara Ahmed’s article, “Affective Economies,” she explains that the people who have a hatred aren’t necessarily hating others due to a specific cause, preferably they have a significant love for something and do not want that thing to be affected and decline in quality. Also, her referral to the individual’s feelings in regards to a person, place or thing is not necessarily a start or end point, but instead it is a flow in a demographic of some social economy.
For anxiety, there could be a large body of people or things to make one fear for a specific group. An example would be in regards to the refugee crisis, and a politician’s use of words on the matter. The methods of particular terms, and words that convey a specific mindset when it comes to displaying an image. An example would be the former leader of the British Conservative club who used particularly anxious and worrying terms when it came to accepting asylum refugees into the country. Also, Sara also points out specific terms are supposedly used to differ between bogus, and genuine asylum seekers, however, how can one differentiate the two? She also compares the refugee example to an individual who I in prison for killing a 16-year-old burglar trying to burgle his home. Here they made the individual who is defending himself the criminal, and the burglar a victim rather than the other way around. Ahmed compares the asylum seekers to the burglar, and the murderer to the body of people, and the house as the countries’ values, and that the asylum seekers are trying to take it away from the rightful owners. Thus the wording can change the image of an individual of that is rightfully guilty as a victim, and the innocent as the criminal, such as the improper imprisonment of the one who was defending his home.

Assignment #13

December 5, 2017

In Ahmed’s piece, she argues that people’s emotions are not innate nor personal. Instead they are shaped by the myths perpetuated in one’s environment. The author uses psychoanalysis to show how white fears of “the other” are often rooted in unconscious beliefs shaped by deeper histories. Through the use of fear white people mobilize feelings of hatred of the perceived other. This hatred is justified through ideas of the white subject’s rights and the nation’s ground they view as under threat of the other. The nation is imagined as white which is believed to be synonymous with purity. The “others” are perceived as violating this purity and their entry is framed as overwhelming the white population viewed as the rightful owners of the land. The nation is also viewed as a white female in that the entry of immigrants is seen as a violation akin to rape. Ahmed argues that these feelings work to stick together identities such as that of an asylum seeker and the terrorist boogeyman. By conflating these two identities the nation is perceived as “securing itself” by not allowing asylum seekers. Since these people are viewed as dangerous the few that are allowed entry to make the nation be seen as charitable or righteous. White people are viewed the same way that the home owner that murdered the 16-year-old burglar is seen. Protecting property is shown to be more important than human life. Even though the boy was murdered the real victim is the home owner whose property was thought to be under threat. The grounds or nation is viewed as under threat by the other and white people who perceive themselves to be the “home owners” see themselves as having the right to secure it at any cost. The author also shows the way language in speeches reveals this fear in the use of words like “swamped.” These words carry connotations of asylum seekers as dirty and as intruders which mobilize national attitudes to be anti-immigration and refugee aid.

Antonella’s Twelfth Assignment

December 10, 2017

In Lila Abu-Lughod’s essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” she deliberates on cultural explanation and the organization of women. Throughout the War on Terror, there was an emphasis on Muslim women. Lughod discusses the linking bound between the War on Terror and the cultural mode of explanation.  After the catastrophic attacks on both The World Trade Center and the U.S Pentagon had occurred, there was a necessity from the Americans to better understand the culture of the attackers. Americans wished to better comprehend the meaning behind their religious rituals and know about the Islamic faith along with the women who helped the people grief and figure out the reasoning behind these attacks.  Lughod makes a strong argument about the essential need to learn about the Islamic culture. She questions that how can knowing about the culture of the region, particularly its religious belief and the treatment of women, is going to help us better understand why these disastrous events had occurred. Instead of concentrating on Muslim religious beliefs, people ought to have focused on the role the U.S had with relation to the development of the repressive regimes. The U.S had decided to use the oppression of Muslim women to help justify going into war as a necessary help to free the mistreated Afghan women. During the time the Taliban were in control, the Afghan women were enforced to wear burqas and if seen in public without wearing one, they’ll be punished and occasionally be killed. Numerous individuals had believed that act of punishing women for not wearing these burqas are a violation of women rights. When the U. S took control over the country, there were countless claims that they had succeed and helped the Afghan women be liberate. Though even after they were free from the Taliban, the Afghan women continued to wear their burqas due to it being a fragment of the Muslim religion. Lughod reasoned why should there be a relationship between the way people culturally dress and political problems. There shouldn’t be a reason to define people from a certain culture as oppress due to the way the natives dress, and major political decisions should not be made as oppressive as well.

Danielle Edwards Assignment #13

December 3, 2017

In her article “Affective Economies,” Sara Ahmed explains how our emotions ties us to different communities in society and how emotions are a cultural practice rather than a psychological disposition. For example, in the beginning of her piece she talks about the mixed race couple, the rapist and child molester, immigrants and foreigners and their relationship towards the ordinary (the white nationalist, the white farmer, the white Christian, the white working man and the white housewives). We see that in society “white” is seen as ordinary and everyone else that doesn’t fit that description are viewed as “others” and are separated into different circles. In an excerpt from the Aryan Nations she explains how the emotions of love and hate shows the boundaries between the individual subject and the nation. She explains how the white “ordinary” feels endangered by the “other’ because of their fear of losing something. So, it is suggested that their love of their nation is what prompts them to hate anyone that posed a threat. When she discusses the speech on asylum seekers given by William Hague, she explains that the repetition of “sticky words” can generate an emotional response from people. These are words that are sort of powerful and unforgettable. So using those same words will evoke a certain response for the public. She supports this by showing how the current British Home Secretary, David Blunkett, used the same “sticky words” as Hague and still brought about the same implications. Hague used words like “flood” and “swamped” to associate asylums and the loss of control and “dirt” and “sewage”, to portray the anxiety of being “overwhelmed” by potential proximity of others. Blunkett these words to describe the effect that children of asylum seekers would have if they were taught by local schools. However, he was criticized and replaced overwhelmed. Although it may seen that “overwhelmed” cleared up the implication of “swamped” it still evoked the sensation of being overtaken by “others”. Ahmed says that by doing this the nations was constructed as a subject that couldn’t cope with the presence of “others”. Therefore, the “others” are a threat to the nation as a whole (Ahmed, 122).

Assignment 12

November 26, 2017

In “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” Lila Abu-Lughod criticizes how Muslim women and Islamic faith are being utilized to portray War on Terror and why that poses a problem. First of all, in regards to addressing recent terrorist attacks, there is a tendency of focusing on the cultural aspect, such as religious beliefs and the treatment of Muslim women. Abu-Lughod mentions how media likes to talk about women and religious rituals, as though understanding such aspects brings insight into terrorism. As a result, the real root of the problem rarely gets discussed; the historical and political issues are often left unveiled. By addressing and emphasizing how culturally different it is on the other side of the world, it creates a division that further impairs the ability to seek out the truth as to why such sufferings exist and find the appropriate solution.

Such “cultural mode of explanation,” and the unnecessary focus on the role of women in regards to the War on Terror can be seen as a justification for the “right” of Americans to interfere and “take over” Afghanistan. Portraying Afghan women as being inappropriately treated by the Taliban-and-the-terrorist has linked the fight against terrorism to the fight for women’s rights. Abu-Lughod seems skeptical as to whether the desire to intervene by the U.S. forces solely lies upon liberating these women. And if so, what really is the right way of saving these women? Abu-Lughod emphasizes the importance of recognizing differences and accepting that what Afghan women consider to be “liberating” may be different from what the rest of the world is trying to impose on them. As exemplified by the case regarding burqas, what many fail to realize is that it serves as a symbol for women’s modesty, not something that the Taliban has imposed upon women against their very will. As noted by anthropologist Hanna Poparek, it’s like a “portable seclusion” that allows women to be liberated out of their isolated lifestyles. However, the world often portrays women wearing burqas as being confined and repressed, while taking out the burqas means being liberated. Abu-Loghod warns against such misconceptions and hopes to instill the right solutions that is appropriately aimed to bring safety and better life for all.

Karla Flores, Assig.12

November 29, 2017

In ” Do Muslim women really need saving? anthropological reflections on cultural relativism and its others”, Lila Abu-Lugnod discusses the involvement of US in Afghanistan. She starts by  mentioning how the attacks on Sep. 11, 2011 everything changed for them too. Americans started to look for almost an excuse to go into their country and start a “war against terrorism”. To the people there, it was clear that the attention  was focused on all the wrong places to try to look for something to fix. She takes first lady, Bush, to show how American troops were there and ‘liberating’ them from terrorism and supposedly from the Taliban. Instead of studying the history of the situation the country was in, they came in to ‘save’ women from the wrong factors. She criticizes that instead of getting to know their culture, the Americans came in trying to change the way they were treated to almost the same as it was in America. Here the liberation women have is different from that of women in Afghanistan. As the government announced in the first few months of the ‘war against terrorism’, women had gained some minor liberties like being able to listen to music, yet they left out things that women had been fighting against for such a long time. As she said there “was the blurring of the very separate causes in Afghanistan of women’s continuing malnutrition, poverty, and ill health, and their more recent exclusion under the Taliban from employment, schooling, and the joys of wearing nail polish”(Abu-Lugnod,784). To Americans it was communicated that these women were being saved in some way, but they did not addressed the real issues that they needed to. Maybe it might had been because they did not analyze their cultural struggles before coming in to fight a war. These women did not need the type of saving the Americans were trying to offer them.

Assignment 13

December 3, 2017

In Sara Ahmed’s article, “Affective Economies,” she discusses her views on emotion and states that it’s not hate that makes people react to things in a certain way but it’s actually love. According to the narrative in the beginning of the article, its the love for the nation that makes the white supremacist hate others who they recognize as strangers because they’re taking away their jobs and their future in a way. Hate doesn’t make people act a certain way but love does. The love of the nation makes people who love it act out of hate when their nation is being threaten. It interesting to think that people hate actually comes from love. The correlation between love and hate is odd but makes a lot of sense. Love is what makes people act with hate toward others because they’re defending what they love. When people feel like their nation is being threaten or their jobs they start to form hatred toward what is threaten it. According to Ahmed the hatred people express is form within them and it express outward toward people, places and objects. Ahmed argues that fear works to give people a sense of being overwhelmed and makes them feel like they can’t achieve to be contained. She states that people fear certain object in an effort to avoid dealing with the true and bigger cost of their fear. According to Ahmed emotions are within us and dealing with our emotion isn’t the problem but the subject of it, is almost like our emotion are the victim. Our emotions are what makes us do what we do on a daily base and our emotions are what makes us form opinion on things and people, it’s hard not to form opinion on things when we let our emotions blur our judgement.

October 1, 2017

In chapters one and  two of C.J Pascoe’s book I feel we are introduced to gender and sexuality norms throughout the play at River High. In chapter one the play conducted by the student’s we begin to see what is normal and what would be deemed as not socially excepted behavior by these teenagers based on the way they applauded. For instance, when the two boys Brent and Craig exposed red skirts after ripping off their pants. In reference to the way in which the crowd found this to be a humors matter tells us how femininity can be linked to clothing and is found humorous when on the male body due to its emasculating manor. Interestingly enough in contrast to this when the female gym teacher demonstrated her masculinity by lifting up weights she was cheered for in a manor in which showed acceptance although she was female. (Pascoe 4) I found this interesting because it was able to show how any demonstration of masculinity can be deemed an act of power. Where as any act of femininity is deemed weak. To go back to the play at River High, skirts for example seem to demonstrate a characteristic of weakness.  I found this somewhat shocking due to the fact that I’ve lived in places that a male wearing a skirt was not deemed emasculating in any way, due to the fact that gender was not used synonymously with ones sex. But specifically the norms at River High seem to be not only enforced by peers but by teachers and faculty as well. For instance, when Pascoe was trying to conduct her research and was given push back for questions concerning both gender and sexuality. It is evident that even through the play, that these norms were deemed acceptable through study body and staff for it to have have happened without having a conversation about these norms. ( Pascoe 29)

November 28, 2017

In “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others,” Lila Abu- Lughod characterizes and critiques the connection affiliated with the war on terror. Lila Abu-Lughod like many people who majored in college for Women gender studies has shifted the focus in Afghanistan from terrorism and the control of the Taliban to how women are able to express themselves. In Lila Abu-Lughods article she explains how the invasion of Afghanistan by the United States was not successful. She states how Laura Bush has said that the women there are free after the invasion of Afghanistan and the fall of the Taliban. Her main argument is centered around the burqa. During the control of the Taliban women were required to wear Burqas, and not go to school to receive an education. Women walked around with their burqas as if it was a second home. Even after they have been “liberated” from the Taliban they still do not remove their Burqas. This is even more confusing because she then explains the origin of burqas. It originated from the Pashtun Tradition. Lila disagrees with Laura Bush when she says they have been successful and that the occupation of Afghanistan plays a role into proving freedoms to the Afghan peoples and especially to their women. Women are still oppressed in Afghanistan. That America is just like all the other imperialistic countries that have plagued the muslim world, or mainly the Middle East. Lila Abu-Lughod’s article is very unclear behind motives because it seems as though she contradicts herself. Unless this article isn’t about an argument but rather an informative one. To find an effective solution in Afghanistan you must dictate the patriarchy in each and every impoverished village in Afghanistan. Edit the very manuscripts and religious contexts in which these people have been practicing for hundreds of years. Instill your foreign government into the nation and tell them whats wrong and whats right. While you focus on the patriarchal relationships in each village and each household be sure you effectively combat any insurgents. Lila Abu-Lughod’s article gives us a step 4 when we haven’t even reached a step 1 in a developing country called Afghanistan.

michael li hw 12

December 5, 2017

A large part of what Lila Abu-Lughod tries to build on is that any observing parties must recognize that they themselves are subject to equal observation by others and themselves. One stance some may take by mistake is that in order to properly analyze a culture, one first remove themself from the international culture ecosystem. Doing so removes an important part of the equation of determining what problems in societies are, and what we should consider to address said problems. This is due to the fact that If analyzed at face value we overlook, or completely ignore the questions that ask why things are the way they are and solely focus on what they are at the present time; we may also do so incorrectly (Abu-Lughod, 2002:787).

Abu-Lughod presents her own experiences of interacting with media and those who influence the public on matters of foreign affairs. In general, if the aforementioned thought process is not considered, the result of an analysis may be reduced to nothing but a meaningless and helpful polarization in cultures between the analyzer and the analyzed (Abu-Lughod, 2002:784).

It seems Abu-Lughod supports the idea that the way we analyze anything may be done so in a way to rationalize and justify our goals and therefore the method of said analysis is unreliable. She highlights how American media has moved in the direction of justifying war through the illusion that the nation understands what freedom is to the cultural other (Abu-Lughod, 2002:784, 788). Women are used as objects for these justifications. She uses the American focus on the veil as an example and compares it to the larger and more valid concern of women in Afghanistan. The oppressive symbol of the veil, is a lesser concern to women than their immediate safety (Abu-Lughod, 2002:787).

Furthermore, she recognizes that which many may not want to. That being there are issues within reach that we neglect entirely while giving so much attention to aspects of a struggle that are entirely irrelevant to any agenda. Why do we turn a blind eye on other human rights issues? Why do we focus so heavily on the symbol of the veil?

Assignment 13

December 6, 2017

In her piece, “Affective Economies”, Sara Ahmed tries to explain the idea that people who are hateful aren’t truly hateful, they’re perceived or viewed differently because these people wish to protect something they love and cherish deeply. She says hate isn’t an true or primary emotion rather a byproduct when one feels that something they valued is being threaten. I feel like Sara makes a really good and valid point there, people don’t naturally hate on something or someone but do so when they feel like someone or something is going to changed or impact their interest negatively. She brings up the example of how the general view of America on immigrants isn’t that great, nationalists don’t really hate immigrants for who they are but the possibility they are going to take jobs, ruin society, and overall destroy their idea of the perfect nation. While these accusations may or may not be true, its the possibility that causes people to fear and hate theses groups of people coming in. Its fear and love that evokes hate, thinking of such makes me think of the quote, “Only thing we have to fear is fear itself” by FDR. She goes on bringing up another example of a white child seeing a black man shivering and immediately assume that it was an act of aggression, the child now who afraid of the black man goes on while the black man is now contained as he’s afraid of the actions that follow after for scaring the little boy. In this event, the two become divided, in a  way they both fear each other forcing them to walk down different paths. Sara also talks about how people see others and immediately assume that one is a threat without thinking about it even if its irrational. We judge and assess others subconsciously she says, from what we have experienced and been taught we naturally make the thought. One example would be if one got into an accident where he or she fell into the sea, as they grow up they see the sea they would immediately connect that to the accident they had years ago. This is also true when it comes to people, if we had a terrible experience with a group of people we would think about it as soon as we see someone from that group. We’re all guilty of such as it is baked into our minds.

Assignment 12

November 28, 2017

Abu-Lughod’s essay “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving,” questions why Americans think that “Muslim women” in Afghanistan need to be rescued from their society and country. She characterizes this premise as being a method of rejecting cultural differences, and states that this has become the West’s main focus following the events of September 11, 2001, and the beginning of the “War on Terror”. Abu-Lughod argues that countries in the West should analyze their contribution to living conditions in countries like Afghanistan. Furthermore, according to Abu-Lughod, the West trying to save “Muslim woman”,  recreates past events that took place in the 19^th Century by Christian missionary woman who attempted to save “Muslim women” and attempted to impose their dominance onto their society.

Abu-Lughod’s discusses that following the beginning of “War of Terror”, culture and religious practices became the focus in understanding the events of September 11, 2001. She further argues that by studying the culture, the West switched and moved away from the more important issue, namely, the political and historical reasons for men and woman enduring hardships in the Middle East. Moreover, Abu-Lugod cites Laura Bush’s speech, which discussed the plight of the “Muslim woman”. She refers to Bush’s speech as the “cultural mode of explanation” because it discusses the importance of saving “Muslim women”. Abu-Lughod argues that the speech served as a way to support and defend America’s “War on Terrorism”, and the destruction that came along to Muslim countries.

Abu-Lughod states that the religious and cultural practices of woman, including “wearing a veil” is something that has been practiced for centuries. It is a symbol of “modesty and respectability”, and is not the product and explanation for the events of September 11, 2001. She further states that if the mandatory “burqas” were no longer enforced, woman would choose another method of “veiling”. The veil is not the problem, but according to Abu-Lughod it represents the West’s problem of accepting differences in others, and dealing with the true problems that causing the Middle East severe hardships and suffering.

Assignment 13: Miguel Montana

December 3, 2017

In “Affective Economies” by Sara Ahmed she examines how external environmental factors contribute to the emotional stability of individuals. She does this through examples, starting with the Aryan Nation website and its’ perpetuation of hate. In her examination of these hate groups and their content, one thing that she wants the reader to keep in mind is that they love to hate. And it’s in this love, that there is a sense of approach that can be garnered and understood by the perpetrators. Perhaps, and this is something that I think, in understanding the causal relationship between the individual’s love of perpetuating hate and why, further empathy and understanding can be gained. And in turn, can crumble their movement, too. These examples that she uses continue to extrapolate this idea of having a different basis of understanding why people hate the things that they hate, and how we interpret that information differently than they do. Which gives the readers an added sense of perspective, but, and this is also what I think, does little to justify the criminality of their behavior and their hypocritical response to similar treatment. It’s not difficult to argue that when subjected to the same treatment, these hate groups fail to comprehend why anyone would treat them in such a way, and why they shouldn’t treat other’s in such a way either. Which is curious, I think, as it outlines something a little more important when it comes to people that are subjected to hate groups and ideologies. And it’s that the things and people that they are taught to hate, or have come to love to hate, they don’t exactly view as human or anything worthwhile to save. Which is why it’s so acceptable for them to treat the people that they hate in such an awful way but when they are subjected to the same treatment they can’t tolerate it and quickly fold.

Assignment 08

October 29, 2017

I believe Foucault’s intentions in this chapter was to talk about the general discourse of sexuality and how the repression sexuality was being lifted in the twentieth century. The “technology of sex” was a different way of analyzing sexuality in relation to many things such as economics and medicine. According to him the transformation of discourse in the technology of sex opened more opportunities for other changes and techniques to be developed. In the 17th century sex was considered only to be done/discussed in the home, it was something that was shameful to talk about so Foucault believed it hindered the  development of these “technologies of sex”.

I think one of the main reasons we were able to move forward with the discourse of sex was the development and understanding of the medicine of sex. Medicine allowed the prevention of perversions and disease. Prior to this in the 19th century people would worry about them spreading throughout the classes which in turn cause hysteria. The upper class on the other hand used medicine as a form of Eugenics to create what they saw was best in themselves and allowed them to continue being wealthy and to boast the physical superiority. The bourgeois wanted utter control of everything, not only society but the sexuality of their men, women and children. With this newfound technology the bourgeois were able to regulate childbirth and marriage which would ultimately determine the population.

With the technology of medicine developing it also resulted in eugenics in the 19th century, I believe that Foucault determines that sexuality was a social construct created by the bourgeois, it was put into place to empower their social class while essentially the lower class was stunted by it due to their somewhat forced decrease in population from regulated births and marriages that came out of their fears of impurity in the family.

Assignment 12

November 28, 2017

Lila Abu-Lughod discusses in her essay, “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving”, the connection between the Islamic faith and Muslim women through the effects of the War on Terror. Due to this war, the topic on Muslim women and Islam has changed and became sensitive and Abu-Lughod connects this with “cultural mode of explanation”. One way Abu-Lughod was able to interpret this change was through the media and historical context.

Abu-Lughod explains how supposedly terrorists are connected with the Talibans as if they were one word, and there was not much difference from each other. This was a horror to see because this was just connecting it back to Afghanistan. Laura Bush emphasizes that the United States was able to provide Muslim women rights that they did not have before. However, not everyone will believe that because in fact it was the Westerners that has caused in colonialism but not many are aware of their effects. One particular issue was the British invasion in south Asia. These white men perceived themselves as saving these brown women from brown men, but in reality most women were oppressed and could not seek an education. Another incident was the French rule over Algeria. Algeria has long fought for their independence, but this did not occur to these two girls mentioned in Lughod’s essay. The two girls went as far as associating freedom with Christianity. As if, not following the religion automatically meant you were oppressed, which I believe Lughod was trying to point out in this text. People often mistake certain terms with freedom and not understanding why do some people practice terms that are not considered “normal”.

At the end of the day, people should be able to practice whatever they want because it is their right. In fact, the problem is that people do not go into depth of the idea and let something like the War on Terror to influence them. Instead they should look at context before that.

December 3, 2017

We all have emotions and Sarah Ahmed in the article “Affective Economies” discusses how these emotions affects us as people and individuals. She examines how different emotions and feelings occur and how they make us do or think different things that sometimes can lead to unpleasant conclusion. On the other hand, good feelings and emotions can lead to resolution of some problems we face every day. Although, Sara Ahmed begins her article with a description of how the emotion of “hate” occurs towards people who are different. She says that hatred occurs not because someone thinks that the other one is different but because it threatens one’s stability in life. We as readers understand that Ahmed is making a parallel to a modern day problem in society of a certain country. She adds that these emotions lead to loathing and it becomes unstoppable because after a certain point this conviction that someone is bad cannot be changed.

Ahmed talks about immigrants also, she discusses that white people fell a certain negative emotion because immigrants come to their country and they take away their jobs and threaten their “purity” in a way. However, from the immigrants stand point, they probably don’t share “white people” opinion because they have their own problems to solve and threatening people is not in their agenda. Ahmed then goes to discuss the feeling of fear and that it always leads to some thoughtless actions. Thus, different emotions can make one’s life either better or worse. And, we as people are driven by emotions every single day. Our feelings and beliefs make us  create examples of caricatures of what is considered bad or good. So, we create images of a bad immigrant or a dangerous convict. It’s all in our head and it is hard to think logically and not be driven by emotions.

December 3, 2017

Hate and fear is inevitable in every society. As infants, we often portray some hate toward our parents when we do not have our way. As we grow, we continue to strengthen our hate based on various factor including social class. In her article, “Affective Economies,” the authors wants to address that the economic induces us to hate another. She uses the immigration issue to illustrate division among groups. For instance, a white person believes that immigrants are coming into their country and taking over their jobs, due to this Americans portray hate and fear toward these immigrants. Over time, this hatred progresses to prejudice. With the over growth of foreigners, laws are establish to reduce migrants from entering the country or administering visa in poor countries. She emphasize that we often portray some right to illustrate hate when a group interfere with our safety and security. On the contrary, it is true the unemployment rate in the US is the fault of the immigrants. Many American believe this is sole the immigrant’s faults. However, losing of a job is not the immigrants fault, and why is it believe this problem started solely because of migrants. Many jobs in the US have moved overseas because of cheap labor and in turn, many immigrants flee in hope of making more money in foreign countries, so that they can take care of their family. They author wants to point out that hate comes from within, it come from the frustration of the economy, this comes from the lack of avenue and means. Yet the only way to solve our problems is to blame the outsider. She wants us to openly share our nation and welcome all to its fruitfulness. A nation is build starting with one not me.

Assignment 12: LILA ABU-LUGHOD

November 28, 2017

In the reading,” Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving?”, Lila Abu-Lughod critiques on how Americans have the tendency to think that they are saving the Muslim women. She mentions how rather than “saving” them, they should be more interested in  learning the history of the development of repressive regimes in the region and the U.S. role in this history. Abu-Lughod talks about an interview where the reporter from the PBS News Hour with Jim Lehrer and First Lady Laura Bush’s radio were going  to talk about women and Islam and contacted her to see if she was able to give some background. She looked at the questions that they were going to ask the panelist and Abu-Lughod commented that the questions were  hopelessly general. She stated how if you would to replace the word Muslim with any other religion it would not make any sense. She also mentions “Most pressing for me was why the Muslim woman in general, and the Afghan woman in particular, were so crucial to this cultural mode of explanation, which ignored the complex entanglements in which we are all implicated, in sometimes surprising alignments”( Abu-Lughod, 784). She follows up by asking why were these females being mobilized in the war against terrorism. Abu-Lughod  mentions how there was a constant slippage between the Taliban and the terrorists in Laura Bush’s radio. This slippage made it seem as if they were one word. Also there was a blurring of the very separate causes in Afghanistan of women’s continuing malnutrition, poverty, and ill health. Laura Bush speech mentions how the American bombing in Afghanistan and military gain was the reason to why women are no longer imprisoned in their homes. Abu-Lughod mentioned how that statement haunts any person that has studied colonial history do to the fact that it had no outside knowledge of the topic. To conclude from this reading it, it appears that Abu-Lughod wanted to stress that instead of thinking about “saving” the women, educate yourself first.

Assignment 12

November 28, 2017

In her essay Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others, Lila Abu-Lughod describes the way in which women of Afghan descent are utilized within the “War on Terrorism”. Abu-Lughod uses the term “cultural mode of explanation” to describe the practices that were used in an attempt to generate insight regarding counterterrorism. The investigation of Afghan people was believed to be a more useful tactic in this respect as opposed to creating an understanding of the political and historical events that have contributed to the development of terrorism.

Westerners fail to realize that they have not played as significant of a role as they believe they have in the liberation of women hailing from Afghanistan. Certain aspects of Afghan culture are used to justify their interactions with the land as a means to create this “liberation”. For example, it is widely-known that the Taliban required women to wear the burqa, which is commonly perceived as a symbol of oppression. Confusion became somewhat widespread after women were “liberated” from the Taliban and had more freedoms to choose what materials adorned their bodies, though still chose to wear the burqa. What had not been realized is that the burqa was perceived as an “appropriate form of dress” (Abu-Lughod 785) and was a social norm within the women’ native lands. That the problem was not exactly the rule of the Taliban, but how both the preexisting and new political, historical, and social conditions impacted the way of living for native Afghan women, and Afghan people as a whole. Despite the absence of the Taliban, this does not change the fact that these women still face oppression in Afghanistan.

Abu-Lughod believes that we must not simply accept cultural explanations as a means to understand that way a large body of people live amongst one another. It is simply a matter of showing respect for cultures that differ from ours, and understanding that every cultural has a different standard for living.

Final

December 13, 2017

Hello, Should it all be in our own words like the weekly writing assignments, meaning no quotes?

Prof. Bullock’s response,

Feel free to include quotes but make sure that the length of the quote is appropriate and that you provide sufficient explanation pertaining to its inclusion and relevance. See the rubric if you have questions about how quotes will be evaluated.

assignment12

November 29, 2017

In the essay ” Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving”, Lila Abu-Lughod criticizes Westerners how they tried to “Liberate” Muslim women who they think they do not have freedom. After the 911 attack Laura Bush suddenly brings up Muslim women’s right which they never had before. She first mentions “War on Terrorism” which is about the Middle Eastern occupation of the United States. She also criticizes they justification Westerner made which America can occupy the area because they attacked America. She also criticize the logic since they are evil, we can beat them even though it was actually for economic benefit.  America went to War in Afghanistan against Taliban who controlled Afghan, and took the control of the country. Laura Bush said the Muslim woman is free after the invention. Women in Afghan wore burqas when Taliban control the region, and they were not allowed to go out side without it. If women in Afghan does not cover themselves they would be punished or harmed. Westerner thought it is a violence to the Muslim women right. However, even after United States took control of the country, they were still wearing them. Furthermore, she criticizes how  Laura Bush says they had been successful and that the invention of that country is helping Afghan people especially women. However, women are still oppressed in Afghanistan. I think saying something like “liberate” the area is actually looking down on people and their culture. Therefore, the way America did was totally against their will and it barely changed anything. People there have their own culture and if some outsider says something about this or forcing, I think it is really difficult for them to change suddenly. They have lived their lives with the culture, so instead of forcing to change, their regional power has to do something to it little by little.

December 3, 2017

Sara Ahmed discusses in her article “Affective Economies,” her own explanation to emotions and how people create them. She also discusses how the littlest outside factors can effect ones emotions about something. She begins by stating different examples of “hate” that are common in the United States like a white man scowling at a mixed race couple or a farmer furious that the government loans billions of dollars to foreigners when he can’t get a loan to save his farm and she names this love. This gives a perfect example of what she explains in her article, which is that hate is not really hate. The hate is not based on the subject but it comes from within the person that expresses it. That because they love something so much, whatever interferes with what they love they express anger towards them. This anger can be effected by other smaller problems that build up to hate and soon enough anyone that even comes close to what they hate for example being the same race, having similar looks, religion, or even names become a part of it. Sara Ahmed tells that hate is made from within the person and move outwards onto people, things, places, or anything. She similarly addressed her explanation to fear. Fear is not actually being afraid of something but it is a way of avoiding something much bigger that the person themselves might not really notice. Fear of a certain object is supposed to be the symptom of what you actually fear. For example she includes that Hans had a fear of horses which is actually replacing his fear of castration (125). For the fears replacing the real fear can be managed but is kept because their real fear can’t be managed. Ahmed argues that emotions are all within ourselves and the subject of our emotions is not the problem but only the victim.

Assignment 12

November 28, 2017

Lila Abu-Lughod explains the way in which women are characterized accordingly to the circumstances and believes of a culture. She describes the issues faced by women having to cover themselves and were threatened by the Taliban if they were to break the norm. Women were oppressed by the current political issues in their country. She uses the veiling of women to show the limitation they had in the community. There were many expectations oppressing the behavior and appearance women should had in order to be accepted and respected. They were manipulated by the Taliban to an extend where their culture was pursued to implement the values and regimes he established. One important points she brings up in her essay is that the way in which the role of a women is shaped by its surroundings should not be ignored. The line between the oppression and the culture is so blurred that people began to forget about the distinction and what makes them each different form each other. She encourage people to acknowledge the unjust treatment women are having and that there should be a human right that assures them a complete freedom. Even though people might have different ways to measure what would be an ideal way of living it is important to do something about it. The powerful movement of the war on terror is overtaking the classes and even gender of a nation. It is interesting how this explanatory power can force people into a certain behavior that all of the sudden it becomes normal. People need some guidance on how to act in reward with others, however when women or men are not given the freedom they deserve then it is irrelevant and a dangerous situation. Overall, the oppression faced by women cannot be hide and there should be something done in order for there to be justice.

Robert Walczak Assignment 12

December 5, 2017

“Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving” that is what Lila Abu-Lughod argues about in her essay after the 9/11 attacks and the sudden focus of Muslim women afterwards. She starts her essay with how after the attacks she was invited several times to be interviewed about Muslim women. She notes that many of the questions were general and turned into questions on Muslim women in politics. Abu-Lughod notes that these questions seemed to have stemmed from the need to understand how the attacks could have happened and why the questions didn’t go over more important topics like how the Taliban had taken control of Afghanistan.  Instead of looking into how it went wrong the focus shifted to Muslim women and how Westerns had to free them from their oppressors. Laura Bush’s speech she had made on how poorly Afghan women were being treated and how much the Taliban were monsters helped many people feel justified for bombings, intervention in the Middle East and supported the War on Terror. She talks about how this attitude goes along well with “colonial feminism” and gives a few examples on past experiences concerning it and warns of cultural icons being a part of a messy historical/political narrative. Abu-Lughod then talks about how people were surprised that after Taliban were pushed out of Afghanistan women weren’t in a rush to take off their burqa even though it was supposed to be a sign of their oppression.  It was the stage where people would contend with how the people of a different part of the world would do things their own way. After going in detail about who created the burqa she talks about how the burqa was a sign of oppression in the West but in the Middle East it was normal and even something that kept women safe from harassment from men because it provided a sense of seclusion and compared burqas to portable homes. It goes to show how it is important for people to understand the situation in a foreign place before coming up with their own idea on how to help or try to impose their own culture onto a different people.

Affective Economies

December 3, 2017

Sara Ahmed opens her essay by with a quote from the Aryan Nations Website. Many people view them as being hateful with the way they view others, but they perceive their feelings as coming from love. They have a love for their country, people, and culture and they view others as being a threat, even comparing interracial couples to child molesters and rapist. It is the love of preserving themselves that they believe other people confuse for hate. This is an alternative way of viewing their lifestyle and it is accomplished through the use of emotions. This has the power to change they way they are perceived. She talks about the rights of the people and the grounds of the nation in this essay both of which are under attack according to the Aryans. One emotion that was discussed was fear, and how it is something that is felt from the outside and works its way in. There was a white child that saw a shivering black man and interpreted his action as aggression causing him to be scared. His perspective gave him the right or the grounds for feeling scared. Fear creates a divide between people and by expressing his fear the white boy is said to expand while the black man being the one who is feared is said to be contained because he is afraid of the impact of scaring the little boy. Emotional work has the power to bring people together, spread them apart and/or develop places in societies. Ahmed describes what they Aryans say as imaginations and fantasy and through emotional work they can bring them to life. Once people become conditioned to view the other as dangerous, it validates mistreatment. The boy was taught that black men are dangerous so seeing a black man with a natural human reaction produces fear. Once he has that real intense feeling it is hard to dissociate fear from the black race. He will feel he has a right to want to protect his own and his nation.

Shaikhah Alhomaizi – Assignment 9

November 5, 2017

Coming from a society that has many prejudices like every other society, I had serval expectations to uphold as a Kuwaiti woman. Social obligations, family obligations, and many more were expected of me. Not living by society’s rules automatically made an individual an outsider.

When I was a freshman in The Gulf University of Science and Technology in Kuwait, I expected the students including myself to focus on studying and gaining a proper education. However, it was not the case, I was considered an outsider for not maintaining a very active social life (regularly attending societal functions) and not dressing up like the other girls. Because I came from a certain social class I was expected to be like the other girls in my class. Occasionally I would dress up like these girls and attend societal events, yet I was not always accepted. Although I was within this class and within this gender, I was not accepted because I didn’t uphold their standards regularly. On the occasions when I was accepted into this group, I still didn’t feel like my true myself. I felt like an outsider within my own group. In addition, as I was adjusting to this new university environment, I realized that although Kuwaiti women had several expectations to maintain, the Kuwaiti men had very few. These men came to university dressing up in any way they wanted to, sweat pants or dress shirts it didn’t matter.

This experience showed me the importance of self-value in terms of being an outsider. If I wanted to be an insider or a part of a group, I would have to erase all my individuality.

I think that “Learning from the outsider within,” by Patricia Hill-Collins, demonstrates to us how a person can be an outsider within their race, gender, etc. In my case I was considered an outsider within my own class and within my own gender. Although people outside of my group thought I belonged to my group, people inside my group considered me an outsider.

Assignment 6: If You Try to Eat Me, I’ll Kick Out Your Teeth: A Tirade on Cultural Commodification and Hegemonic White Patriarchy By Michael Marbela

October 16, 2017

When analyzing bell hooks’s “Eating the other,” at first, I thought the identity of the specter of the “other” was obvious: it was anyone who doesn’t conform to the ideals of straight white heteropatriarchy—from the unfortunate Native American girl who had to fend off the advances of those blond white jocks on Page 368 to the queer, brown English major writing this essay. However, as hooks advances her discourse on the “consumption” of the other, I felt as if I was slowly but surely gaining insight into her interpretation of “consumption.” In this case, the other is exotified and seen as something beautiful and glorious to behold, something to be appreciated and observed, something to be immersed into and commodified for the sake of its foreignness compared to the heteropatriarchal white norm—which is a vast difference from the colonialist structures that sought to subdue the other in the name of religious or racial domination. Rather than destroy us or change us into their image, the “non-other” (a.k.a. the white man) wishes to commodify and consume us for the following: 1) to cross an “imaginary boundary into an exotic land” by interacting with our non-whiteness to come out the other side “changed” by the experience 2) to, as hooks says on page 380, be offered up and consumed to add flavor to the mayonnaise-laden palate of white mediocrity and 3) to strip our cultural artifacts of their meanings, both ethnically and politically significant, in the name of perpetuating hegemonic white dominance.

That being said, why does hooks call this interaction of “non-other” to “other” productive? I believe it is because within this modern context of multiculturalism and openness to other identities, that otherness is no longer seen as a deviant identity but as something to be explored and connected with, which flies directly in the face of hegemonic white patriarchal dominance. That being said, those of the dominant group (a.k.a. yet again, white people) or anyone outside of a given group should tread carefully and realize that cultural exploration can easily be transformed into cultural appropriation without intentionality and a willingness to listen to others within the non-dominant group.

Final Exam question

December 11, 2017

I have a question on the final exam essay. For Section 2, question 3 what exactly is this question asking? Are you asking how the readings of history contribute to gender and sexuality studies? And it says choose at least two and no more than three people. Do we have to talk about the first three people you gave and compare it to two other people?

Can you give me an example on how I would structure and answer this question?

Prof Bullock’s response:

Yes, I’m asking how these historical works contribute to the study of gender and sexuality. You don’t have to address all three. Choose either Davis, Federici or Foucault. Then explain how this work relates to 2 / 3 works from the list provided.

The structure of your response is up to you. For example, how you read Davis (if this is the primary text you choose to address) should be used to underscore the bearing of her work on other material we read.

Let me know if you have additional questions.