fMiguel has 13 post(s)

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.

Lila Abu-Lughod states that there is an explanatory power that is attributed to Islamic faith and Muslim women in particular. First thing to start with is Bush’s critique of Muslim women in Afghanistan after 9/11. Highlighting their basic freedoms as a result of military intervention. The thing is, though, is that any solution provided by military intervention always comes at a huge economic cost to the nation where the war took place. Which is an issue that Bush failed to address during his administration. A really interesting point that Lughod brings up is the issue of the burqa and how it’s a choice that these women made by themselves to exemplify modesty and separation from men. These are her points for why this was their choice, which I think is a little weak. First of all, a separation between men and women exists naturally in the form that they are already categorized differently by default. Secondly, the idea that it’s their choice to make when they were already suffering from poverty and lack of education leads anyone to think that their choice isn’t one based off of complete information as to what their freedom essentially entails both to them and outsiders. That’s not to say you can’t make a strong and independent choice for yourself without the proper knowledge, but it’s difficult to make that claim that all Afghan women are wearing a burqa because they want to feel a sense of liberation when that clearly isn’t the case. Especially in a nation that’s riddled with poverty, and poverty naturally breeds ignorance as to the “how” and the “why” for things being done the way in which they are done. It’s also not fair to say, however, that there isn’t a sense of solidarity in the choices being made by Afghan women through their clothing–which there more likely is. However, it’s hard to coincide this idea of liberation and freedom when women decide to wear these clothing during their time under the Taliban, and the Taliban enforced it onto them as well as seen through media outlets, too. It’s likely that they’re adapting the tool used against them to signify freedom, like that Game of Thrones quote about how if you wear what they use against you as armor, they can never hurt you, which is true but that isn’t an outwardly obvious message to anyone that’s looking. That’s just what I think.

One of the main focuses of  “Between Love and Money: Sex, Tourism, and Citizenship in Cuba and the Dominican Republic” is the almost toxic necessity of tourism in nation’s predominantly affected by American influence and political governance. It’s no surprise that the U.S. has had a lot of meddling in South American countries, particularly in their sustainability and democratic viability, but what’s also interesting is the reactionary position that U.S. influence put these nations in. Cuba and Dominican Republic both have had to adapted to aggressive tourism policies to maintain sustainable economic growth, which then in turn has forced the local economies to adapt to these practices in any way possible, which includes prostitution. The reason this particular field is often the most viable and lucrative one, is that it offers the workers that partake in it an opportunity to travel away from these countries through sustained relationships with their clients. Though this does pose a possible solution to a problem that shouldn’t have existed in the first place, there are very obvious ramifications to this line of work both in the representation of the country itself and the ethical nature of it, too. It’s not ethically wrong to sell out your body, but the issue therein becomes when it’s closely tied to your identity which is what forces these workers to adapt to. There’s a disproportionate difference between being a sex worker because you want to be and one when you have to be, and the conditions in these countries are that most people don’t have much of a choice otherwise if they want to live a sustainable life. This is where the ethical nature of this practice, even if endorsed by the government, comes into play. If there isn’t any other viable form of work, then there’s a concerning issue on the social growth of this nation in particular and of those that tour into these countries in the first place that isn’t being addressed at all.

One of the main focuses is of the “Commons” and how they affect migrational patterns, specifically amongst women. The reason it primarily affects women is that they are incentivized to move because of the fact that the responsibility of caring for children falls on their shoulders. Naturally, the migrational pattern is from poor to stable; and it’s also noted that they stay in these countries for longer. Though this does financially benefit the family that the woman is working to take care of, there are natural consequences to this nomadic parenting lifestyle that these women are forced to take up. One of the main issues being that their is a lack of nuclear parentalship happening that grossly affects the children at play here. Since the mother isn’t there to probably attach the children to her, the children lose a lot of emotional growth because of this. And this is an issue, as it creates a varied problem amongst the younger generation as they grow older. Though they understand why their mother had to leave to another country for work, this doesn’t discount the fact that their emotional needs either weren’t met or they had to be met by someone else. This is detrimental to effectively establishing a proper and nurturing relationship with the mother and her child. It also leads to a lack of proper decision making amongst the children and sometimes nullifies a lot of the sacrifice the mother made as they lose encouragement to reaching into higher education because of this lack of emotional nurturing that they would have had if their mothers didn’t leave for more financially prosperous countries as opposed to staying home and caring for their children. Ultimately, though there is a economic incentive to move the consequences intimately affect the mothers who partake in this trend.

Well I’ve always felt to some degree that I was an outsider in anything that I was a part of. I don’t exactly mesh perfectly in anything which is something that I am fine with, but it’s also something that does feel very isolating and makes me wonder how one would go about functioning normally. I sometimes find myself questioning minuscule actions just to make sure that I am doing things as others do them, purely because I don’t have this contextual subconscious knowledge about social norms and behaviors that seems so natural for everyone else. Of course, this is with the assumption that other people don’t feel the same way that I do, which I am sure isn’t the case at all. Yet, carefully extrapolating this isolation mindset that seems common among all people, leaves you with this… I guess confusion. Particularly as a male, generally speaking there’s a lot of things a guy can do that are just seen as creepy that if a woman were to do them, it would be fine. Which, I guess in turn, adds to that isolation and feeling as though you perhaps don’t belong to anything or anyone. What’s particularly fascinating is that everyone has their own reason for feeling as though they don’t belong, and all are unique to each individual, but the feeling itself is universal. However, it’s also something we’re apparently allergic to when it comes to helping others it seems. And I wish I knew why that was, perhaps it’s due to our growing comfort of having things the way that they are when they are good, and only focusing on ourselves when things are bad. I can’t be sure of it, really.

As for what Collins has to say about these experiences, from what I gather, is that it doesn’t permit you to be fully immersed as this unique experience to being not a part of the group creates a kind of unique group of its own? It seems to me that’s where she is headed, where you kinda have your foot in one group and the other foot in another group. And in doing so, you create this middle space that isn’t quite clearly defined where you essentially don’t belong to either but the middle doesn’t exist yet because of the nature of trying to fit in and trying to be a part of something that isn’t meant for you. At least that’s what I think that she’s getting at.

When Foucault talks about, “A Technology of Sex” it’s clear that he’s referring to tangible objects as he makes an effort to mention the tracking of said “devices” that partake in the mechanized approach to sex. These objects were socially constructed as a means to scrutinize and inspect how people were having sex and to make the act of sex not just a secular issue, but a state one as well. In doing so, this intense regulation of sex wasn’t enforced through practical means like a police force, but rather through meticulous self-inspection and the observance of vows from the church and laws from the state. This, in turn, helps us to understand the application that went into applying these mechanical devices into the livelihood of people ranging from the 1700’s to the 1900’s. Through this specific mechanization of sex, the act itself went from something private that didn’t need discussion to something that became thoroughly dissected through active discussion, in perhaps monotonous detail to avoid the prudish act of deriving pleasure from discussing it. Which seem to be the intended desire of mechanizing sex and all of its facets; was the careful removal and regulation of pleasure and how people sought pleasure privately. This, I think, had a lot to do with how the church in particular viewed bodily aspects of pleasure and enjoyment as sin and something that should be rectified. By being able to mechanize and control sex through specific tools, it made having a firm grasp on its (the churches) followers all that much easier to do. Which in turn, popularized these devices and their intended use for a very long time as their effectiveness was well documented by none other than the church itself through confessions. Ultimately, when talking about the application of these devices, I think Foucault stresses the idea that these devices were intended to be efficient tools to control prudish acts so both the state and church could benefit appropriately.

Good morning class, today we are going over passage 2 of Foucalt’s History of Sexuality. This section focuses on the repressive nature of sexual discourse from the 1700’s that Foucalt would argue, we still feel to this day. The idea of prudishness, as the paper discusses focuses on how sexuality was demonized by actively making talking about it a terrible thing. However, perhaps because of innate human nature to question things, this approach to sex had to be quickly redefined. That is, the “how” and “what” of sex had to be re-articulated using proper terminology that would be deemed acceptable, because it is difficult to censor large portions of society. This steady seceding of permissible conversation would lead to something more important later on, which was the open discussion of sexual acts. This largely had to do with the Catholic Church’s encouragement of people actively confessing more and confessing on a more personal level. This made sexual discussion permissible beyond the mind, which might not seem all that significant until you consider that for quite some time, sexual discussion was not had at all whatsoever. This steady transition from thought into spoken word is crucial as it provides a transition period where people feel more comfortable discussing these thoughts and ideas with someone that isn’t themselves.

However, there is an obvious downside. As this immediate need to confess consistently and constantly, meant that people would be discussing sexual acts on a nearly weekly basis. Even when discussing it, though, there was still a degree of censorship involved in “how” you were meant to confess things. You couldn’t just say that you had sex, there were ways which was perhaps a futile effort to keep the traditional values of prudishness around for a while longer. Our modern society is reflective of the failures of this approach. Yet the idea, was to approach the discussion of sex in an almost mechanical way to avoid the appeal of it. This was crucial as one of the powers of the church was in the control of relationships through marriage and if this “branding” of marriage were somehow tainted through promiscuity then it would collapse a large sector of the church’s values and approach. Which is why, in this particular situation, the Catholic Church faced a particular and most curious issue. They wanted to increase motivation for people attending church, which meant that people had to confess more, and in doing so the only thing left to confess that people did wrong was sex. Which is what led to this specific language for sex being developed, to describe it in such a way that made people feel as though they had done something wrong and needed to cleanse themselves of it. Did it do much in deterring premarital sex? That’s up for debate and another conversation. For now, however, it’s important to note the secession of authority when it comes to sex from the church to the people and its relationship that has slowly shifted in power.

In Bell Hook’s essay, “Eating the Other” there is a relationship established between “the other” and everything that isn’t part of that group. Affectionately named, “The Other” this classification of people entails anyone that isn’t white, so to be a part of this group you have to be just dark enough that a person of this group questions your “purity.” What’s important to note, is that throughout my personal experience as well as in class, we have examined that you can also belong to this group as well as “The Other” all at the same time. As there is no realistic barrier of entry for being a part of the white majority, you just need to look enough like them and act enough like them to reap the benefits that being white entails. However, we’re examining the relationships that is shared between whites and non-whites as interpreted by Bell Hooks. The first thing is that there’s obviously some degree of ethnocentrism among  any group of races, regardless of their color. Whites aren’t the first to think of themselves as the all powerful majority and they certainly won’t be the last, either. That doesn’t mean this doesn’t serve as a starting point for interpretation into “how” the white majority views their counterparts. Which is perhaps best described as a tasteful yet cautious curiosity. This intense separation of “Us VS. Them” offers a unique form of appeal between the white majority and anything that isn’t white that’s very unique to any minority group that finds themselves in a position of needing to interact with white people on a daily basis. This perhaps can serve and is suggested by Hooks as the breaking point at which the racial division can crumble, as white people are still people, and their inherent desire to satisfy their curiosity is perhaps far greater than any desire they have of hating a group that hasn’t personally wronged them, I think.

There’s compelling reasons to believe that gender and sexuality are social constructs when reading through this story. Namely in the form of projection. There’s a strong sense of projection going on through the play where the characters portray typical gender norms, where masculinity is grown into and femininity is seen as weak or inferior. This is shown by the boys growing into their voices, and the girls needing to be rescued as per their roles in the play. Though it’s meant to be nothing more than a play, plays are drawn from representation of reality and to a degree parody the writer’s understanding of reality. In this case, the typical gender norms are greatly exaggerated, perhaps to draw emphasis on the roles and even to draw absurdity to them. This isn’t apparent to the people in the play, but it is painfully apparent to the person reading the story, which is the intended goal of the fictional play, I imagine. There’s also the issue of sexual interests. There’s almost a constant display of typical romantic interests involving men and women to such a degree that anything exceeding that is abnormal and frowned upon. Mrs. Mac in particular is a strong proponent of the constant in-your-face shoving of this idea that only men and women can be together. Though this one is a little more difficult to argue, as biologically speaking men and women are supposed to be paired together, the idea that something else can’t exist outside of that is a little absurd, however. And that’s where this constant shoving of the almost obvious starts to become almost comical and perhaps, even an act to repress something else. What I find particularly interesting about this story, though, is how sexually charged the entire thing is. For a High School that’s meant to nurture young minds, there’s this implicit dialogue of sexuality going on between teachers and students that’s quite literally palpable. Which is not unusual, but given how dated their approach to sexuality is, it makes the whole thing very concerning. There isn’t a questioning approach, there’s just a, “This is how things have always been” approach that offers no further dissection as to why things are the way that they are. Which adds, perhaps, to the repressive nature that I am sure is to come later on throughout the story.

A topic that can be found in the works we’ve read so far is motherhood. Specifically, the exploitation and unnatural abuse of motherhood towards women. What makes this topic so peculiar is how universal the documentation of similarities are between the works that we’ve read so far. In Davis’s analysis of motherhood in enslaved women, it’s no surprise that the first thing we’re reading is how the more fertile the enslaved women, the more desirable she becomes. This is entirely due to the fact that the banning of slavery made this a necessity for slave owners to continue exploiting cheap labor. Yet, Davis describes the treatment of these women as not being mothers at all, but simply instruments guaranteeing the growth of the slave labor force (Davis,  11). They were essentially breeders, useful for nothing more than cheap labor and the production of even more cheap labor. In Frederici’s work, we learn that motherhood was yet again a burden to women this time instead of having their motherhood exploited, it became a burden. When women were unable to adapt to being nomadic much in the same way that men could, it was due in part to either being pregnant, or simply being unable to do so because of possible abuse and exploitation of men. They had children to take care of which would slow them down, and it was much more dangerous for women to travel than it was for men. An interesting comparison into how both of these author’s talks about motherhood, is that Davis focuses on the specific physical components of motherhood that further enslaved women. Whereas Frederici focuses on how these particular physical aspects of being women are what held them down from being able to do the same things that men could. Though the concept of motherhood prevented these women from, in this case, further abuse it’s the how that makes it curious. Perhaps in large part due to the color and social status of these women is why the exploitation of motherhood affects them so differently, it doesn’t take away from the fact that the effects of it are universally felt.