tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2839519942367146682011-06-03T22:56:52.731-07:00Studentfor students.....SANTOSH NEUPANEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557529009216040292marigold_rose2050@yahoo.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-283951994236714668.post-52010898649834554362010-10-02T03:01:00.000-07:002010-10-03T02:52:02.612-07:002010-10-03T02:52:02.612-07:00<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>READER-RESPONSE CRITICISM</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: left;">
</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<a href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9r4uz59Lino/TKhR_no1BEI/AAAAAAAAAHg/YlllVaOKZX0/s1600/student-welcome.gif" imageanchor="1" style="clear: right; float: right; margin-bottom: 1em; margin-left: 1em;"><img border="0" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9r4uz59Lino/TKhR_no1BEI/AAAAAAAAAHg/YlllVaOKZX0/s1600/student-welcome.gif" /></a><iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B002HE1IBM&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Reader-response criticism focuses on reader’s r<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=student01-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002HE1IBM" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" />esponses to literary texts. Reader’s responses are important to enough to become the focus of literary interpretation. Reader-response is a broad, exciting, evolving domain of literary studies that can help us learn about our own reading processes and how they related to specific elements in the text we read, our life experiences, and the intellectual community of which we are a member. Reader-response theory maintains that what a text is cannot be separated from what it does. Reader-response theorists share i) the role of the reader cannot be omitted from our understanding of literature and ii) that readers do not passively consume the meaning presented to them by an objective literary text; rather they actively make the meaning they find in literature. The second belief that readers make meaning, suggests that different readers may read the same text quite differently.<img alt="" border="0" height="1" src="http://www.assoc-amazon.com/e/ir?t=student01-20&l=bil&camp=213689&creative=392969&o=1&a=B002HE1IBM" style="border: none !important; margin: 0px !important; padding: 0px !important;" width="1" /><br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>Transactional reader-response theory</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Transactional reader-response theory is often associated with the work of Loise Rosenblatt. He formulated many of its premises. It analyzes the transaction between the text and reader. Text and readers both are necessary in the production of meaning. For the transaction between text and reader to occur, our approach to text must be aesthetic rather than efferent. When we read in the “efferent” mode, we focus just on the information contained in the text. In contrast, when we read in the “aesthetic” mode, we experience a personal relationship to the text that focuses our attention on the emotional subtleties of its language and encourages us to make judgment. Without the aesthetic approach there could be no transaction between text and reader to analyze.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Rosenblatt refers to as the blueprint and a stimulus function of the text in terms of two kinds of meaning every<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B003XMUFGQ&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe> text offers: ‘determinate’ and ‘indeterminate’ meaning. Determinate meaning refers to the facts of the text, certain events in the plot. In contrast, indeterminate meaning refers to the “gaps” in the text which allow readers to create their own interpretations. The interplay between determinate and indeterminate meanings result in a number of ongoing experiences for the reader: retrospection, or thinking back to what we have read earlier in the text; anticipation of what will came next; fulfillment or disappointment of our anticipation, revising of our understanding of characters and events, and so on. According to transactional reader-response theorists, different readers come up with different acceptable interpretations because the text allows for a range of acceptable meanings.</div>
<div>
<br />
<div>
<b><u>Affective stylistics</u></b></div>
<div>
Affective stylistic is derived from analyzing further the notion that a literary text is an event that occurs in time rather than an object that exists in space. The text is examined closely, often line by line or even word by word, in order to ‘how’ it ‘affects’ the reader in the process of reading. Affective stylistics is not description of the reader’s impressionistic responses but a cognitive analysis of the mental processes produced by specific elements in the text.<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B002Y27P3M&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe> It is the phrase-by-phrase analysis of how the text structures the reader’s response. It maps the pattern by which a text structures the reader’s the reader’s response while reading. This response is then used to show that the meaning of the text does not consist of the final conclusion we draw about what the text ‘says’; rather, the meaning of the text consists of our experience of what the text ‘does’ to us as we read it. Reader-response critic might say that the text reaches us, through a pattern of raised expectations disappointed, how to read that text and, how to read the world. Affective stylistics believes that the text is an independent object which disappears in their analysis and becomes what it really is. The use of thematic evidence underscores the important role played by the text in establishing what the readers’ experience is.<br />
<br />
<div>
<u><b>Subjective reader-response theory</b></u></div>
<div>
Subjective reader-response theory is led by the work of David Bleich. For reader-response theory reader’s responses are the text, both in the sense that there is no literary text beyond the meanings created by reader’s interpretations and the meanings created by readers’ interpretations and in the sense that the text the critic analyzes is not the literary work but the written responses of readers.</div>
<div>
To understand how there is no literary text beyond the meanings created by readers’ interpretations; we need to understand how Bleich defines the literary text. He differentiates between what he calls ‘real objects’ and ‘symbolic objects’. Real objects are physical objects such as tables, chairs, cars, books and the like. The printed pages of a literary text are real objects. However, the experience created between when someone reads those printed pages is a symbolic object because it occurs not in the physical world but in the conceptual world. This is why Bleich calls reading ‘symbolization’: our perception and identification of our reading experience create a conceptual or symbolic world in our mind as we read. Therefore, when we interpret the meaning of the text, we’re actually interpreting the meaning of our own symbolization: we’re interpreting the meaning of the conceptual experience we created in response to the text. Thus, he calls the act of interpretation‘re-symbolization’. Re-symbolization occurs when our experience of the text produces in us a desire for explanation. Our evaluation of the text’s quality is also an act of re-symbolization. Thus, the text we talk about isn’t really the text on the page: it’s the text in our mind.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B003GAMPWM&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe><b><u><br /></u></b><br />
<div>
<b><u>Psychological reader-response theory</u></b></div>
<div>
Psychoanalytic critic Norman Holland believes that reader’s motives strongly influence how they read. According to him, we react to literary texts with the same psychological responses we bring to events in our daily lives. While reading the text, there is an exploration of reader’s psychology. For example, if I dislike a drunkard as he reminds me my drunkard father I probably will be quick to dislike any character of the text who reminds me of my father. If I have desire to control the world around me, while reading the text I easily may identify myself with powerful protagonist/antagonist who has control over the world of the text. The immediate goal of interpretation, like the immediate psychological goal of our daily lives, is to fulfill our psychological needs and desires. When we read literature, we project our identity theme, or variations of it, onto the text. Our interpretations are the products of the fears, defenses, needs and desires we project on to the text. Interpretation is primarily a psychological process rather than an intellectual one. A literary interpretation may or may not reveal the meaning of the text, but it always reveals the psychology of the reader.<br />
<br />
<div>
<u><b>Social reader-response theory</b></u></div>
<div>
For social reader-response theory which is associated with the work of Stanley Fish, there is no purely individual subjective response over the text. According to Fish, what we take to be our individual subjective responses to literature are really products of the ‘interpretive community’ to which we belong. By interpretive community, Fish means those who share the interpretive strategies we bring to texts when we read, whether or not we realize we are using interpretive strategies and whether or not we are aware that other people share them. These interpretive strategies always result from various sorts of institutionalized assumptions (assumptions established in high schools, churches, and colleges by prevailing cultural attitudes and philosophies) about what makes a piece of literature. Interpretive communities are not static; they evolve over time. Consciously or unconsciously readers can belong to more than one community at the same time, or they can change from one community to another at different times. <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B003XWEQ1G&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe></div>
<div>
Social reader-response theory doesn’t offer us a new way to read texts. Nor does it promote any form of literary criticism that already exists. Its point is that no interpretation and no literary criticism can claim to reveal what’s ‘in’ a text. By understanding the principles of social reader-response theory, we can become more aware of what it is we’re doing when we interpret a text and more aware of what our peers and students are doing as well.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<br />
<br />
<div>
Defining readers</div>
<div>
While doing reader-response theory in literary criticism, we need to know about the concept of “readers”. Some reader-response critics refer to ‘readers’ while others refer to ‘the reader’. When theorists discuss actual readers whose responses they analyze, they refer to them as ‘readers’ or ‘students’ or call them real people. Many theorists analyze the reading experience of a hypothetical ideal reader encountering a specific text. Stanley Fish talks about informed reader: the reader who has attained the literary competency necessary to experience the text. Similarly, we may also come across with ‘hypothetical readers’, and the ‘optional reader’. Wolfgang Iser uses the term ‘implied reader’ by which he means the reader that the text seems to be addressing. Yet other terms for readers are ‘intended reader’ and ‘the naratte’. </div>
</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
<br /></div>
</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/283951994236714668-5201089864983455436?l=stlawrencecollege.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>SANTOSH NEUPANEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557529009216040292marigold_rose2050@yahoo.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-283951994236714668.post-24630913838250862872010-09-30T02:54:00.000-07:002010-10-02T03:22:28.198-07:002010-10-02T03:22:28.198-07:00Marxist Criticism<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B004089GJO&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe><br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span>3</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-tab-span" style="white-space: pre;"> </span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;"><u><b>Marxist criticism</b></u></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;"><u><b><br /></b></u></span></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Marxism is not a viable theory. Communities societies which are based on the principles developed by Karl Marx (1818-1883) have been oligarchies in which a small group of leaders controls the money and the guns and forces it’s polices on a population kept in the line through physical pressure. Even if communist countries were true Marxist societies and even if all of them had failed, Marxist theory would still give a meaningful way to understand history and current events. One could use Marxist to interpret the failure of Marxist regimes.<br />
<a name='more'></a><br />
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Fundamental premises of Marxism</span></u></b><br />
<b><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For Marxism, generating and keeping economic power is the motive behind all social and political activities, including education, philosophy, religion, government, the arts, science, technology, and the media and so on. Economic is the “base” on which the “superstructure” of social/political/ideological realities is built. Economic <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=1572703032&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>power always includes social and political power as well. So, many Marxist today refer to socioeconomic class, rather than economic class, when talking about the class-structure.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In Marxist terminology, economic conditions are referred to as ‘material’ circumstances and the social/political/ideological atmosphere generated by material conditions is called the ‘historical’ situation. For Marxist critics, neither human events nor human productions can be understood without understanding the specific material/historical circumstances in which those events and productions occur. All human events and productions have specific material/historical causes. An accurate picture of human affairs cannot be obtained by the search for abstract, timeless essences or principles but only by understanding concrete conditions in the world. Therefore, Marxist analysis of human events and productions focuses on relationship among socioeconomic classes within and among the societies and it explains all human activities in terms of the distribution and dynamics of economic power. Marxist methodology dictates that theoretical ideas can be judges to have value only in terms of their concrete application.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From a Marxist perspective, differences in socioeconomic class divide people in ways that are much more significant than differences in religion, race, ethnicity or gender. For the real battle lines are drawn between the “haves” and the “have-not”, between the “bourgeoisie”- those who control the world’s naturals, economic and human resources, and the “proletariat”, the majority of the global population who live in substandard conditions and who have always performed the manual labor. Marxist today believed that the proletariat will one day spontaneously develop the class consciousness needed to rise up in violent revolution against their oppressors and create a classless society.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: lime;"> </span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;"><u>The class system in America</u></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;"><u><br /></u></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is become difficult in the United States to clearly place people either the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. In this country some workers earn more than some owners. The words ‘bourgeoisie’(noun) and ‘bourgeois’(adjective) have come to refer in everyday speech to the middle class in general, with no distinction between owners and wage earners. It might be more useful to classify Americans according to socioeconomic lifestyle without reference to the manner in which their income is acquired. To understand which individual belong to the bourgeoisie and which to the proletariat we can observe the differences in socioeconomic lifestyle of following five groups: 1) the homeless, who have few material possessions and little hope of improvement, 2) the poor, whose limited educational and career opportunities keep them struggling to support their families and living in fear of becoming homeless, 3) the financially established who own nice homes and cars and can usually afford to send their children to college, 4) the well-to-do, who can afford two or more expensive homes, several cars, and luxury items, and 5) the extremely wealthy; such as the owners of large, well-established corporations, for whom money is no problem whatsoever. We might refer to these five groups as America’s ‘underclass’, ‘lower class’, ‘middle class’, ‘upper class’ and ‘aristocracy’.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Member of the underclass and the lower class are economically oppressed. They suffer the ills of economic privation. They are hardest hit by economic recessions and have limited means of improving their lot. In contrast, member of the upper class and ‘aristocracy’ are economically privileged. They enjoy luxurious <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B00153ZQ96&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>lifestyles. They are least affected by economic recessions and have a great deal of financial security. The socioeconomic lifestyle of middle class is certainly better that of the classes below them. They have more financial stability than the lower classes. They are often hard hit by economic recessions and usually have good reason to worry about their financial future. They benefit from institutionalized forms of economic security. For the poor and homeless in America today, the struggle to survive is certainly a factor in keeping them down. The elements oppressing them are the police and other government strong-man agencies, who have mistreated lower-class and underclass poor perceived as a threat to the power structure. The poor are oppressed even more effectively by ideology.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">The role of ideology</span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For Marxism, an ideology is a belief system. All belief systems are products of cultural conditioning. For example, capitalism, communism, Marxism, patriotism, religion, ethical system, humanism, environmentalism, astrology, and karate all are ideologies. Our assumption that nature behaves according to the law of science is an ideology. Any experience or field of study we can think of has an ideological component. All ideologies are not equally productive or desirable. Undesirable ideologies promote repressive political agendas. Repressive ideologies prevent us from understanding the material/historical conditions in which we live because they refuse to acknowledge that those conditions have any bearing on the way we see the world. Marxism is a non-repressive ideology. Marxism makes us aware of all the ways in which we are products of material/historical circumstances and of the repressive ideologies. Marxist theories differ in their estimation of the degree to which we are “programmed” by ideology. The most successful ideologies are not recognized as ideologies but are thought to be natural ways of seeing the world by the people who subscribe to them. The economic interests of middle class America would best be served by a political alliance with the poor in order to attain a more equitable distribution of America’s enormous wealth among the middle and lower classes. The middle class generally sides with the wealthy against the poor.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The middle class tends to dislike the poor because so much middle class tax money goes to government to help the poor. The middle class fails to realize two important socioeconomic realities: 1) it is the wealthy in positions of power, who decide who pays the most taxes and how the money will be spent, and 2) the poor receive but a small portion of the funds earmarked for them. The middle class is blinded by their belief in <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B000AL8JKW&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>“American Dream”, which tells them that financial success is simply the product of hard work. Marxist analysis reveals that the American dream is an ideology as a belief system not an innate or natural way of seeing the world. All ideologies support the socioeconomic inequalities of capitalist countries where the means of production i.e. natural, financial and human resources are privately owned. It is the power of ideology that has blinded us to the harsh realities it makes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From Marxist point of view, ‘classism’ is an ideology that equates one’s value as a human being with the social class to which one belongs. From a classist perspective, people at the top of the social scale are naturally superior to those below them. Those at the top are more intelligent, more responsible, more trustworthy, and more ethical and so on. People at the bottom of the social scale are naturally shiftiness, lazy, and irresponsible. It is right and natural that those from the highest social class should hold the positions of power and leadership because they are naturally suited to such roles and are the only ones who can be trusted to perform them properly. ‘Patriotism’ is an ideology that keeps poor people fighting wars against poor people from other countries while the rich on both sides collect in the profits of war-time economy. Because patriotism leads the poor to see themselves as members of a nation rather than as members of a worldwide oppressed class opposed to all privileged classes including those from their own country. ‘Religion’ which Karl Marx called “the opiate of the masses” is an ideology that helps to keep the faithful poor satisfied with their lot in life. The question of God’s existence is not the fundamental issue for Marxism analysis rather what human beings do in God’s name i.e. ‘organized religion’ is the focus. For example many Christian religious groups work to feed, clothe, house, educate the world’s poor; the religious tents include the conviction that the poor will find their reward in heaven. The 10 percent of the world’s population who own 90 percent of the world’s wealth have a interest in promoting this aspect of Christian belief among the poor and historically have exploited Christianity for just this purpose.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
‘Rugged individualism’ which is a cornerstone of the American dream is an ideology that romanticizes the individual who strikes out alone in pursuit of a goal not easily achieved. Marxist thinkers consider rugged individualism an oppressive ideology because it puts self-interest above the needs, even above the survival of other people. By keeping the focus on “me” instead of on “us”, rugged individualism works against the well-being of society as a whole. Rugged individualism also gives us the illusion that we make our own decisions without being significantly influenced by ideology of any sort. We’re all significantly influenced by various ideologies all the time. ‘Consumerism’ is another cornerstone of the American dream. Consumerism is an ideology that says “I’m only as good as what I buy”. It fulfills two ideological purposes: it gives us the illusion that I can be ‘as good as’ the wealthy if I can purchase what they purchase and it fills the coffers of the wealthy who manufacture and sell the consumer products I buy.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The goal of the Marxist critics is to identify the ideology at work in cultural productions- literature, films, paintings, popular philosophy, religion, forms of entertainment and so on- and to analyze how that ideology supports or undermines the socio-economic system in which that cultural production plays a significant role. Marxists believe that all social phenomena from child rearing-practices to environmental concerns are cultural productions and that culture cannot be separated from the socio-economic system that produced it. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Human behavior, the commodity, and the family</span></span></b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;"><br /></span></span></b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The later works of Karl Marx focus on economic rather than on the individual. Marx’s concern over the raise of a capitalist economy was a concern for the effects of capitalism on human values. In a capitalist economy system, an object’s value becomes impersonal. Its values is translated into a monetary ‘equivalent’ and determined solely in terms of its relationship to a monetary market. The focus of the Marxist, on the ways in which, ideology is transmitted through popular culture and operates in our emotional lives. Many Marxists insights into human behavior involve the damaging effects of capitalism on human psychology. Those damaging effects often appear in our relationship to the commodity. An object becomes a commodity only when it has ‘exchange value’ or ‘sign-exchange value’, and both forms of value are determined by the society in which the object is exchanged. ‘Commodification’ is the act of relating to objects or persons in terms of their exchange value or sign-exchange value.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
From Marxist perspective, the survival of capitalism is depending on consumerism. Capitalism’s constant need for new markets in which to sell goods and for new sources of raw materials from which to make goods is also responsible for the spread of ‘imperialism’. Imperialism is the military, economic or cultural domination of one nation by another for the financial benefit of the dominating nation with little or no concern for the welfare of the dominated. Spain’s rule of Mexico, England’s domination of India is the example of imperialist activities. It is important to understand capitalism is the way in which consciousness can be “colonized” by imperialist governments. To ‘colonize’ the consciousness of subordinate peoples means to convince them to <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=032159195X&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>see their situation. The imperialist nation wants to convince them that they are mentally, spiritually, and culturally inferior to their conquerors and that their lot will be improved under the “guidance” and “protection” of their new leaders. The attempt to colonize consciousness can be practiced against us by our own culture.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For Marxism, the family is not the source of the individual’s psychological identity. The individual and the family are the products of material/historical circumstances. The family unconsciously carries out the cultural “program” in raising its children, but the program is produced by the socioeconomic culture within which the family operates. Marxist critics examine the family conflicts and psychological wounds as a product of the ideological forces carried by films, fashion, art, music, education, and law. Marxist critics will show us the ways in which family dysfunctions are themselves products of the socioeconomic system and the ideologies it promotes.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;">Marxist and literature</span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: purple;"><br /></span></u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
In every field of Marxism there is a great deal of disagreement among Marxist theorists and literary critics concerning the formation and role of class solidarity among proletariat, the role of the media in manipulating our political consciousness, the relationship between ideology and psychology. </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
For Marxism, literature is a product of socio-economic and ideological conditions of the time and place in which it was written because human beings are themselves products of their socioeconomic and ideological environment. The literature grows out of and reflects real material/historical conditions create two possibilities of interest to Marxist critics: 1) the literary work might tend to reinforce in the reader the ideologies it embodies or 2) it might invite the reader to criticize the ideologies it represents. Text is not merely the content of a literary work or the action that carries ideology but it is the “form”. Realism, naturalism, surrealism, symbolism, romanticism, modernism, postmodernism, tragedy, comedy, satire, interior monologue, stream of consciousness and other genres and literary devices are the means by which ‘form’ is constituted. Realism gives us characters and plot as if we were looking through a window onto an actual scene taking place before our eyes. Our attention is drawn not to the nature of the words on the page but to the action these words convey. We frequently forget the words we’re reading and the way the narrator is structured is we “get lost” in the story. For some Marxist, realism is the best form for Marxist purposes because it clearly and accurately <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B003MVZ8D8&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>represents the real world, with all its socioeconomic inequalities and ideological conditions, and encourages readers to see the unhappy truths about material/historical reality.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Although Marxists have long disagreed about what kinds of works are most useful in promoting social awareness and positive political change, many today believes that even those literary works that reinforce capitalist, imperialist, or other classist values are useful in that they can show us how these ideologies work to seduce or force us into involvement with their repressive ideological agendas. </div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/283951994236714668-2463091383825086287?l=stlawrencecollege.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>SANTOSH NEUPANEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557529009216040292marigold_rose2050@yahoo.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-283951994236714668.post-83834505047891486662010-09-07T22:30:00.000-07:002010-10-02T03:30:03.538-07:002010-10-02T03:30:03.538-07:00<br />
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><u>What is Structuralism?</u></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Structuralism is the name that is given to a wide range of discourses that study underlying structures of <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B000M8OX6W&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>signification. Signification occurs wherever there is a meaningful event or in the practise of some meaningful action. Hence the phrase, "signifying practices." A meaningful event might include any of following: writing or reading a text; getting married; having a discussion over a cup of coffee; a battle. Most (if not all) meaningful events involve either a document or an exchange that can be documented. This would be called a "text." Texts might include any of the following: a news broadcast; an advertisement; an edition of Shakespeare’s King Lear; the manual for my new washing machine; the wedding vows; a feature film. From the point of view of structuralism all texts, all meaningful events and all signifying practices can be analysed for their underlying structures. Such an analysis would reveal the patterns that characterise the system that makes such texts and practices possible. We cannot see a structure or a system per se. In fact it would be very awkward for us if we were aware at all times of the structures that make our signifying practices possible. Rather they remain unconscious but necessary aspects of our whole way of being what we are. Structuralism therefore promises to offer insights into what makes us the way we are<br />
<a name='more'></a></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b>The Sign</b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The sign is, for Saussure, the basic element of language. Meaning has always been explained in terms of the relationship between signs and their referents. Back in the 19th Century an important figure for semiotics, the pragmatic philosopher Charles Sanders Peirce (pronounced purse), isolated three different types of sign: The symbolic sign is like a word in so far as it refers by symbolising its referent. It neither has to look like it nor have any natural relation to it at all. Thus the word cat has no relation to that ginger monster that wails all night outside my apartment. But its owner knows what I’m talking about when I say "your cat kept me awake all night." A poetic symbol like the sun (which may stand for enlightenment and truth) has an obviously symbolic <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B002M3SOBU&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>relation to what it means. But how do such relationships come about? Saussure has an explanation. The indexical sign is like a signpost or a finger pointing in a certain direction. An arrow may accompany the signpost to San Francisco or to "Departures." The index of a book will have a list of alphabetically ordered words with page numbers after each of them. These signs play an indexical function (in this instance, as soon as you’ve looked one up you’ll be back in the symbolic again). The iconic sign refers to its object by actually resembling it and is thus more likely to be like a picture (as with a road sign like that one with the courteous workman apologising for the disruption). Cinema rhetoric often uses the shorthand that iconic signs provide. Most signs can be used in any or all three of these ways often simultaneously. The key is to be able to isolate the different functions.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Saussure departs from all previous theories of meaning by discovering that language can be examined independently of its referents (that is, anything outside language that can be said to be what language refers to, like things, fictions and abstractions). This is because the sign contains both its signifying element (what you see or hear when you look at a written word or hear a spoken one) and its meaningful content. The sign cat must be understood as being made up of two aspects. The letters--which are anyway just marks--"C" "A" "T"--combine to form a single word--"cat." And simultaneously the meaning that is signified by this word enters into my thoughts (I cannot help understanding this). At first sight this is an odd way of thinking. The meaning of the word cat is neither that actual ginger monster nor any of the actual feline beings that have existed nor any that one day surely will--a potential infinity of cats. The meaning of the word cat is its potential to be used (e.g., in the sentence "your cat kept me up all night.") And we need to able to use it potentially infinitely many times. So in some strict sense cat has no specific meaning at all, more like a kind of empty space into which certain images or concepts or events of usage can be spilled. For this reason Saussure was able to isolate language from any actual event of its being used to refer to things at all. This is because although the meaning of a word is determined to a certain extent in conventional use (if I’d said "your snake kept me up" I’d have been in trouble) there is always something undetermined, always something yet to be determined, about it.<br />
<u><b><br /></b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b>Signifier/Signified</b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
So Saussure divides the sign into its two aspects. First there’s the bit that you can see or hear. Actually you can imagine signs that are accessible to each of the senses. The laboratory technicians at Chanel, for instance, have an acute receptivity to the smallest nuanced difference between scents. In this case they are literally "readers" or "interpreters" of scent in so far as they are able to identify minute differences. So if you can see, hear, touch, taste or smell it you can probably interpret it and it is likely to have some meaning for you. Audible and visible signs have priority for Saussure because they are the types of sign that make up most of <iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B0036WT3IO&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>our known languages. Such signs are called "verbal" signs (from the Latin verba meaning "word"). The sensible part of a verbal sign (the part accessible to the senses) is the part you see or hear. This is its signifier. You can understand this much by looking at a word you don’t understand--a word from a language you don’t know, perhaps. All you get is its signifier. The following marks are the best approximation I can make to a word in an imaginary foreign language: bluk. It is a signifier. Already, though, notice that a certain amount of signification occurs--the foreigness is already part of its signified and the fact that we recognise it as a combination of marks that can be repeated already presents us with a potential signified. And, most eerily, although we only saw the mark we simultaneously heard it in our heads--not actually but that part of our brain that listens out for sounds took one look at a non-existent word and heard something too. The signified is what these visible/audible aspects mean to us. Now we know very well that some marks mean very different things to different people at different times. The word "cat" in my example means "ginger monster" to me but to my neighbour it means cuddly old much maligned softy who is only innocently going about its business. The signified is thus always something of an interpretation that is added to the signifier. Usually we individuals don’t have to work too hard at interpreting signs. The groundwork has already been done--which is why "cat" pretty much nearly always means what it means. One of the most influential aspects of Saussure’s course is his explanation concerning that groundwork.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<u><b>Structural Linguistics and Anthropology</b></u></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<iframe align="left" frameborder="0" marginheight="0" marginwidth="0" scrolling="no" src="http://rcm.amazon.com/e/cm?t=student01-20&o=1&p=8&l=bpl&asins=B001DYTVN4&fc1=000000&IS2=1&lt1=_blank&m=amazon&lc1=0000FF&bc1=000000&bg1=FFFFFF&f=ifr" style="align: left; height: 245px; padding-right: 10px; padding-top: 5px; width: 131px;"></iframe>Whatever interpretation we put on (or "find out" in) "The Sick Rose" we can see that it will have been possible owing to analogical structures. Roses become sick because some germ or bug infects them. People become sick when some germ or bug infects them. By extension we might find that societies become sick when some germ or bug (evil intentions) infect them. Our thinking about all kinds of thing is infected too by structures and patterns that we find repeated in lots of different situations. The signified, that is, the meaning, of anything seems to come out of a pre-existing system the makes it possible and governs it. Structural analysis thus aims to "find out" the systems of thought that govern the ways we construct our world and interpret our experience. Structural analysis, however, as it was first set up, aimed to do this while remaining unaffected by social and/or cultural systems themselves. That is, they aimed for a purely scientific perspective that would not be governed or controlled by underlying structures. The most striking results in a field other than linguistics emerges with the work of the French anthropologist, Claude Levi-Strauss. He thought that linguistics was the first discipline among the humanities (or social sciences, as some parts of the humanities like to be known) to be established on purely scientific principles. </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<br /><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/283951994236714668-8383450504789148666?l=stlawrencecollege.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>SANTOSH NEUPANEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557529009216040292marigold_rose2050@yahoo.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-283951994236714668.post-81632582758098767132010-09-03T01:16:00.000-07:002010-09-30T02:38:04.806-07:002010-09-30T02:38:04.806-07:00Sociology/Anthropology (B. A. 1st Year)<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: magenta;"><u><span class="Apple-style-span" style="background-color: white;">History of Human Society and Culture:</span></u></span></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b><i>Paleolithic</i></b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The first or the oldest pre-historical culture is known as Paleolithic or Old Stone Age. The word Paleolithic has come from the Greek word ‘Palaios’ meaning old and ‘lithos’ means stone. Paleolithic refers to the pre-history of mankind covering the period from the first appearance of tool using human until the emergence of Mesolithic stage. Paleolithic people lived as hunter-gatherers without agriculture and without formal pottery production. The Paleolithic has traditionally been subdivided into three successive phases, namely</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. Lower Paleolithic age </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. Middle Paleolithic age </div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Upper Paleolithic age</div>
<a name='more'></a><div style="text-align: justify;">
<br /></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Lower Paleolithic age</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
It is the most ancient stage of human being. It is said that the Aestelopithecus was raised in this age. People in this age had hunting and gathering nature. At the very beginning they had very difficult types of weapons. But later on they discovered, Fire, which gave various shape, size and easiness to them and their weapons. Commonly they had Hand axe, Awls, Flake tools. The Lower Paleolithic people used to hunt animals like horse, dear, rabbit etc. They used to live in caves. These people used to wear ornaments of Shippy shellfish, wood, stone and of bones. They had sign language to protect themselves from their enemies. They used to take the help of fire to protect themselves from cold and from their enemies. Especially women used to look their children and men used to go for hunting foods and required things. There was no development of art, literature etc. During Lower Paleolithic period many river valleys and traces were formed. People of this period preferred to live near the water supply area.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Middle Paleolithic age</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
The period of cultural history associated with Neanderthal is traditionally called the Middle Paleolithic in Europe and the Near East and dates from about 300,000 years ago to about 40,000 years ago. For Africa, the term Middle Stone Age is used instead of Middle Paleolithic. More technologically advanced tools appear in the Middle Paleolithic, with a developing aesthetic and religious awareness. Most of the excavated Paleolithic homosities in Europe and the Near East are located in caves and rock shelters. Quite a few home sites of early Homo sapiens were in the open. The hunters probably moved away in the summer to higher land between the river valleys. In Europe they used to depend on oxen, horses, rhinoceroses and deer, as well as bears, wolves and foxed for their food. African was mostly depended upon buffaloes and eland and also on shellfish.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Upper Paleolithic age</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Middle Paleolithic age disappear in Africa and Southwestern Asia by 40,000 years ago at the latest and in Europe after about 35,000 years ago. Upper Paleolithic age replaced it. The last part of the Stone Age gave rise to the Upper Paleolithic culture, which covers approximately 1/10th of the time span of entire Paleolithic period. During this period the prehistoric man made his greatest cultural progress. This period shows diversified and specialized tools made on blades by replacement of the hand axes and flake tools of earlier cultures. During this period bone was also taken as a material for making tools. Early man of primitive types disappeared at this cultural stage and the man of modern type came into existence. This cultural stage also shows the beginning and flowering of the Paleolithic art. Upper Paleolithic peoples made many different stone tools as well as tools and ornaments out of bare, ivory, and antler; composite tools such as spears and arrows; and clothing from animal fur. Artistic expression, in the form of cave paintings and personal ornaments, is the most striking evidence in the upper Paleolithic for the modern human capacity for culture. The subjects of paintings are mostly animals. Upper Paleolithic peoples seem to have been more numerous and more widespread than previous peoples, surely because of a modern capacity for culture. Skeletons from this period show few signs of injury or disease. Upper Paleolithic people apparently participated in widespread trading networks. Life styles during the Upper Paleolithic were similar to life styles before. People were still mainly hunters and gatherers and fishers who probably lived in highly mobile bands. They made their camps out in the open and in caves and rock shelters. And they continued to produce smaller and smaller stone tools. But the Upper Paleolithic is also characterized by a variety of new developments. Most of the Upper Paleolithic people used to live in caves and rock-shelters. The settlement seems to have consisted of four ten like huts, probably made from animal skins, with a great open hearth in the centre. The bow and arrow was also used in various places during the upper Paleolithic. The faces and structure of these period men was very much developed. They are named as Homo sapiens. They were very near to the modern man. After the arrival of this age there came great progress in the field of weapons. So, some says this age to be prehistoric industrial revolutionary age.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Mesolithic Age</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Mesolithic Age is said to be the bridge between Paleolithic Age and Neolithic Age. After the completion of Stone Age, this age came into existence. The culture of this age people seems to be much rich. Weapons were also found to be of various shapes, sizes and to the need. They used to make weapons not only of stones but also of woods. People used to hunt animals like dear, rabbit etc. Similarly they used to collect and gather food grains and various vegetarian foods from jungle. They started doing pastorals. At first they started keeping wild animals like dog, cat, dear etc and later on pig, sheep, horse, goat, buffaloes etc. But they could not do agriculture. Mesolithic people started cooking their foods. At their latter period they started setting for long period in particular places. They used to do painting and used to make clay pots. They used to dig dead bodies. The main contribution of this age to society is that it dropped out many of the technologies that existed during Paleolithic and developed new ones to give rise to the Neolithic culture. Mesolithic was a brief period in comparison to Paleolithic. It was a less distinctive period for the use of stone. The Upper Paleolithic economy of food gathering persisted in Mesolithic but fishing collecting were added. Similarly the base of farming was prepared during this period. Thus, Mesolithic stood as a well-defined stage of terminal food gathering. Mesolithic people had little material culture. They also acquired a few items of material culture like pothery, metal tools and stone beads for ornaments. They used to bury the dead bodies within the habitation area.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
<b>Neolithic</b></div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
Neolithic is a Greek word, which means ‘New Stone’. The period since the discovery of agriculture to the raise of urban civilization has been known as Neolithic Age. This Age lasted approximately from 8000 BC to 3000 BC. Twentieth century Anthropologists define Neolithic Age in terms of domesticated plants and animals. Man was no longer a food gather, he becomes a food producer. Neolithic Age has great importance. It is the age, which gave birth to agriculture, people started to settle in one place, pasturualism got great progress, and new and modern weapons were made. Clothes, pots, political and religious development took place. This age was the death of Stone Age. People started believing in gods and demons. Kinship thinking developed. Society started to be formed. Labor Division in society started. Family relation started to be strong, male domination started, Village started turning to towns. Industrial and religious, political organization were formed. Literature and science started to flourish. Irrigation started. Neolithic Age gave rise to agriculture and sitting life. Concept of private property and various ritual practices were aroused. Neolithic way of life was vastly superior to the Paleolithic. While culture of Paleolithic was carried forward with a greater span of time, Neolithic culture advanced very quickly within a period of a few thousand years. Neolithic age gave birth to a state of culture in which food was planted and breed instead of hunted and gathered. The practice of fishing was improved during Neolithic period. The bows and arrows were widely used in hunting as well as in war. The most remarkable findings of Neolithic deposits are the skillfully made arrowheads and Celts. As a consequence of food-production, population growth was accelerated during Neolithic period. People had settled down in villages and tried to invest certain ways to make the life easier. The important developments that took place in Neolithic are:</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
1. Invention of pottery. 5. Development of Language.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
2. Beginning of Religion. 6. Beginning of the art of weaving.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
3. Building of houses. 7. Manufacture of boats.</div>
<div style="text-align: justify;">
4. Development of Art. 8. Development of social organization.</div><div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/283951994236714668-8163258275809876713?l=stlawrencecollege.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>SANTOSH NEUPANEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557529009216040292marigold_rose2050@yahoo.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-283951994236714668.post-25503072730394245842010-09-03T00:47:00.001-07:002010-09-30T02:42:14.219-07:002010-09-30T02:42:14.219-07:00Welcome to all in stlawrencecollege.blogspot.comThis blog is just for the students.....<div class="blogger-post-footer"><img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/283951994236714668-2550307273039424584?l=stlawrencecollege.blogspot.com' alt='' /></div>SANTOSH NEUPANEhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07557529009216040292marigold_rose2050@yahoo.com0