Joanna's Flow Chart Midterm Diagram

Hey, fellow Lit Critters! Please click this link: This is my attempt to let you see a more effective and in-focus version of my diagram flow chart thing. 

This is the small version of my chart: 

See why you need the larger version?

This flow chart is meant to map out the relationship of main ideas between these theorists. There are some theorists whose main ideas are not in direct relation to other theorists of their time. Sidney, for example, lived almost 2,000 years after Plato, yet he responds directly to Plato's arguments. de Pizan and Wollstonecraft, though their lines are quite separate from all the others (they follow a rather unique path) are not entirely disconnected. Their particular lines are separate, but they are directly in the middle of the chart, surrounded by the other theorists. These two women wrote about different things than other critics; they focused (especially in our readings) on women's rights. Their prominent ideas might have been separate, but their writing, their rhetoric, and their backgrounds were completely caught up in the writings and histories of these other theorists.

The chart sort of explains itself as you go along, so not much extra explanation is needed. The most multi-faceted section of the chart is "Relationship with who?" This is after the importance of the individual is determined. "Relationships with who?" leads to Others (Master/Slave), The Universal Being, The powerful Ubermensch, The imagination, and Nature. While I previously understood Coleridge, Emerson, and Wordsworth to be related, it was only through this question ("Relationships with who?") that I really understood them. The fact that Nietzsche and Hegel both fit under this headline is fascinating, and it allows me to see them in a different light. This chart is not meant to be the  most accurate and complete diagram of theorists' relationships ever. It is a flow chart pointing out possible directions of thought and connection.

Evans Midterm Part 1

Map of Influence

Key

(Just in case the zoom doesn't work, here is a link to Google Drive:  https://docs.google.com/document/d/15TejlYv4vrtX4Yd64BJE2rYO2x5016PR37LjWxKGypc/edit?usp=sharing)

My diagram is in roughly chronological order from top to bottom, with colors marking the different critical groupings (the large red circle, for example, represents Romanticism).  Blue arrows indicate that one theorist has marked influence on another. Arrows with red outlines indicate that a theorist was reacting to another (or to the previous critical movement). Under each theorist's name is a brief paraphrase of his or her views on the relationship between art and truth; more specifically, I tried to think of each theorist's answer to the question "how do we judge art?" or "how do we look at literature?"  Though these statements obviously do not include all discussed ideas of each theorist, I thought the repetition of these ideas would more clearly show the theoretical evolution from Plato to Althusser.

I suppose I should not have been surprised at the extent to which the texts are interrelated, but I found the relationships staggering.   Schleiermacher, especially, seemed to show up when I least expected him, especially in his views about the reciprocal relationship between historical context, language, and art.  In a future draft of this diagram, I would want to find a clearer way to represent the relationships between theorists; I realize it is not quite comprehensive, but I feared that adding arrows would make it unreadable.  There should be, for example, a very large arrow from Augustine to De Saussure (concerning their discussions of signs), but adding it only made the diagram confusing.  Finally, in a future draft, I would want to find a way to connect theorists beyond their critical moments. If, for example, I could find a way to connect the Romantics (Wordsworth, Coleridge, and Emerson) to Schleiermacher in their value of the author, and also group the New Critics and the Structuralists in their dedication to the "Death of the Author," I would be more satisfied. Similarly, if I could group Wollstonecraft, Marx, Horkheimer and Adorno, and Althusser together (because of their tendency toward social criticism), I think it would be more complete.  To achieve all of this, however, I think I would have to begin again using a sort of enormous Venn Diagram, a feat I will leave to someone with better academic credentials.

Strausbaugh,Derek's Midterm Diagram

     In this diagram, I started at the very beginning, with Plato, because his work interacts with all other critics we have examined. Plato leads directly to Aristotle, who expands and refutes Plato's ideas. The next generation of philosophers, Augustine, Sidney, and Maimonides deal with different aspects of text than Aristotle, but seem to be out of the same critical tradition. I loosely connect Maimonides with Schleiermacher because they both deal with hermeneutics. Emerson also deals directly with Schleiermacher's Ideas.

     Hegel and Kant wind up side by side because they both represent huge influential ways that changed the way people though, Hegel with the dialectic and Kant centering goodness around the human being. This leads directly into Hume's ideas of taste, which Eliot runs with. Coleridge, Wordsworth, and Emerson all draw from Hume and his idea of taste, and expand upon that with ideas of how the poet should compose works, and how inspiration works. Marx and Engels splinter off from the romantics, rebelling from the notion that all humanity believes in the same ideals of art, and posit that taste is manufactured in society by those who control production. Horheimer, Adorno, and Althusser expand upon Marx and Engels by getting more specific as to how the society creates its own norms. Similarly, Wollstonecraft rebels against previous notions of taste stating that Gender has been a factor in the past. Pizan is linked to Wollstonecraft in her ideas. Freud is another rebellion from humanity having an innate sense of beauty. He puts for the idea that our psychology and experiences determine what we deem tasteful. Lacan and Nietzsche both draw from Freud, moving his theories into different arenas and expanding upon them. Lacan uses the Idea of the sign in order to accentuate language as a system of symbols. De Saussure take that idea and expand upon it. Wimsatt and Beardsly take that idea to the next level saying that the text is the only thing that matters, because everything that there is to know about a text is in the signs.

Midterm Part 1-Diagram

Art Does Not Lead to Truth                 |                           Art Is Useful for Learning of Reality
Plato                                                        |                                                                
Women's Education                               |                          Allegorical Interpretations
de Pizan                                                   |                              Augustine
Wollstonecraft                                          |                               Maimonides

No Preexisting Structures                     |                          Preexisting Sturctures in Mind
Hume                                                                                       Kant

Progression of History                           |                        Psychoanalytic Theory
         Hegel                                                                                 Freud
 /                        \                                                                         |
Marx/Engels            Wordsworth               |                       Psychoanalytic Applied to Language
      |                             Coleridge                                        Lacan
Adorno/Horkheimer      Emerson               |                               |
Althusser                                       |                                                           
                                      Nietzsche            |                              De Saussure
                                     
                                       New Critics       |                                |
                                        Eliot                                                  Barthes
                                        Wilmsatt/Beardsley                      Interpreting Texts
                                                                                           Schleiermacher

My diagram is meant to demonstrate the connection between theorists in a format similar to a family tree in which the dashes indicate which theorists’ ideas are built upon and expanded by subsequent theorists.  The dash down the middle represents the idea of truth or reality that all of the thinkers are trying to find in some form. Aristotle and Plato are placed on opposite sides of the trunk (dash center line) because they had opposite views on the same idea. While Plato believed art did not give insight to truth, Aristotle believed truth could be found in art, especially tragedy.  Sidney is placed with Aristotle because he also believes in the value of art, particularly poetry, stating that it can give more insight to truth than philosophy and history can.

Once Hegel comes on the scene, it seemed that more of the theorists were interrelated, directly building upon the ideas of others. Hegel’s interpretation of the dialectical movement of history with each event joining with its antithesis and his idea of positivism are utilized by many later theorists. For example, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels applied the dialectical movement of history to their theory that eventually the proletariat would revolt against the bourgeoisie, dissolving existing capitalist institutions and creating a new world order. Marx and Engels ideas gave birth to Adorno and Horkenheimer, and also Althusser’s application to culture, conveying how capitalism is evident in all cultural entertainment and institutions.  Branching in a different direction, Hegel’s concept of positivism influenced the romanticists, Emerson, Wordsworth, and Coleridge. All three theorists believed in the power of the individual to find truth inside himself and believed that man should not copy history, but only refer to it, in order to create better works. Stemming from this, Nietzsche also believes an individual should act for one’s self,and illustrates this with the thesis and antithesis of Dionysian and Apollonian characteristics. This diagram is intended to show that the theorists’ ideas are not separate, but many originate from the concepts of other critics.

HORKHEIMER and ADORNO: "BABIES" (DOCUMENTARY or PORNOGRAPHY?)

BABIES—a documentary?
A few years ago I watched a french documentary, with almost no words, that chronicled five-ish babies over the course of the first year of life. It features predominately different cultures treating children in different ways, but also the kind of similarity from baby to baby.

At first horkheimer & adorno, I imagine, are almost fooled by the movie, the lack of dialogue and the straightforward style of everything makes them think that this may be accurate and healthy cinema.
But no!

Look at those carefully prepared camera angles! Think about all the cuts to all the cute or funny things babies do! This is just a derivation of the machine! Ordinary life repurposed into a "documentary" which actually promotes the classic themes of tantulus! This is no better than pornography. This simply promotes an idealized sense of procreation and a false positivism for today. Having babies won't solve anything, but now we believe that they might. But especially for parents, these are knowingly not the whole picture of baby-hood. Sure there's some breast feeding and one or two messes but by and large this is a distorted and not totally attainable picture. The only way to get "satisfied" is to come back for more which is also incomplete, and leaves you wanting.

In fact, the episodic style of each clip furthers the ability to re-watch and to feel as though you could endlessly desire more baby clips. It's like someone put high-quality youtube into a film. It does nothing but poorly re-iterate an idealization of your machined and alienated lifestyle! Marx 4 Life!

ALTHUSSER TALKS ABOUT PITCHFORK

Ever heard of Pitchfork? I assume a lot of you have. If not it's a notoriously snarky and elitist music review website. It's a tastemaker. An example of theme tearing apart music can be found

here.

At first glance I recognized Pitchfork according to Althusser as another form of the ISA. People are operating under the common idealogy: music can and should be reduced and quantified by its social and musical quality then compared to discern what is "best" and "worst." What is "new" and "derivative." These ideologies are increasingly complicated then by the subsidiary ideologies as to what constitutes these descriptors, what makes it good or bad.  In any case by sharing these Ideologies there is an apparatus by which people create a community which controls and manipulates its members. Saying what should and should not be done, exiling those who don't do it, and including and lauding those who do. Its a classic example of how any society of any level of freedom creates Ideologies that bring people together.

But there was a problem. I realized that although Althusser traditionally relegates the RSA to the national government, and its subjugation or repression through violence, within a subculture of the music world Pitchfork and taste-making websites like it are that government. They're reviews are often violent, willfully repressing that which people create or make in an attempt to create the best possible situation for themselves, that is, they're continued authority in the music world. The review then becomes the same as a chopping block or a guillotine where they have the final word and on which bands live and die. Let's be honest thought, Pitchfork doesn't quite have that power, people like Mumford and Sons will continue to be popular without Pitchfork. But when taken with other websites and promoters like this one, there is a serious repressive authority at work, wouldn't you say?

ELIOT on TWITTER!

In all cases the use or the ordering of words is of utmost importance. In particular, while or a use of language can reference another thing, good poetry, and good writing for that matter, should exist on its own, whatever referenciality contained. In short, the thing should have value in and of itself.

That is why I have been so peeved about this late development: "The Twitter" in particular, the posts by someone calling himself "The Snoop Dogg."  First things first, his disregard for tradition, which is the word as the agreed-upon symbolic representation of meaning, is disturbing. Even in his own naming. Why would he not write Dog? What does Snoop mean? They seem like choices without an obvious meaning. Or without a hidden intrinsic meaning. But enough of that criticism, if his rhetoric allowed for deeper meaning, this could be forgivable.

But tweets are notoriously short, and their endless referenciality is disturbing. It is not quality allusion but rather they are consistently reliant for their meaning on an outside thing, like his endless reminders to get "tix" or brief descriptions of concerts or festivals like the cryptic "#Lionfest 2013 !! we went hard !! #Reincarnated." Here again, there is no respect for the tradition of punctuation and creation of intrinsic meaning.

Even when he's not relying on an outside event for meaning, the weight of the tweet is so small it might as well be called worthless. Think about this tweet reading only "Vaporize 2 start tha day."  What value does this hold? Get high to start the day? Why? These fragments aren't shorn against my ruin! or his ruin!