Luisa's Lens

"The more we study, we the more discover our ignorance." - Percy Blysshe Shelley

Monday, November 30, 2009

Porsche Commercial: My Participation and Analysis



The experience of making a commercial taught me several things about the media in general. First of all, I learned how to create my own commercial, and all the effort that goes into targeting an audience. I never know how many details go into targeting an audience.

I have to say that preparing for this presentation was quite an experience. With three people, I think we were the smallest group and only two of us actually discussed the project outside of class. Last week, Theressa added me on facebook to try to get some ideas together for the presentation. She came up with the idea of showing a clip from an old movie to show the expected position of the White man in the early twentieth century. Later on, I thought that it would be a better idea to show two videos, one older and one younger, to demonstrate orientalism and postcolonialism. I found the two videos that I posted on WebCT (Commando Duck and Samurai Champloo) and got together some quotes to be able to discuss them in class. I was disappointed when we couldn't connect the laptop in the classroom, but the game ended up taking up enough time for our presentation.

On Tuesday, Theressa and I found out third member, Johnny, and talked about possible ideas. During that class I came up with the idea of using a game. I originally had two games that I wanted to use, one was A-Line B-Line to demonstrate the idea of privilege and show that what is considered privileged does not reflect one's ideas in the class room. The game we ended up using was Four Corners. It was a game we had used in another class. I actually had six questions prepared for that game, but I don't know why Theressa only ended up asking three of those questions. I honestly think we should have asked all six to get the class to move around more.

I also purchased the candy rewards on the way to class today. That wasn't actually planned, but because every other group this semester had some kind of incentive for participants, I felt it was almost a requirement.

So, in summary, my part in the participation was deciding on the videos, posting those videos to WebCT, planning the game, coming up with the questions for the game, and buying the chocolate rewards. I think the presentation went okay but I can also think of some ways it could have been better.

Friday, May 8, 2009

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein: A Marxist Reading


Horrifying, thrilling, bone-chilling: these are the characteristics of Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. The tale of a doctor whose creation to benefit humanity turns into a horrible monster, this horror story is as much a criticism of society as it is an entertaining science fiction fantasy. A Marxist reading of the text shows that this work is an active agent exposing and criticizing society's oppressive economic and ideological systems. The fear played upon in this work is in actuality a fear of revolution.

Every literary work is a reflection of the context surrounding it, including historical, social, and economic context (Rivkin 644). For this reason, it is pivotal to examine the context surrounding the text before delving into analysis.

Frankenstein was first published in 1816. Its author, Mary Shelley, was the daughter of two radical philosophers: Mary Wollstonecraft and William Godwin (Smith 7). While this biographical information may seem irrelevant, it is important in this case precisely because the radical ideas of her parents may give us an idea of the author’s own opinions on the historical events surrounding the setting for her novel.

As Warren Montag argues, the novel itself is set in the 1790’s, approximately one hundred and fifty years after the 1642 Revolution in England, which is mentioned in the text (385). Thus, the work itself alludes to revolution and is placed during a revolutionary time. In fact, there were two revolutions going on at this time: the French Revolution, and the Haitian Revolution.

The main historical event during the 1790’s was the French Revolution. This idealistic revolution had as its main goal to establish a social order based on reason and justice and had many supporters even in Britain at the time, including Shelley’s parents. Her father even wrote a work in support of the revolution, which would eventually be censored after the British government declared war on France in 1793 and began to prosecute supporters of French revolutionaries (Smith 8). It is logical, then, that Shelley would mention the English revolution in place of the French revolution so as to avoid censorship by her eliciting sympathy for an oppressed monster in her story.

The Haitian Revolution also took place in the 1790’s. This revolution for Haitian independence began as a slave revolt and, once the slaves in Haiti defeated Napoleon’s army, established the world’s first Black republic (Reinhardt 246). It may be ideal, then, that the novel is situated at this time, as oppressed slaves fought and won their independence from oppressors. It is logical that Shelley would sympathize with these slaves, as her parents were both abolitionists. Her mother, a renowned feminist, often wrote of women as slaves to men, and she also criticized slavery explicitly in her review of Olaudah Esquiano’s Interesting Narrative (Bugg 655).

As its historical context reflects, oppression is an important theme in the text. The novel itself is set in a time of social upheaval. While oppressed citizens are fighting for their rights, slaves fight for their independence on the other side of the globe. In the novel, an educated scientist creates a monster that goes out of control. Shelley’s work plays on society’s fear of creating monsters that go out of control and create revolutions.

Clearly, Dr. Frankenstein represents the ruling class in this work. As Marx explained in his Communist Manifesto, only two true classes exist: the bourgeoisie, or the owners of the means of production, and the proletariat, or the working class (Marx “Manifesto” 220). It is important to consider, then, that Dr. Frankenstein himself is indeed an educated character from a wealthy business background: “My family is one of the most distinguished of [Geneva]. My ancestors had been for many years counselors and syndics; and my father had filled several public situations with honour and reputation. He was respected by all who knew him, for his integrity and indefatigable attention to public business” (Shelley 40). Further, the doctor, or creator, is the owner of the means of production in that he owns the means of creation, for just as the bourgeoisie creates the proletariat, this doctor creates a monster that ends up attempting to kill him. The experiment spirals out of control in the same way that oppressed people revolt: “Modern bourgeois society with its relations of production, of exchange and property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer, who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells” (Marx “Manifesto” 225). Dr. Frankenstein is a symbol for oppressive society.

Similarly, the monster is a symbol for oppressed people. He is the proletariat that revolts against the bourgeoisie in class struggle. First, his mere composition reflects that of the proletariat. For instance, he is created by the bourgeoisie, and of various different parts at that: the monster is composed of bones from charnel-houses, parts from dissecting rooms, and pieces from slaughter-houses (Shelley 58-9). This is similar to the proletariat in that it “is recruited from all classes of the population” (Marx “Manifesto” 228). The monster, like the proletariat, is a mixture of different segments from various parts. In addition, the monster is larger than his creator. The doctor recalls, “As the minuteness of the parts formed a great hindrance to my speed, I resolved, contrary to my first intention, to make the being of a gigantic stature; that is to say, about eight feet in height, and proportionably large” (Shelley 58). The monster’s gargantuan stature reflects the tremendous population of the working class, which far outnumbers the few aristocrats. Further, he is tougher than the doctor, just like the proletariat is stronger than the bourgeoisie: he reminds his creator, “thou hast made me more powerful than thyself; my height is superior to thine; my joints more supple” (93). The monster’s simple lifestyle reflects the lifestyle of the workers; he does not need the luxury of the aristocrats but only a meager amount of nutritious food to eat and a simple bed. Thus, his very composition is symbolic of the laborers who were composed of many different types of people, larger in numbers, physically stronger, and less dependent on luxury than the upper classes.

It is also important to consider that the monster elicits sympathy, which further demonstrates Shelley’s criticism of capitalism. The creature begins his life with good intentions but, after repeatedly experiencing malicious treatment from humans, understandably turns to violence. This turn from innocence to evil reflects the way the working class began the French revolution with good hopes and beneficent intentions but grossly ended the revolution with the Reign of Terror, horrific violence, and numerous guillotine slaughters. He began his life with good intentions, just as the working class, in its attempts to overturn capitalism, often begins revolution with hopes of ending poverty: “Believe me, Frankenstein: I was benevolent; my soul glowed with love and humanity: but am I not alone, miserably alone? You, my creator, abhor me” (94) Then, just as the French revolution at length turned sour, the monster explains his change in temperament in response to being shot by a man after saving a drowning child: “The feelings of kindness and gentleness, which I had entertained but a few moments before, gave place to hellish rage and gnashing of teeth. Inflamed by pain, I vowed eternal hatred and vengeance to all mankind” (125). Detested for his mere appearance, the monster explains that he is worthy of sympathy, and his anger towards mankind only develops because of his abuse, just as the working class goes through stages of development: “The proletariat goes through various stages of development. At first the contest is carried on by individual laborers, then by the work people of a factory, then by the operatives of one trade, in one locality, against the individual bourgeois who directly exploits them” (Marx “Manifesto” 228). The monster is hardly to be blamed for his outbursts, as the working classes could hardly be blamed for resorting to revolution in hopes of improving their living conditions.

Perhaps we should consider that the tale of Frankenstein also seems to go beyond economics to criticize the very superstructure of Shelley’s contemporary society. Its tale of monsters being created is not simply a history of capitalist society but a criticism of the oppressive institutions that guide our society. Among these are capitalism and slavery, which may fall under capitalism in that it is economic. Let us consider, however, that the tale reciprocates the role of master and slave, just as the Haitian revolution did. Indeed, although Doctor Frankenstein creates the creature to improve life for humanity, in the end, the slave becomes the master, returning to intimidate its creator and eventually kill him. The monster uses his intimidating physique to threaten and abuse his creator: “Slave, I have reasoned with you, but you have proved yourself unworthy of my condescension. Remember that I have my power; you believe yourself miserable, but I can make you so wretched that the light of day will be hateful to you. You are my creator, but I am your master; - obey!” (Shelley 146). It is notable, then, that Shelley is playing with the master/slave relationship, for in this binary, the privileged term is dependent on the second term, giving the slave power over the master. By doing this, Shelley is calling into question the very institutions and ideologies of society, and criticizing capitalism is only one way of doing that.

According to Marx, “The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas: i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force” (Marx “German” 656). The ideologies in question here include both Enlightenment thought and religion. First, it is clear that the idea of progress and individualism is being questioned when the monster is created. The doctor is working toward progress when the monster is created: the doctor reflects in creating the beast that “Life and death appeared to me ideal bounds, which I should first break through, and pour a torrent of light into the dark world” (Shelley 58). This torrent of light represents what Enlightenment thinkers though of progress in science and technology. However, science and technology are the very reason that the monster is created (Montag 388). Shelley’s own voice comes through in her book when she states that “If the study to which you apply yourself has a tendency to weaken your affections, and to destroy your taste for those simple pleasures in which no alloy can possibly mix, then that study is certainly unlawful, that is to say, not befitting the human mind. If this rule were always observed; if no man allowed any pursuit whatsoever to interfere with the tranquility of his domestic affections, Greece had not been enslaved; Caesar would have been spared his country; America would have been discovered more gradually; and the empires of Mexico and Peru had not been destroyed” (59). Shelley completely rejects Enlightenment ideology in her story.

Frankenstein is as much a rejection of society's crippling oppression and exploitation as it is an entertaining read. Shelley not only rejects capitalism but also the ideology that supports it. Shelley’s monster reminds us that oppression creates monsters and a threat to itself. More than anything else, it reminds us that “What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx “Manifesto” 233). Any society that exploits and oppresses creates opponents who are capable of overthrowing that society. It is precisely this fear that is played upon in the horror story.

Works Cited:

Bugg, John. ““Master of Their Language”: Education and Exile in Mary Shelley’s ‘Frankenstein’” The Huntington Library Quarterly. 68.4 (2005). 6 May 2009. 655-666. JSTOR.

Marx, Karl. “The German Ideology.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. 643-646.

Marx, Karl and Friedrich Engels. The Communist Manifesto. London: Penguin Classics, 2002.

Montag, Warren. “The “Workshop of Filthy Creation”: A Marxist Reading of Frankenstein.” Frankenstein. 2nd ed. Ed. Johanna M. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2000. 384-395.

Reinhardt, Thomas. “200 Years of Forgetting: Hushing up the Haitian Revolution.” Journal of Black Studies. 35.4 (2005). 6 May 2009 246-261. JSTOR.

Rivkin, Julie and Michael Ryan. “Starting with Zero.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2005. 643-646.

Shelley, Mary. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. Ed. Johanna M. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2000.

Smith, Johanna M. Introduction: Biographical and Historical Contexts. Frankenstein. 2nd ed. Ed. Johanna M. Smith. Boston: Bedford, 2000.

Thursday, April 30, 2009

My Role in Orientalism/Postcolonialism Presentation

I have to say that preparing for this presentation was quite an experience. With three people, I think we were the smallest group and only two of us actually discussed the project outside of class. Last week, Theressa added me on facebook to try to get some ideas together for the presentation. She came up with the idea of showing a clip from an old movie to show the expected position of the White man in the early twentieth century. Later on, I thought that it would be a better idea to show two videos, one older and one younger, to demonstrate orientalism and postcolonialism. I found the two videos that I posted on WebCT (Commando Duck and Samurai Champloo) and got together some quotes to be able to discuss them in class. I was disappointed when we couldn't connect the laptop in the classroom, but the game ended up taking up enough time for our presentation.

On Tuesday, Theressa and I found out third member, Johnny, and talked about possible ideas. During that class I came up with the idea of using a game. I originally had two games that I wanted to use, one was A-Line B-Line to demonstrate the idea of privilege and show that what is considered privileged does not reflect one's ideas in the class room. The game we ended up using was Four Corners. It was a game we had used in another class. I actually had six questions prepared for that game, but I don't know why Theressa only ended up asking three of those questions. I honestly think we should have asked all six to get the class to move around more.

I also purchased the candy rewards on the way to class today. That wasn't actually planned, but because every other group this semester had some kind of incentive for participants, I felt it was almost a requirement.

So, in summary, my part in the participation was deciding on the videos, posting those videos to WebCT, planning the game, coming up with the questions for the game, and buying the chocolate rewards. I think the presentation went okay but I can also think of some ways it could have been better.

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Women and Gender in Like Water for Chocolate


Laura Esquivel's novel, Like Water for Chocolate, is the love story of a woman who is forbidden from love because of a tradition that forces the main character, Tita, to dedicate her life to her mother until she dies. Forbidden to marry his lover Tita, Pedro marries Tita's older sister to stay close to Tita. Throughout the novel, patriarchy is imposed upon Tita by her mother, who may represent a modern form of patriarchy through mimesis. Although Tita is repressed, she is empowered by her role in the kitchen, as every time she cooks a meal, her emotions are literally transported into those who eat the food. This is may be perceived as an example of essentialist feminist perspective, as Tita is empowered through her feminine role.

Sandra Gilbert and Susan Gubar’s essay, “Madwoman in the Attic,” analyzes the way women are depicted in literature of the twentieth century, analyzing the way that women were either angels or monsters, but always something other-worldly. In Like Water for Chocolate, Tita and her childhood nanny, Nacha, are the angels in the household—they exhibit “submissiveness, modesty, selflessness” (Gilbert 816). Tita’s mother, on the other hand, is depicted as a selfish masculine monster that is demonized for her tyranny.

However, not all the women in the story are depicted as angels or monsters. Gertrudis, one of Tita’s sisters, after eating one of Tita’s meals that Tita made when feeling an intense passion for Pedro, runs off the ranch to make love to a Mexican soldier. After disappearing for several months, Gertrudis returns as a soldier who leads Mexican revolutionary troops in the war, and despite her masculine position, remains an object of attraction for the troops. She is a duplicitous woman: understanding, independent, sexualized, and, somehow, still feminine. She is neither an angel nor a monster; she is innately human and heroic.

Although at first glance this novel may seem to reinforce traditional gender roles, it is instead revolutionizing them. Tita ends up making love to her Pedro both while he is married to her sister and after they die. Although her behavior might be deemed unpious and unchaste by traditional standards, she is nevertheless a sympathetic and admirable character in Like Water for Chocolate. Her mother, on the other hand, may be a symbol for patriarchy through a matriarchal figure. Her death, and Tita's final rejection of her ghost spirit may symbolize the end of patriarchy's tyranny. According to Gilbert and Gubar, "women must kill the aesthetic ideal through which they themselves have been 'killed' into art. And similarly, all women writers must kill the angel's necessary opposite and double, the 'monster' in the house, whose medusa-face also kills creativity" (812). Perhaps this is exactly what Like Water for Chocolate is doing.

Gilbert, Sandra and Susan Gubar. “The Madwoman in the Attic.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. 2nd ed. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 2004. 812-825.

Friday, March 27, 2009

Girl Interrupted, Society Protected

The Postmodern movement criticizes the liberal search for absolute truth and homogeneous society. Bataille's “Heterology” concludes that most societies distinguish between qualities that are beneficial to the society and qualities that are not, favoring the former. Foucalt’s “Discipline and Punish” proposes that power is enforced throughout society by means of coercion and also by means of civil institutions such as schools, hospitals, churches, and even families. Derrida's “Differance” argues that because all things contain traces of all that they are not, there is no absolute. All these essays cause us to question social norms and authority. Together, they can be used to analyze a scene from a movie that may be telling much more than the story of a misguided teenage girl.

In Girl, Interrupted, Susana Kaysen is sent to Claymoore Mental Institution after having an affair with the husband of a family friend, although she seems completely in control her behaviors. Nonetheless, after a brief interview, her doctor sentences her to two years in the institution where she meets various different personalities that undermine social norms and authority. This scene from the movie demonstrates the way that hospitals function to protect and enforce social norms regardless of its effects on its subjects.




First, it is important that Susan Kaysen is a sane person who has been mislabeled as insane. Through her eyes, viewers are shown that the system of judging patients is fallible, perhaps reflecting that authority itself is fallible. We can deconstruct authority using Derrida’s “Differance” to show that authority is not authority and is not infallible. Furthermore, we can take the actions of both Susan and Lisa to support what Foucalt argues in “Discipline and Punish,” which is the idea that “power and knowledge directly imply one another; that there is no power relation without the correlative constitution of a field of knowledge, nor any knowledge that does not presuppose and constitute at the same time power relations” (550). All of the patients in the hospital are aware of their living conditions and their unjust treatment. Lisa and Susan, however, are unwilling to succumb to their submissive positions and refuse to take their medication despite supervision. Lisa seems to be the most powerful patient in the ward, and she states to the other girls, “You weak people, you’re all weak fucking people, you’re victims, you people are fucking sick.” She is a strong woman and she fights sedation and submission as often as possible, which is why she escapes the asylum frequently. Lisa is a heterological thinker and she questions the role of the hospital as an enforcer of homogeneous society.

Thursday, March 26, 2009

What is Postmodernism?



Postmodernism: "Incredulity toward metanarratives."

Sunday, March 15, 2009

Gramsci: Less is More

When I first looked at Gramsci's work in the anthology, I was surprised at how short the section was. The abstract above the work explains that he had to write most of his work in codes so that it wouldn't be censored, which explains why so little of is included in "Hegemony." Yet, I was astonished at how those few words could mean so much. I have studied hegemony in many history classes and was always perturbed with hegemony in our society. Still, I had not put much thought into WHY hegemony existed. After reading the section, a lightbulb went off and I realized: OF COURSE! Hegemony wouldn't be possible without public consent as well as the imposing culture's efforts.

This made me realize that it is because of public consent that contemporary American society is the way it is. Why are supermodels as thin as death? Why do celebrities make more money than doctors? Why is it “cool” to be dumb in our high schools? I have often wondered whether America's values are screwed up because of mass media or mass media's values are screwed up because of America, but now, after having read Gramsci, I feel justified in setting the question aside and simply concluding that the answer is that both are correct. Mass media is the way it is because we allow it and support it as it is but also because it is established to reinforce existing class structure and support the ruling classes.

Perhaps this idea is the one being conveyed in this poem entitled "True Lies," by Talaam Acey: