HYPOTHESIS AND HOW IT IS CHANGING HOW WE READ ONLINE

Hi everybody! Today I just wanted to quickly review an awesome tool called Hypothesis that I've been using all semester for two of my English classes (Currents in American Lit and Critical Theory).

As an extension of your web browser (I use Chrome...does anyone not use Chrome?), Hypothesis lets individuals highlight and annotate any online text of their choosing. By allowing (encouraging it, I daresay) people to comment on texts, a sort of community is born and it's truly neat to be involved in.

The two classes I am in this semester are among the first classes to use Hypothesis in the classroom, and it has been exciting to test this tool, find bugs or problems, and watch the tool itself grow and improve. Though, that is to say that for the most part Hypothesis has proved to be quite user friendly and well programmed.

Personally, I struggle with reading online. I'm a "hold the book in my hand" kind of gal. When I say "reading online", I mean reading a text and actually comprehending it. Anyone can read online, but to get something out of a text that is not physically in front of you can be a challenge. However, I think Hypothesis has helped me to improve my competency and critical thinking skills. 

I like to think of Hypothesis as a literary Facebook, if you will, as my classmates and I not only comment our own thoughts but also reply to each others. Far too often when I am reading a challenging text for class I can't stop dwelling on these questions: "Does anyone actually understand this? Am I crazy for thinking this means ___?" This brilliant tool lets me know that I'm not alone in feeling this way when I can see my classmates commenting in a similar fashion. It's quite comforting. Being able to reply to classmate's comments (with a range of media, no less...gifs anybody?) makes for some pretty entertaining online banter as well. I've laughed hysterically too many times to count whilst reading my classmate's comments (especially when we read Freud...man, that was a comedic goldmine) and I must say it increases the enjoyment I get out of doing my homework. And that's saying something.

At this point in the game, it is safe to say that technology has gradually wiggled its way into the sphere of education and changed it for the better. People were skeptical at first to shy away from traditional modes of teaching and learning, but technology in the classroom has not taken away from the process of teaching, rather enriched it profusely. Tools like Hypothesis contribute positively to the experience of learning, as they promote discussion and help build a community that functions as a collective pool of knowledge and possibility. I like to think I'm apart of that pool now!

Tools like Hypothesis are the future of education.

And I can't wait to see what else the future holds for students and teachers alike.

until next time,

WALT WHITMAN'S QUEERNESS AND WHY IT DOES(N'T) MATTER

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

HOLY MOTHER OF...

Hey everybody! We recently covered Sigmund Freud in Critical Theory and we touched on some of the weird, traditional concepts like penis envy, the castration complex, and of course the Oedipus complex.

The "Oedipus complex" is inspired by the play Oedipus Rex by Greek playwright Sophocles. The main character murders his father, has sex with his mother, and then proceeds to gouge his eyes out and go blind.

Worst day ever?

As the hilarious comedian/singer-songwriter Bo Burnham says in one of his songs:

"Gay dads blow pops, another sucker,

Oedipus was the first motherfucker"

Freud named his concept after Oedipus because he embodies the violent tension between child and same sex parent and the sexual tension between child and opposite sex parent.

Being the lover of popular culture (TV in this case) that I am, I couldn't help but think of a really awesome example of the Oedipus complex from American Horror Story. None other than Dr. Oliver Thredson from the second season, Asylum.

Played by Zachary Quinto, Thredson epitomizes the Oedipus complex. He is, quite literally, a living testament to Freud's theory. Which is pretty damn ironic considering the fact that Thredson is a psychiatrist.

Disclaimer: I am not a psychoanalyst, therefore my views on Thredson are merely speculation and open to interpretation and criticism. My professor told us we needed to say this before we went around saying crazy stuff about people, fictional or not.

Now Thredson's version of the complex is pretty interesting, considering the fact that his mother was absent from his life from a young age and his father's whereabouts are questionable. Because his mother was absent and therefore neither physically or emotionally present, his desperate need for motherly love morphed into something sinister and also sexual. The Oedipus complex is usually resolved in children when they cease their harboring of negative feelings towards their same sex parent, but clearly Thredson's absent father makes that resolution quite difficult.

Thredson first discovered his sexual feelings towards motherly figures when he was in medical school, more specifically in his anatomy class. The cadaver that the class examines, and Thredson later on is alone with, is a thirty three year old woman, the exact age of Thredson's mother when she abandoned him. In his deluded mind, Thredson believes that the cadaver is his mother.

viewer discretion advised: if rape scenes make you uncomfortable, i would say skip the video

At one point in the season, Thredson kidnaps Lana Winters from the asylum. Lana is a reporter who visits the asylum with the intention of exposing the horrors that occur there, however she herself ends up experiencing those horrors for herself. Thredson tricks Lana into thinking that he is helping her escape the monstrous asylum but little does she know that the home of her accomplice holds much more terrifying secrets.

As the video shows, Thredson claims that Lana is "the one", the motherly figure that he has searched for his entire life. He breastfeeds from Lana against her will and proceeds to rape her while she is in a catatonic state.

Clearly this an extreme case of the Oedipus complex. According to Freud, the Oedipus complex is usually resolved with minimal internal conflict and life goes on without a hitch. The origin of Thredson's neuroses is almost definitely rooted in his unresolved Oedipus complex, however that's not to say that his instability isn't influenced by psychopathy.

I suppose it's only fitting, if not ironic, that he went on to become someone who makes a living telling other people everything that is wrong with them.

until next time, 

THE iOS 9 UPDATE AND WHY IT CAUSED ME TO MEDITATE ON STRUCTURALISM

Hey guys! So, the iOS 9 update for iPhone came out today and finally (FINALLY) we were blessed with the new emojis we've been promised for what seems like an eternity. After years of struggling to truly identify with any one emoji character, the day has finally come. Ladies and gentleman, behold: the sassy eye-rolling emoji.

third row down, second from the left

Sassy eye-rolling emoji is not to be confused with the shifty eye emoji. Just saying. Also, middle finger emoji, 'nuff said.

But anyways.

What does this have to do with structuralism, you say? Well, a whole heck of a lot actually.

Structuralism, which goes hand in hand with semiotics, is a theory that examines the relationship between concepts/things and how they are represented through language. Emoji is arguably its own language, originating in Japan as a mode of expressing unique cultural ideas and symbols.

The emojis themselves are what we refer to as the signifier, or the word, image, or representation that is used to designate the signified. The signified is the object or idea that the signifier is referring to.

For example, this is an emoji of a tree. An evergreen, to be more specific. This treemoji (see what i did there?) is the signifier, a symbol that represents the living thing that supplies us humans with oxygen and on occasion something that we put in our house and decorate. That bauble covered, lit up tree in your living room being the signified.

The "arbitrary nature of the sign" is the famous phrase that defines structuralism, coined by Ferdinand De Saussure. The phrase basically boils down to this: the sign has no real relation to the signifier or the signified. This addresses the question that I'm sure many people (including myself) have pondered: How are there so many words to describe the same thing? 

When somebody looks at the tree emoji, they know what that image is referring to. (If you want to be technical, yes, perhaps not everyone on the planet is familiar with this specific kind of tree, but they at least have a general idea of what the image is supposed to represent.) However, two people can look at the same tree emoji and exclaim either, "Arbre!" or "Arbol!" This goes back to Saussure's claim that the nature of the sign is arbitrary, as signifiers and the signifieds are not consistent across all languages.

Since we are on the topic of different languages, let's backtrack for a second and remember that the origin of emoji can be traced back to Japan. A country where they speak Japanese  and the culture is radically different than say the United States, where emoji are extremely popular. As anyone who uses emoji has probably realized by now, there are quite a few characters that the typical American isn't able to identify. Because the relationship between the signifier (the emoji character itself) and the signified (whatever that character is supposed to be representing) is unknown in this circumstance, the emoji takes on a life of its own, as determined by the user.

In an era that is driven and defined by technology and communication, language evolves quicker than ever. Emoji has become like a second language to those who communicate virtually, but this shift to a non-verbal way of conveying emotion and information is still very much consistent in the way it interacts with structural concepts.

until next time,

AUTHOR AND AUTHOR FUNCTION: FOR DUMMIES

Hey everyone! In this post I am going to be tackling the difference between the author and the author function.

In Critical Theory, we've been looking at Michel Foucault's article What Is An Author? which addresses the concept of authorship and how/why it exists.

When it is put into simple terms, it is quite easy to understand the difference between author and author function. The author is the living, breathing human being that writes. (We are speaking of the author in the present tense, however the author may be dead. Or alive. Or they might not exist yet. See, this is where it gets a bit complicated...)

This is a picture of the author J.K. Rowling, the very talented woman who wrote the Harry Potter series. The idea for Harry Potter came to her while she was stuck on a train and she started writing the prolific story on a napkin because it was all she had at the moment.

Now, author function is a tad bit more complicated to explain. While the author is/was a real person, the author function is a concept that perseveres long after the author is dead and gone. In other words, the author function in the context of this example with J.K. Rowling is anything that makes up the body of her work. So, the seven Harry Potter books that she penned, minor yet related works (i.e. books that exist in the HP universe that she wrote and released in real life like Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them and The Tales of Beedle the Bard), those horrific crime novels she wrote under a pseudonym (and for good reason).

More often than not, when someone is referring to Rowling they are referring to the author function and not the author. Perhaps if they are speaking of her personal life or her childhood, the person is referring to the author. However, usually when someone refers to Rowling (or any other author really...this example isn't limited to just rowling) they are using her proper name in a more generalized way, as if to say that Rowling is her work. As Foucault suggests, the text creates the author and not the other way around. So perhaps it is appropriate to refer to the author in relation to the works that they have created, as their authorship would be non-existent without the creation and preservation of their works.

J.K. Rowling is defined by her famous series and her legacy will live on through the books she has written. When she is long gone, Harry and his friends will continue to brighten the lives of those who embark on the journey of delving into his magical world.

until next time,

IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE GOING TO HELL: EXAMINING THE LANGUAGE OF JONATHAN EDWARDS

Hey everyone! In my American Lit class we have sadly left the craziness of good ol' Salem behind (boo, though i'm actually going there tomorrow so that should be interesting...more to come on that) and we have moved onto the Great Awakening. This time period, which began in the mid 1700's in America, is known for being a religious revival of sorts. Though religious devotion and reformation is a common thread in the texts from Salem as well as from authors of the Great Awakening like Jonathan Edwards, the inclusion of emotion is what sets the latter apart from the former. Long gone are the days of snooze-inducing Puritan prose, as Edward's works like Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God are fraught with fervent imagery, raw emotion, and maybe even some sexy stuff. In addition to looking at Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, we also examined Personal Narrative. The contrast between the two texts is stark, as one portrays God and religion as something to be revered and feared while the other suggests that he is beautiful and lovely. This contrast is especially blatant in the language used, and in the choice and repetition of certain words.

Word cloud for Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God

Word cloud for Personal Narrative

So, I decided to make word clouds for both of the texts we looked at. For those who may not know, word clouds are a visual representation of word frequency. Therefore, the bigger a word is the more it is used! Repetition is a theme that pervades Edwards' work, and it is easy to see when looking at these word clouds. As he was a preacher, it can be deduced that repetition is a kind of tactic to drive home a point. In Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, the most used words are God (woah, shocker there), hell, wrath, destruction, and pleasure. For Personal Narrative, those words are God (again), Christ, sweet, divine, glory, and infinite.

God and the varying emotion that one feels in relation is obviously the topic of both pieces, however the contrast in language between the two are what distance them from each other. Fire and brimstone or light and goodness, either way Edwards certainly portrays God in such a way that provokes critical thought but also maybe an eye roll for good measure.

until next time,

EYE OF THE BEHOLDER: MAYBELLINE THROUGH A STRUCTURALIST LENS

Hey everybody! In this post I'm going to be examining a company that you may be familiar with, Maybelline. Though this website was born as a "beauty and fashion" blog if you will, I'm sure it has become quite apparent that is not the case any longer. (Totally not to say that I don't enjoy makeup or writing about it...but that's not my point here.) In Crit Theory today we were discussing language and the relationship between ideas/objects and the words that we use to signify them. So, my friend and I decided to take a look at the makeup brand Maybelline in order to observe this phenomenon.  

Diachronically speaking, Maybelline represents the “ideal” woman in American culture: one that is seen and not heard. In other words, she is revered for her physical appearance and not for her personal beliefs or opinions. Although their ads have changed over time in terms of appearance and marketing techniques (i.e. slogans and color schemes), the message has remained static: women are made into meaningful individuals by making themselves up with Maybelline products. In Maybelline ads from the early 1900’s, the message is blatant and woven expertly into the descriptions of the ads. However, in more recent advertisements the sexism is implied in the language rather than said outright.

When you look at this specific ad from Maybelline in a synchronic sense, you get the idea that everything women are doing is for men, not for themselves. Women are told through this makeup ad that men always want them to be perfect. However, they are only perfect when it comes to their physical appearance; women’s thoughts and ideas are clearly not as revered as much as say, her eyes. Even if the women’s man is away, she should look the way he thought she would when he returned.

 The word “makeup” itself leads one to believe that those who use it are hiding something. Makeup acts as a façade, a mask that covers up the truth, and “the truth” is that women are undesirable without it. Many of the advertisements feature words like “accent” and “perfect” imply that women need to use Maybelline products because their natural beauty is understated, boring, and in need of improvement.

These Maybelline ads speak to the nature of American beauty ideals: women need makeup because they are not pretty without it. Natural beauty is something to be ashamed of, and the façade that makeup provides becomes the “truth”. The language that these ads utilize is persuasive and steeped in sexism, aimed solely at generating revenue and perpetuating stereotypes of women.

 Maybelline’s “target audience” is arguably white, heterosexual upper-middle class women. While this demographic is likely the main consumer of these products, it is important to keep in mind that there are a multitude of individuals (of varying races and ethnic backgrounds) who are consuming but not being represented. The ideas that construct Maybelline as a brand were once stable and static as women were trapped in a singular role by society. However today, as women continue to stand up for themselves and defy social norms, those ideas are outdated and fail to accurately support women as a whole.

until next time,