Round Two

So then.

After urging from a former professor (and friend) Dr. Darcie Rives-East of Augustana College the purpose of this blog entry will be focused on the idea of 'performativity' (from last blog) and discourse (given life by Michael Foucault and others.)

Here is a quick run down of the 'discourse' --as stated by Michael Foucault--that they are 'practices that systematically form the objects of which they speak.' The discourses work in three ways: they constitute, constrain and enable. More often than not language is a good example of what is being said here. Language enables me to speak, constrains what I say, and ultimately defines or constitutes myself as a subject. Generally, people of the same discourse are the ones who use language effectively within that discourse (i.e. I am not in the hunter discourse so I wouldn't be able to effectively articulate within that discourse.)

And to put it in simpler terms, 'discourses' is the multiplicity of life. As in within ourselves multiple discourses are at work. I may be enabling a different style of language while at work then I would at home. And vice versa.

So then, how does this relate back to performativity and the self?

If we say that being Republican is a definitive discourse and we establish a binary between republican and awfully 'republican' things, well what if we deconstructed it? That is to say if a candidate for the Republican party in his private self felt more aligned with more 'centrist' or liberal ideals, could he win that nomination, or in his performative self would he have to subscribe to the Republican discourse.

Fig 1.1

Public Private Performative DISCOURSE

Senator Catholic Republican (Conservative) Low taxes, strong military (etc)

And of course there is a simple way out of this and that is 'well, a REPUBLICAN couldn't hold those ideals and be a REPUBLICAN.' Well, why not? This relates back to the idea of a sign and signifier relationship.

Fig 1.2

Republican (signifier) Low Taxes, Strong Military, etc etc etc (signified)

That is to say that the word itself, doesn't have any 'republican' attributes. It isn't cigar chomping, big business, ballyhoo, those signifiers are placed by some factual events, but mostly by our perceptions. We could have just as easily adopted this party as the Little Owl Party. To further the binary, let's completely switch the qualities of each party.

Fig 1.3

Republican (liberal)

Democrat (conservative)

And I suppose this is where we are given the idea that there are 'conservative Democrats' and 'liberal Republicans.' And the idea that someone who steps outside the discourse of the two distinguished parties is considered to be xenogeneic***.

Now for my next trick is bring all this back together. If we agree that 'republican' is a discourse than the way it enables, constrains and constitutes.

A Republican discourse enables the man or woman to hold power over a certain voting population (positive or negative), constrains them to a prescribed way of speech and ideas, and constitutes them by the 'republican' moniker. (Please note that I only picked 'republican' for this blog because they tend to hold more negative words attached to them as a signifier.)

And here is where I'll attempt to get away from the political slant. And use none other than Lady Gaga.

Fig 1.4

Public Self Private Self Performative Discourse

Performer Stefani Lady Gaga Artist, Catholic, etc.

Lady Gaga in her performative self is the 'freak', 'outcast', etc that has been thrust upon her and she has gladly (more often than not) accepted. Her private self she is Stefani a daughter, a co-worker, a whatever with hopes, dreams, fears and consequences. And of course her public self is as a performer. And the discourse Lady Gaga is a part of as such can be broken into several issues.

Fig 1.5

Economic- How her record sales propel the music industry.

Social- How her 'Born This Way', you're all beautiful, messages affect young people.

Religious- Being a Catholic and being able to procure her artistic identity.

Academic- Study of her music, study of dance, etc.

However, the issue of enable, constitute and constrain the discourse of Lady Gaga remains.

So then, this reverts back to the idea of 'truth' within our society. The zeitgeist of the nation as it were. We hold these truths to be self-evident that binaries are uphold and a Republican is a Republican and a Democrat is a Democrat. But what if they weren't. Ultimately discourse leads to knowledge and as School House Rock said, knowledge is power (some other philosophers said it as well, but for now, we'll study from the SHR Canon.) And perhaps this Three Self model and discourse work something like this:

Public Self

Private Self Performative Self

You.

Discourses

Each of the three and the discourses pull you and you pull on the societal discourse. I suppose of there wasn't a continuum between it all we'd be nearing solipsism. But that's a topic for another day.

More later.

~Jon

***The parents of course being the founding fathers. ***

Public Self/ Private Self

Disclaimer: I am writing this having nevertruly studied the social psychology behind the idea of public self vs private self. And anything written henceforth is more an epistle to figure this all out. If you're interested, read on. Thanks, Management.

After beginning to read David Foster Wallace's book 'The Pale King' I have become interested in the concept of public self vs private self. To provide context of the book, the book is a tornadic introduction to the 'main character' Dave Wallace and his time at the IRS center in Peoria, Ill during the years of 1985-86. During a chapter in which David Foster Wallace breaks the mold of the 'fiction genre' and becomes more of a memoir, he describes the feeling of public self and private self. And he concludes that perhaps it is a 'performative self.'

After thinking about if it was really a private self and a performative self or a public and performative, I opine that perhaps we have all three within us. For example, take a person who is in a very public job, like a congressman or whatever.

Fig 1.1

Public Self Private Self

Senator Husband, Hunter, Catholic, etc.

But then, what is the performative self of this equation? I would suggest then that the performative self would be more the abstruse thought that every politician actually cares deeply about every issue, across the board. So then:

Fig 1.2

Public Self Private Self Performative Self

Job True feelings/Inner thoughts The 'Platform'.

Furthermore, the signification behind 'platform' suggests the basis of which the politician launches their career. Granted, the performative self may infiltrate the private self and vice versa. However, I'd like to make the distinction behind a private thought (i.e. feelings about abortion) and the performative thought (i.e. passing a bill about abortion). And to take a politico like JFK who claimed during the presidential debates that he would leave Catholicism out of the equation whilst he was working in the Oval Office. But then I suppose that this is the crux of the question, then isn't it? Is there a clear meadow between each of the three parts of the self. Or perhaps is it more of a continuum. Something in the same field of vision as Plato's Divided Line.

Fig 1.3

To thrust forcibly my own beliefs into the model set forth by your friend and mine (Plato), I think it would appear something like this:

Fig 1.4

Intelligible World:

Forms (I.e. A Senator is a from, perhaps a title what Barthes and Co. would call a 'sign').

Private/Public Self

World Of Appearance

Forms (I.e. What Barthes and Co. would call a 'signifier'.

Performative (Platform)

So then to make the already murky waters a bit more brackish, could the 'performative self' also have a 3(a) section in the way of a 'perceived performative self.'

I.e. The public (voters) expect the Senator to display the 'good' when deciding public policy, to remain faithful to his country and his obligations, and to uphold the blah blah blah. Isn't that why they take the Oath of Office then and are sworn in.

So then perhaps our diagram would look something like this:

Fig 1.5

Public Private Performative Perceived Performative

Job Beliefs Platform Mores

I think I'll leave it here for now. More later.

~Jon

A Few Notes from Target

You know, in this world of instant gratification, instant pleasure, and technological muscles that are flexed a bit too often, I had a perfect experience at work today. And it didn't come from my iPhone, or an e-mail, or anything of the sort. It came from good old fashioned one on one human interaction, face to face.

I was on the sales floor pushing product and intent on getting my job done so I could get the hell out of there. (Even though I had a few hours left.) However, as I was traveling down the aisle, I heard a voice behind me. For any of you who have worked retail, you may have felt this feeling before, the I-just-want-to-get-off-the-floor-before-anyone-spots-me game. I was nearly home free when a woman stopped me. I sighed mentally and wheeled around, expecting to find a 'tuned-in', Starbucks wielding, soccer mom intent on asking where she can find the latest doodad or gadget.

Instead, I found an elderly woman. A bit of my agitation melted away. And then, it all disappeared. This woman was in a wheelchair. One of those fancy Target branded scooter-chairs you can get at the front of the store. Her basket full of a few essentials and she was gazing at the '50% off' endcap.

'Could you tell me how much those are?' she said pointing at the package of paper towels. 'I didn't bring my glasses. So I can't read the prices.'

I answer.

'Okay how about those,' she was now pointing at a two-pack of New Zealand Spring Febreze spray 'have you tried it? Is it good?'

I answer.

'Is it a good price? I don't know for sure.'

After we discuss the price and if she wants the smell, I place the two-pack of New Zealand Febreze spray in her cart. Along with a disgustingly pink two pack of something exotic. I think it is called 'Thai Garden' or something.

She points at the top shelf where some tissues and spoons reside. The spoons are on sale for 74 cents, nearly half off. I place a package of spoons in the basket at the front of her scooter.

All in all, I help her put a package of paper towels in her basket (and later out when she decides she doesn't want them), some Febreze, and some spoons. Not exactly acts of kindness worthy of sainthood. But I can't help but think that perhaps this woman, wherever she is, is thinking about the nice young man at Target. Or at least I hope so.

So, I'm not sure why I wanted to share this story with you. Perhaps it is because just when you think that you're taking yourself too seriously or you feel your life is a tad too rotten. Take some time and think about how we're not entirely alone in this world. No matter how often it may feel that way. Because in this tuned in world complete with all the gadgets and whatever to make us feel connected, isn't it the wonder of the world, that when you hang up after talking to a loved one, you feel more lonely than before. Or when that someone doesn't text you back, you wonder about your friendship. Who knows I suppose.

I hope this post finds you well.

cheers,

jon

A Picture for your Wednesday Night

Left Feeling Hungover

In the days since I saw 'The Hangover II' I have been wondering why I wasn't feeling like a gospel should be dedicated to this film. Why I wasn't thrilled to the edge of giddiness about the Wolf Pack, and why my abs weren't aching from the belly laughs.

And I think, perhaps, it is because this installment in the franchise was so formulaic it made my heart sink. Maybe it was because throughout the entire film, you had this unsettling feeling that you had seen this movie before. Well, you had.

Step 1: Alan is hastily brought along to the Bachelor Party.

Step 2: The Wolf Pack promises a night no one shall forget (or remember.)

Step 3: A mistake leads to everyone forgetting (Hangover: Drugged by Alan Hangover II: Drugged by Alan via marshmallows)

Step 4: Wake up in a hotel room

Step 5: Haphazard journey around the city. The beginning you show the audience where the missing person is. Hangover: The mattress on the roof. Hangover II: The Elevator is broken.

Step 6: Late arrival at wedding complete with a rant from Stu about how he has learned something.

Step 7: See the pictures from the night before.

It seems that The Hangover II may have been a surprising, uproarious, devil-may-care movie, if we hadn't seen it the year before. I may not have felt cheated if this film lived in a world without the initial film.

But instead, I felt like I watched a lazy, lackluster stroll through former comedy. I felt, that even though the Wolf Pack was reunited, they left their heart in Las Vegas, or perhaps behind like Justin Bartha's character always seems to.

And, above all of this, in an article by The Rolling Stone, Zach Galifianakis talks about the potential The Hangover III.

We shall see, but for now, I feel a bit hungover.