Hello past fellow students of Koopman's race and gender class,
I started a philosophy blog and thought it might be helpful to some of you.
This blog is designed to keep you updated on professional news and movements in philosophy today, trolled from many site over the internet. Particular focus is on the professional aspects of philosophy such as how to create a good C/V, Publish papers, and understand hiring practices. This blog is my research into how to survive as a career philosopher.
http://philosorapters.blogspot.com/p/about-this-blog.html
Let me know if you have any feedback,
All the best,
- William Parkhurst
Monday, March 21, 2011
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Truth and the Situation of Philosophy
Chapter 4 of Real Identities deals with the notion of truth, among other topics.
She writes, "The portrayal of how philosophical claims are judged recognizes that philosophy is always situated, in both the problems it addresses and the answers that make sense, but this need not sacrifice our ability to claim truth. Philosophy can successfully clarify and explain without those explanations needing to be transcendentally true for all time or completely adequate to all aspects of the object it studies."
When we speak, when we express, when we argue, we do it from our specific, situated identity. This identity supports and allows the development of our individuality by placing us within a context. This is definitely a blessing, yet it seems as if it may be a curse as well, especially for a philosopher.
According to dictionary.com, philosophy is "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." Alcoff's quote says that because of our situation, truth can be claimed but never for all time. Our particularity denies transcendence; only an abstraction can reach perfection. I feel that "expressed" would be a more appropriate word than "claimed."
Is philosophy simply art through the symbolism of words, or something more? Why investigate the truths of being if your views will not be seen as transcendently true but rather only an expression inevitably from a situation? What is the goal that philosophy is working towards?
She writes, "The portrayal of how philosophical claims are judged recognizes that philosophy is always situated, in both the problems it addresses and the answers that make sense, but this need not sacrifice our ability to claim truth. Philosophy can successfully clarify and explain without those explanations needing to be transcendentally true for all time or completely adequate to all aspects of the object it studies."
When we speak, when we express, when we argue, we do it from our specific, situated identity. This identity supports and allows the development of our individuality by placing us within a context. This is definitely a blessing, yet it seems as if it may be a curse as well, especially for a philosopher.
According to dictionary.com, philosophy is "the rational investigation of the truths and principles of being, knowledge, or conduct." Alcoff's quote says that because of our situation, truth can be claimed but never for all time. Our particularity denies transcendence; only an abstraction can reach perfection. I feel that "expressed" would be a more appropriate word than "claimed."
Is philosophy simply art through the symbolism of words, or something more? Why investigate the truths of being if your views will not be seen as transcendently true but rather only an expression inevitably from a situation? What is the goal that philosophy is working towards?
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Yancy Article: Deconstruction of Internalized Predjudice
In Yancy's article, he discusses the interaction between a white woman, and himself, a black man when standing alone together in an elevator. Even though he is dressed in a suit and tie, the woman sees him as a black man. With this view comes a fear that stems from years of predjudice that views the black man as dangerous and unable to control his sexuality. Even if the white woman tries to deny these thoughts, her body language shows that she fears him none the less. Her body is tense, her hands are clammy, she grips her purse tightly, she avoids eye contact. Even in Yancy's class, a white student admits that when a black man walks on the same side of the street as her, she feels uncomfortable.
Society has historically, and continues to this day, to remind its citizens that black men are violent and are to be feared. Historically, a black man could be killed simply on the basis that he looked at a white woman in a way that inferred sexual prowess. Time and time again he was accused of raping the white woman, when in fact it was a white man who did the deed. Today, we see shows on t.v. like "Cops" that show people of minority groups acting in a violent manner and most often a white cop must forcefully throw them on the ground and handcuff them. Other examples of how the fear of black men is perpetuated is through news which shows the mug shot of the criminal. If the person has been caught, what is the point of broadcasting their face all over the country? The only result of such an action is the perpetuation of racial stereotyping and/or racial profiling, which then strenthens predjudicial fears.
What is even more concerning is when the black man himself internalizes the messages from society that he is indeed violent and to be feared. In my previous post I wrote about Alcoff's view of the divided self. One has a public identity, as well as a lived subjectivity. If the black man does not divide his lived subjectivity from his public identity, then his lived subjectivity will be shaped negatively because of the negative portrayal of the public identity. So instead of rejecting the view that he is violent by nature and cannot control his sexuality, he turns these traits into ones that he views as positive. One can see this occur within rap videos where the black male dominates black and white women, as well as carries a gun, or shows his masculinity through fighting. This is a defensive position in which the individual is reacting against those labels which he has been given. Unfortunately it does not allow the black man to liberate himself. Instead it only perpetuates the previously inscribed stereotypes and sends a false message to young black men saying what it is to be a black man.
Yancy's article is courageous in that it attempts to create a space to intellectually understand racism. Unless one can point to how racism is upheld, one can never eliminate it. Through recognition of it permeation within society Yancy creates opportunity to break away from these preconceived contructions and allows for the possibility of new modes of interaction.
Society has historically, and continues to this day, to remind its citizens that black men are violent and are to be feared. Historically, a black man could be killed simply on the basis that he looked at a white woman in a way that inferred sexual prowess. Time and time again he was accused of raping the white woman, when in fact it was a white man who did the deed. Today, we see shows on t.v. like "Cops" that show people of minority groups acting in a violent manner and most often a white cop must forcefully throw them on the ground and handcuff them. Other examples of how the fear of black men is perpetuated is through news which shows the mug shot of the criminal. If the person has been caught, what is the point of broadcasting their face all over the country? The only result of such an action is the perpetuation of racial stereotyping and/or racial profiling, which then strenthens predjudicial fears.
What is even more concerning is when the black man himself internalizes the messages from society that he is indeed violent and to be feared. In my previous post I wrote about Alcoff's view of the divided self. One has a public identity, as well as a lived subjectivity. If the black man does not divide his lived subjectivity from his public identity, then his lived subjectivity will be shaped negatively because of the negative portrayal of the public identity. So instead of rejecting the view that he is violent by nature and cannot control his sexuality, he turns these traits into ones that he views as positive. One can see this occur within rap videos where the black male dominates black and white women, as well as carries a gun, or shows his masculinity through fighting. This is a defensive position in which the individual is reacting against those labels which he has been given. Unfortunately it does not allow the black man to liberate himself. Instead it only perpetuates the previously inscribed stereotypes and sends a false message to young black men saying what it is to be a black man.
Yancy's article is courageous in that it attempts to create a space to intellectually understand racism. Unless one can point to how racism is upheld, one can never eliminate it. Through recognition of it permeation within society Yancy creates opportunity to break away from these preconceived contructions and allows for the possibility of new modes of interaction.
Alcoff: Divided Identity.
Alcoff focuses on the concept of identity. Through this focus she strives to create a new language surrounding identity in order to break through present thought barriers as well as define a language that is still under construction. She uses philosopher Martin Heidegger's terminology to decontruct old ways of viewing identity, while simultaneously opening new dialogues and modes of thinking
One point I found to be primarily interesting was Alcoff's explanation of one's racial or ethnic identity as a formulation of both what she calls the "public identity" and the "lived subjectivity". These terms show that there is a difference between how one creates their identity from the public views which are based primarily on visual classifications and assumptions, but also from one's own subjective experience of themselves. These two forms of knowing oneself are not seperate entitities, but rather are connected in a constant interplay.
The problem arises when the dominant influences in society denegrade one's public identity. In order for that individual to protect their lived subjectivity they must seperate their identity, thereby creating a divided self. An example of this is if one lives in a society such as the U.S. where light skin is portrayed as beautiful, but darker skin is viewed as undesirable. In this case a black woman, (especially for a woman because there is more pressure for her to be beautiful than for a man) must seperate herself from her public identity, in order to protect her lived subjectivity. If she does not divide her identity in this way she will most likely internalize the public identity, thus effecting her lived subjectivity to the point that she believes herself to be ugly, and therefore lesser of a person. So one is caught either in a position of a divided self, or believing negative connotations of oneself. Alcoff turns to Heidegger for help.
One point I found to be primarily interesting was Alcoff's explanation of one's racial or ethnic identity as a formulation of both what she calls the "public identity" and the "lived subjectivity". These terms show that there is a difference between how one creates their identity from the public views which are based primarily on visual classifications and assumptions, but also from one's own subjective experience of themselves. These two forms of knowing oneself are not seperate entitities, but rather are connected in a constant interplay.
The problem arises when the dominant influences in society denegrade one's public identity. In order for that individual to protect their lived subjectivity they must seperate their identity, thereby creating a divided self. An example of this is if one lives in a society such as the U.S. where light skin is portrayed as beautiful, but darker skin is viewed as undesirable. In this case a black woman, (especially for a woman because there is more pressure for her to be beautiful than for a man) must seperate herself from her public identity, in order to protect her lived subjectivity. If she does not divide her identity in this way she will most likely internalize the public identity, thus effecting her lived subjectivity to the point that she believes herself to be ugly, and therefore lesser of a person. So one is caught either in a position of a divided self, or believing negative connotations of oneself. Alcoff turns to Heidegger for help.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Are we hook's audience?
In Liberation Scenes bell hooks critiques the way the discipline of cultural studies is practiced on several levels. Basically cultural studies should be radical, linked to political struggle and voiced by the “cultural subjects (African-Americans, for example) that are written about.” (9) I wonder in how far she links the identity of a person to a capability or authority to speak concerning certain issues. On the one hand she points out, that it is important not to hold back with critiques for literature or media produced by blacks, just because they are black. To me this shows, that she does not believe that being part of a collective identity in itself makes you an expert on issues concerning that group. On the other hand she clearly voices that she feels pressured by white academics to write in a certain style and that “[a]t times, even the most progressive and well-meaning white folks, who are friends and allies, may not understand why a black writer has to say something in a certain way, or why we may not want to explain what has been said as though the first people we must always be addressing are privileged white readers.” (11) This quote raises the question whether for her there is a kind of language barrier between black and white progressive academics. hooks does not want to have to change her language or explain herself, which is fair enough. She does not write for a white audience first, as she points out, but wants her readers to ‘decolonize’ their minds. However our seminar reads her texts and is part of the academic institutions she criticizes. So – are we part of hook' s audience and can we 'truly' understand hooks?
social identities
In recent readings, there seems to be a combination of race and gender under social identities. What about the other social identities? Social identities that include race, gender, sex, age, class mobility, religion ... It really comes down to which side is more privileged and which sides are being oppressed. A person isn't just a women, but also Asian-American (race), middle-aged, working poor-class, non-handicapped, homosexual (sex).
bell hooks
In the first Chapter of Feminist Theory, hooks claims that oppressed women are unable to see the oppression because excessive limits are not imposed. In other words, because oppressed women in America still have basic freedoms, they are unable to see the injustices they face from society. I agree with this claim to a certain degree, but I think over time people acknowledge injustices they face and rebel because of it. Maybe the white-housewives were the first step in helping american women realize they are oppressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)