If you didn't tell us that, it wouldn't be embarrassing. But anyway. How do you want us to hand in the essay? Would like a hard copy or just for us to send it to you by the wonderful world of the web?
Still here, and needing help. Inasmuch as Klein's discussion of the logo is concerned, it's clear how her piece would function altogether differently (or, more appropriately, probably not at all) without drawing on Marx's account of the fetishized commodity. I'm having trouble, though, finding points of contention or where the story she tells about advertising "departs" from Marx's account. Any hints on things I should be on the lookout for in her piece?
Well, one thing to think about is **abstractness** -- in both accounts there is something pernicious about abstraction, and both the fetishized commodity form and the logo form facilitate this abstractness... But is it the same in each?
Also, note how the commodity invests the price with an avid false zombie life and the logo creates a face that functionally effaces the social/historical face... Is that false life the same in each? The questions are connected...
I have mixed feelings about reading Deleuze. Deleuze is a great thinker but I think reading Deleuze makes too many people into lousy thinkers. My rule is, you shouldn't let Deleuze influence your writing until you have read at least five of his books and continuously read him for at least five years. Unless the engagement is deep Deleuze makes people confuse serious theory with writing overgeneral slogans of the kind you can find on Celestial Seasons teabags...
If Kant's Critiques are scary -- read the Prolegomena, the Metaphysics of Morals, and then the Political Writings in the Cambridge anthology -- they cover most of the key terrain.
Lols, check. Read SOME Kant, in class and out. Mostly his portrait been staring me down from spine of _Critique of Pure Reason_ for last two years. I'll get on that. . .
does anyone have any notes on the "raft at sea" premise from Nietzsche discussion or would be able to summarize it shortly here? my notes are rather illegible...
The greatest recent event—that "God is dead,"' that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable—is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least whose eyes—the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this spectacle, some sun seems to have set and some ancient and profound trust has been turned into doubt; to them our old world must appear daily more like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, "older." But in the main one may say: The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now impending—who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth?
Even we born guessers of riddles who are, as it were, waiting on the mountains, posted between today and tomorrow, stretched in the contradiction between today and tomorrow, we firstlings and premature births of the coming century, to whom the shadows that must soon envelop Europe really should have appeared by now—why is it that even we look forward to the /280/ approaching gloom without any real sense of involvement and above all without any worry and fear for ourselves? Are we perhaps still too much under the impression of the initial consequences of this event—and these initial consequences, the consequences for ourselves, are quite the opposite of what one might perhaps expect: They are not at all sad and gloomy but rather like a new and scarcely describable kind of light, happiness, relief, exhilaration, encouragement, dawn.
Indeed, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that "the old god is dead," as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an "open sea."—
If trade is in part the basis for some facets in the evolution of the fetishized commodity, can a correlation be drawn to the lineage of lifestyle branding without drifting too far into Marxist theory (concerning social warrants for lifestyle branding as opposed to fetish items and "theoretical" future interpretations of such warrants) ?
I'm writing my paper on Adorno's piece. One claim he makes is that "The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him." He supports this claim by referring to Kant, "[who] said that there was secret mechanism in the soul which prepared direct intuitions in such a way that they could be fitted into the system of pure reason. But today that secret has been deciphered."
I was wondering if I could base my paper around the idea of how his definition of the culture industry (something I will attempt to extract out of his descriptions of it, with particular attention to its architecture, how it dehistoricizes, and how it creates a false illusion between the general and the particular) forces "the man with leisure" to accept the culture industry by "accessing the soul," and how this same description may provide an avenue of escape or, at least, demonstrates the fragility of such a system.
Is that an okay project, where the thesis develops as the paper moves? And a technical question: I find that saying Adorno and Horkeimer over and over again gets repetitive, is it okay if I just refer to both authors in the beginning and one author throughout the rest?
I'm a little worried about the generality of your thesis, Waseem -- and worried about how much of what interests you here is really about moments in the piece in which he signals in a rather shorthand way philosophical commitment he elaborates elsewhere. Maybe focus in on "style" and its obliteration in routine in particular, in its role in the piece at hand, as an interface between the culture industry's construction of mass consciousness and the situated individual's exercise of a faculty of judgment...
The place that is being filled of trade commerce by the lifestyle consumer base and social identity with the need for a lifestyle brand as it extends through the people in society who themselves extend through generations with an identity.
So you are assuming that lifestyle branding is connected genealogically to historical ethnic and other kinds of subcultures? I think that's a tricky claim -- which is not to say that it isn't enormously interesting, that's part of what M&E were talking about with the "all that is solid melts into air" thesis -- and I wonder esp. if it is going to take you out of close reading and into abstract/editorial speculation in terms of the assignment a bit... What sections of the Klein are you chiseling into in particular?
Hey Dale, I am planning on writing about how the Klein piece on Logo's is and isn't influenced by Marx's fetishized commodity and I was wondering if one point I could/should include would be the fact that Klein's piece is written more to inform and bring to light a trend than to make a statement about it. Does this sound right or not? I don't get a strong theme coming from the Logo's other than that the branding of things could be leading to a detachment from the actual goods themselves similar to the one in Fetishized commodity.
and not to isolate entrepreneurialism as the only seeds for extending social identities in relations to market commodification of any form, but assess it as an introspective source for contextualizing further in the Klein texts, for any divestments society might find in the growth of lifestyle branding as a marketable offering.
Is Marx not also delineating a trend in the sense you mean? (One might call his historical materialism trend-spotting writ large -- one might even say that's what he got most devastatingly wrong!) Are you saying that Klein's piece is explicitly descriptive but only implicitly prescriptive? That sounds like a promising vantage for a close reading, tell me more...
Not sure yet, but I specialize in speculating as a form of identifying a point of departure in any argument as a ghost for intelligent opposition, and I was looking to debunk the notion of any glorified transformation of the 'commodity' to the 'brand' that has not been covered in the texts as a task to procedure.
Entrepreneurialism as an introspective resource for the extension of social identities via lifestyle branding... am I getting this right? Now, that's an intriguing notion, but are you seeing that as either a claim or entailment of claims from Klein's piece itself? That seems tricky.
Although I'm addressing replies to both Skyler and DJ, it seems either of you (or anybody else with a notion to do so) can draw from them to do what you will...
Well in The Fetishized Commodity, Marx leaves the reader with a very distinct opinion and prophecy about how the fetishized commodity was going to impact the world. Klein however, chooses not to focus her argument upon how this increase in branding is going to affect the world and instead focuses on giving multiple examples of it. It seems that she may be attempting to avoid the mistake that Marx made by explicitly prophesizing. Instead, she expects the audience to make those decisions themselves.
Hey Dale, I have a question about Barthe's Mythologies. I am using Striptease as a main artifact for my thesis but at the beginning of the essay he makes a distinction that the myth may only be particular to Parisian Strip. I don't think it'll make a difference on the whole of the argument but is that something to worry about (being (1) I wouldn't know the difference and (2) not only is it different cultural location but also time)?
Yes, but it is only a short essay. And I am not forgetting what you've said about multiple readings in this short of an essay, but I do want to narrow down the directions in which this Marxist infusion can insight.
Although I agree Klein refrains from prophesying is it really true that we are left in much doubt as to where she thinks things are going and how she feels about them if things do not change?
I think that this openness adds to Klein's argument and makes it stronger because while it definitely lays down a tone about how she feels about this trend, it doesn't give an opinion. The lack of an opinion allows her paper to be more widely used and applicable over a longer period of time e.g. unlike Marx's which was proven wrong and then disregarded by many.
The specific reading is particular to Parisian Strip as the specific reading is particular to French (as against American) wrestling in the 50s -- but one can still draw general conclusions about mechanisms through which mythological naturalization transforms historical contingengies benefiting incumbent elites into the appearance of necessities. If such generalization were not possible the closing essay would not have been possible.
Narrowing the essay down will come principally from two decisions you make -- the sharpness of your thesis, and the force of the textual examples you choose to read closely.
That is the beauty of her argument i.e. she makes a statement without ever explicity saying it. Thus if she is wrong, her observations with not be discredited, but rather taken as just that; observations. I thought this point would serve as one of my disimilarities between Marx and Klein's piece. That is to say that Klein's argument style differs from Marx's in that she doesn't offer a solution or a prophesy, but rather simply points out an issue.
I think Klein's piece is enormously opinionated, but you are right that she doesn't try to clothe her assertions in the form of scientificity. Her background is journalism rather than the pretensions of continental philosophy fancying itself some kind of meta-science or sooper-science. I think that's part of the story here. Not sure how that is going to play out in your readings tho', exactly, yet...
To interject Skyler, whenever I hear that sort of conclusion in academic writing it reminds me of studies where the researchers gather a bunch of information and then half ass their conclusion/findings.
Making solid predictions leave you open for dismissal when it's wrong, but if your theory is strong enough (even without that conclusion) people will do like they did with Marx anyway.
I should add that part of what may be afoot here is that Klein's excerpt is introductory while the whole book unquestionably has its prescriptive moments. Of course, we read an even more fractional excerpt of Marx as compared with the bulk of Capital, but since Marx's prescriptions are well-known the lack of them in the material at hand doesn't yield the same impression of a preference for the documentary over the commentary... Everybody should read No Logo entire when they get some time off, at least everybody who liked this excerpt...
Good point. My wonder is whether or not to include this into my paper because we can never truly know why Klein chose to not make grand conclusions about her subject. It could be because she didn't want to make the mistake that Marx did or it could be that she didn't possess the knowledge/desire to do so or it could simply be that she felt leaving the subject to the future to decide would be the best and only way to provide a solid answer...
That's the distinction there. Journalists are trained to write like that, versus Marx who wants the guise of the scientist. I don't really know if that's where you're going with your paper but that's a clear distinction just by their conclusion of how each person approaches the issue. I'm sure that in No Logo she does implicitly give some sort of push in one direction or another of what someone would do about it, but I haven't read the thing.
@Dale I blame PoliSci for my need for a resolution and not just an argument.
ah... so should I only focus on the excerpt which doesn't have a strong prescription? or should I not worry about this point and simply mention it in passing?
Or perhaps read closely for implicit prescriptions? Up to you. Whatever you do -- if you are drawn away from close reading you should understand that this is a signal to you that your argument is going somewhat awry.
I like your distinction better DJ, maybe instead of focusing on the fact that No Logo doesn't give an explicit opinion, i should instead focus on the difference between the two people and mention how the seems (in the excerpt) to create different goals (on to create a solution to an issue and one to point it out) for each paper.
This is an off topic question but Andrew said you were interested in Environmental Rhetoric? I wanted to know if you have any book recommendations for things about architecture, tech and the structural forming of own society that would be fun to read? (e.g. parks are heteronormative types of arguments).
Just don't go meta in a way that draws you out of close reading -- that is to say, draws you away from an argument that is substantiated primarily by means of evidence from the text itself as you contextualize it, rather than by reference to logical propositions or evidence outside the text itself.
Democratizing technodevelopmental social struggle is my subject -- I work within the framework of STS (science and technology studies), EJ (environmental justice critique), and p2p-media studies. I've taught a course in Green Rhetoric here in the department at UC twice, and a related course in the City three times over the years. You might want to check out the readings available through the syllabus of the last version of the UC course -- it's available here. Also, check out STS and EJ in places like wikipedia and explore the links there. I'm always happy to talk about this subject -- ask me before or after class for more depth.
If that was for me, I am actually interested in Political Rhetoric, however I did take a rhetoric class last year focusing on the environment. Some good books from that class were: Uncommon Grounds, and anything from John Muir
Not to say Klein was wrong, but she missed some critical issues regarding subculture, etc. Also, It has been a few years on the front lines of marketing and consumer absorption in a lifestyle branding age since her publication -- so I am looking to favor an argument in Marx that might bend according to Klein's assessment, and then locate it as the structure of the prompt, as opposed to setting on a for / against indebtedness sort of journey (which could end up likely as inconclusive as Marxist theory without time and duration in excess to the alloted parameters of the assignment).
Naomi Klein’s explaination of the increase in the branding fetish is in many ways a modern reuse of Marx’s Fetishized Commodity; like the fetishized commodity of Marx, a Logo takes from the product it’s value and meaning and attempts to replace it with a shallow icon that tells us nothing of the products quality or usefulness, however; Naomi Klein’s argument style and tact differs dramatically from Marx’s in that because she is a Journalist, both her approach and goal are different. Rather than trying to find a solution to the problem of branding, Klien creates an essay that plays out to be a narrated history of the issue.
This is how I plan to deploy what we were talking about. Does that sound ok? I figured I would spend the majority of the essay explaining how her argument was similar to Marx's in structure, but different in purpose.
I would use examples of her writing style, the way her essay acted as a narrative, etc.
So then would it work if I provided an account of his definition of style, how it has been obliterated by routine and by creating a false illusion of general and particular (and what that means), the results of this obliteration (by creating boundaries for reception/perception, false perceptions of truth and so on), and then analyzing the "style" of the piece as a whole? I guess I'm rewording most of your response, but I'm just trying to ground this suggestion in my head.
Waseem -- that sounds promising. I think it sounds as if you have found a way to register your theoretical concerns through a close reading of the text at hand. That's the whole trick.
The thesis that I’m working with is that Novels and Children is not a critique of fetishized women or women’s magazines but that of mythologized religion and its function to maintain the status quo of the ruling elite of men. I hope this sounds reasonable because I see where Barthes draws on Marx’s idea that religion proliferates in a commodity trading society but that for Barthes it has been mythologized to distract women into believing that their place in society as subservient to men is natural and that Elle simply functions to protect this mythologized religious goal.
Int. -- there are other places in the text you might draw on for incidental support for this reading, so even if your focus remains on just the one Mythological reading don't hesitate to poach opportunistically from other readings in the book.
Sorry I'm late...
ReplyDeleteI'll remain here for an hour and a half and then loiter about to compensate...
ReplyDeleteHello, sorry about that...
ReplyDeleteThe truly embarrassing thing is that I've been online been online, but got engrossed elsewhere... Listened to Franken's keynote at Netroots Nation...
ReplyDeleteIf you didn't tell us that, it wouldn't be embarrassing. But anyway. How do you want us to hand in the essay? Would like a hard copy or just for us to send it to you by the wonderful world of the web?
ReplyDeleteSo, who has a question or comment?
ReplyDeleteIdeally, you'll bring a hard copy to class Tuesday.
ReplyDeleteOkay, thanks!
ReplyDeleteWho's next?
ReplyDeleteStill here, and needing help. Inasmuch as Klein's discussion of the logo is concerned, it's clear how her piece would function altogether differently (or, more appropriately, probably not at all) without drawing on Marx's account of the fetishized commodity. I'm having trouble, though, finding points of contention or where the story she tells about advertising "departs" from Marx's account. Any hints on things I should be on the lookout for in her piece?
ReplyDeleteSeeking referrals:
ReplyDeleteShould I read Rousseau? If so, where should I start or skip to?
Suggestions for theories of aesthetics?
Any advice for readers of Derrida's _Margins of Philosophy_ (if you even think it's worth reading)? How about of _Capitalism and Schizophrenia_?
Well, one thing to think about is **abstractness** -- in both accounts there is something pernicious about abstraction, and both the fetishized commodity form and the logo form facilitate this abstractness... But is it the same in each?
ReplyDeleteAlso, note how the commodity invests the price with an avid false zombie life and the logo creates a face that functionally effaces the social/historical face... Is that false life the same in each? The questions are connected...
ReplyDeleteI other versions of 20 I have taught "Ends of Man" from Margins... it is a fine companion to Solanas.
ReplyDeleteI have mixed feelings about reading Deleuze. Deleuze is a great thinker but I think reading Deleuze makes too many people into lousy thinkers. My rule is, you shouldn't let Deleuze influence your writing until you have read at least five of his books and continuously read him for at least five years. Unless the engagement is deep Deleuze makes people confuse serious theory with writing overgeneral slogans of the kind you can find on Celestial Seasons teabags...
ReplyDeleteEverybody should read Rousseau. But if you haven't read Aristotle, Plato, and Kant don't read anything else until you do.
ReplyDeleteHa, there are few horror genres that spook me quite like zombies do. Anyway, thanks for the help, it's much appreciated.
ReplyDeleteIf Kant's Critiques are scary -- read the Prolegomena, the Metaphysics of Morals, and then the Political Writings in the Cambridge anthology -- they cover most of the key terrain.
ReplyDeleteZombie movies are scary because they are so true to life.
ReplyDeleteAnybody else?
ReplyDeleteLols, check. Read SOME Kant, in class and out. Mostly his portrait been staring me down from spine of _Critique of Pure Reason_ for last two years. I'll get on that. . .
ReplyDeletedoes anyone have any notes on the "raft at sea" premise from Nietzsche discussion or would be able to summarize it shortly here? my notes are rather illegible...
ReplyDeleteFrom The Gay Science
ReplyDeleteThe meaning of our cheerfulness.—
The greatest recent event—that "God is dead,"' that the belief in the Christian god has become unbelievable—is already beginning to cast its first shadows over Europe. For the few at least whose eyes—the suspicion in whose eyes is strong and subtle enough for this spectacle, some sun seems to have set and some ancient and profound trust has been turned into doubt; to them our old world must appear daily more like evening, more mistrustful, stranger, "older." But in the main one may say: The event itself is far too great, too distant, too remote from the multitude's capacity for comprehension even for the tidings of it to be thought of as having arrived as yet. Much less may one suppose that many people know as yet what this event really means—and how much must collapse now that this faith has been undermined because it was built upon this faith, propped up by it, grown into it; for example, the whole of our European morality. This long plenitude and sequence of breakdown, destruction, ruin, and cataclysm that is now impending—who could guess enough of it today to be compelled to play the teacher and advance proclaimer of this monstrous logic of terror, the prophet of a gloom and an eclipse of the sun whose like has probably never yet occurred on earth?
Even we born guessers of riddles who are, as it were, waiting on the mountains, posted between today and tomorrow, stretched in the contradiction between today and tomorrow, we firstlings and premature births of the coming century, to whom the shadows that must soon envelop Europe really should have appeared by now—why is it that even we look forward to the /280/ approaching gloom without any real sense of involvement and above all without any worry and fear for ourselves? Are we perhaps still too much under the impression of the initial consequences of this event—and these initial consequences, the consequences for ourselves, are quite the opposite of what one might perhaps expect: They are not at all sad and gloomy but rather like a new and scarcely describable kind of light, happiness, relief, exhilaration, encouragement, dawn.
Indeed, we philosophers and "free spirits" feel, when we hear the news that "the old god is dead," as if a new dawn shone on us; our heart overflows with gratitude, amazement, premonitions, expectation. At long last the horizon appears free to us again, even if it should not be bright; at long last our ships may venture out again, venture out to face any danger; all the daring of the lover of knowledge is permitted again; the sea, our sea, lies open again; perhaps there has never yet been such an "open sea."—
If trade is in part the basis for some facets in the evolution of the fetishized commodity, can a correlation be drawn to the lineage of lifestyle branding without drifting too far into Marxist theory (concerning social warrants for lifestyle branding as opposed to fetish items and "theoretical" future interpretations of such warrants) ?
ReplyDeleteHey Dale thanks for giving us some of your time.
ReplyDeleteI'm writing my paper on Adorno's piece. One claim he makes is that "The man with leisure has to accept what the culture manufacturers offer him." He supports this claim by referring to Kant, "[who] said that there was secret mechanism in the soul which prepared direct intuitions in such a way that they could be fitted into the system of pure reason. But today that secret has been deciphered."
I was wondering if I could base my paper around the idea of how his definition of the culture industry (something I will attempt to extract out of his descriptions of it, with particular attention to its architecture, how it dehistoricizes, and how it creates a false illusion between the general and the particular) forces "the man with leisure" to accept the culture industry by "accessing the soul," and how this same description may provide an avenue of escape or, at least, demonstrates the fragility of such a system.
Is that an okay project, where the thesis develops as the paper moves? And a technical question: I find that saying Adorno and Horkeimer over and over again gets repetitive, is it okay if I just refer to both authors in the beginning and one author throughout the rest?
Thanks again,
Waseem
I'd have a clearer idea of the correlation you have in mind, if you were clearer on just what facets you have in mind...
ReplyDeleteHorkheimer is used to getting the short end of the attribution stick...
ReplyDeleteI'm a little worried about the generality of your thesis, Waseem -- and worried about how much of what interests you here is really about moments in the piece in which he signals in a rather shorthand way philosophical commitment he elaborates elsewhere. Maybe focus in on "style" and its obliteration in routine in particular, in its role in the piece at hand, as an interface between the culture industry's construction of mass consciousness and the situated individual's exercise of a faculty of judgment...
ReplyDeleteThe place that is being filled of trade commerce by the lifestyle consumer base and social identity with the need for a lifestyle brand as it extends through the people in society who themselves extend through generations with an identity.
ReplyDeletegenerations in a particularly relevant societal melt(such as NYC or the Bay Area with diverse entrepreneurial offerings), more specifically.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSo you are assuming that lifestyle branding is connected genealogically to historical ethnic and other kinds of subcultures? I think that's a tricky claim -- which is not to say that it isn't enormously interesting, that's part of what M&E were talking about with the "all that is solid melts into air" thesis -- and I wonder esp. if it is going to take you out of close reading and into abstract/editorial speculation in terms of the assignment a bit... What sections of the Klein are you chiseling into in particular?
ReplyDeleteWho's Dave? (just kidding)
ReplyDeleteHey Dale, I am planning on writing about how the Klein piece on Logo's is and isn't influenced by Marx's fetishized commodity and I was wondering if one point I could/should include would be the fact that Klein's piece is written more to inform and bring to light a trend than to make a statement about it. Does this sound right or not? I don't get a strong theme coming from the Logo's other than that the branding of things could be leading to a detachment from the actual goods themselves similar to the one in Fetishized commodity.
ReplyDeleteand not to isolate entrepreneurialism as the only seeds for extending social identities in relations to market commodification of any form, but assess it as an introspective source for contextualizing further in the Klein texts, for any divestments society might find in the growth of lifestyle branding as a marketable offering.
ReplyDeletelol I tried to fix it
ReplyDeleteWere you talking to me with the genealogy stuff or DJ?
ReplyDeleteIs Marx not also delineating a trend in the sense you mean? (One might call his historical materialism trend-spotting writ large -- one might even say that's what he got most devastatingly wrong!) Are you saying that Klein's piece is explicitly descriptive but only implicitly prescriptive? That sounds like a promising vantage for a close reading, tell me more...
ReplyDeleteNot sure yet, but I specialize in speculating as a form of identifying a point of departure in any argument as a ghost for intelligent opposition, and I was looking to debunk the notion of any glorified transformation of the 'commodity' to the 'brand' that has not been covered in the texts as a task to procedure.
ReplyDeleteEntrepreneurialism as an introspective resource for the extension of social identities via lifestyle branding... am I getting this right? Now, that's an intriguing notion, but are you seeing that as either a claim or entailment of claims from Klein's piece itself? That seems tricky.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm addressing replies to both Skyler and DJ, it seems either of you (or anybody else with a notion to do so) can draw from them to do what you will...
ReplyDeleteidentifying a point of departure in any argument as a ghost for intelligent opposition
ReplyDeleteThat's a good policy for a rhetorician for sure.
Well in The Fetishized Commodity, Marx leaves the reader with a very distinct opinion and prophecy about how the fetishized commodity was going to impact the world. Klein however, chooses not to focus her argument upon how this increase in branding is going to affect the world and instead focuses on giving multiple examples of it. It seems that she may be attempting to avoid the mistake that Marx made by explicitly prophesizing. Instead, she expects the audience to make those decisions themselves.
ReplyDeleteHey Dale, I have a question about Barthe's Mythologies. I am using Striptease as a main artifact for my thesis but at the beginning of the essay he makes a distinction that the myth may only be particular to Parisian Strip. I don't think it'll make a difference on the whole of the argument but is that something to worry about (being (1) I wouldn't know the difference and (2) not only is it different cultural location but also time)?
ReplyDeleteYes, but it is only a short essay. And I am not forgetting what you've said about multiple readings in this short of an essay, but I do want to narrow down the directions in which this Marxist infusion can insight.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I agree Klein refrains from prophesying is it really true that we are left in much doubt as to where she thinks things are going and how she feels about them if things do not change?
ReplyDeleteI think that this openness adds to Klein's argument and makes it stronger because while it definitely lays down a tone about how she feels about this trend, it doesn't give an opinion. The lack of an opinion allows her paper to be more widely used and applicable over a longer period of time e.g. unlike Marx's which was proven wrong and then disregarded by many.
ReplyDeleteThe specific reading is particular to Parisian Strip as the specific reading is particular to French (as against American) wrestling in the 50s -- but one can still draw general conclusions about mechanisms through which mythological naturalization transforms historical contingengies benefiting incumbent elites into the appearance of necessities. If such generalization were not possible the closing essay would not have been possible.
ReplyDeleteNarrowing the essay down will come principally from two decisions you make -- the sharpness of your thesis, and the force of the textual examples you choose to read closely.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThat is the beauty of her argument i.e. she makes a statement without ever explicity saying it. Thus if she is wrong, her observations with not be discredited, but rather taken as just that; observations. I thought this point would serve as one of my disimilarities between Marx and Klein's piece. That is to say that Klein's argument style differs from Marx's in that she doesn't offer a solution or a prophesy, but rather simply points out an issue.
ReplyDeleteI think Klein's piece is enormously opinionated, but you are right that she doesn't try to clothe her assertions in the form of scientificity. Her background is journalism rather than the pretensions of continental philosophy fancying itself some kind of meta-science or sooper-science. I think that's part of the story here. Not sure how that is going to play out in your readings tho', exactly, yet...
ReplyDeleteTo interject Skyler, whenever I hear that sort of conclusion in academic writing it reminds me of studies where the researchers gather a bunch of information and then half ass their conclusion/findings.
ReplyDeleteMaking solid predictions leave you open for dismissal when it's wrong, but if your theory is strong enough (even without that conclusion) people will do like they did with Marx anyway.
This is fun.
ReplyDeletelol having fun maintaining multiple conversations?
ReplyDeleteI should add that part of what may be afoot here is that Klein's excerpt is introductory while the whole book unquestionably has its prescriptive moments. Of course, we read an even more fractional excerpt of Marx as compared with the bulk of Capital, but since Marx's prescriptions are well-known the lack of them in the material at hand doesn't yield the same impression of a preference for the documentary over the commentary... Everybody should read No Logo entire when they get some time off, at least everybody who liked this excerpt...
ReplyDeleteActually I'm blogging elsewhere in addition to our little party as well. It is fun.
ReplyDeleteGood point. My wonder is whether or not to include this into my paper because we can never truly know why Klein chose to not make grand conclusions about her subject. It could be because she didn't want to make the mistake that Marx did or it could be that she didn't possess the knowledge/desire to do so or it could simply be that she felt leaving the subject to the future to decide would be the best and only way to provide a solid answer...
ReplyDeleteThat's the distinction there. Journalists are trained to write like that, versus Marx who wants the guise of the scientist. I don't really know if that's where you're going with your paper but that's a clear distinction just by their conclusion of how each person approaches the issue. I'm sure that in No Logo she does implicitly give some sort of push in one direction or another of what someone would do about it, but I haven't read the thing.
ReplyDelete@Dale I blame PoliSci for my need for a resolution and not just an argument.
ah... so should I only focus on the excerpt which doesn't have a strong prescription? or should I not worry about this point and simply mention it in passing?
ReplyDeleteOr perhaps read closely for implicit prescriptions? Up to you. Whatever you do -- if you are drawn away from close reading you should understand that this is a signal to you that your argument is going somewhat awry.
ReplyDeleteI like your distinction better DJ, maybe instead of focusing on the fact that No Logo doesn't give an explicit opinion, i should instead focus on the difference between the two people and mention how the seems (in the excerpt) to create different goals (on to create a solution to an issue and one to point it out) for each paper.
ReplyDeleteThis is an off topic question but Andrew said you were interested in Environmental Rhetoric? I wanted to know if you have any book recommendations for things about architecture, tech and the structural forming of own society that would be fun to read? (e.g. parks are heteronormative types of arguments).
ReplyDeleteSounds good Dale. What do you think of what DJ/ I said about maybe focusing on how the two papers differ because of the writers styles
ReplyDeleteJust don't go meta in a way that draws you out of close reading -- that is to say, draws you away from an argument that is substantiated primarily by means of evidence from the text itself as you contextualize it, rather than by reference to logical propositions or evidence outside the text itself.
ReplyDeleteReading the style of the text (figures, qualifications, passive vs active voice, and so on) is an excellent idea in close reading, by all means do so.
ReplyDeleteDemocratizing technodevelopmental social struggle is my subject -- I work within the framework of STS (science and technology studies), EJ (environmental justice critique), and p2p-media studies. I've taught a course in Green Rhetoric here in the department at UC twice, and a related course in the City three times over the years. You might want to check out the readings available through the syllabus of the last version of the UC course -- it's available here. Also, check out STS and EJ in places like wikipedia and explore the links there. I'm always happy to talk about this subject -- ask me before or after class for more depth.
ReplyDeleteIf that was for me, I am actually interested in Political Rhetoric, however I did take a rhetoric class last year focusing on the environment. Some good books from that class were: Uncommon Grounds, and anything from John Muir
ReplyDeleteThank you! :D
ReplyDeleteThanks Dale
ReplyDeleteDefinitely, when my book Hole Earth: Futurisms Against Environmentalisms is finally finished and published, read that!
ReplyDeleteNot to say Klein was wrong, but she missed some critical issues regarding subculture, etc. Also, It has been a few years on the front lines of marketing and consumer absorption in a lifestyle branding age since her publication -- so I am looking to favor an argument in Marx that might bend according to Klein's assessment, and then locate it as the structure of the prompt, as opposed to setting on a for / against indebtedness sort of journey (which could end up likely as inconclusive as Marxist theory without time and duration in excess to the alloted parameters of the assignment).
ReplyDeleteSkyler, if political rhet is your bag the course syllabus to check out might be this one, from Altars and Alters to the Marketplace last Spring...
ReplyDeleteKlein "missed some critical issues regarding subculture
ReplyDeleteWhen you get the chance, check out another excerpt from No Logo: Patriarchy Gets Funky.
I will keep it at my bedside and recommend it to all Dale ;)
ReplyDeleteBut for serious.....I'm going to keep a look out for it
ReplyDeleteBut in terms of the actual piece of writing we read and about which you are writing I do see the force of the arguments you guys are making.
ReplyDeleteThat class looks pretty interesting.Are you teaching that class again in the fall or spring?
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNope -- in terms of UCB I'm only teaching during the summer from here on out -- which likely means 10, 20, 103a, 103b core.
ReplyDeleteWell, I am trying to justify / warrant lifestyle branding for the contemporary role without crossing any vital progressive trains... trying, anyway.
ReplyDeleteDale, this is a rough rough draft of my thesis:
ReplyDeleteNaomi Klein’s explaination of the increase in the branding fetish is in many ways a modern reuse of Marx’s Fetishized Commodity; like the fetishized commodity of Marx, a Logo takes from the product it’s value and meaning and attempts to replace it with a shallow icon that tells us nothing of the products quality or usefulness, however; Naomi Klein’s argument style and tact differs dramatically from Marx’s in that because she is a Journalist, both her approach and goal are different. Rather than trying to find a solution to the problem of branding, Klien creates an essay that plays out to be a narrated history of the issue.
This is how I plan to deploy what we were talking about. Does that sound ok? I figured I would spend the majority of the essay explaining how her argument was similar to Marx's in structure, but different in purpose.
I would use examples of her writing style, the way her essay acted as a narrative, etc.
83 comments... not bad.
ReplyDeleteYou're going crazy with those semi-colons, dude!
ReplyDeleteSounds like a good start. I'm not sure about "tact."
ReplyDeletelol I just wrote that up so my grammar way probably horrible. I had another thesis, but it was vague and I like this one better.
ReplyDeleteTact was the wrong word, I meant the way she chooses to structure her essay.
ReplyDeleteis there a reason why you capitalized 'logo'?
ReplyDeleteI fear capitalization.
No lol I'm just a horrible typer
ReplyDeleteSo then would it work if I provided an account of his definition of style, how it has been obliterated by routine and by creating a false illusion of general and particular (and what that means), the results of this obliteration (by creating boundaries for reception/perception, false perceptions of truth and so on), and then analyzing the "style" of the piece as a whole? I guess I'm rewording most of your response, but I'm just trying to ground this suggestion in my head.
ReplyDeleteWaseem -- that sounds promising. I think it sounds as if you have found a way to register your theoretical concerns through a close reading of the text at hand. That's the whole trick.
ReplyDeleteThe thesis that I’m working with is that Novels and Children is not a critique of fetishized women or women’s magazines but that of mythologized religion and its function to maintain the status quo of the ruling elite of men. I hope this sounds reasonable because I see where Barthes draws on Marx’s idea that religion proliferates in a commodity trading society but that for Barthes it has been mythologized to distract women into believing that their place in society as subservient to men is natural and that Elle simply functions to protect this mythologized religious goal.
ReplyDeleteI fear capitalization.
ReplyDeleteWho, after reading Marx, does not?
Int. -- there are other places in the text you might draw on for incidental support for this reading, so even if your focus remains on just the one Mythological reading don't hesitate to poach opportunistically from other readings in the book.
ReplyDeleteDag, it's almost 4.30 now, so I must fly. Sorry I started late, hope this was helpful. Best to you all, see you in a couple of days.
ReplyDeleteThanks Dale! Pax
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete