Tuesday, March 17, 2009

Marxism: Overthrowing exploitation

Karl Marx’s philosophy was not to encourage communism but too simplify and point out who had rights and who did not. “Marxism is the theory of how the normality of our everyday world, with its quiet routines and rituals…is riven within by what Marx called ‘class struggle’” (Ryan 232). The bourgeoisie had money to control laborers or the proletariat. Marx then explained why workers revolted and it is then why this ideology assimilates to the clip posted. See although the bourgeoisie are wealthy, their wealth derives from the workers they exploit; without them the rich are powerless. In the clip, taken from the movie “Born in East L.A.”, Rudy [played by Cheech Marin] is an American born citizen who is mistakenly sent to Mexico. In this clip, after many attempts to get back to the United States, he gathers up hundreds of immigrants and crosses the border together with them. This is where the Marxist point emerges.
The bourgeoisie, as mentioned, exploit their workers with their power. One single worker against the rich is powerless but a mob of prols who stop working in protest may greatly affect the upper class. As the movie concludes, we see that two Border agents [the bourgeoisie] in vain attempt to stop them and Rudy as well as his girlfriend end up going back to East Los Angeles. I thought it was great way to portray an aspect of the proletariat against the bourgeoisie. “What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces above all, is its own grave diggers. Its fall and the victory of the proletariat are equally inevitable” (Marx 260).

Works Cited

Marx, Karl. "The Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848)." Ryan, Julie Rivkin and Michael. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Berlin: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998. 260.

Ryan, Julie Rivkin and Michael. "Introduction: "Starting With Zero: Basic Marxism"." Ryan, Julie Rivkin and Michael. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Berlin: Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 1998. 232.

Marxist presntation analysis: Resorces

Our class presentation was on Marxism and in order for everyone to make sense of Marxist ideas we all placed diverse branches that affected a community with Marxist ideals. For example I did resources. Although it was a challenge because Marxism is indulged in complexity that we had to simplify Marxist terms such as the usage of resources regarding class status. I worked on resources and understood the correlation the term of resources had with status. By this I mean that if a member of the Bourgeoisie, a doctor to specify, lost his job, besides his knowledge, his resource would be the medicine because others in need of medication could purchase from him/her and could make profits. A proletariat, a farmer, is working for money obviously; his job would be the only resource. If the landowner faces economic issues, he lays off workers. The landowner’s resource is his land but the farmer, he lost his job thus his resources. In examples such as these, I have simplified the idea of resources through a communistic approach so not only my group and I are able to understand but everyone else.
My contribution to this besides comprehension of resources in Marxist terms would be the following. Along with the packet my team created for the chosen groups, I have pointed out the resources they obtain. These resources are petty until they realize their value. Once again there are the examples of the farmer and doctor. The doctor’s resource would be his medicine, alongside his paid wealthy home and knowledge of medical practice whereas the farmer must make sure of his stability of his job. The analysis of the effects cannot be seen but in Marxist terms one can predict the results.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

psychoanalysis and family

In relation to Rivkin and Ryan’s theories of psychoanalysis, I will exemplify with my family. Before that I must admit that Rivkin and Ryan as well as their notion to Sigmund Freud’s theories regarding children struck me. They state that from the beginning, children are sexually attracted to their parents within their consciousness. Boys realize that their position when their father steps in thus when the boy gets older, his taste for women attributes to his mother’s behavior and habits. Although I disagree with the theoretical statements that say children desire their parents (which to me is a rather strange theory besides the fact that children don’t know about sexuality) the similarities and closeness of the children for their parents depend on who gave the most nurturing.
In my family, I am the oldest, the more independent one, and the only one at the moment in college. I have two younger sisters, one in high school and the youngest in junior high. My parents were teenagers when I was born and have been together ever since. Because they were young at the time of my birth, although they were very loving, I was taught to take care of myself at a young age because my parents had to work extra hard. Four years later my sister was born and my dad took care of her more while my mother worked, four years after that, my youngest sister was born, I was older, my middle sister was closer to dad and my baby sister was in my mother’s care much more. Notice that there are no males in the story except for my father. At first I questioned Rivkin’s theory. Their theory states that the female is in competition with the mother for the father’s attention. There are three females…were all of us competing for our father’s affection? Not exactly. This is the outcome at the moment. My youngest sister and I are extremely close to our mother, we are rational thinkers, and we decide for ourselves but always think about others before ourselves, my middle sister though is quite the opposite. She is much more “socially departed”, hates any type of networking/socializing, thinks for herself most of the time and at times lacks common sense. She is extremely intelligent (we all are…) student yet very short tempered. With this said I have attempted to find an answer for such diverse behaviors and so far came up with a theory of my own. Because my younger sister and I have in a sense departed a closer male bond with our father, we have established independence only with the example of our mother. My middle sister has established closeness with the only male figure of the household thus unconsciously she never bothered to build her own independent state of mind because of the reliability she has with our dad. “Girls experience themselves as castrated and grow up feeling penis envy…the girl relinquished her father and identifies with her mother “ (Rivkin 127). In our case the first half of the excerpt is for middle sister and the second for my youngest sister and me. My middle sister is always complaining about her femininity whereas my younger sister and I have in a way accepted our father as our father and built closeness with our mother. Although my dad did spoil my middle sister, my father cared for me and my youngest sister as well so although I disagree with any theory that identifies children with incest, but perhaps that little extra affection triggered the differences of my sisters and myself.


Works Cited
Ryan, Julie Rivkin and MIchael. "Strangers to Ourselves." Ryan, Julie Rivkin and Michael. Literary THeory: An Anthology. Berlin: Blackwell Publishing, 1998.

Tuesday, March 10, 2009

Structuralism of a Champion



Ferdinand de Saussure has intensely built the term of Structuralism through terms of linguistics. Linguistics has built the image of whatever is popular within the society we live in. With all the accessible technology, our society has not built images of greatness (and poorness) through writing and words but through images posted on either the internet or expanded on television. An example would be that of Oscar De La Hoya. Oscar is both a light weight and mid weight boxing champion who besides making million on both his loses and many many victories, has invested in a large boxing institution in which prospective boxing champions are given the opportunity to emerge hence the nickname “The Golden Boy.”


In the picture posted, we see Oscar looking intently at the viewer through a mirror, shirtless, confident, handsome and strong. Such words to describe Oscar have increased his popularity and reputation. The mere image of him, without the gloves, without the bruises on his face, simply himself in a clean shot depicts such words in many people who know about Oscar. “Language is a system of signs that express ideas…” (Saussure 77). Oscar De La Hoya, the name itself has increased so much in popularity that immediately the image of his face is placed in one’s mind as well as the description of him i.e. champion, loser, etc. “Some people regard language, when reduced to its element, as a naming process only- a list of words, each corresponding to the thing that it names” (Saussure 77). This is true. Whether you believe Oscar De La Hoya is a wussie for allowing Manny Pacquiao an easy victory or a hero for obtaining his millions regardless if he won or lost a fight, nothing takes away the effect De La Hoya’s name has due to popularity and the contribution our society makes to increase the image of him and many other celebrities.





Works Cited

Saussure, Ferdinand de. "Course in General Linguistics." Ryan, Julie Rivkin and Michael. Literary THeory: An Anthology. Berlin: Blackwell Publishing, 1998.