Uncategorized

Prizes and Awards

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

Be sure to submit anything appropriate you have to the department’s annual awards. Cash money!!

Prizes & Awards

Every year the English Department offers a variety of prizes and awards for both undergraduate and graduate students. The prizes and awards program provides a wonderful opportunity for students to have their work recognized in the fields of literary analysis and criticism; linguistics and rhetoric; creative fiction, non-fiction, and poetry; personal essay; and drama.

Uncategorized

First day plan

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

Hi 306/301 students:

Two quick things as we move towards Opening Day on Friday:

 

1. You are encouraged, but not obliged, to read Jonathan Culler’s introduction to “theory” here. I’ll digest some of its main ideas on Friday, but I think you’ll find it useful to orient yourselves before we dive in the deep water with Nietzsche for Tuesday.

2. You are also welcome (but not required) to introduce yourselves to me and to each other via Padlet, using the whimsical prompt I’ve created.

Uncategorized

Spillers lecture/questions

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

Here is a 30 minute audio lecture hitting some of the high points of the Spillers piece for today. I also recommend the Wikipedia entry on Spillers. Weirdly, it doesn’t say much about her career beyond the “Mama’s Baby” essay, but it gives a bang-up summary of the argument.

Your only assignment is to email me a brief (one-paragraph) comment or question on the reading. Here are some questions that you can answer, though you’re free to write about some other aspect if you like:

  1. How does Spillers open the essay? What does it mean to be a “marked woman”? How does this opening compare with Fanon’s from earlier in the term?
  2. What is the Moynihan Report? You might need to use Google or Wikipedia to get a quick sense. What are some of the ways Spillers confronts the conclusions of the Report regarding the “black family”?
  3. What is distinctive about the shape of the black family that emerges from enslavement? How and why does it differ from the patriarchal structure of Western families, the structure assumed by Freud’s theory?
  4. What is “monstrous” about black mothers in Spillers’ view? See p. 80. Is this a bad thing? What are some of the effects of the centrality of this maternal figure in the black family?

 

And for good measure, here’s the lecture on Peter Brooks’s essay from Tuesday. As with today’s class, if you haven’t already, you should email me a one-paragraph response to any of the study questions to stand as your participation grade for the day.

For Tuesday, we’ll be back in action. We’ll read an excerpt from Judith Butler’s Gender Trouble: I don’t have the right page numbers, since my copy is at the office, but you’ll find it in the Norton. I’m going to post the correct study questions right now as well. For those who have used their “skip,” you’ll need to submit your final blog post by Tuesday. Feel free to expand on your paragraphs on Brooks or Spillers for that assignment, if you like.

 

Uncategorized

what is a woman?

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

Reading your exam responses, many of which touch on Nietzsche’s and Saussure’s theme of arbitrariness in language, I kept thinking about this arresting moment in the hearings prior to Justice Jackson’s confirmation last week:

Sen. Blackburn asks Supreme Court nominee to define ‘woman’ | USA TODAY

U.S. Supreme Court nominee Ketanji Brown Jackson was asked by Sen. Marsha Blackburn to define the word “woman.”RELATED: Supreme Court pick Ketanji Brown Jack…

I kind of wish Jackson would have dropped some linguistic theory on Sen. Blackburn, pointing out that the concept aggregates unlike objects and includes/excludes arbitrarily: when is a “girl” a “woman”? Is a “lady” a “woman,” and vice versa? Is a woman a woman before she is born and after she dies? How about a “woman” on screen or in a book? A person in drag? And so on. We’ll talk more about these issues later. But the sheer strategic stupidity, and the wish to muzzle the entire enterprise of any education worth the name, which is grounded in questioning received wisdom, is very much in tune with what we’re about in this class.

 

Uncategorized

Johnson lecture and asynchronous activity

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

As promised, here’s a 15 minute lecture on Johnson:

Johnson480p

Brief lecture unpacking Barbara Johnson’s “Melville’s Fist” for 306 students

After you’ve finished reading and watching, please post on one of the following questions, which will serve as your Blog Post #3:

  1. What kind of reader is Billy? What kind is Claggart? How does Johnson use Saussure’s theory of signifier/signified to clarify this difference?
  2. On 2268-9, Johnson reads the plot of BB against the grain: that is, as if Claggart were right and Billy were guilty of a willful mutiny. What is the point of this? What does it say about BB that either reading is equally defensible?
  3. How does Johnson distinguish, on one hand, a “difference within” and, on the other, a “difference between” in her discussion of Vere’s act of judging? What does Melville’s text tell us about these two different kinds of differences?
  4. What does the example of Vere suggest about our commonsensical notion that judges are “above politics”: that is, that they decide on guilt/innocence independently of the practical effects of this judgement (2275)?
Uncategorized

Blog Post #1 all-stars

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on

When time permits, I’ll do this all term. I found these posts especially strong for one reason or another. None is perfect, whatever that means, and they’re not necessarily the “top four,” since it’s harder to rank mini-essays than, say, hot sauces or forty-yard-dashes. But they’re all good and worth reading as helpful examples of how to balance summary and speculation:

  • Eliza:  https://engl702spr25.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2022/02/04/truth-deception-and-reality/
  • Pashtrik: https://engl702spr25.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2022/02/02/a-foundation-of-lies/
  • Benjamin: https://engl702spr25.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2022/02/03/stubborn-as-a-bull/
  • Gigi: https://engl702spr25.commons.gc.cuny.edu/2022/02/04/nietzsche-through-the-eyes-of-the-beholder/
Uncategorized

Foucault, Borges, Nietzsche

Posted by Jeff Allred (he/him/his) on
Michel Foucault’s The Order of Things is an enormously influential theory of how the West has constructed its own “ways of knowing” by obscuring the contingencies of certain knowledge and projecting a fantasy of a pure, objective knowledge. Foucault borrows heavily from Nietzsche in his distinctive “genealogical” method of narrating history. We can see some of the influence of Nietzsche’s work here in ways that anticipate much of what we’ll talk about in the future. Foucault’s book begins with a riff on a passage from the Argentinian writer Jorge Luis Borges. Here is the first page more or less in full:
The point, of course, is not the obvious and chauvenistic one: what a zany people those Chinese are!? The point, rather, is more like “what must our Encyclopedias look like to the Other? How are our regimes that make “data” and its analysis seem so transparent and objective equally absurd and humorous and continent when looking in from the outside?
Skip to toolbar