Antonio Gramsci’s piece titled, “The Formation of the Intellectuals,” definitely serves as food for thought.  The first line of his essay states, “Are intellectuals an autonomous and independent social group, or does every social group its own particular specialized category of intellectuals (1002)?”  Upon reading this, I sided with the idea that every social group has its own intellectuals and not the other way around.  Reason being that, to me, an intellectual has superior knowledge, but this knowledge varies by social and group settings.  Antonion Gramsci goes on to explain the differences between the two types of intellectuals, which rank as “most important.”

The two types of intellectuals are organic and traditional.  Organic intellectuals s are created as each new class is creating and traditional individuals stem from those, which already have a permanent place in society (clergy, priests, etc.).  Gramsci states, “Thus it is to be noted that the mass of the peasantry, although it performs an essential function in the world of production, does not elaborate its own “organic” intellectuals, nor does it “assimilate” any stratum of “traditional” intellectuals, although it is from the peasantry that other social groups draw many of their intellectuals and a high proportion of traditional intellectuals are of peasant origin (1002).”  In other words, Gramsci is saying that while “peasantry” serves as a basis, it does not breed intellectuals of its own kind per say or absorb “traditional” intellectuals; but that intellectuals come out of the peasantry as intellectuals part of different social groups.  Organic intellectuals are bound to class and are bound to production, while traditional intellectuals serve something higher than production (religion).  On the contrary, traditional intellectuals are considered independent by Gramsci, or as we said in class they have a “leftover presence.”  Gramsci states, “every “essential” social group, which emerges into history out of the preceding economic structure, and as an expression of a development of this structure, has found (at least in all of history up to the present) categories of intellectuals already in existence…(1003).”   With this statement, Gramsci describes the finding of traditional intellectuals as already a part of history.  Traditional intellectuals are almost a part of a “higher order.”  In regards to education, we can come to the conclusion that schools are important to Gramsci as they are where exactly intellectuals reside and are produced from, therein making one of the social functions of school to produce intellectuals.

Barbara Johnson’s “From Melville’s Fist: The Execution of Billy Budd,” is a close reading of Herman Melville’s Billy Budd.   Johnson opens her piece by explaining that Billy Budd is generally a straightforward story, and any close reading or analysis must be made and gathered from the actions and observance of the characters.  In the subsection of Johnson’s piece titled, “Judgment as Political Performance,” she takes a closer look at Captain Vere.  The contrast made between Captain Vere and Billy Budd is quite striking.  As we know, Billy Budd unintentionally kills Claggart, which results in Captain Vere’s forced judgment to sentence Billy Budd to be hung.  Johnson makes clear the contrast between these two condemned people (Claggart and Billy): she states, “Captain Vere is a reader who kills, not, like Billy, instead of speaking, but rather, precisely by means of speaking (2272).  Captain Vere and Billy Budd work on a parallel scale.

Furthermore, language plays a major role in both of these acts.  Billy’s inability to speak (verbal language) resulted in his frustration and the actions, which led to Claggart’s death.  In regards to Captain Vere’s judgment, Johnson states, “Judgment is precisely cognition functioning as an act.”  Johnson also looks at contrasts in the characterization of both Billy and Captain Vere.  Billy is described as innocent and acts harmless, but he is the character who commits murder.  It is the most unsuspecting.  Moreover, Captain Vere appears to be intelligent and fair but he is the one to sentence Billy Budd to his death, making both him and Billy murderers in a way.  Captain Vere’s reasoning is backed up by his own political views.  The reader is meant to disagree with Captain Vere’s reasoning because we feel compassion for Billy Budd.  Captain Vere is well aware of Billy’s innocence but does not let that get away with his duty to law and order.

In addition, Barbara Johnson also notes Billy Budd’s flaws. Johnson states, “His literal-mindedness is represented by his illiteracy because, in assuming that language can be taken at face value, he excludes the very functioning of difference that makes the act of reading both indispensable and undecidable. (2262).” Due to his stutter and inability to properly convey his thoughts, he must take everything as it is, or at face-value at Johnson puts it.  This puts Billy at a disadvantage.  His mode of reading is what leads to his unfortunate death.

Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams can be compared to the arbitrariness of language. He states that dreams are ideas and feelings that one has subconsciously. What you remember of the dream is not to be interpreted as literal, but has some type of other thank to to. This is very similar to Saussure’s rules on semiotics. Language and communication is very broad and you could express things many different ways. Saussure is known for his explanation of the form of language and the endless meanings attached to it, and this relates to Freud’s Interpretation of Dreams. Dreams come from the subconscious, and whatever you think that dream might mean can actually have an entirely different meaning. Freud explains that one cannot translate the dream just by its dream contents or in the way one remembers iT. Instead one has to take into consideration the latent or dream thoughts which are seen as ideas subconscious ideas while they are awake. A dream thought, Freud explains, is the symbolism behind what you are actually seeing. He explains that although a dream can be described in a few minutes, the symbolism behind it has an infinite Number of forms. This reminds me of Saussure’s signifier and signified. The signifier can have a representation but a signified has an infinite number of representations.

In other news, I also found the Oedipal complex to be a little far fetched. I guess it is easier for one to blame their parents for their psychological issues than it is themselves. I can’t say I believe it, but his reasoning is very logical. I can see why people believe him. It is in our nature to try and find the unexplainable and his studies offer that.

            In “Course in General Linguistics” Saussure was able to systematically define the meaning and the form of language and their relation to each other.  In “The Interpretation of Dreams” Freud attempts to do the same thing – but with your subconscious, and the form it takes to inform you while you are dreaming in your sleep. To correctly analyze ones dreams, Freud states that a dream cannot be understood purely from its “dream content” or in the manifest state it takes as we recall it in our memory the next morning. Instead we must also take into account the dream’s “latent content” or “dream-thoughts” which are seen as one’s subconscious’s ideation while they are awake. Freud believes that “it is from these dream-thoughts and not from a dream’s manifest content that we disentangle its meaning” (818). The dichotomist relationship between an individual’s “dream content” and “dream thought” made me think immediately back on the similarly dichotomist relationship Saussure defines between the “signifier” and the “signified” implicit to the meaning within a word. In this way, I begin to see Freud as not simply an interpreter of dreams, but also as a practical application of Saussure’s system of semiotics.

Upon classifying “dream-thought” as apart from “dream-content,” Freud then explains the relationship between the two in saying that one’s dream-content is “expressed as it were in a pictographic script” (819) where the dream-thought must be extracted from isolated symbols seen within the dream-content. When comparing dream-thought to dream-content, Freud states that the “condensation” of one’s dream-thought is carried out on a large scale within the content of the dream. While a dream may take only a few minutes to describe, the analysis of the various symbols of meaning seen throughout the dream can go on to infinity, for as Freud says of dreams, “it is impossible to determine the amount of condensation” (819). This contrast in significance between the “dream thought” and “dream content” again reminds me of Saussure’s “signified”/ “signifier” relationship.  While a “signifier” can stand alone as a short, simple representation of a thing, the “signified” in and of itself is far less able to be simply expressed in its own right and essence, for example the word “leaf” in contrast to the tangible object a “leaf” expresses when we are pointing to a leaf.  It is interesting to me that a dream or objects that exists in nature can be easily identified through words or through the pictorial nature dreams, and from these definitions we are able to create ‘languages’ to express them, but to attempt to discuss the pure ‘essence’ of something such as what is meant exactly by “leaf” or by one’s dream will lead inevitably to hours of discussion.   

THE MATERIAL AND SOURCE OF DREAMS:

“In my experience, which is already extensive, the chief part in the mental lives of all children who later become psychoneurotics is played by their parents.”

Ok, first off, love Freud. I like to blame ALL my problems and issues on my parents. Which I think is pretty fair.

I mean… they do raise you, right? And if they don’t raise you, then you can blame them for that too! It’s always a win. Except that you end up deeply messed-up and unlovable, so it’s a pyrrhic victory. Not really one you’d want to be right about. I think most people would rather be happy and well-adjusted. But that’s just me. (Side note: Am I using the word pyrrhic right? Maybe it’s technically correct, but I feel like it sounds awkward.)

I forgot where Freud goes with this. Ayo. I think it’s interesting that Freud is able to catalogue a “stock” of psychological impulses. PEOPLE ARE GENERIC AND I GUESS I FORGOT THAT I’M NOT A SNOWFLAKE AND NOW I’M VAGUELY SAD. Getting back to the point: All children have the same impulses. Some just more intensely than others, and that’s what makes them screwy. You know. “Psychoneurotic.”

Although I don’t really believe in Oedipal complexes, I do think it’s always fascinating to view a movie or book through a Freudian ideological perspective. I’d highly recommend doing so while watching Casablanca. It makes the movie so much richer.

Psycho analytics, too loosely paraphrase Freud, is comparable to Greek tragedies. That explains… a lot.

Oedipus Rex “is a tragedy of destiny. Its tragic effect is said to lie in the contrast between the supreme will of the gods and the vain attempts of mankind to escape the evil that threatens them. The lesson which, it is said, the deeply moved spectator should learn from the tragedy is submission to the divine will and realization of his own impotence.y.”

I’m interested in what will be said in class about this sexual complex, because I really don’t know how to make heads or tails of it. I understand it on a basic level, but I can’t see how anyone would buy into it at all.

“The story of Oedipus is the reaction of imagination to these two typical dreams. And just as these dreams, when dreamt by adults, are accompanied by feelings of repulsion, so too the legend must include horror and self-punishment.” Freud hints at a theological interpretation of the text, but almost immediately dismisses it.

“Hamlet” is compared to the legend of Oedipus, and used to highlight how with the advent of the modern age society is becoming more and more repressed. I think this could potentially tie in with Foucault’s power/knowledge dynamic in ‘The History of Sexuality.’ I really hope that we get to talk about this a little bit in class.

Ok, woah. Mind blown. This is what I meant when I said Freud makes everything interesting. Viewing Hamlet’s inability to avenge his father’s death as proof of an Oedipal complex. I probably should have seen it coming, but I never really read Hamlet so… The fact that Shakespeare wrote “Hamlet” after his father’s death further proves Freud’s theory, although he clearly states “In what I have written I have only attempted to interpret the deepest layer of impulses in the mind of the creative writer,” essentially denying any responsibility for an absolute interpretation. Smart man.

THE DREAM WORK:

Freud introduces a new class of psychical material between the manifest content of dreams and the conclusions of our enquiry – what he calls latent content, or dream thoughts. Dream thoughts are what holds the key to interpreting a dream. Freud says that “We are thus presented with a new task which had no previous existence: the task, that is, of investigating the relations between the manifest content of dreams and the latent dream-thoughts, and of tracing out the processes by which the latter have been changed into the former.”

Dream-thoughts and dream-content are like two versions of the same subject matter in two different languages. More accurately, dream-content is dream-thought  transcribed into another mode of expression. Only by comparing the original with the translation is it possible to understand them. Symbolism and substitution of each element seems to be key in cracking the code of dream-work, but I definitely want to go back and work through his language of the rebus, because I’m not quite sure if I understood what he was getting at. In the spirit of a finished blog post, I’m going to try and just forge ahead and work through the text and see where I end up.

A). The Work of Condensation – An indeterminable condensing of dream-content into dream-thoughts. Analyses of dreams are always much longer than their descriptions, because the work of interpretation and its objects never end – an interesting example of this was discussed today in class, comparing Barthe’s Eiffel Tower to dream-content as a signifier laden with signifies.

B). The Work of Displacement – “It thus seems plausible to suppose that in the dream-work a psychical force is operating which on the one hand strips the elements which have a high psychical value of their intensity, and on the other hand, by means of over-determination, creates from elements of low psychical value new values, which afterwards find their way into dream-content.  If that is so, a transference and displacement of psychical intensities occurs in the process of dream-formation, and it is as a result of these that the difference between the text of the dream-content and that of the dream -thoughts comes about.” Trying to deconstruct the difference between dream-condensation and dream-displacement, is that dream-condensation condenses dream-thoughts into dream-content, and dream-displacement censors dream-thoughts by overwriting them with different content, which is manifested in the resultant dream. “We traced it back to the censorship which is exercised by one psychical agency in the mind over another.” So to hazard a guess, displacement would have to do with more deeply repressed impulses.

Freud admits that he hasn’t clearly delineated the difference between condensation and displacement, which is comforting because there seems to be a lot of overlap between them. Displacement/distortion seems to be more absolute, and condensation more of a probability.

C). The Means of Representation in Dreams – Freud mixes his constructions. Either that or he’s a bit too wordy for me to follow. Dream-thoughts have more than one center, and are usually self-contradictory or accompanied by antithetical associations. Freud investigates how dream-work expresses conjunctive adverbs. Freud declares that interpretive-work is necessary in order to restore the logical-connections that dream-thoughts are incapable of expressing. Because dreams are made up of a series of images (although I imagine that they do at parts have dialogue as well) there’s an gap in how they can be translated into language. Freud states this difference is analogous to the one between sculpture and poetry. Even if a dream seems like it can put forth logical relations, “the whole of this is part of the material of the dream-thoughts and is not a representation of intellectual work performed during the dream itself.” Dialogue from a dream may, when contextualized with how the dreamer heard the words or phrases used, could give a dream a completely new meaning. Freud then enumerates the means of representation for dream-work:

Logical connection produced by simultaneity in time – I understand what Freud means by this (e.g. a photo of all great philosophers from the past millennium) but I’m not sure if I understand the point Freud is trying to make by pointing out dreams have this tricky way of representing temporality, or even proximity. Time also often undergoes condensation in dreams, bringing in more overlaps to the text.

Either-or propositions allow dream-wishes to fulfill a problem with multiple solutions. Dreams become layered in signification. Usually though, representing alternative memories or experiences of an element in a dream can be solved by dividing the dream into two pieces of equal length.

Freud says that the way in which dreams disregard contraries and contradictions is remarkable, because there’s no possibility for deciding if an element that admits of a contrary is positive or negative.

VOCABULARY: REBUS – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebus, LACONIC – Of a few words, INTERPOLATION – To insert or introduce between other elements or parts, COLLACATION – the action of placing things side by side or in position.

In his Essay “History Of Sexuality” Foucault addresses the censorship of sexuality from the 17th onward. In most of the western world sexuality was exclude from common everyday language, and vocabulary. The upper class or bourgeois as it was known during this time, established these cultural traditions and  laws of sexuality not being a topic that could be openly discussed. According to Foucault, restrictions on sex existed even among close relationships between parents and their children, teachers and their students, or even workers and their bosses or masters. Another common practice that was established during 17th century was that the topic of sex had its time and place to be discussed. Surprisingly these types of restrictions and rules were much more clearly defined than at any other time of history.

One thing i found interesting in Foucault’s essay was the involvement and strong participation of the church in the insertion of sex as a part of the confession institution. I was very surprised to see that so much emphasis was given to controlling and manipulating people’s connections and relationship to the topic of sex, but during confession this topic was not only addressed, but also dealt with with incredible transparency and detail. This is something that particularly surprised me because I’ve always known church to be extremely restrictive and preserved about sex, but to see that at one point, this institution was the only place where sex was actually spoken of explicitly surprised me very much.

Lastly another thing that captured my attention was the way the Victorians made a connection between “perverseness and mental illness”. This is something that exists to a certain extent today because many sexual offenders are regarded as mentally deficient, although they also spend time behind bars for some of their actions. These legal sanctions and prohibitions to this form of behavior also developed during the Victorian era. As a result one can see that many of the concepts of sexuality that are still present today began during the Victorian era. As an example of how the government and politics is still part of the culture of sexuality today, one can use the struggle for abortion and planned parenting as an example. One of the most recent is the struggle to include anti-conception pills in the medical programs of companies is a perfect example of how the government is still very much involved in the cultural development of sex.

 Foucault attempts to demonstrate this idea of power with the use of discourse of sex.  He uses the idea that if one does not want to think about something you will think about it 3x more by trying not to think about it. If someone were to tell you to not think about pink elephants. The first image in your mind would be a pink elephant. This is because it is human desire to look and rebel against the laws that prevent us from our natural instinct to investigate. In the Victorian Era sex was something that was not appropriate to discuss in public. It was a taboo to talk about such things and therefore causing this censorship on sex. 

      Foucault also uses the church and the act of confession as another cause of the desire to think and act sex out more. In class we discussed the idea that the priest plays the role of God. The priest must help the sinner by examining  “all your thoughts, every word you speak, and all your actions…”(1504). Now one must identify the bad thoughts and judge ourselves in order to get rid of the thought of sexual discourse. The more that we fight against the use of language to allow sexual discourse to be mentioned, the more people are falling prey into thinking about discourse. The church transformed this practice of confession. It no longer only became confessions about the sin, but it became confessions on our thoughts and our desires. It was a sin to think anything that was not holy. 

         As the centuries past we focused this on this taboo of sexual discussion. We no longer focused on the primary issue that started this conversation. This means that people no longer were concerned about couples that had sex in marriage anymore. They were more concerned when sexual intercourse happened outside of these boundaries that we socially constructed. Now as a result Foucault demonstrates that this new taboo involves things such as pedophilia, homophobia, and beastiality. Why have these issues been causing issues recently? It is because they are the taboo of this era.  This makes me question that once gay is accepted socially as an appropriate sex form, what would the new taboo be?

        The discussion of sex became a big priority in society. The more society knew about the sexual discourse that occurred in their time period, the more they wanted to control this aspect. People began to study sex and analyzed this information to get power. As this idea of power became important to society, they began to construct certain rules that would help regulate the amount of sexual discourse.  Population, birth rate, and demographics became a study. Children’s sexuality became important, causing strict rules and restrictions on their age group. Foucault wanted to demonstrate this issue of power and how they used it to censor sex.