Ranajit Guha "The Prose of Counter-Insurgency"

The reading starts off by stating that there is a misconception that peasant revolts arise with a lack of consciousness on the part of that group of people. Or as Guha puts it "insurgency is regarded as external to the peasant's consciousness and Cause is made to stand in as a phantom surrogate fro Reason" (47).  In fact, Guha wants to show that this is not so and that there is in fact a precursor to the revolt, that there is often an antecedent mobilization that does not include violence. 

This 'blind spot' in historiography is examined by use of colonial discourse, which is made up of three types: 1) primary, 2) secondary and 3) tertiary. The primary discourse is 'official' (although this is to be taken in a very broad sense). Here Guha gives some examples of official letters that were sent amongst army officials that spoke of uprisings which convey "the impact of a peasant revolt on its enemies in its first sanguine hours" (50). The secondary discourse constitutes things that were written well after the fact, that is sometime after the actual event and thus it is seen as history (for example, memoirs or the work of administrators). In secondary discourse, the readership is public and non-official.  Both 1) and 2) work together to create a narrative which introduces a particular code (the way we read the text). Therefore, the primary and secondary discourse in historiography of peasant revolts are the "specimens of the prose of counter-insurgency" (59).  Tertiary discourse is farther removed in time, often in third person and non-official. There is also some tertiary discourse which aims to break away from the code of counter-insurgency and to adopt the point of view of the insurgents. However, as Guha concludes, tertiary discourse (even the radical kind) has only distanced itself from the prose of counter-insurgency by declaration and not by action. This is for several reasons, one of which includes the fact that tertiary discourse is reluctant to accept the religious element in insurgents.

I found this text interesting because it proposes to look at historiography from a code based perspective and thus it allows for us to see how limited the discourse around historical events, such as uprises caused by insurgents, can be. Also, it is perhaps a good method to see the faults of historians and this can generate a discussion for how to represent and approach history but also what sources to use (and to what extent to use them) when attempting to portray a historical event. 

What difference does it make who is speaking?

"What is an Author?" by Michel Foucault is a text which aims at questioning the notion of the author (as seen in the title).  I enjoyed this text, the style is simple (which is greatly appreciated on my part). Foucault goes through the different approaches to what an "author" is. "Author" can be seen as the writer of a certain text (many of us view authors in this way) but a text can also be anonymous and without an author (literary anonymity- as certain texts did in the past). He also explores many notions related to the author, for example, the fact that the author's name isn't just a proper noun but rather "a certain mode of being of discourse"(107). Here he brings up a large part of his argument, which relates the idea of authorship to being not just an element of discourse but rather a mode of discourse (so outside of just being a subject or object or being replaces by a pronoun).

At the end, after his summary, Foucault says that the idea of the author is something that is related to its historical time-period (postmodern, yes?) and that one day we may get beyond this, when he states "it does not seem necessary that the author function remain constant in form, complexity, and even in existence" (119). However, even though the author function may operate in another mode, Foucault mentions that this will still be within a system of constraint, so it is not something that is absolutely freeing. He concludes with the sentence "What difference does it make who is speaking?" (120). This to me seems to be saying that the author isn't what is important but rather the importance lies in what the text itself is saying. This makes me think of Roland Barthes "Death of the Author" in the sense that in both it is not the author which is of importance (because in Barthes' text the author is an agglomeration of all texts and ideas written beforehand- nothing is original and everything is intertextuality). Foucault also seems to be alluding to Barthes in page 102 when he states that writing is "a question of creating a space into which the writing subject constantly disappears", hence implying the 'death' of the author that Barthes spoke of.

bell hooks- Is Paris Burning?

This text is a critique of the documentary film "Paris is Burning", directed by Jennie Livingston. The film is about Drag Balls in New York City which focuses mainly on black cross-dressers and transgendered individuals. In the text, we receive here and there ideas about identity theory (queer theory?), such as the idea that "identity is always perceived as capable of construction, invention, change"(145). I don't know much about queer theory, but I think this notion is extremely important for feminist theory. I relate it to sex vs. gender- sex being the biological components and gender as the construction of identity. Gender, as being part of our identity, is a full on construction- it is not natural, it is something that has been shaped by our conscious (or subconscious?) decisions and also by the society around us.

Another important line in the text is "The mastery of the feminine is not feminine. It is masculine..." (148). The cross-dressers try to look as realistically feminine as possible but by achieving this they are actually acting in a 'traditional' male way since they are dominating what is female. What's confusing is that they're trying to construct a 'feminine' identity, but really they end up with a 'male' one anyway? If the cross-dressers original goal is to appear feminine, doesn't his conscious construction of this identity make him so, at least partially? Who decides that this makes him masculine?

What interested me most in this text though was when hooks talks about the "neutral" gaze and the assumption amongst whites that this is possible for them to achieve. If we acknowledge that no gaze is ever really "neutral" then the whole idea of a documentary film becomes problematic. Usually, we refer to documentary films as a portrayal of reality but we're not quick to think about the fact that the documentary film, just like every other film, is manipulated by its creator. What we are shown (and what we are not shown) is deliberate. Therefore, is it really a 'realistic' portrayal of reality? The text seems to be suggesting that it is not.

Lastly, I don't completely understand how the title is related to the actual film itself because it is filmed in New York City. Maybe it was mentioned, but I forgot? Anyway, the reference to Paris just makes me think of Josephine Baker.

Lakoff- Anger

"Emotions are often considered to be feelings alone, and as such they are viewed as being devoid of conceptual content. As a result, the study of emotions is usually not taken seriously by students of semantics and conceptual structure" (Lakoff 380).

I think that the above quote is the key to the whole reading. This is exactly what Lakoff is arguing against. The rest of the text is thus basically a breakdown of how the emotion of 'anger' is put into different conceptual concepts. He is showing that expressions of anger are not random but are metaphorical and metonymical in nature. Thus, it is an investigation into expressions that are understood metaphorically (and he gives many many examples of different types of these expressions).

One things that I found interesting is how Lakoff relates the expressions of anger to common folk theory. That is, he shows how the traditionally held belief that anger has a physical effect on the body has created a large number of metaphorical expressions that go along with the description of the type of anger. For example, when someone's "blood is boiling", there is a reference to the high blood pressure that a person experiences while he/she is angry. Furthermore, we can relate this to another object, a kettle, which also has a lot of pressure inside of it and thus makes its contents boil. So then, the argument is that the conceptual metaphors used for anger are not arbitrary but rather motivated by our physiology. Furthermore, I get the impression that Lakoff is trying to give this reading a scientific air. I suppose I might be basing this on the type of language that he's using but also the amount of examples that he gives so as to justify his argument. I'm not saying this is a bad thing though.

However, I guess I'm not 100% sure what Lakoff is meaning to say by all this. Does he mean that our bodily reactions to emotions such as anger will determine how we express these emotions verbally and that this is something fixed rather than random? Is that the general idea?