A Semester in Review

Throughout the Critical Theory and the Academy class I have found many theories intriguing. The most intriguing to me was Marxist Criticism. I found this appealing because I felt that it was the hardest concept to fully understand. The differences within the theory itself perplexed me. An example of this would be the difference between Englisian Marxist Criticism and Leninist Marxist Criticism. Leninist, being based around the writings of Lenin, believed that the only writing that is accepted in that in benefit of government. Englesian believed in the exact opposite. It believes on freedom between art and government.

The point that confuses me the most is how two completely different sides can actually be labeled under the same criticism. Yes, both concepts put a work within socioeconomic boundaries, but are they the same? I do not believe they are. If they both have the same goal I would link them together, but they do not. They speak of two totally different concepts.

Another theory that grabbed my attention the most was Postcolonial Criticism. Kyle and I presented on this for our discussion lead and I found it enlightening. I found the concept of finding ones identity interesting. Also, the way that it can apply to many cultures worldwide helped me notice that many people can apply this theory to their own lives. I do not believe that this can apply to me. I am not a colonizer or the colonized. I am in between. The colonization of the United States did not affect me greatly. What found most interesting about Postcolonial Criticism was a point that was presented in class. This was the point that some places cannot find an identity. It would be nearly impossible because they had been taken over and passed around many times.

Overall, the studying of all the theories made me think about how I could apply them to myself and the literature I read. The blog project allowed me to think through these theories and attempt to apply them to various different topics. It also allowed me to read the classes opinions on each theory to further expand my knowledge on the theories we were learning. I enjoyed the class a lot and found the essay paper to be interesting to work on.

Holy Grail: Theory vs Bloodline

My essay is based around the concept of the Holy Grail. Basically, there are two forms of Grail belief, Theory and Bloodline. The most known form of grail belief is that of theory. The theory of the grail has been in many movies and literature. An example of this would be Indiana Jones. Theory consists of a cup or chalice. This is utilized in many different forms of the theory. In some, it is used as a cup at the last supper, and others used as a chalice that held the blood of Jesus.

The bloodline of Jesus is currently becoming quite popular. Theories of bloodline have been around for centuries although just becoming popular because of the books, The Da Vinci Code and Holy Blood, Holy Grail. The idea of a holy grail has been a hot topic for centuries and many theories play into the idea of it. The theories I will be discussing are the feminist criticism and Marxist criticism. Marxist criticism is evident in the book The Da Vinci Code with the cover up by the church to suppress women. This also plays hand in hand with feminist criticism, as a result of the inequality of women in the Catholic Church for centuries.

Imus' Comment and Feminist Criticism

For the past week, the biggest story in the news is the comments about the Rutgers female basketball team by Don Imus. Don Imus, host of morning talk show "Imus in the Morning," said on air that the team was "Nappy-headed hos."

This is a radical comment on many levels both sexist and racist. This applies to feminist criticism because of the "hos" part of the comment. By calling the Rutgers team a bunch of hos, Imus indicates many things. The first indication is that they are sexual objects, not females or individuals, just a group. This group, is shunned upon as a result of the comments by Imus.

Feminist criticism pushes for the equality of genders. The comments by Imus puts females on a lower playing field. He did not make any comments about the Florida men's basketball team, did he? The comments were obviously made by Imus because of blatant sexism. Females are made out to be lesser than males.

Baudrillard

As I discussed in my post to Ken Rufo, I was most engaged at the beginning of the lecture when he discussed the differences between structural Marxism and Baudrillard’s beliefs on Marxism. Although Baudrillard claims he is a Marxist, he has many differing views. The idea of “sign-value” caught my attention the most. Ken discussed that the idea of sign-value is absent from structural Marxism.

Ken discussed how structural Marxism only discusses use-value and exchange value. Baudrillard said that sign-value is more important than both of these terms, and needs to be incorporated within Marxist criticism. Sign-value means that “what an object represents or signifies is more important than how much it costs or how high quality is its construction.” Ken explains this with the Tommy Hilfiger example.

Today, most name brand clothing is nothing much than just a name. Such as Tommy Hilfiger, the clothing is the same quality as a Wal-Mart brand but consumers pay more money as a result of the name. Sometimes the name brand clothes last longer but they are basically the same quality as the Abercrombie and Fitch or the American Eagle clothing. The same thing goes with food. With Shaw’s located right next to school, students flock there to purchase food. The Shaw’s brand macaroni and cheese costs far less than the Kraft but people still fall into the trap of purchasing the name brand even though, the Shaw’s brand is the same item. Lastly, I believe that Ken Rufo’s lecture helped me better understand Baudrillard by understanding the “binary relationship between a signifier and a signified.”