Performativity

      Performativity is a term that was by Butler in her introduction to Bodies that Matter which I was completely unfamiliar.  So for this response I tried to dig into what performativity was originally, and then try to build from that to see how Butler is changing this terminology for her argument about gender identity.  I started by doing some quick internet searches (using the incredible Wikis and dictionaries as a starting point to better understand) which linked performativity to the philosopher J. L. Austin.  He stated that performativity is the capacity of speech and language (also expressive non verbal communication) to intervene in the course of human events, or the simple idea that “saying something is doing something”.  Butler defines performativity “as that reiterative power to produce the phenomena that regulates and constrains” (Bulter 2).  Even after reading these two differing definitions of what performativity I was left with trying to illuminate how Butler was trying to change the use of the term to better understand it.

            Butler believes that sex and gender are regulatory practices.  The practices are reified by the normality of learned behavior.  So, it is the fact that gender is defined the way it is derives from the fact that gender is what has been rehearsed and practiced.  Through the performance of these rehearsed and practiced actions makes gender what it is.  Butler states that “performativity must be understood not as a singular or deliberate “act,” but, rather, as the reiterative and citational practice by which discourse produces the effect that it names” (2).  So, gender and sex are identified the way that they are because we have been conditioned by the normative and procreative practice of heterosexuality, in that we have followed what was rehearsed and practiced time and time before us.  What I believe butler is trying to show is that if there were no prescribed notions of gender and sexuality it would become more of a practice of what one does rather than what one is.

            Butler is trying to deconstruct the notions of gender and sexuality by starting from the originary complexity of where these rehearsed notions started from.  Lacan stated that “one is said to assume a “sex”… but if this “assumption” is compelled by a regulatory apparatus of heterosexuality, one in which reiterates itself through the forcible production of “sex,” the “assumption” of sex is constrained from the start” (Butler 12).   Through the performativity of the “reiteration of the norm or set of norms” as sex and gender being “an act-like status in the present” it creates a set of societal rules in which the norm becomes what those have done before.  Butler wants to challenge this performative constraint that gender is what it is because that is the way it was done before through her deconstruction of gender. 

            This does bring into mind Foucault’s history, which shows that although this performative norm applies to gender and sexuality there have been times in which societies have deviated from this.  Think of the Roman orgies and the way in which these societies raised their children which seemed outside of the “prescribed norm.”  Was it the fall of the Roman Empire that caused the shock back to what it always had been?  Was performativity changed slightly after these times by those who pointed their fingers blaming Roman sexual debauchery for the empire’s downfall?  The traditional Texan Southern Baptist mentality/superstition that the acceptance of homosexuality is the cause of great society’s downfalls (Rome, Greece, etc.) comes to mind.  I’m still trying to work out these ideas, but I am starting to better understand performativity as Butler uses it.

            To better understand this I must jump to her conversation dealing with Aristotle’s idea of schema which “means form, shape, figure, appearance, dress, gesture, figure of a syllogism, and grammatical form” (Butler 33).  This definition does not include a distinction between materiality and intelligibility, so Butler adds in Foucault’s ideas of the “materialization of the body... [in which] the soul is taken as an instrument of power through which the body is cultivated and formed” (Butler 33).  Foucault claims that the soul “becomes a normative and normalizing ideal according to which the body is trained, shaped, cultivated, and invested” (Butler 33).  So, the soul here acts much the same way as performativity does to gender and sexuality in that it is following the norms.  The normalizing idea of the soul takes the next step in discussing what makes us innate and therefore what would make our gender and sexuality innate.  If we are to take the idea that a soul forms our being as Foucault suggested, this is just another originary complexity of how heterosexuality is the norm in society.  Foucault is talking of the formation of the prison and soul, but I think the similarities in the argumentation links itself to the ideas of performativity shaping gender and sexuality.  If we have a soul that creates and trains our entire body, it is the same as if we unconsciously follow the prescriptive norms practiced time and time again before us.  By practicing the norms and following the footsteps of those that came before, it creates a healthy soul which creates a healthy and “normal” member of society with conforming ideas on gender and sexuality.

            All of these ideas that Butler is trying to combine to show how she is reforming the ideas of gender and sexuality come back to performativity and productivity.  For example, since sexuality was what was always rehearsed then it becomes a norm, what is a norm becomes what is healthy, and the formation of a healthy person with a health soul is one that develops among the norms.  So, a healthy sexuality is one that falls within the classical normality in which previous generations have condoned and practiced.

Toulmin Logic

So, this is an attempt at trying to explain what Toulmin logic is, how it is used, and how it changed argumentation.  When this name was dropped in class I was one of the "deer in headlights" staring back at Dr. Rice.  I wanted to say that the name was familiar, but until I started looking around on the internet nothing was clicking.  Here is what I found out-this is still somewhat shaky, but will at least get the base ideas out since I didn't have time to read The Uses of Argument, Introduction to Reasoning, or Human Understanding maybe the blog-o-sphere is just the place to try to form these ideas more completely.
To start with there are six elements to analyzing arguments or as Toulmin calls it "practical argumentation", which include: Claim, Evidence, Warrant, Backing, Rebuttal, and Qualifier.  This methodology of argumentation was a move away from absolutists' theoretical argumentation toward something more practical-similar to courtroom argumentation.  Instead of trying to pile up evidence to make an absolutist claim, this model starts with a claim then provides justification for it.  Toulmin thought "that reasoning is less an activity of inference, involving the discovering of new ideas, and more a process of testing and sifting already existing ideas—an act achievable through the process of justification.  Toulmin believed that for a good argument to succeed, it needs to provide good justification for a claim."
It is also important to note that, from what I've read, all good arguments will use claim, evidence, and warrant-but not necessarily backing, rebuttal, and qualifiers every time.  This is a good example of the logic in use, this plus the two previous links on 'Toulmin' should be able to show this process in a couple of different ways in order to better understand his theories.  The importance of these ideas' introduction into the world of rhetoric wasn't discovered immediately, but when rhetoricians Wayne Brockriede and Douglas Ehninger got a hold of the material it was implemented.  Toulmin didn't even realize that his ideas of logic were applicable to rhetoric and other areas until Introduction to Reasoning when he make the first comments about rhetoric.  This book was published 21 years after The Uses of Argument hit the market, so his ideas slowly percolated over into the world of rhetoric, but it certainly wasn't immediate.  I like the simplicity to this approach, and how it really does make one's argument easier to follow, understand, and be convinced.

Kairos

It is an interesting idea that blogs are more effective, because they are traditionally short and easy to create.  It allows a space that has been rising in popularity  due to its ability to say things at the right time.  The American readership seems to be shifting away from the print media (newspapers, magazines, etc.) in order to get the most up to date news.  They have been shifting to blogs and the internet in order to get material from those who were actually there.  We are moving to a position of prizing the first hand account over the 24 hour new/media conglomerate stations.  The space of a blog fits with a kairotic form of learning that allows the right things to be said, in the correct amount, and at the right time.  Blogs are a great way to promote kairos within the classroom if the syllabus can change in order to suit the students' learning.  The static syllabus cannot attack these issues with the same levity simply because they lack the ability to change to better suit the audience (student and their writing's audience).   If the syllabus can change the material to better suit the audience, or if the syllabus allows the blog as a space for the student's to respond in a kairotic way (due to short concise nature, accessibility, and informality).
I am trying to go back within my own syllabus to see how I can make emphasize kairos within the student's writing.  I think that blogs or moodles as a form of reflection to sum up each week is a good route.  I could also see having the students find material through others blogs that would relate to their topic, and use that as a launching point for their own research agenda and thesis building.  Something like make the students find a blog that discusses their chosen genre (video games, literature, engineering, architecture, painting, etc.) and use it to form an argument that would be written up and turned in through blog or moodle with a link to the original blog they are refuting/agreeing/comparing with/to.  This would allow their own writing to become more kairotic as well as the syllabus supporting it.  It needs more thought, but I think I am starting to be able to see the usefulness of kairos within the syllabus and classroom.
I am trying to brainstorm on other possible ways to make my own syllabus to be able to conform to the weekly agenda that is now required, and also make it adjustable to better suit the students.  I think the assignments could be the key in filling in this gap.  I wonder if there are any other approaches outside of the blog-o-sphere that could also be enabling the use of kairos within the classroom.  Could film & tv be used in this way?  Could a greater emphasis on culture and societal impacts actually make my syllabus more kairotic?  I still keep going back to the assignments as the way to attack this within my syllabus, but what do you think-are there other ways?

The Fringe (pertaining to Composition-not the FOX show)

Our conversation in class on Tuesday left my mind moving in many different directions.  I think within this blog I am going to have to be a little schizophrenic and play my own devil's advocate, because I am going to begin by why I like the fringe and why I think it is useful and then go to the other side of the argument.  For this I will be referring to this handy .jpg I made just for  you...

Example of Critical/Scholarly Movement: or a heart monitor w/ irregular beat 

The fringe is important because I think that is the work in which people are allowed to bring in their under life and let it effect the literature.  For example, I have been working on some articles that focus on graphic novels' impact on film.  So, through the film classes that I've taken here I was able (and encouraged to) bring my comic-book-nerd-under-life into my writing.  I think that this is not only a subject that is important to film today, but it also makes me excited as hell to be able to be bringing in V for Vendetta, From Hell, 300, Watchmen, Batman(I have tons but specific to the Nolan movies), etc.  This has not only made me ecstatic, but also I think I produced some of my best writing to date.  The black line from "A" to "B" is so boring, because it doesn't allow the caveats that I think can broaden and expand ideas and learning.  It seems too formalist to me, "here is your text and the premier scholar... You there! No thinking outside the box!".  Ugh, sends chills down my spine, because I've been through those types of classes and I hated them.  The fringe is better because it allows for the students to branch out from the literature/composition/core concept and apply it to something else to see how it fits.  Let them try to jam the block shaped like a star into the the side of the box with the circle shaped hole cut out of it until they figure out it fits much better w/ the star shaped hole cut out.  Through this process I think it creates better students in the end, because they can figure things out things for themselves.

On the other hand, I do realize that the quickest route between two points is a straight line.  For progress's sake (not only in composition & literature classrooms, but medical advancement, scientific findings, all forms of research, etc.) it is best to find a more direct way to get to point "A" to point "B".  The faster we can achieve that, the faster we can move on to the next leap from "B" to "C", and so on, and so on.  What about all the time wasted by the red line's wasted movement?  What could we achieved already if we weren't wasting time arguing all these points (some of which are bound to be more asinine than others)?  These are just digressions that could be keeping us from the larger truth.  This approach would create better students because they would know more from having less digressions.  These students would leave having gotten to point "D" where as those red students barely made it to "B".

I went a little bipolar there on purpose, because I feel both have valid arguments.  how can we include both?  Do I have to become the classroom Czar and rule on what is and is not valid digressions? "Good point Timmy, let's expand on that..." or "Fred, stick to the text"  I think it is a hard line to find the acceptable amount of digression that allows the benefits of the fringe, but not to take away from what the goals of the class actually are.  I think my own under life would still influence my own outlook of what is valid.

And now for a digression.  This is Jon Stewart's speech at last Saturday's rally for sanity/fear.  This is at the very end of everything-the one semi serious moment.  I think it relates our discussion of only A & B being heard if the fringe isn't there, and too much fringe creates chaos.  It's about 12min long and relates to his perception of the media, not composition. Regardless, it relates (kinda).

Invenio

I have been thinking a lot about invention since I am revising a syllabus to work in a more open way.  I have always tried to use societal and cultural things in class to spark invention through writing, but is that enough?  I personally feel that I have a place and was accepted in our program because I may see things differently or in a different light.  I have never been a traditional student who excelled in my studies (I made straight A's but never really tried).  I think this may make me a better teacher because I can better relate the struggles I went through.  In the same light, I can see how i am not striving to push for invention, as much as I am striving to create a voice. I think that invention can be created through the creation of voice, but I don't really emphasize it directly.  I think that even if Winsor's article was not the best I can see the usefulness of the invention process.

On another note, I have been working on a introduction to literature/fiction syllabus that I think I though would be easier to create in the beginning.  I have been trying to cram some of my own interests into the syllabus as an effort to create a bridge to the student in finding lit in graphic novels.  I wonder if I'm placating to my own sensibilities by doing this or expanding what literature can be?  It's something I have been struggling to figure out...

The Mud Room

So, first of all I have to say that getting back on a mud for the first time in years was an exhilarating experience.  I  just to use muds for text based computer gaming back in the day *cough*star wars RPGs.  Although this time I wasn't battling with any sand people or inspecting treasure chest it was still nice to get back on one of those things for the first time since sixth grade or so.
I digress.
The mud was an interesting experience for class today, and I think that we all utilized it differently.  Some had random outburst after being taken over by what I can only describe as pure giddiness from holding class online.  Others struggled to get in the discussions and I think the mud slid right over them burying them somewhere underneath lost trains of thought and the pace of the mud.  I was rather comfortable with the space and didn't feel that I was being overwhelmed by it, granted I have had previous usage.  I did notice that even those who expressed problems at the beginning ended up catching up and being more active nearer to the end.
The big question is-what was gathered from today's mud trial?  I don't think that this space was effective for us all.  I think some of us were more inclined to take it more serious than others, but i think that would change if the entirety of the class was held on a space like that b/c it would be only the ones wanting to get something from it.  I think those who felt more intimidated by the expeirince would probably not sign up for this type of class and even if they did their comp literacy would catch up in the environment as the semester went on.  I think there were good and bad moments within the chaos that was class today.  This space is also hard when trying to host twenty people rather than just six or so... it does create some chaos.

Berlin

This was an interesting read, in that I have been looking back at my education (undergrad v grad) classes and trying to figure out what exactly the teachers ideal approach to the class.  In trying to figure this out I was also trying to figure out which worked best for me as a student.  I found that since I come from a creative writing background as undergrad and am now doing literature in grad school I have seen most of these approaches used within TTU.

I think that as the literature courses got older (in that the one that dealt with old English, middle English,etc.) seemed to align more with the cognitive psychology rhetoric.  They seemed to be more of a survey class that showed the text and expert discussion of the text, then would build the class around these types of discussions.

My creative writing classes I guess were striving to be a social epistemic rhetorical appraoch, and despite the recent discussions in class, as an undergrad fiction CW I felt that the students that were giving me feedback were opinions that I respected and took to heart.  I may have just been in a weird group or maybe Dr. Jones facilitated it in a unique way, I'm not sure but it seemed to be less of search the Platonist truth that only the prof has.

The expressionistic coincides with my high school education, somewhat.  I feel that the power of the creative process and art was part of the AP curriculum, but at the same time it was so intermixed with formalist constructions that I have a hard time trying to label it as such.

All of this to say that I have definitely experienced a couple of these educational modes, and I really have to think that each still has its place.  I feel that certain literature benefits from a formalist/cognitive approach to be able to relate it to student ( I would still use social/cultural things as well) depending on the subject matter.  I also feel the CW classes should strive to be something that should resemble social epistemic (if the teacher can back out of the conversation).  In a straight literature course I could see using all three together to better relate literature (peer response, workshop, critical articles, open ended paper topics to emphasize student discovery...).