As the syllabus explains, there is a second 10% participation score that belongs to your writing grade. (Along with the 3 essays.)
There are three sub-categories here: discovery tasks, drafts, and peer review.
I'm giving an "A" for discovery task to anyone who submitted a reasonable effort at both of them. "C" if you missed one, "F" if you missed both. Reasonable effort means basically that you answered each question and didn't submit a blank document to EEE. I mean, I'm sure you didn't, but as Ronald Reagan said (somewhat nonsensically), "trust but verify."
For the drafts, you get an "A" if you submitted an ideas draft and a working draft for each of the three papers. One letter grade down for each one missed. I have never had a class that was so diligent about turning in completed ideas and working drafts. Please hold onto this habit; it will serve you well in the future. Even if drafts are not assigned, you ought to internalize some form of that process.
For the peer reviews, the default grade was A-. A couple gave more detailed/useful comments and got an A (apparently the Roses were very good partners to have for your paper... this gives me high hopes for the Rose/Rose collaboration on paper 3). A few gave less detailed/more cursory comments and got a B+ or B. But overall you did pretty well with this.
So I took those three sub-grades and averaged them together, basically. The overall average for writing participation was very nearly a straight A.
My favorite comment from the peer reviews, by the way, courtesy of Wes:
I think this next question is a load of rubbish. Who cares about the title of an essay that isn’t going to be published? You might as well call it “Laser Donkey Battles: The Austen Years” for the hell of it.
He makes a fair point. It would be silly to overemphasize the title to an unpublished essay. Then again, you could make the same argument for any other aspect of the essay! Such essays are, in the end, partly training exercises for writing similar essays in the future, partly assessment exercises, partly heuristics for promoting thought, and partly ways to nurture writing skills portable to other academic disciplines and professional fields (perhaps). I too think the two-part format can be rather stupid, and in fact I have made fun of it repeatedly to my fellow grad students. But it is a standard format in the humanities disciplines, a "unicorn" if you will. And it is somewhat useful, insofar as the second part tells the reader what the essay is about and the first part allows you to exercise some creativity. To make a long story short, the first part is indeed superfluous, but the second part isn't. All we're really trying to do is get students to write the mini-thesis in the title, and if they want to get a bit creative, that moves to the first part.
Tuesday, December 16, 2008
Two items of note
I'm sure Aristotle would disapprove of these riots in Greece, but the case for us is probably more complicated.
Jane Austen definitely would not approve of contemporary romantic comedies.
Jane Austen definitely would not approve of contemporary romantic comedies.
Participation grades ("lecture")
Participation is sometimes known to teachers as "the wiggle grade" or to students as "the bullshit grade." I try to make things a bit more transparent.
Per the syllabus I handed out on the first day of class, the "lecture" participation grade is determined by homework (completion only) and by vocal involvement in class discussions, with the "most helpful student" poll serving as a bonus. The quizzes wound up being ungraded, so I left those out.
So that's basically 5% for homework and 5% for speaking in class.
I divided the 19 of you into frequent speakers/contributors ("A"), occasional speakers/contributors ("B") and reluctant speakers/contributors ("C"). Per the syllabus, more than two absences to discussion eroded these grades, by one letter grade per day absence, in fact. Wes & Shae were the only ones affected, but they were also first and second in the poll, respectively, so I canceled out their absences. Stephanie was also tied for second, but attended every class except the day she was Laura. For her I'll cancel out a missed homework. And also for Ivan, who took me up on my mixtape proposal. So in the end, the 5% speaking grade fit exactly into my original A/B/C categories. (There were 5 As, 10 Bs, and 4 Cs.)
There were 14 homework assignments by my count. I'm throwing out the last 3 group homeworks because I can't remember who was responsible for what... I'll just assume everyone did those. That leaves 11, and I'll give you a free pass on one of those. From there, I'm starting everyone with an "A" for homework and subtracting one letter grade for each missed assignment of the remaining 10. That makes 12 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs, and 2 Ds. Well, then I have to change Ivan from a B to an A, don't I? And that leaves us with Stephanie again. Hmmm, where does the extra credit go? I guess I'll code in an A+ for your participation... I think that raises it a tiny fraction.
The average grade for lecture participation, taking both talking and homework into account, is more or less a B.
Per the syllabus I handed out on the first day of class, the "lecture" participation grade is determined by homework (completion only) and by vocal involvement in class discussions, with the "most helpful student" poll serving as a bonus. The quizzes wound up being ungraded, so I left those out.
So that's basically 5% for homework and 5% for speaking in class.
I divided the 19 of you into frequent speakers/contributors ("A"), occasional speakers/contributors ("B") and reluctant speakers/contributors ("C"). Per the syllabus, more than two absences to discussion eroded these grades, by one letter grade per day absence, in fact. Wes & Shae were the only ones affected, but they were also first and second in the poll, respectively, so I canceled out their absences. Stephanie was also tied for second, but attended every class except the day she was Laura. For her I'll cancel out a missed homework. And also for Ivan, who took me up on my mixtape proposal. So in the end, the 5% speaking grade fit exactly into my original A/B/C categories. (There were 5 As, 10 Bs, and 4 Cs.)
There were 14 homework assignments by my count. I'm throwing out the last 3 group homeworks because I can't remember who was responsible for what... I'll just assume everyone did those. That leaves 11, and I'll give you a free pass on one of those. From there, I'm starting everyone with an "A" for homework and subtracting one letter grade for each missed assignment of the remaining 10. That makes 12 As, 3 Bs, 2 Cs, and 2 Ds. Well, then I have to change Ivan from a B to an A, don't I? And that leaves us with Stephanie again. Hmmm, where does the extra credit go? I guess I'll code in an A+ for your participation... I think that raises it a tiny fraction.
The average grade for lecture participation, taking both talking and homework into account, is more or less a B.
Final Exam (grades)
Like the midterm, I was really picky the first time I swept through the bluebooks because it helped me differentiate the scores for each answer more clearly. But when I ran all the averages, it became obvious to me, much like the last time, that though I had ranked everyone's exam in the correct order, I had set the median for the actual scores too low. [Note: this is not the same as "curving," in which one would begin with a set goal for the median... this is just me saving myself the time of going back into each individual question and adjusting the score slightly upwards... I'm recentering the scores to reflect my impression that the overall performance of the class was higher than the initial score I calculated]
So I'm adding a 3% correction again. Because those exams were really f***ing good! You have done the trailer proud.
So I'm adding a 3% correction again. Because those exams were really f***ing good! You have done the trailer proud.
Final Exam (essay)
In case it wasn't clear, Budweiser, Skoal, and Nascar are the favorite vices of "Bubba," the fictional trailerpark philosopher. Bubba deserves credit for coming up with three essay questions of roughly equal popularity on a final exam... he's never succeeded in doing that before. On the other hand, Bubba was surprised to find that these essays resembled the short answer questions... quite a bit more what than how or why. The better thinking for most of you actually happened in the passage analysis. He blames himself for that, or maybe everyone just ran out of time.
BUDWEISER (6 answers)
-I was really surprised that Plato only appeared once. Everybody really knows their Aristotle! Some made Descartes too much of an idealist. He is a dualist; he doesn't believe that the material world exists because the mind invented it, or some such, or that all there is in the world is thought... remember the sixth meditation, in which he shows how we could know, with some reliability, a material world. A couple of you saw Descartes as a step "backwards" from Aristotlean hylomorphism, which is interesting. But to D's credit, he is trying to absorb a much more sophisticated version of materialism than A had to, and he's being honest that it's difficult to do so. It isn't until you get to Kant and Hegel that you get an ontology that is once again capable of explaining the interrelationship between minds and bodies... but it could be just as easily said that the problem of Cartesian dualism has never been adequately solved. I'm glad nobody chose Austen and Aristotle, because they would have been too similar. I'm a bit skeptical of the argument a couple of you made that Morrison is an idealist because she disagrees with racism, which is a distinction between material attributes. I think the point may be that beneath the surface of every idealism, there is a material basis, such that the idealism itself is a kind of sham. But it's certainly debatable.
SKOAL (6 answers)
Again, everybody knows their Aristotle, although I must remind you once again that virtue is intrinsic and developed rather than something you acquire in a "point" system. You guys also do well with Plato, but not as well with relating his ideas to those of the other writers. I was surprised to find only one mention of Descartes... I had thought he would serve as a whipping post here for failing to construct an ethical system, but the rest of you chose to go another way. I was impressed by the way that many of you challenged my lazy Austen=Aristotlean idea by pointing out her emphasis on women and on a new form of empiricism. Well done, though like the short answers there was a creeping Romanticization of Austen... I assure you she does not want her heroines to "follow their hearts." As with the purple question, there were a number of good theories about Morrison's ethical position. This question also seemed to promote a better analysis of philosophy vs. novels than the Budweiser question, perhaps because of the obvious way that novels use characterization to promote or subvert ethical norms.
NASCAR (7 answers)
-This question had the most divergent set of answers. They were good... I was happy to see that you went in your own directions rather than simply parroting the discussion we had on the lawn on the last day. Though it was a bit frustrating to me that you largely dodged the most obvious point, which was the relationship between why and how (in simplest terms, why does Plato write a symposium? why does Aristotle write Platonic-style dialogues? why does Descartes write meditations? why do Austen and Morrison write novels?) Careful with dates by the way... one person said there were no revolutionaries in 17th-century England. Tell it to this guy, who was beheaded by 17th-century English revolutionaries! And careful with logic... remember the syllogism exercise I gave you way back when? If Plato believes that "anything we see is not true," it does not follow that he believes that "anything we do not see is true." He can't see a purple space monster, but I'm guessing he doesn't consider this to be one of the true concepts/ideas that undergird reality. Another Plato quibble... Plato didn't "invent" dualism. He invented philosophical dualism. Dualism is the basis of nearly all religious systems, some of which predate Plato. An unseen world of goodness/truth/power/beauty, etc. etc. Likewise, Aristotle did not invent teleology... it was the entire basis of Greek society. He just gave it philosophical expression.
BUDWEISER (6 answers)
-I was really surprised that Plato only appeared once. Everybody really knows their Aristotle! Some made Descartes too much of an idealist. He is a dualist; he doesn't believe that the material world exists because the mind invented it, or some such, or that all there is in the world is thought... remember the sixth meditation, in which he shows how we could know, with some reliability, a material world. A couple of you saw Descartes as a step "backwards" from Aristotlean hylomorphism, which is interesting. But to D's credit, he is trying to absorb a much more sophisticated version of materialism than A had to, and he's being honest that it's difficult to do so. It isn't until you get to Kant and Hegel that you get an ontology that is once again capable of explaining the interrelationship between minds and bodies... but it could be just as easily said that the problem of Cartesian dualism has never been adequately solved. I'm glad nobody chose Austen and Aristotle, because they would have been too similar. I'm a bit skeptical of the argument a couple of you made that Morrison is an idealist because she disagrees with racism, which is a distinction between material attributes. I think the point may be that beneath the surface of every idealism, there is a material basis, such that the idealism itself is a kind of sham. But it's certainly debatable.
SKOAL (6 answers)
Again, everybody knows their Aristotle, although I must remind you once again that virtue is intrinsic and developed rather than something you acquire in a "point" system. You guys also do well with Plato, but not as well with relating his ideas to those of the other writers. I was surprised to find only one mention of Descartes... I had thought he would serve as a whipping post here for failing to construct an ethical system, but the rest of you chose to go another way. I was impressed by the way that many of you challenged my lazy Austen=Aristotlean idea by pointing out her emphasis on women and on a new form of empiricism. Well done, though like the short answers there was a creeping Romanticization of Austen... I assure you she does not want her heroines to "follow their hearts." As with the purple question, there were a number of good theories about Morrison's ethical position. This question also seemed to promote a better analysis of philosophy vs. novels than the Budweiser question, perhaps because of the obvious way that novels use characterization to promote or subvert ethical norms.
NASCAR (7 answers)
-This question had the most divergent set of answers. They were good... I was happy to see that you went in your own directions rather than simply parroting the discussion we had on the lawn on the last day. Though it was a bit frustrating to me that you largely dodged the most obvious point, which was the relationship between why and how (in simplest terms, why does Plato write a symposium? why does Aristotle write Platonic-style dialogues? why does Descartes write meditations? why do Austen and Morrison write novels?) Careful with dates by the way... one person said there were no revolutionaries in 17th-century England. Tell it to this guy, who was beheaded by 17th-century English revolutionaries! And careful with logic... remember the syllogism exercise I gave you way back when? If Plato believes that "anything we see is not true," it does not follow that he believes that "anything we do not see is true." He can't see a purple space monster, but I'm guessing he doesn't consider this to be one of the true concepts/ideas that undergird reality. Another Plato quibble... Plato didn't "invent" dualism. He invented philosophical dualism. Dualism is the basis of nearly all religious systems, some of which predate Plato. An unseen world of goodness/truth/power/beauty, etc. etc. Likewise, Aristotle did not invent teleology... it was the entire basis of Greek society. He just gave it philosophical expression.
Monday, December 15, 2008
Final Exam (passage analysis)
SOAP (5 answers)
-----
I was surprised by the extent to which people looked at this question from Soaphead's perspective, but that was definitely one way to go. Morrison does ask us to try to see things through the eyes of her characters, even the distasteful ones. One of the interesting things that emerged from this question was that some saw Soaphead as a target of satire, while others saw him as a satirist himself. As with the other Morrison questions, a couple of you missed the point pretty widely by identifying M's ideology with that of cleanness or "innocence" in the conventional sense. But mostly, lower scores reflected a lack of focus on the "how" details of the passage, probably a result of time management issues more than anything.
Some of the details you guys paid special attention to: "like buying shoes," "white laughter," "like a streak out of blue heaven."
CAT (5 answers)
-----
The cat is black, but it also has blue eyes! That was a puzzler a few of you worked on. Most had something to say about the relative class status of Junior and Pecola's families, or about this being one of P's many experiences of abuse or trauma.
CANDY (9 answers)
-----
This one yielded the best answers, for whatever reason. All of you picked up on the linkage between the Mary Jane's logo and the "bluest eye" ideology, but the really interesting bits were how you analyzed the notion of consuming the candy/image, and how you analyzed the role of the grocer. Some noted the dandelion as P's projection of her experience of inferiority. Others noted how the scene began with a convention asymmetry between children and adults, or a conventional scene of desire, the kid at the candy store, and went in a darker or more complex direction. Others pointed out that this is one of only two times in the novel when Pecola is described as angry.
Side note: I disagree with the idea that comparing the candy-eating to an orgasm represents the "perversion" of innocence or some such. We have to look at this from Morrison's perspective, wherein it probably represents: 1) extreme pleasure, 2) double-consciousness, the externalization of pleasure outside the self. The pleasure, in other words, is really Mary Jane's, whereas Pecola's pleasure is only vicarious. I think that's the perversion here. Also, surely there was some other way to talk about the many levels of social hierarchy in 1940s Ohio than by simply calling the grocer a "gross immigrant." I don't think Morrison would much approve of that tactic... I agree that the description of him is grotesque, but remember, this is free indirect discourse from Pecola's perspective, so be careful of writing your own answers in free indirect discourse! Yakobowski is a sort of villain here, but I don't see what good it does to redirect the racism towards him.
-----
I was surprised by the extent to which people looked at this question from Soaphead's perspective, but that was definitely one way to go. Morrison does ask us to try to see things through the eyes of her characters, even the distasteful ones. One of the interesting things that emerged from this question was that some saw Soaphead as a target of satire, while others saw him as a satirist himself. As with the other Morrison questions, a couple of you missed the point pretty widely by identifying M's ideology with that of cleanness or "innocence" in the conventional sense. But mostly, lower scores reflected a lack of focus on the "how" details of the passage, probably a result of time management issues more than anything.
Some of the details you guys paid special attention to: "like buying shoes," "white laughter," "like a streak out of blue heaven."
CAT (5 answers)
-----
The cat is black, but it also has blue eyes! That was a puzzler a few of you worked on. Most had something to say about the relative class status of Junior and Pecola's families, or about this being one of P's many experiences of abuse or trauma.
CANDY (9 answers)
-----
This one yielded the best answers, for whatever reason. All of you picked up on the linkage between the Mary Jane's logo and the "bluest eye" ideology, but the really interesting bits were how you analyzed the notion of consuming the candy/image, and how you analyzed the role of the grocer. Some noted the dandelion as P's projection of her experience of inferiority. Others noted how the scene began with a convention asymmetry between children and adults, or a conventional scene of desire, the kid at the candy store, and went in a darker or more complex direction. Others pointed out that this is one of only two times in the novel when Pecola is described as angry.
Side note: I disagree with the idea that comparing the candy-eating to an orgasm represents the "perversion" of innocence or some such. We have to look at this from Morrison's perspective, wherein it probably represents: 1) extreme pleasure, 2) double-consciousness, the externalization of pleasure outside the self. The pleasure, in other words, is really Mary Jane's, whereas Pecola's pleasure is only vicarious. I think that's the perversion here. Also, surely there was some other way to talk about the many levels of social hierarchy in 1940s Ohio than by simply calling the grocer a "gross immigrant." I don't think Morrison would much approve of that tactic... I agree that the description of him is grotesque, but remember, this is free indirect discourse from Pecola's perspective, so be careful of writing your own answers in free indirect discourse! Yakobowski is a sort of villain here, but I don't see what good it does to redirect the racism towards him.
Final Exam (short answers)
My grading deadline is tomorrow, so your patience will soon be rewarded. I'm doing the exams first and then the Austen essays. I'm going to write some model answers as I go along... one of the rewarding parts of this grading for me, is that I'm seeing that even some students who had a lower overall score had a couple of answers that were really brilliant. I'll send you an email tomorrow night with full details on all of your grades, but if you want your actual bluebook back, see me in my office hours in January.
RED (19 answers)
-The best answers sketched D's argument for God in some fashion (cosmological proof and/or ontological proof), explained its relevance to the Meditations in some fashion (methodological doubt, clear and distinct ideas, or whatever), and drew some kind of logical or historical distinction between D's God and the orthodox Catholic/Christian God.
Judging by his work in Meditations, Descartes does believe that God exists, but it is hardly the God that the Catholic Church and the rest of France believe in. Descartes "proves" God's existence, but the God that he proves isn't a loving father nor a monitor of ethics like the one found in the Bible. Descartes' God is more of an explanation of things unknown than anything else. He is the "first cause" of everything in the world. He is also described in Descartes' ontological proof as a "perfect being" that he can think of "clearly and distinctly," however he makes no reference as to what the "perfect being" does or if it needs to be pleased or praised. One may go as far as to say that Descartes may not even be Christian because he makes no reference to the key portion of the New Testament - Jesus Christ. The only commentary that Descartes makes which doesn't seem to imply deism is that God gave him the free will to err in Meditation 4, and that if he focuses on God alone, he cannot err, but once his thoughts return back to himself, he makes mistakes.
GREEN (14 answers)
-Nearly all of you understood the difference between Aristotlean hylomorphism and Cartesian dualism, but not very many remembered that the soul is perishable/mortal while the mind is apparently not, that the soul has a telos while the mind apparently does not, that the mind, unlike the soul, seems unbound by ethical norms, or that Aristotle allows for souls other than humans. Though weaving all of this together would have been far too long for a short answer, the better answers invoked at least one of these further principles, in other words they showed why Cartesian dualism matters.
"I" is different from the soul in Aristotle in several ways. First of all, Descartes' "I" is solely a thinking object, nothing more. It is designed to process thoughts and through that other things will come. The soul in Aristotle is something different. The soul has a purpose, it has feelings and emotions and thought and it is the person itself, without the body. The "I" can only think, and it is limited to only itself, while the soul can interact with the body. The "I" is also eternal, the thinking never goes away. However, the soul dies with the body, so it is limited in that way. The soul can do a variety of things, but only the "I" lasts forever. [Aaron's note: The soul doesn't have emotions in Aristotle; they are an interaction of the soul and the body, we might say a hylomorphic phenomenon.
PRISM (5 answers)
-This is what you might call a high-risk/high-reward question because we didn't really discuss it in class. Most got that color was a physical phenomenon in Descartes, which would be perceived through the senses rather than the mind, and that therefore there was no such "thing" as color per se, just a certain property of light at certain wavelengths or whatever. A phenomenon of "extended things." Nobody compared to Aristotle... I think A would consider color within the notion of teleology. Many things have a certain color for a certain purpose... it's part of their nature. The medieval/Catholic Aristotleans called it a "quality" that something had. That's very different than a quantity, as in Descartes. Most of you did well with Morrison, in particular by connecting color to emotional experiences, to a statement of pluralism (colors are different, but valuable in different ways), or to an analysis of her novel's racial epistemology.
Color is an illusion that is based on our sense called eyesight ["illusion" is a bit strong, but OK]. We think that there are different colors because of how the light shines in our eyes but Descartes believes that it is only a trick. A person must have named that particular shade that is produced because of how the light rays bounced off, so that is what color is: something made up. [i.e. insofar as it is a quality or something that exists] Morrison, on the other hand, believes that colors are an experience in the world. As people, we enjoy how colors make our lives more vibrant or we associate certain things with colors.
NAVY BLUE (19 answers)
-All of you knew that the navy in Persuasion is a metaphor for a societal transition, roughly stated, the rise of the middle class(es). The better answers went beyond that, discussing the naval men's emphasis on horizontal networking / loyalty, emotional support, etc., or connecting naval life to an epistemology of seeking new knowledge in the world (i.e. empiricism), or remembering that the military is in fact a hierarchical and highly traditional institution and that it is therefore a sort of hedge on Austen's part that shows her ambivalence about the societal transition.
The Navy in Jane Austen's Persuasion represents a group of men who have obtained power and wealth through merit, unlike Sir Walter Elliot, through inheritance. Although Austen can seem to be a "new thinker" in her representation of the navy, it doesn't always seem to be the case. From years looking back at aristocracy and higher figures, for instance in monarchal times, "great men" have been established in the navy, i.e. "William the Conqueror." [it was a marine landing, but I'd call his force an army... also he was a monarch in France... it was his men who became aristocrats through the army... I'll shut up now] She would have been more of a new thinker if she used the profession of trade: being a tradesman or merchant. Not a "somewhat noble" profession" that still relies somewhat on status (the Navy). The difference between an Admiral and a Captain compared to a lower position of just an enlisted man is status, and that is supposedly what new thinkers are supposed to avoid.
ORANGE (3 answers)
-Something else we didn't discuss, although probably easier to make the jump than PRISM. Double-consciousness for Dubois is being black in a world defined by white standards, where white is "normal" and black is deviant or deficient, or to use a contemporary racist term, "ethnic." You can just be white; white is white. Single. But you can't just be black. Because black is defined against white. So black is double. (Of course white is actually double too, but he's describing the ideology as it is experienced by the individual.) The easiest way to approach this question is to ask yourself to what extent Austen is a feminist, since women are defined in her time as deficient men, more or less. How feminist you make her is debatable. Another way to go would be to talk about the class conflict in the novel (from Anne's perspective or Jane's), though I'm not sure that would really have as much bite as Dubois unless you talked about the true lower classes. This answer took the latter strategy.
W.E.B. Dubois' concept of "double consciousness" is one in which outside influences or what other people think about you, affect the way you perceive yourself. For example, because whites viewed blacks as ugly and inferior, blacks' double-consciousness made themselves feel like there was something wrong with the, that they were ugly or dirty, despite the fact that they are beautiful human beings just like everyone else. I think Austen does have a double consciousness, because even though her books depict change and going against the norm, she still follows the expectations to a certain extent. For exaomple, Captain Wentworth isn't of noble aristocratic birth, but Anne marries him after he is rich and has made a name for himself. So Austen tries to go against the expectations, but she doesn't do it completely.
YELLOW (15 answers)
-Most of you went beyond plot summary to show how Anne's situation reflects a conflict between different forms of persuasion that connect to different epistemological standards or ethical norms. Some of the answers that made persuasion out to be only "bad" and talked about Anne liberating herself entirely from her family and its associated social standards apparently read a different novel than I did (Wuthering Heights, perhaps... beware the "Romantic" pseudo-Austen). In Austen, you can't do away with persuasion, just as you can't do away with emotion, or with society. But you can educate it, or find better ways to regulate it, etc. Another approach was to link the concept of persuasion with narratology, in other words with the persuading that Austen herself was trying to do as narrator.
Persuasion, like most titles in Jane Austen books, is a motif found throughout the novel. However, it is also a key point in the lesson that Austen attempts to teach her readers. It is the one point that she emphasizes in both her published and unpublished endings, when she describes that Anne rightfully allowed herself to be persuaded by Lady Russell the first time that Captain Wentworth proposed to her. The idea that allowing oneself to be persuaded in certain cases could be the best thing to do is quite Aristotlean. Austen decides that Anne made the right choice in being persuaded the first time because the first proposal wasn't the right time or place for her character. Later on, Austen doesn't allow Anne to be persuaded into marrying Mr. Elliot, and instead because the time, place, and intentions are right, Anne's marriage to Wentworth is right. Also Persuasion's title is applicable to Austen's own writing style because she uses free indirect discourse in order to persuade her readers to seek further knowledge.
LIGHT BLUE (15 answers)
-This was probably the easiest question on the test, although that is a relative statement. Most of you did quite well. The highest scores went to those who noted that Pecola's double-consciousness was not unique, but was in fact socially normative, or to those who linked it to Dick and Jane, Shirley Temple or the other artifacts of that ideology that were mentioned in the novel, or to those who extended the concept beyond black/white race relations to a larger point about Morrison being anti-Platonic or some such. A couple of you tried to contort the ending into a parable of self-acceptance. Huh? Maybe it carries a message of self-acceptance, but Pecola sure doesn't accept herself, and even Claudia and Frida apparently find self-acceptance more difficult as they grow older.
Morrison's novel is predominantly based on the idealism of the white, nuclear family, with blonde hair and blue eyes, and its effects on black culture. We are presented with this ideal as being perfect, and what should be aspired to. With this, the characters who have changed themselves to be as "white" as they can, like Geraldine, sacrifice themselves. A major theme of cleanliness vs. dirtiness is seen as a major division between white and black. The characters are forced to disconnect from their savage, unclean bodily functions and attributes to strive to fit into this unattainable, fake ideal of happiness and perfection, and the superior attributes of "blue-eyed" people. [note: speaking of "superior attributes," it just occurred to me that the novel is set in 1946 and I think that's significant... I definitely don't think Morrison is saying that white Americans are Nazis, in 1946 or in 1970, but just how deeply rooted racism is in subtler ways].
PINK (7 answers)
-Just citing "realism" wasn't enough here. Most of you drew the contrast between the "Dick and Jane" epistemology and the extreme sensory & bodily details that Morrison gives, but some wrote about the latter as being only "unpleasant," "dirty and disgusting" etc. etc. It's hard for me to see justification for that... M goes out of her way to show bodily pleasures (along with bodily pains), and this is part of her anti-racism / anti-Platonism. It's easy to see the traumas in the book, which is not a happy one overall, but a medium-careful reading will reveal many moments of pleasure (even the vomiting!), and this is an instance where I was hoping you could go beyond the class discussion. To get even more particular, I got some answers that referred to menstruation as "dirty and disgusting" without a hint of irony. Really? I mean, from Morrison's perspective? Be careful not to confuse the author's representation of a social norm with the author's promotion of a social norm... and any doctor would tell you that menstruation is actually a cleansing function... "disgusting" is a social taboo, albeit a very strong, traditional, and widespread one. Another successful tactic was to link embodiment to M's strategy of creating sympathy (or aporia) in her reader.
Morrison includes details of material, bodily life to show how the real world exists. Plato tried to show that this world is false, Aristotle and Descartes that it was real to an extent, but Morrison tries to show that this is the only thing that is real. By bringing in details about things that we do not think about but that do exist, bodily things an things that we associate with "trash" and "dirty," we can see that everything around us is connected through these things and they help unify the world. Everyone deals with these things, and by bringing it out, we can see the true world that we live in.
PURPLE (12 answers)
-Again, we barely touched on this in class, but it is an obvious question to ask about this book. Many of the answers went right to M's definition of love on the last (next to last?) page, but the better ones linked it to other incidents, or the book as a whole, or linked it somehow to one of the other authors. A number of contrasting, but equally compelling theories about love evolved in your answers. Some of you focused on the idea of connection or interdependence, others on caring, acceptance, or even just recognition.
Love in "The Bluest Eye" is a different kind of love; it is, in a sense, attention. Morrison does not suggest a normative view in my opinion. She believes that people will love based on how they are. Now this may in fact be a very realistic view, but it is not a normative one. There is a difference. People see love as hugs, kisses, and romance; Morrison understands that love can be violent, even disgusting, as in the case of Pecola's rape. Normative is not what is actual; it is what people believe. Such as being white is better... that used to be a normative thought, but it has proven wrong. Love takes the form of many things; the type of love given depends on who is giving, so unless everyone in the world is sweet, gentle, and romantic, then love is not such.
[Oh, and big ups to Monique for getting her analysis of the Dick-and-Jane passage into this question even though I didn't put it in the passage analysis section.]
RED (19 answers)
-The best answers sketched D's argument for God in some fashion (cosmological proof and/or ontological proof), explained its relevance to the Meditations in some fashion (methodological doubt, clear and distinct ideas, or whatever), and drew some kind of logical or historical distinction between D's God and the orthodox Catholic/Christian God.
Judging by his work in Meditations, Descartes does believe that God exists, but it is hardly the God that the Catholic Church and the rest of France believe in. Descartes "proves" God's existence, but the God that he proves isn't a loving father nor a monitor of ethics like the one found in the Bible. Descartes' God is more of an explanation of things unknown than anything else. He is the "first cause" of everything in the world. He is also described in Descartes' ontological proof as a "perfect being" that he can think of "clearly and distinctly," however he makes no reference as to what the "perfect being" does or if it needs to be pleased or praised. One may go as far as to say that Descartes may not even be Christian because he makes no reference to the key portion of the New Testament - Jesus Christ. The only commentary that Descartes makes which doesn't seem to imply deism is that God gave him the free will to err in Meditation 4, and that if he focuses on God alone, he cannot err, but once his thoughts return back to himself, he makes mistakes.
GREEN (14 answers)
-Nearly all of you understood the difference between Aristotlean hylomorphism and Cartesian dualism, but not very many remembered that the soul is perishable/mortal while the mind is apparently not, that the soul has a telos while the mind apparently does not, that the mind, unlike the soul, seems unbound by ethical norms, or that Aristotle allows for souls other than humans. Though weaving all of this together would have been far too long for a short answer, the better answers invoked at least one of these further principles, in other words they showed why Cartesian dualism matters.
"I" is different from the soul in Aristotle in several ways. First of all, Descartes' "I" is solely a thinking object, nothing more. It is designed to process thoughts and through that other things will come. The soul in Aristotle is something different. The soul has a purpose, it has feelings and emotions and thought and it is the person itself, without the body. The "I" can only think, and it is limited to only itself, while the soul can interact with the body. The "I" is also eternal, the thinking never goes away. However, the soul dies with the body, so it is limited in that way. The soul can do a variety of things, but only the "I" lasts forever. [Aaron's note: The soul doesn't have emotions in Aristotle; they are an interaction of the soul and the body, we might say a hylomorphic phenomenon.
PRISM (5 answers)
-This is what you might call a high-risk/high-reward question because we didn't really discuss it in class. Most got that color was a physical phenomenon in Descartes, which would be perceived through the senses rather than the mind, and that therefore there was no such "thing" as color per se, just a certain property of light at certain wavelengths or whatever. A phenomenon of "extended things." Nobody compared to Aristotle... I think A would consider color within the notion of teleology. Many things have a certain color for a certain purpose... it's part of their nature. The medieval/Catholic Aristotleans called it a "quality" that something had. That's very different than a quantity, as in Descartes. Most of you did well with Morrison, in particular by connecting color to emotional experiences, to a statement of pluralism (colors are different, but valuable in different ways), or to an analysis of her novel's racial epistemology.
Color is an illusion that is based on our sense called eyesight ["illusion" is a bit strong, but OK]. We think that there are different colors because of how the light shines in our eyes but Descartes believes that it is only a trick. A person must have named that particular shade that is produced because of how the light rays bounced off, so that is what color is: something made up. [i.e. insofar as it is a quality or something that exists] Morrison, on the other hand, believes that colors are an experience in the world. As people, we enjoy how colors make our lives more vibrant or we associate certain things with colors.
NAVY BLUE (19 answers)
-All of you knew that the navy in Persuasion is a metaphor for a societal transition, roughly stated, the rise of the middle class(es). The better answers went beyond that, discussing the naval men's emphasis on horizontal networking / loyalty, emotional support, etc., or connecting naval life to an epistemology of seeking new knowledge in the world (i.e. empiricism), or remembering that the military is in fact a hierarchical and highly traditional institution and that it is therefore a sort of hedge on Austen's part that shows her ambivalence about the societal transition.
The Navy in Jane Austen's Persuasion represents a group of men who have obtained power and wealth through merit, unlike Sir Walter Elliot, through inheritance. Although Austen can seem to be a "new thinker" in her representation of the navy, it doesn't always seem to be the case. From years looking back at aristocracy and higher figures, for instance in monarchal times, "great men" have been established in the navy, i.e. "William the Conqueror." [it was a marine landing, but I'd call his force an army... also he was a monarch in France... it was his men who became aristocrats through the army... I'll shut up now] She would have been more of a new thinker if she used the profession of trade: being a tradesman or merchant. Not a "somewhat noble" profession" that still relies somewhat on status (the Navy). The difference between an Admiral and a Captain compared to a lower position of just an enlisted man is status, and that is supposedly what new thinkers are supposed to avoid.
ORANGE (3 answers)
-Something else we didn't discuss, although probably easier to make the jump than PRISM. Double-consciousness for Dubois is being black in a world defined by white standards, where white is "normal" and black is deviant or deficient, or to use a contemporary racist term, "ethnic." You can just be white; white is white. Single. But you can't just be black. Because black is defined against white. So black is double. (Of course white is actually double too, but he's describing the ideology as it is experienced by the individual.) The easiest way to approach this question is to ask yourself to what extent Austen is a feminist, since women are defined in her time as deficient men, more or less. How feminist you make her is debatable. Another way to go would be to talk about the class conflict in the novel (from Anne's perspective or Jane's), though I'm not sure that would really have as much bite as Dubois unless you talked about the true lower classes. This answer took the latter strategy.
W.E.B. Dubois' concept of "double consciousness" is one in which outside influences or what other people think about you, affect the way you perceive yourself. For example, because whites viewed blacks as ugly and inferior, blacks' double-consciousness made themselves feel like there was something wrong with the, that they were ugly or dirty, despite the fact that they are beautiful human beings just like everyone else. I think Austen does have a double consciousness, because even though her books depict change and going against the norm, she still follows the expectations to a certain extent. For exaomple, Captain Wentworth isn't of noble aristocratic birth, but Anne marries him after he is rich and has made a name for himself. So Austen tries to go against the expectations, but she doesn't do it completely.
YELLOW (15 answers)
-Most of you went beyond plot summary to show how Anne's situation reflects a conflict between different forms of persuasion that connect to different epistemological standards or ethical norms. Some of the answers that made persuasion out to be only "bad" and talked about Anne liberating herself entirely from her family and its associated social standards apparently read a different novel than I did (Wuthering Heights, perhaps... beware the "Romantic" pseudo-Austen). In Austen, you can't do away with persuasion, just as you can't do away with emotion, or with society. But you can educate it, or find better ways to regulate it, etc. Another approach was to link the concept of persuasion with narratology, in other words with the persuading that Austen herself was trying to do as narrator.
Persuasion, like most titles in Jane Austen books, is a motif found throughout the novel. However, it is also a key point in the lesson that Austen attempts to teach her readers. It is the one point that she emphasizes in both her published and unpublished endings, when she describes that Anne rightfully allowed herself to be persuaded by Lady Russell the first time that Captain Wentworth proposed to her. The idea that allowing oneself to be persuaded in certain cases could be the best thing to do is quite Aristotlean. Austen decides that Anne made the right choice in being persuaded the first time because the first proposal wasn't the right time or place for her character. Later on, Austen doesn't allow Anne to be persuaded into marrying Mr. Elliot, and instead because the time, place, and intentions are right, Anne's marriage to Wentworth is right. Also Persuasion's title is applicable to Austen's own writing style because she uses free indirect discourse in order to persuade her readers to seek further knowledge.
LIGHT BLUE (15 answers)
-This was probably the easiest question on the test, although that is a relative statement. Most of you did quite well. The highest scores went to those who noted that Pecola's double-consciousness was not unique, but was in fact socially normative, or to those who linked it to Dick and Jane, Shirley Temple or the other artifacts of that ideology that were mentioned in the novel, or to those who extended the concept beyond black/white race relations to a larger point about Morrison being anti-Platonic or some such. A couple of you tried to contort the ending into a parable of self-acceptance. Huh? Maybe it carries a message of self-acceptance, but Pecola sure doesn't accept herself, and even Claudia and Frida apparently find self-acceptance more difficult as they grow older.
Morrison's novel is predominantly based on the idealism of the white, nuclear family, with blonde hair and blue eyes, and its effects on black culture. We are presented with this ideal as being perfect, and what should be aspired to. With this, the characters who have changed themselves to be as "white" as they can, like Geraldine, sacrifice themselves. A major theme of cleanliness vs. dirtiness is seen as a major division between white and black. The characters are forced to disconnect from their savage, unclean bodily functions and attributes to strive to fit into this unattainable, fake ideal of happiness and perfection, and the superior attributes of "blue-eyed" people. [note: speaking of "superior attributes," it just occurred to me that the novel is set in 1946 and I think that's significant... I definitely don't think Morrison is saying that white Americans are Nazis, in 1946 or in 1970, but just how deeply rooted racism is in subtler ways].
PINK (7 answers)
-Just citing "realism" wasn't enough here. Most of you drew the contrast between the "Dick and Jane" epistemology and the extreme sensory & bodily details that Morrison gives, but some wrote about the latter as being only "unpleasant," "dirty and disgusting" etc. etc. It's hard for me to see justification for that... M goes out of her way to show bodily pleasures (along with bodily pains), and this is part of her anti-racism / anti-Platonism. It's easy to see the traumas in the book, which is not a happy one overall, but a medium-careful reading will reveal many moments of pleasure (even the vomiting!), and this is an instance where I was hoping you could go beyond the class discussion. To get even more particular, I got some answers that referred to menstruation as "dirty and disgusting" without a hint of irony. Really? I mean, from Morrison's perspective? Be careful not to confuse the author's representation of a social norm with the author's promotion of a social norm... and any doctor would tell you that menstruation is actually a cleansing function... "disgusting" is a social taboo, albeit a very strong, traditional, and widespread one. Another successful tactic was to link embodiment to M's strategy of creating sympathy (or aporia) in her reader.
Morrison includes details of material, bodily life to show how the real world exists. Plato tried to show that this world is false, Aristotle and Descartes that it was real to an extent, but Morrison tries to show that this is the only thing that is real. By bringing in details about things that we do not think about but that do exist, bodily things an things that we associate with "trash" and "dirty," we can see that everything around us is connected through these things and they help unify the world. Everyone deals with these things, and by bringing it out, we can see the true world that we live in.
PURPLE (12 answers)
-Again, we barely touched on this in class, but it is an obvious question to ask about this book. Many of the answers went right to M's definition of love on the last (next to last?) page, but the better ones linked it to other incidents, or the book as a whole, or linked it somehow to one of the other authors. A number of contrasting, but equally compelling theories about love evolved in your answers. Some of you focused on the idea of connection or interdependence, others on caring, acceptance, or even just recognition.
Love in "The Bluest Eye" is a different kind of love; it is, in a sense, attention. Morrison does not suggest a normative view in my opinion. She believes that people will love based on how they are. Now this may in fact be a very realistic view, but it is not a normative one. There is a difference. People see love as hugs, kisses, and romance; Morrison understands that love can be violent, even disgusting, as in the case of Pecola's rape. Normative is not what is actual; it is what people believe. Such as being white is better... that used to be a normative thought, but it has proven wrong. Love takes the form of many things; the type of love given depends on who is giving, so unless everyone in the world is sweet, gentle, and romantic, then love is not such.
[Oh, and big ups to Monique for getting her analysis of the Dick-and-Jane passage into this question even though I didn't put it in the passage analysis section.]
Saturday, December 6, 2008
Concluding thoughts
1a) If you missed some or most of the review session, I would recommend getting in touch with someone who did... it was one of the better "classes" of the quarter. Also that pizza was really great.
1b) With regard to the "unicorn ideology" rant... perhaps I gave the implication that every idea that people collectively believe even if it does not have a strict logical or factual basis is "bad." (Because I mainly cited negative examples like racism.) But is it? Decide what you think about that and decide what our five authors think.
2) A good study question... did we do philosophy despite the trailer or because of the trailer?
3) See my email about the "lifeline call." I'm going to email my phone number to whomever is winning the poll when it closes on Monday morning. Please direct your question(s) to this person.
4) Watch the space above for future reading recommendations.
Good luck on all your papers and exams!
1b) With regard to the "unicorn ideology" rant... perhaps I gave the implication that every idea that people collectively believe even if it does not have a strict logical or factual basis is "bad." (Because I mainly cited negative examples like racism.) But is it? Decide what you think about that and decide what our five authors think.
2) A good study question... did we do philosophy despite the trailer or because of the trailer?
3) See my email about the "lifeline call." I'm going to email my phone number to whomever is winning the poll when it closes on Monday morning. Please direct your question(s) to this person.
4) Watch the space above for future reading recommendations.
Good luck on all your papers and exams!
Monday, December 1, 2008
Your reflection writing
These are very thoughtful and interesting. Thanks for putting so much into this.
I don't really want to quote these because I made it clear that they were personal/anonymous, but I found this sentence particularly interesting:
"I kind of feel like I'm drowning when I read The Bluest Eye."
I don't really want to quote these because I made it clear that they were personal/anonymous, but I found this sentence particularly interesting:
"I kind of feel like I'm drowning when I read The Bluest Eye."
Paper #3 peer review exercise
I will assign you partners by email as the working drafts trickle in. Please make sure your working draft, or its most recent version, is submitted to the shared student files section of the EEE dropbox by Wednesday morning. You probably just submitted it to the submit section. And please make sure that the exchange of peer review comments is completed by Thursday night.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1a. Does the paper address what?
1b. Is the what appropriate to the length of the paper, not too narrow and not too broad?
2a. Does the paper address how?
2b. What is the weakest how moment in the paper?
2c. What is the strongest how moment?
3a. Does the paper address why?
3b. Does it do so in the form of reversible thesis that could logically be disproven? (I.e. "I hate Jane Austen" cannot logically be disproven, whereas "Captain Wentworth acts differently in the revised ending because he's on drugs" could be logically disproven.)
4. Is that thesis clearly indicated in the introduction paragraph... not necessarily in one sentence, because sometimes it takes more than one, but somewhere in there?
5. Does the title use this two-part format, with the first part providing a creative frame and the second part providing a capsule of thesis?
6. Personalized peer review request from partner I.
7. Personalized peer review request from partner II.
8. Personalized peer review request from partner III.
Please consult the Nov. 26 post below if you don't know what I mean by what/how/why.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1a. Does the paper address what?
1b. Is the what appropriate to the length of the paper, not too narrow and not too broad?
2a. Does the paper address how?
2b. What is the weakest how moment in the paper?
2c. What is the strongest how moment?
3a. Does the paper address why?
3b. Does it do so in the form of reversible thesis that could logically be disproven? (I.e. "I hate Jane Austen" cannot logically be disproven, whereas "Captain Wentworth acts differently in the revised ending because he's on drugs" could be logically disproven.)
4. Is that thesis clearly indicated in the introduction paragraph... not necessarily in one sentence, because sometimes it takes more than one, but somewhere in there?
5. Does the title use this two-part format, with the first part providing a creative frame and the second part providing a capsule of thesis?
6. Personalized peer review request from partner I.
7. Personalized peer review request from partner II.
8. Personalized peer review request from partner III.
Please consult the Nov. 26 post below if you don't know what I mean by what/how/why.
Class #28 Reminders
-Post full group answers from today to blog (below)
-Finish Bluest Eye
Thursday 9pm = Essay #9 peer review completed (see next post)
Friday = last class, clear afternoon schedule
Sunday 9pm = final draft to turnitin.com
Wed. Dec. 10th 1:30 - 3:30 = final exam
FINAL EXAM
-Bring bluebook
-Exam is in discussion classroom
-Short Answer (Descartes, Austen, Morrison) = choose 6 of 9, 40%
-Passage Analysis (Morrison) = choose 1 of 4, 25%
-Essay (all books) = choose 1 of 4, 35%
-Finish Bluest Eye
Thursday 9pm = Essay #9 peer review completed (see next post)
Friday = last class, clear afternoon schedule
Sunday 9pm = final draft to turnitin.com
Wed. Dec. 10th 1:30 - 3:30 = final exam
FINAL EXAM
-Bring bluebook
-Exam is in discussion classroom
-Short Answer (Descartes, Austen, Morrison) = choose 6 of 9, 40%
-Passage Analysis (Morrison) = choose 1 of 4, 25%
-Essay (all books) = choose 1 of 4, 35%
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
