When reading “Culture is Ordinary” what stood out to me was this notion that through education one can change the class which one is born with. Here we see a clear example of a person who comes from a working class and has become an academic, even though he is a living example that changing class is possible with education Williams main argument is that everyone is capable of becoming an academic if they want to thus university and grammar school should be more accessible to all. He critics people in the “ tea shop” where intellects come to converse, he believes that anyone can do this anyone can be a intellect, that his family and friends that come from the working class have the same capabilities as these intellects they just need the opportunity to learn.  He talks about the idea of culture has two different meanings “to mean a whole way of life – the common meaning; to mean the arts and learning – the special process of discovery and creative effort” (4) he mentions that he believes “on the significance of their conjunction” (4) of having both meanings at the same time. He also constantly insist  that “culture is ordinary” (4) This is important because the idea that there is a low culture an everyday mundane culture which is less important compared to the elite high  class  culture of art and learning. Yet he argues that they are equally important and I agree because it is this every day culture that really defines us as a society this is the culture that produces change that is why at the end of his paper he Williams mentions “Who then believes in democracy? The answer is quite simple: the millions in England who still haven’t got it, where they work and feel. There, as always, is the transforming energy” (18). In general I agree with his paper and his idea that everyone equally has the capability of becoming a intellect if the opportunity is given to them.

In the text “The Work of Art in the Age of Its technological Reproducible   I found interesting  the idea that original works of art have “aura” something that is lost when it’s reproduced. I believe this idea is true you feel a sort of respect for things that are original especially if they are older. I remember when I went to see a Da vinci exhibit of his sketches and writing, you feel a connection to the things because its original in a way you feel a connection to the person who made them. One aspect that I would have to contradict is that I don’t believe “aura” is the right word, a “aura” is something always present is part of the object and I really believe that this emotion or connection we feel with original works is an abstract concept made by us. Would we feel this way if we were shown an original but not know it, or shown a copy but telling us it’s an original. I think this “aura” is man-made so I believe the name is not appropriate, this is an aspect that as observers we bring to the art object, not something that the art object transmits to us.

This is the first time I have read this story; I think its aim is to examine our own justice system. In the story The Traveler starts his journey of examining the machine and the process of execution with a sense of apathy and disinterest unlike the officer who talked about it as if it were man’s greatest creation. The story mentions that “The Traveler had little interest in the apparatus and walked back and forth behind the Condemned Man, almost visible indifferent” (3) I think this is very fitting because most people in our society don’t take interest in our justice system and how to improve it, in a way they are apathetic to it unless it involves a personal matter. The Traveler only starts to take interest when he learns that the Condemned man is sentenced to death and that he does not even know it. One aspect that really stood out to me in the story is the lack of power in the part of the New Commandant, he is in charge of the penal colony but at the same time he has not been able to change this justice system. He has only been able to alter it a little but has not been able to stop it, he uses his monetary power to limit the use of the machine but that is his extent of power. I think this really shows the difficulty of changing a justice system. In a way we are so accustomed to what we consider normal and just that it is hard to change and that is why like in the story we need an outside person to point put the flaws in our system.  For example in the story the condemned man has no chance to expose his point of view and defend himself, he is guilty and automatically sentenced, when the Traveler learns of this he is surprised, but the officer does not give much chance to dialog on this because he is more concern with the machine than with the method of justice. I think that with our justice system it is important to analyse it from an outside perspective because being part of this justice system makes it hard criticize and change. There is a part in the story where the officer mentions that “The Commandant, in his wisdom, arranged that the children should be taken care before all the rest” so that they could see the execution up close, in a way we have all been these kids who have grown up in a set justice system and we are not encouraged to change or examine it. Last year I took a class of human rights and I was embarrassed to admit it was the first time I had read in whole the charter of rights of Canada, I think this really shows our apathy as s a society. I think this short story covers a lot of aspects about society and there is much depth in analyze it.

Lacan

Hi everyone I know this is late but here my reading on Freud!

When I first saw that we had to read Freud I thought that it was Ironic that after 4 years of psychology I never really read something written by Freud. As I started to read I had a hard removing myself from the negative view of Freud that comes from psychology. I thought it was funny that is psyc. You always joke that Freud was high on cocaine when he came up with so many theories, and in the text he talks about his contribution to the study of cocaine and its pain numbing properties.  In general what stood out to me the most from his dream interpretation is the idea of condensation. He believes that there is a big difference from the “manifest content” of a dream and the “dream thought” and this difference is due to condensation. I believe this idea is interesting in literature because there is a big difference in what we read and what the author is trying to say. For example in the story we read in class MAUPASSANT, you  might just see it as simple story but as you look into the context and the background of the writer you do move into deeper and more profound interpretation. I do think though that Freud takes it to far, the problem with this is that you will start to make connections that are not really there. When Freud talks about the woman who dreams with beetles and concludes that it all has to do with her sexual desires towards her husband he leaves out the part of the daughter who use to kill beetles when she was little. So he really only looks at what supports his own theses and ignores all the rest. This can also happen to us when reading we might just look for an interpretation we like but not necessarily what the author is trying to interpret.

In conclusion I think that we should not have such a negative view of Fred because he was a thinker and his ideas have helped many fields come up with legitimate theories especially in psychology.