A text of Borges is always hard to approach. And this is not an exemption. This story has so many elements that make hard to select some of them to talk about. I will try. I think that one of the main points in the story is the reference to The Arabian Nights. This book, which was found almost by chance in an old bookstore of Buenos Aires, it is one of the main characters of the story. It was precisely the hurry about reading this book the responsible of the accident that Juan has in the stairs. The abstraction of being reading this book took him to the hospital’s experience. This experience is linked to the dreams –or nightmares- about the images of the stories of this book. We can thin here in a process of “getting into” the story that is reading, or in the opposite way, how what he/we read(s) gets into out mind.

Other aspect of the story that for me is very interesting is the relation between Juan (the grandson) and Johannes (the grandfather). At the beginning of the story says that Johannes died in a very “romantic” way but we never know how it was. The constantly use of the last name instead of his first name make the illusion that we are not sure who is the story about. Only at the end of the story the name of “Juan” is said and we know that we are talking about the grandson and not the grandfather. Anyway, during the story there are many references to the physical similarities of both characters (especially about the bear). And again, we don’t know if Juan dies or not. We assume he did because of his conditions. But in a Borges`s story there is never a close ending.

Finally, I would like to refer to the doubt about if the “last part” of the story is a dream or not. I think that one of the clues for this point is this sentence: “Mañana me despertaré en la estancia, pensaba, y era como si a un tiempo fuera dos hombres: el que avanzaba por el día otoñal y por la geografía de la patria, y el otro, encarcelado en un sanatorio y sujeto a metódicas servidumbres”. After that, he goes back to talk again about a dream: “Alguna vez durmió y en sus sueños estaba el ímpetu del tren”, and then, I think we get lost about the “reality” of the story. And I think this is precisely one of the reasons that make this story so interesting. It is hard to define what we are talking about.

I have a last question. Why “El Sur” with capital letter?

I think that Spivak`s text is a very interesting reading of the work that have been doing by the subaltern group studies. In a very “polite” tone, is proposing to change the focus of this kind of studies. Turn them from exposing the “Indian” and “objective” point of view, to use the theoretical tool of the deconstruction. Spivak quote often the text of Guha to show in which way the Indian historian is reproducing the same critic that he makes to British historians. Guha speaks about the self-consciousness of the peasant rebels something that is very related, according to Spivak, with the Marxism. According to Spivak, Guha`s ideas would lead to a “inevitably objectify of the subaltern and be caught in the game of knowledge and power” (207). This means that whilu you try to show “what actually happened” from the “Indians point of view” you are sentencing to the subaltern to be a saturated category.

It is at this point where appear one of the main issues of the “subaltern studies”. What is the relation of the subaltern studies with the subaltern? This is the relation of the observer with the observed. And that, in the end, is one the biggest issues in this kind of theoretical discussions. Because we know that the group of subaltern studies are not the peasants rebels of the XIX century, not just for being “Indians” you became “the voice” of what was muted by the Empire. And this is very interesting when Spivak talks about the case of women. The concept “subaltern” has, in some way, the same characteristic than the concept of “class”. Many things can be in. And just a few can be out. So, the notion of “subaltern” it is not actually a very specific category. It is defined by the opposition with the “hegemonic” group. Hence, distinctions like gender, race and ethnicity are hard to manage under this big name of “the subaltern”.

Many things pointed by Guha would sound quiet obvious now a days. But, if it’s obvious, is because he (they) said it and was took into account. In my opinion, this is a text related to theory of history (hence, very important to be read here). It is a text of theory of history especially because the main discussion is about the historiographic discourse of the British historians (or what was understood by a historian) in the XVIII-XIX century about the insurgencies in India. His first argument is to point that there is no neutrality or objectivity (something that is fully accepted today) in the sources that are used by this historians, and of course, their text aren’t either. Guha shows that the vocabulary used by the British to refer to the rebellions is full of words that express their dislike of the situation. In many of the examples he gives we can find expressions like “fanatics”, “breaking the established order”, etc., concepts that reflect the point of view of the empire. Thus, we assist to the appear of the “prose of counter-insurgency”, where the the historiographic text is much more than a simple “tale” of “what happened”. It is actually a judgment and a sentence to the “rebels”.

Now, why would be important to read this text in a class like this? I think that history and literature share many things, and of them is precisely the act of reading texts/sources. Precisely, what Guha is doing is an act of reading. He is re-reading (critically) the text that were presented as the official version of what “actually happened” during the insurgencies. What he is realizing is that “their own” history was written by the empire who conquer them, not by themselves. And also, that most of the references they have about this kind of issues were legated by the empire. Pointing this out, Guha presents the importance of re-reading from a postcolonial point of view. This would mean that is important to read literature and theory (and of course history) as discourses touches by the domination. The colony is still there, and is important to see it. Only in that way you can re think your own identity, literature and history, by yourself.

Said

Orientalism it is one of those text that are part of the intellectual canon in humanities nowadays. This text had a huge impact in the critical and cultural studies in general because propose an idea that still today is hard to understand (and to believe) for many people. This is a text abut the power of culture. And also, about the power of a hegemonic culture, the “Western Culture”. The main point of this text is the “Orientalism”, not “the Orient” as the author points at the beginning of his book. The main issue is to present how did “the west” represented and appropriated “the east”. “Orientalism” is a name that was selected from the people in the west to talk about “the other” who was not them.

I found a very interesting idea at the beginning of this text that I really like. The issue that “orient” would not be an idea. Every time we speak about representations and the ways that a dominant culture represents another one, we usually think that we are facing some kind of “idea”.  There is, in this case, a “real” reference for “the Orient” that we can’t say doesn’t exist. The thing is that the link between “Orientalism” and “Orient” is a relation made by the strength of power of “the west”.

I would like to stop in one final point. The notion of author. Even when it is not the main topic of his discussion, Said refers to this problem in a few pages. He says nowadays there are some discussion about the relation of text and context. He cites the case of philosophy where many scholars just say “Locke”, “Hume”, etc., without taking into account the context where these authors were involved. For his argument, this idea doesn’t work. If we split the text to its author and context we miss the relations of power (the main topic in his text) that are under them. So, he ends this point saying that “investigations must formulate the nature of that connection in the specific context of the study, the subject matter, and it’s historical circumstances” (15).

Foucault

It is impossible to read this text and not recall Barthes’s text “Death of the Author”. Foucault mentioned it without name when he says “criticism and philosophy took note of the disappearance –or death- of the author some time ago” (103). But, here, the issue is not if the author is dead or alive, the main issue is, as the title says, “What is an Author?” Even when this may sound obvious, we must know what an author is before we kill him.

I don’t think that Foucault is “against” the figure of the author. He starts saying first of all that this is a very complex concept and the there are big varieties depending when we use the word. For him, the author doesn’t mean “the final signification” of a text. It is important to say that Foucault doesn’t use the word “text” very often, as Barthes does, he prefers to use one of his favourite concepts, discourse. In Foucault’s argument, author is not the meaning, there is, in same way, “something” that it is “out” of the text and whose functions are related to the existence modes and the circulation of the discourses. So, the author is not “someone/thing” that pre existed the text, the author is just a function, not a meaning.

For me was very interesting the distinction he makes between any author of a book, and those authors who created a tradition. Authors like Freud and Marx allows a wide variety of perspectives and reinterpretations. And every time reading may be reinterpreted. The case of the science discourse is quiet difference, as he pointed. If we read and re-read Galileo we are not going to be able to transform our era and the way we understand our time and life. But we do can rethink our time if we re-read Marx’s texts.

In the middle of my reading I made a pause and thought about two things. First, I hated the grandmother. Second, I was wondering what was going to write about. For that moment, I only could say “I like it”, but nothing else. Then, I finished the story and sadly my first impression was not that different (I hated the grandma a little bit less). I didn’t know what to write about this very particular story.    Lets start with the title. Didn’t tell me much about the story. Actually, at the beginning I thought that may be was a kind of love story. Of course, after the first paragraph I realized that I was wrong.

Maybe I could start with all the things that there are not in the story and I was guessing why them were not there. First of all the location. We know where this particularly “family” will go, but we don’t know where are them at the initial moment. Where are they at the very beginning of the story? Why are they moving? Why Bailey does wants to go to Florida and doesn’t hear to his mom? (I’m not saying that he should, but he never says why he doesn’t want to go to Tennesse) Also, we don’t know where do they have the accident (if it was a real accident, I have some doubts about it). Another thing that don’t appear in the story are some names. Especially, woman’s names. The two adult woman are only named by their relation to their sons/daughter. One, is “the grandmother” and the other one is “The children’s mother”. This character doesn’t speak more than 10 words in the whole story.

In this ocean of things that are-not-there, there is someone that is there every time, the grandmother. She is that kind of character made to be hated, in some way. At least, I hated her. She put them in the situation. She lied about the panel of the house in order to make the “uneducated” kids to ask to see the house. She knew that them will behave like that when she said that. And when she realize that she was wrong, that the house was not there, she didn’t say anything. After she was killed Misfit said: “She would be a good woman (…) if it had been somebody there to shoot her every minute of her life” (133). It is hard to find a good man. But also, I think we can read “man” as “man and women”. Where some “good” character in the story?

hooks

Paris is Burning is indeed a controversial film. Every film related to “subaltern” or “non-dominant” culture, it is, in same way. That’s why it’s very interesting the reading of the film made by hooks. Especially, because he felt identifies with this kind of film for being a black and lesbian woman. As she said literally in her text, her first feeling about the film was disappointment. She was much exited about it, but the film didn’t reach her expectative. For me, her text is closer to a film critic text than to a criticism text. Her main concern, in my opinion, was the role of the director, Livingstone. We may say that hooks didn’t like a white/lesbian making a film like this, but, if she was exited about the film maybe this one was not the main reason because she didn’t like the film.

Her claim is about the role played by the director in the film. For hooks, Livingstone is an “outsider” in the world of ballroom, she definitely is. But, How does she approach to this case? That is hook’s problem. She says that Livingstone is trying to “not be” in the film, when of course, she is. The film try to have an effect of the eye watching what’s going on in this particular event without asking the role of the observer. Livingstone, and I agree with hooks about this, is not taking account her presence in the scene. She is interfering in the event that she is presenting to her audience. It is possible that someone “from the outside” doesn’t affect at the time he/she looks. In addition to that, jooks didn’t like, actually, what she saw in the film. She felt that balls were reproducing the paradigm of supremacy of the man/white/straight and “whiteness” in general. I think this is important to make a distinction between the “queer/scholar world” and the rest of the “queer world”. Being a black gay doesn’t mean to hate “whiteness”, doesn’t mean, necessarily, that they are subverting the established order. I think in most of the cases that is the “purpose” that scholars related to queer studies try to give to this kind of groups, but doesn’t mean that it’s like that.

Butler

On the other hand, Judith Butler goes deep about the analysis of this film. She rejects the idea that “just for been a drag you must be subversive”. She is more concerned about the unstable categories of “been a man” and “been a woman”. For her, the situation is much more complicated. When the man is dressed like a woman, he is not trying to “be” a woman. He is in a more complex situation that can not be reduced to the dichotomy man/woman.

She says a few interesting film about the different categories that we can find in the balls. The main concern of hooks was the “idol” figure of white woman. But, that one is just one category among the others. Then, appear some categories like “the army man”, the “Eyve League student”, etc. The main reflection is based on the concept of “the norm” and the “symbol” of this representation.

For Butler, this film is not about the misogyny of black gays. For her, it is, in some way, the coexistence of both spheres. The world of the balls and “the rest of the world”. According to her, the main idea is about appropriation of dominant culture. But, is not an appropriation in order to keep subordinated to it, it is a way of resisting to this exclusion.

It is very interesting for me the idea of legitimacy that is under both texts and the film. Who speak for the one who are in the film? Do they do it by themselves? They are selected, interrogated and edited by the film maker, Livingstone in this case, then, they are shown, in a cinema, and the, their “behaviour” (like if they were animals) is commented and critiqued by “others”. It is interesting, also, that all the “voices” that we hear outside the film are lesbian voices. In same way, we can say that are intellectual lesbians who are discussing about black/gay/poor issues. Why them? What give them the legitimacy to speak, show, and critic the other group?

Williams

The text of Raymond Williams takes us to a very especial reflection: the problem of the concept of “culture” and the idea of “mass”. In this biographical writing, Williams argue that is important to brake the idea of culture as a property of the elite. Instead of that, the English thinker state that “Culture is ordinary”. This means that everybody takes part of “culture” and the idea that “culture” is everywhere. He disagree about people who think that “culture” is “going down”. Williams proposes that culture it is in a process of expansion in the world (middle 50s), but both “kinds” of culture, “good and bad” are getting more important and with a bigger presence in the society.

Williams links this idea with the concept of “mass”. He rejects the conception of mass that some people, especially Marxist, have about it. He thinks that many of these people see “the mass” as a group of ignorant people who must be leaded and taught about everything, because they are not able to do anything by themselves. He rejects this idea of the mass as a kid and says that the concept of mass was created after the Industrial Revolution in order to separate and discriminate people. The mass is “the other”, the one that it is not like “us”.

One of the idea that I found very interesting, was related to the vision that “the working class” have, in his opinion, of the Industrial Revolution. He grow up in an industrial city. His family were workers in different areas, but all of them were a product of the Industrial Revolution. It is very interesting that he goes against who think that the Industrial Revolution was a machine of oppression and life destroyer. For him, this process was a satisfactory one. Without that, they (his family and “the working class” in general) would never have the chances that they got and that they have now (when the text was written).

It is interesting too the way he critics the Marxism. Especially, when he disagrees about the idea of anticipating the future. One of the main proposal of Marxism is, precisely, to say that the socialist revolution was coming, and the, finally, the communism would be reached. When he rejects this idea is making and important shape in the Marxist tradition. Doing this, Williams is taking the Marxist thought to a new stage of seeing the world, a world that has changed a lot and that it is trying to go on after the IIWW.

Benjamin

The Work of art is probably of the most famous text of the XX century. Here, Benjamin discuss, among many things, the relation of art with the technical reproduction of it. According to the German philosopher, art has something called “aura” that only exists in the primary work. This aura is lost when the art is reproduced by any technique. “Aura” is the here and now of the art, is related to its existence in history.

The best example of the relation between art and technique is the photography and the cinema. The first one, started a “fight” against the paintings in the XIX century, especially when the painters where trying to get closer to “reality”. Bejamin talks about the relation of painting and photography and the way the second one changed the first one. Also, the cinema, that put the image in movement and later added sound to it, transformed the relation of art and the masses.

Since this transformation took place, the notion of art and its relation with the audience changed. The idea of reception of the works of art appeared. This is very clear in the case of photography and cinema. The main purpose of developing this art was to be exposed to the big audience (especially the cinema). From this transformation of the relation between art and the audience we can make the connection of art and politic. It has no sense to think the relation between those two elements before the age of technical reproduction.

Benjamin is looking for a kind of art that can not be used by the fascism. He is interested about the “politicization of art” that communism would do. This, in the opposition of the aestheticization of politics that according to the author it is the mechanism that fascism regimes use in order to control the population.

Even when the author starts and ends his text talking about the relation about art and politics, I think this one it is not clear at all at the text. I don’t see how he connects the “problem” of this new era in art, and the problem and the relation of art and politics.

My first question when I faced those four texts was, how can I read them? Then, I realize that there was actually a kind of “order” to do it. Of course, is not the way to do it, but was a guideline. That`s the interesting thing about reading and following a debate or a confrontation of different authors. Sometimes, we read two different texts that talk about similar issues, we can put them to talk between them, and then, to discuss among other texts that discuss similar topics or ideas. Anyway, is always more interesting, at least for me, to read something that is “directed” (of course Derrida would not agree with this) to someone. So, I took the road of read those texts as a discussion. First, I read Austin, then, Derrida`s text called “Signature event context”, then, the Searle`s text (I will keep his name), and finally, the Derrida`s answer to Searl.

Following this reading I will not focus on any text to deep, and I will try to figure out how can the big picture looks like (if there is one). Austin (along with Wittgenstein) was one of the first philosophers in start developing a philosophy of language in the XX Century. As we know after his reading, his main focus is in the relation of language and the world that would be outside of it. In other words, and it is what gives the title of his main work, “How to do things with words”. His idea (or at least how I read it) is/was that language can escape the limits of the own language and have a relevant role in some kind of “extra linguistic” circumstances. In other words, some utterance are able to modify reality of people. A good example of this it is when a priest (in a Christian tradition) says “I now declare you man and wife”, and starting from that moment, the couple is actually married. Of course, in order to have a “happy ending” for this situation, Austin says that there is a group of conditions that must be fulfilled. The situation in what this utterance is involved would be the context (for me, one of the most relevant concepts of the discussion). If some of the conditions is not fulfilled, let’s say that the woman was already married or the scene happened on a stage in a theatre, the utterance loose it’s performative force.

A few years latter, Derrida spoke in a philosophical meeting about the issue of writing. Then, at least in my read, he made a distinction about writing and spoken language, and didn`t take much care about the last one. His main focus is about written language. But after making his main proposal about it, he started to discuss some issues related to Austin`s work. I think that one of the main points was about his (Austin) notion of context. According to Derrida there is no way to access to any kind of “objective” or “total” context , so there would be no way to establish the circumstances that surround any speech act. But is further than “just the context”, is a matter about intentions. For the French philosopher, there is no way either to access to the “real intentions” of any speaker. That`s one of the main characteristic of writing (for him), that can survive even after the dead of it’s author and the receiver. In order words, the writing exists by it self. Doesn’t need concepts like intentions, author, context of production, etc.

After this “aggression” to Austin, one of his disciples decided to reply to Derrida. For Searle, Derrida had a misreading of Austin’s text (actually, for Searle seems to be that Derrida didn’t understand a word). The American philosopher states that all Derrida`s argument are lack of force and make big confusions about concepts like iterability and permanence. For Searle, speech acts do exist and elements such as context and intentions may be accessed in order to study them.

Of course, Derrida answered. In his very characteristic style, the French philosopher answer to the short “reply” of Searle with almost a whole book (I can’t unmentioned this element). Derrida starts with an exercise of deconstruction about Serle`s text. First, he discussed the authorship of it making fun of the “copyright” of the text, and finally, reducing him to an acronym that, of course, looks like his name: Sarl. It seems to be that one of the mains point of disagreement about them are the ideas of “truth”, “real”, etc. In some way, and I agree about that, Searle claims to have “the right reading” of Austin. Finally, the text discuss about the notion of context, the role of signature (especially talking about Searle`s copyright and his own signature at the end of his previous text), in other word, going back to the arguments presented in SEC. And of course, never stops of making fun of Searle.

More than focus and choosing some positions, I would like to keep the issues that are being discussed here. As I said before, for me one of the main concepts (and that is extremely interesting when we want to think about other disciplines outside literature and philosophy) is the concept of context. Some people believe that knowing the context of an utterance we would be able to get to the “real signification” or the “intention” under it. Derrida, as we saw, doesn’t. And on the other hand appear the concept of writing (can we make a direct relation with the notion of text?). Both ideas are, nowadays, on opposite sides. That’s why for me this debate is interesting. Because show a discussion about something that is still in the arguments in literary theory. That means, at least for me, which is an issue that must be keeping discussed.

It is impossible to read this text and to not remember about The trial of the same author. It seems to be that both stories were written in the same period of time. However, in this story, the main issue is completely the opposite of the one in The trial. In The Penal Colony Kafka take us to a “world” that could exist anywhere, and to a situation that makes us think about thousands of different things. The issue that I would like to discuss here is about the application of justice and the way that justice is applied.

My favourite quote of the text is this one: “The basic principle I used for my decisions is this: Guilty is always beyond a doubt” (7). Guilty about what? About whatever the condemned were acussed. It is interesting that the officer consider “The apparatus” a court. For him, that is the place where justice is applied. And the defendant is always Guilty. That’s why they don’t use the word “defendant”, they always refer to him ad “the Condemned”, with capital letter. Condemned is his new name. The subject is lost to become just “the Condemned”. Of course, this point takes us to another, the problem of justice. This issue has been discussed for thousands of years in the philosophical tradition of law. Justice, however, is not the same as law. But here, in the penal colony, there is a kind of law under all the stuff related to the “apparatus”. The law is that anybody who is accused of something (it seems to be that only for superiors) becomes guilty. This argument remember me one of the perspectives that appear in Plato’s text, The Republic (My apologize, but I don’t remember the character). There, one character says that justice is what the best for the most powerful is. That line came into my mind when I read the text (even when Plato disagree about that argument). But it seems to be that justice, in this text, is what the powerful says. The stability of “justice”, or what justice is for the officer, start to shake after the arrival of the new Commandant. This character (that actually never appear in the story) is the one that disturbed the officer and his “procedure” of justice. The officer is so upset about the new situation that try in a desperate way to keep thing working as it used to be. Sadly for him, all his efforts bring dead to him.

Other point of the story that I found interesting, is the punishment of the body. After the Condemned is “found” guilty, without a trial, the punishment is not to be in jail for a certain period of time. They inscribed his fault in his body. Is the body the one that will be serving his sentence forever.

Final issue. I thought too about Bakhtin`s idea of dialogue. I like to think a text as a dialogue. I would like to go deep about the quote I used at the beginning and ask the text to whom is talking, and “who” is talking when the officer says what it says.

Marx

Comunist Manifesto is one of those books that make me think about the strength of ideas and texts. I don’t mean that “the text” actually is the responsible about something, buy his reader do.

The idea that opens the text is the one that declares the philosophical perspective of the world: “The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles”. That means, in philosophical terms, taking dialectic as the main position. But, in oppose to Hegel’s dialectic, the main issue will not be the ideas, but the materialism. Or in other words, the work force. In the middle of the XIX Century, Marx is thinking about the next revolution: the proletarian revolution. This one, will put end to the modern State reigned by the bourgeoisie and will be the first step to reach the communism.

It is very interesting the idea that Marx propose about the elimination of national borders. Especially, if we consider that the author is speaking in the middle of the process of nation-building. In this way, seems to be that one of the elements that stop the communist revolution is precisely the national borders. That’s why Marx thinks that the first step to finally reach the revolution is the union of the working class all over the world.

I would like to think now about between the relation of this text and literature. For me is a little bit hard to find an strong connection between them. Even when I know that there is a long tradition of literary studies related to Marxism. I think that at least we have two ways to find a connection. The first one, is related to the content of the text. We can try to read any text in a dialectic reading of characters, means of production, society critic, etc. I think this kind of reading will support the idea that dialectic is the way the world and literature works. Other perspective, and that is more related to what have been doing in the last years what is called “The new historicism”, is to link the text to it’s material conditions of production. In this way, we can understand literature as a cultural product insert in determined context.

Freud

The main thesis of Freud is that someone (him, in this case) is able to make the “right” interpretation of dreams. For him, dreams reveal the existence of something called unconscious where lies our deepest fears and secrets.

His first step in this process of interpretation is to create the category of Dream-thoughts and Dream-content. Both of them occurred during the process of the Dream-work. The first one is related to the first interpretation. To everything that shows up in a dream (people, location, smell, etc). In his words: [they] are immediately comprehensible, as soon as we have learnt them. On the other hand, Dream-content: “is expressed as it where in a pictographic script, the characters of which have to be transposed individually into the language of the dream-thoughts”. After this, follows the process of “condensation”, where all the element mentioned before became together in one brief dream.

Is very interesting the way that Freud shows how this procedure works analyzing different dreams. First, he starts with the narration of the dream, identifying the main objects and characters that appears in the scene, and of course, the scene it self. Then, he says how the interviews with his patients and the information they were giving to him helped him to interpretate every dream.

I would like to stop a little bit around the relation of these kind of work and literary studies. I think than in some way we can try to apply Freud´s methods to literary texts. That means, try to get to the author and his unconscious through the text. This would be a very interesting approach, and I’m sure that many people have try it. However, we have to keep in mind that if we try to follow this kind of proposition we are against other kind of ideas, like Barthe`s,  that there is no way to reach the author. For Freud, there is a final meaning that must be found in order to get the right interpretation.

Finally, I think that is very interesting the relation between psychology and literature. After all the crimes agains mankind of the last century, literature had become an important object of psychological analysis. May be now we are not worried about the “final interpretation” of a dream, but does matter all the links that we can establish between the author and his text (or work to use Barthe´s concept).