Useful Ideas

"Ideas that relate to your personal experience or interests. List ideas you find personally useful here, whether as tools for understanding your own experiences or for analyzing contemporary issues that you find particularly interesting."

There is a process that usually happens on the walk home from class that directly relates to the above. It is a kind of placement of myself in the world as redefined by the classes readings and discussions. Some nights it is more pronounced if I happen to feel a little bit more passionate about the material covered or if the dynamic was particularly thought provoking. So, it is not so much 'useful ideas' rather 'defining thoughts and/or moments.' Some of them carry forward and act as a kind of internal reference, others, which in the moment may seem so profound are sometimes lost only to be resurfaced when a name or a phrase is directed my way. Some even when brought up by someone else still remain lost, in an intellectual mash of concepts and ideas.

That said, lets go with the basics before the specifics. I used to tell the teachers I hired for Continuing Ed at Parsons, that if you can teach a student one thing they will remember and/or use forever you have done a great job. The 'Frank way', conversations with classmates about the weeks readings sometimes go like this, 'I read the material but did not do a Frank read.' So as a useful tool or idea the premise of 'critical reading' of a persons work. I refer to it in my mind as full immersion into the text. I have often stopped reading when I realize I am surface reading and wait until I can devote time to a closer read. I have read things differently from the first class and will continue to do so and I am little dismayed I was never really presented with this earlier in my life. Understanding and formatting another persons argument. This can be done with examples and 'critical reading' of the text. This gives reverence to another persons point of view, 'before one can criticize someones work it is important to understand it first.' A seemingly simple concept very often overlooked and replaced with half informed opinion. Then last in this process, is contextualizing the argument in regard to ones place in the world. As mentioned above, defining oneself in relation to the information being presented.

Using this as the rubric I will now get specific about a few examples of this in the readings.

I presented on 'Harvey' which in an of itself always has a lasting impression, that is the presenting part not necessarily the 'Harvey' part. There is no better way to really absorb material then leading or teaching it to others. The take-aways for me were really a few simple concepts. We are 'imperialistic' or the we are the personification of 'the new imperialism' and that we should not only own up to it but take responsibility for it. These seem like ideas which are really self evident but they have been maligned and 'spun' in all kinds of directions to deflect responsibility for our actions as a nation. This really helped place me in a position within the U.S. That is until one can define who and what the U.S. is, it is impossible to understand where I might fit within this paradigm. Now don't get me wrong, reading 'Harvey' did not suddenly illuminate everything to me in relationship to my citizenship, but it did aligned certain elements of it. His argument rang true in our constant actions toward other nations without the responsibility associated with those actions. It is not like I hadn't thought about our stature or lack there of in world, but it was loosely constructed and not based on a solid argument. I got to look at myself from the macro, 10,000 feet up point of view, and to look at the actions of our nation in much the same way. I am not necessarily happy with this construct but it is one I will maintain and add to as time goes on.

With Mills and "The Power Elite," comes to mind off of 'Harvey,' and here I am struck with a few things, first that the notion that the 'power elite' oftentimes does not recognize its own power. This along with the idea that the people that are sycophantic to the 'power elite' have a greater notion as to the 'elites' actual influence. This was very reminiscent of the triangle we spoke of last semester with the 'ruling class' at the top, a tier right below them that is made up of 'upper middle class' which completely enable the 'ruling class' and then below them the masses. This becomes important to me in that clearly as a member of the enabling tier, I am probably more a part of the problem than the solution. Additionally, having owned and operated a few corporations in my life, understanding the 14th amendment was another eyeopener in regard to the corporation as an entity with 'rights.' This will stay with me as I have enjoyed some of the benefits of this but have also incurred some of its negative tax implications as well. I wish, as I expressed in class, that Mills would have spent more time in reference to the implications of this ruling, but have mentally bookmarked it for future research.

Jumping to Benjamin having a BFA in Photography and doing a fair share of painting, initially I was drawn to his arguments and analogies to art, film, actors, painters and their various processes. His weighted stance on 'aura' and 'ritual' and the differences inherent in film versus paint bring to mind questions of the relationship to art and man, which are worthy of further viewing. To me the key is the relationship between art and man or society at any given point in time. His success to me is to revisit his work but to more importantly move beyond his work and ask some of his same questions with an eye to clearer solutions.

In 'Fear of Small Numbers' the concept of 'predatory identities' and how they are interdependent on the very minorities they exploit gives rise to the the general notion of how oppression is a collaborative dance. This is not to suggest ,as above, with the upper tier that the oppressed are enabling the oppressors because in most cases that do not have the power or influence to do so, no he points out majorities can turn predatory given circumstances control. It is about the relationship of the larger group versus the smaller, weaker one. But the term 'predatory identity' resonates as a defining one to illuminate large groups of very powerful and influential people.