The Contact Zone

Illegal Contact!

       Mary Louise Pratt writes about what she calls the contact zone in "The Arts of the Contact Zone." She gives the example of her son and him acquiring knowledge from the time spent with his baseball cards. The information he learned gave him a point of contact to have intelligible conversations with adults. Pratt defines contact zone as "the term to refer to social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power, such as colonialism, slavery, or their aftermaths as they are lived out in many parts of the world today." Her main example is the autoethnographic text written by Guaman Poma. European and Andean cultures clashed in multiple ways, including through language, societal ideas, and governmental ideas. She lastly explains how she brought the contact zone to college students who wrestled with cultural and historic events from all of their races of origin.

       The contact zones that Pratt describes are a lot like poetry. Pratt explains that contact zones have to be applicable to everyone and they inspire feelings of "rage, incomprehension, and pain," as well as understanding and awe. Aristotle's arguments in Poetics support this idea. He explains that poetry must be relatable to all people because this will cause a greater sense of emotion in those who feel connected to the ideas and story that the poet portrays in his art. Eliot's argument of tradition and good art in "Tradition and the Individual Talent" also supports this idea. Poetry is that which conveys truth in a way which hasn't been organized in such a way before but has a sense of timelessness. It forces a sense of emotion from the truth, or -- in Pratt's argument -- historic and cultural events, and not emotion from the poet, teacher, or any speaker of the truth.

Has there been any later research or historic findings that explain why Guaman Poma's letter never reached King Philip III?

Tradition!

Fiddler on the Roof- Tradition!

       T. S. Eliot writes in "Tradition and the Individual Talent" that each poet ought to be unique in some way, but the best poets portray the traditions of poetry in their art. Instead of expressing their personality and the truth of the contemporary, they write what ought to be timeless and modern at the same time. This is tradition, not conforming to the the form that Aristotle may have written about years ago because "the past should be altered by the present as much as the present is directed by the past." Eliot explains that poetry it is most important for poetry to express truth in a way that combines images, words, metaphors and such things into one idea. Through this, and not the author's personality, will emotion flow. Eliot explains it as, "emotion which has its life in the poem and not in the history of the poet."

       Eliot's ideas are much like a combination of those of Shelley, in "A Defence of Poetry" and Wordsworth, in "Preface to Lyrical Ballads." Wordsworth gave his definition of good poetry, which is a "spontaneous overflow of power feelings" but on a topic which has been thought about very thoroughly. Shelley writes about the puzzle piecing of poetry, as well as the indefinite time of poetry. He writes, "a poet participates in the eternal, the infinite, and the one; as far as relates to his conceptions, time and place and number are not." Eliot's argues what is a mixture of Shelley and Wordsworth's ideas. Traditional poets and poetry are found in those who convey truths in a way that is timeless, while good poetry also contains spontaneous feelings about a topic which has been on the mind of the poet for a great period of time. Once all the parts and pieces make sense in a particular order, the poet forms art through his poetry only if he expresses the truth in a way that no other artist has but still uses tradition.

How does Eliot's analogy of platinum, gases, and sulphurous acid work?

Crude Language and Poetry, the River of Emotion

       In English class today, the discussion covered the responsibility of poetry and what good poetry is. William Wordsworth addresses both of these in "Preface to Lyrical Ballads." He writes that poetry's responsibility is to convey events from the average life through the language of rural countrymen because this language is "less under the influence of social vanity." Wordsworth believes that portraying situations with straightforward language without the excessive drivel is more philosophical than that of other Poets, who assume that using fancy words and phrases brings honour upon themselves and shows their intelligence. Later, he addresses good poetry, which assumes and elicits its responsibility given above, as well as portrays strong, spontaneous feelings, which come from a subject that has long been meditated on.

       Wordsworth addresses the bogus religiosity of poets, as does Berger in "Ways of Seeing." Berger writes about art historians who mystify the meanings of paintings by not engaging the world through the perspective of the artist. As they speak highly of a painting, which is appreciated for its famousness, they practice bogus religiosity. The art historians and and those who buy the paintings tend to seem like they are saying, "We understand it better than you; We're more cultured and refined." The poets that Wordsworth write about approach the responsibility of poetry in this way. They write to the more refined, higher class members because they ought to be of better education. The poets themselves feel more superior because of the great level or words that they use, yet Wordsworth cautions against this because the passions of the heart can grow in a more permanent place, which can only be conveyed correctly using cruder language.

To what extent or degree should a reader be "enlightened, and his affections strengthened and purified" in order that he understands and connects with the author?

Tragedy, a Hierarchy of Philosophical Hierarchy

Oedipus, one of the main examples of tragedy given by Aristotle 

       Aristotle writes in Poetics of the philosophical hierarchy of poetry, especially tragedy, compared to that of history. He argues this is because "poetry tends to express the universal," meaning it can portray a specific example yet it is relative to many people. A complex plot of poetry should contain a reversing fortune, like good to bad, and characters that have recognition, but not thorough recognition, of each other and their changing fortunes. One of the more superior types of poetry, tragedy, should inspire fear or pity because the tragedy occurs for a fortunately average man, who has inherited unmerited misfortune. Because it appeals to men of various classes and follows in an order that still inspires awe when the events, which have been previously told, still shock the audience, Aristotle argues that tragedy is a one of the superior forms of poetry. 

       Aristotle writes about a man's fortune changing from one opposite to the other, even though the man may not have done anything particularly right or wrong, or good or bad. "It should come about as the result not of vice, but of some great error or frailty," meaning that a character who has stumbled upon misfortune, in the case of a tragedy. These ideas are opposed by those of John Smith, who advocated man's agency. Only almost-supernatural misfortunes and blessings were attributed to God or Fortune. Other than those, every man lived for himself, like the beliefs of Darwinism; good would happen to those who worked hard, while setbacks would pry open the doors to the souls of those who didn't or acted disorderly. 

How are all the parts of a Tragedy, like the Prologue, Episode, Exode, and Choric Song, relevant to what Aristotle argues about tragedies?

Americans = Robots...?

       Alexis de Toqueville writes of the democracy and social injustices of America in Democracy in America. Although America was founded on Enlightenment ideas, especially freedom, the people, who "are almost all equal," act in ways contrary to that of the Enlightenment. He presents the issues of sexism and racism found in America as evidence. He also argues that America has turned away from ideas of the Enlightenment by using the opinions of others. This is evident in their literature through the short, bold works that authors produce compared to that of European authors who are more detailed and skilled in their writing. The skill of literature portrays the chaos that America will face when the injustices of America transcend the ability of the democracy to control it. The future success of America is blurred because "war is the surest and shortest means" to destroy a democracy. His writing explains that because America turned from the Enlightenment ideas it was founded on, the country's future success and life are at risk of being nonexistent.

       This reading surprised me greatly because, according to Thomas Paine, America is the symbol of freedom to the world. Kant saw the country as a birth of the Enlightenment movement, hoping that the foundation of the country would contain solid, reasonable truths from the Enlightenment. Yet Toqueville presents many ways, especially in Volume II, in which Americans acted in ways exactly contrary to Enlightenment ideas. While racial and sexual inequalities exist, American men also reinforced Enlightenment injustices by using others opinions. Kant warns against this self-incurred tutelage, but Toqueville writes, "the majority undertakes to supply a multitude of ready-made opinions for the use of individuals, who are thus relieved from the necessity of forming opinions of their own." Therefore, althought the country was founded including Enlightenment ideas, the people continued in a mindset of using others' opinions.

Based off of what Toqueville writes about war pertaining to democratic countries, should democratic countries be more wary of entering or taking a political stance on a war than another situated government, like a monarchial government?

Europe, the Savage Mother

       In Thomas Paine's Common Sense, he explains to those living in America that having their own government is their natural right. He gives reasons for how it's America's right to have independence from Britain, like how not even one third of the American population is British. In the same way, since Britain claims to have the right to govern America, France has the right to govern Britain. Paine also argues that Europe, rather than Britain, is the mother country of America. Europe and Britain, whichever one may argue is the mother country, are to considered like savages or cannibals. Referring to economic and social destruction of America due to England's injustices, Paine writes, "Then the more shame upon her conduct. Even brutes do not devour their young, nor savages make war upon their families." The injustices of these savage mothers are so severe that he compares them to the innocence found in prostitution.

       Paine claims that America is under the oppression of her mother country, yet "a government of our own is our natural right." He calls those living in America not to be passive towards the oppression, even if it doesn't happen to them. America stands as a symbol of freedom to the entire world. He writes, "There are...tens of thousands, who would think it glorious to expel from the continent that barbarous and hellish power." This is similar to the ideas Immanuel Kant writes in "What is Enlightenment?" As Americans need to take the responsibility of releasing themselves from oppression,  Kant explains that man needs free itself from self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage symbolizes the bondage of the great evil, which is to attain and regurgitate the ideas of another. As Americans must find freedom from oppression, man must release himself from this self-incurred mindset.

Did some Americans fall right back into self-incurred tutelage by acquiring the the ideas of Kant and other Enlightenment thinkers, since one is to have his own reasonable opinions?

America -- One Large Melting Pot

      In Michel-Guillame Jean de Crevecoeur's  Letters of an American Farmer, he shows the differences between Europe and America and explains the way in which a European becomes an American. He says that in America, men control their own fate depending on how hard they work. He claims that however hard a man works, he will be equally rewarded, but in Europe a hardworking man may owe money or service to a landlord or prince. In this way he compares men to plants, writing, "The goodness and flavour of the fruit proceeds from the peculiar soil and exposition in which they grow." Therefore, in order for Europeans to thrive and have success, they must conform to the likes of an American by attaining new ideas and opinions. No matter the country of origin, a man becomes "American" when he works hard to fulfill his own dreams, not working to serve another, when he thinks of himself and those around him as free, which also leads to religious tolerance, and when he prides himself in the work that he does. He discusses the different types of Americans based on their location of living, but he summarizes all of these topics in his last sentence by writing, "Go thou and work and till; thou shalt prosper, provided thou be just, grateful and industrious."

       Crevecoeur addresses the issue of religion in his letter. As Enlightenment thoughts permeate the thoughts of many Americans, many know there is a God, based on the teachings of their fathers, but zeal and passion aren't reasonable; they are a feeling, so they don't become too involved in having a passionate faith. This description of Christianity concerned me a lot because as someone from a cultural background other than America, I hear much about and witness the differences in Christianity in America compared to that of other countries. Faith in America tends to seem more shallow and less bold and to be more tolerant to other beliefs in order to not offend a person's neighbor. American society was founded on the ideas of freedom and just reasoning, which are some of the Enlightenment ideas. Many Americans still portray them through the way they view and act on their religion because the culture emphasizes materialistic passions.

Is the tolerance of religion during the time of Crevecoeur the reason for the moderate Christianity found in America today?

Declaration of Independence

Congress passed the Declaration of Independence, which written mainly by Thomas Jefferson, on July 4, 1776.  Jefferson began his argument with an explanation for needed independence of the colonies from Britain because of man's natural rights. He writes, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness." He reasoned that according to nature and God, the colonists' were just in their actions to declare independence. He listed the many corrupt ways that the King of Great Britain and the British government dealt with and treated the colonists, including destroying the lives and towns of the people. The document ended with Jefferson summing up the just reasons for independence, including that of justice and God's providence, and the signatures which ratified the Declaration of Independence.


Thomas Jefferson portrays the corruption of the British government in a way similar to that which John Berger explains mystification in "Ways of Seeing." In the Declaration, Jefferson listed the many reasons for independence and the injuries the colonists felt as a result of actions of the British government. Many of the listed reasons showed that, unlike what the king or government may have tried to convince British citizens of what the colonists were like, the government acted very unjustly towards its own citizens. The British government should have considered and taken on the perspective of the colonists, but instead they mystified the situation in order to have control over a good portion of the Americas. The king, influenced by his own individuality and want of power, mystified the relationship between Britain and America by taking it upon himself to control trade and tax the people, as well as waging war on them later.

Should it be taken into consideration that Thomas Jefferson was a deist, pertaining to the evidence to his argument if one claim was that it was self-evident that God meant for America to be independent?

Welcome!

Welcome to my blog! The first unit of discussion is the Enlightenment, which was stimulated by Descartes.  Attached is a picture of him.