Keepin' It Greek

In Sedgwick's essay from "Between Men" I was interested in the dynamic presented by her concerning the ancient Greeks, where she linked them to today's homophobia. She says: "The continuum between 'men loving men' and 'men promoting the interests of men' appears to have been quite seamless" (1686-87). Earlier she mentions that the same system that suppresses homosexuals is the same system that oppresses women. Even in relation to the Greeks, taking on a boy as your apprentice still gave him power over women as well as slaves. Tue Sedgwick is arguing against homophobia, but I might need some clarification on what she is trying to say in relation to her larger essay.It seems to me that today's gripe with homosexuality is in some aspects incomparable to the system of learning and transferal of power that the Greeks established.

You Can't Teach That

Guillory states that : “If the formal study of Latin-American novels in the university does not really transmit or reproduce Latino culture, it follows that the relation of even Latino students to these artifacts will not be entirely unlike the relation of “American” students to the works of “Western” (American of European) culture”(1474). Guillory says this in relation to the alienated atmosphere the school creates, and it seems to me that it is a false one, one that pretends to transfer useful information but instead ends up creating something entirely different than the intended material. I agree that culture can’t be taught, that the only pure way is to live culture and it makes sense that one can get only ideas of a culture in a school setting rather than being able to “learn” a culture.

I think it is important to separate a text from the absorption of culture, as text isn’t the only thing that a culture relies upon. Guillory address the subject of oral tradition, which to me is just as important as text, if not more so. Oral tradition seems to have more of a personal aspect because its only means of transfer is between people. You can’t have oral tradition without a gathering of some sort, whether it be between two people or a group of people. This seems more beneficial to culture.

Arse Over Head

Bourdieu pouints out that : "...the relaxation of articulatory tension', which leads, as Bernard Laks has pointed out, to the dropping of the final 'r' and 'l'...is associated with rejection of the censorship which propriety imposes, particularly on the tabooed body, and with the outspokenness whose daring is less innocent as it seems since, in reducing humanity to its common nature- belly, bum, bollocks,grub, guts, and shit- it tends to turn the social world upside down, arse over head" (88).

According to Bourdieu, politeness is inflicted onto the lower class by the upper, and it seems to me that by speaking plainly without any of proprietary hindrance, the lower class gains some sort of power through their language use and perhaps this is why politeness is so stressed. The fact that upper class speech limits the view of the natural body, suggests a self-imposed godlike nature and deems the body as the opposite of what it is, unnatural and perhaps even filthy. The lower class sees the body for what it is and talks about it freely.

He goes on to say that "from the standpoint of the dominated classes, the adoption of the dominant style is seen as as a denial of social and sexual identity, a repudiation of the virile values which constitute class membership" (88). So there is a clear link between natural speaking and belonging in the lower classes, though it would seem to the upper class that impolite speaking would be an alienating factor. But there is also boundaries placed on the lower class, for if they do change their way of speaking, they may not be accepted by other members of the class. It seems to me that there are rules for both classes, each with limiting factors.