 |
|
wSex, Tech(s), and Cyborgs |
|
|
 |
This course is an introduction to feminist approaches to the study of texts including (but not limited to), novels, satire, film, and theory. This class examines how gender intersects with sex, class, sexuality, and technology in shaping authorship, reading, and representation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wSaturday, May 31, 2003 |
|
|
|
By watching "The Matrix" on Friday, not that I haven't seen it before, but it really cleared up some things. First of all, when I started the first third of the novel, I wasn't sure if I was supposed to be thinking the matrix was the same thing as it is in the film or if I was misinterpreting because I had seen the film. By understanding what the matrix is through the film as well as our first class discussion on Thursday, I am much more clear on the meaning of the matrix in the book. I am really glad that Samantha decided upon this film because it allowed me to review it in a new way and relate it to the novel.
posted by
Laura at 11:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wFriday, May 30, 2003 |
|
|
|
(On Neoromancer, Resent)
However, our multiplicity nature would not have caught our attention if it had not surfaced on a large social, even global scale. I think that explains Stone's emphasis on the word "collective." The power of the World Wide Web becomes most amazing and powerful when data can be transferred in the network to almost anywhere in an instant. In this huge network, any user can jack in and out anytime. Therefore, the next keyword is "consensual." All the users consent to abide by the rule. If anyone breaks the rule, they create a disaster.
The nature of such multiplicity and fluidity is feminine, not masculine. That, in my opinion, ties communication technologies to feminist studies. The multitudinous users of the Internet only reflect one aspect of our collective multiplicity. The fact that users can collectively launch an attack on the Sense/Net Pyramid manifests another multiple aspect (Neuromancer 62). Those multiple users succeed by jamming the system with instantaneous overdoses of information. These overdoses are also multiple, hence unruly in nature. The attack Gibson imagined in 1984 has predicted Internet attacks in our present world. And we have already experienced that.
Another area where multiplicity plays a key role is the virus attack that Case inflicted on the mainframe of the System/Net Pyramid. After the Panther Moderns paralyze the Pyramid's alerting system, Case "triggered his second program. A carefully engineered virus attacked the code fabric screening primary custodial commands for the sub-basement that housed the Sense/Net research materials" (Neuromancer 63). This is another accurate presage of a computer virus in our day. We now know that a virus attacks a single computer by infinitely multiplying a preset code and the virus spreads very rapidly over the Internet. Moreover, a virus works like a mole. It is first recognized by a computer and then proceeds to do great harm. The fluidity nature and multiplying speed scare the orderly mentality of the patriarchal nature, which in the novel is the military.
The illusive nature of the web shows itself also in the difficulty of tracking the originator. When someone stages an attack or resistance, it is almost impossible to find that person. The virtual entity may a person or many individuals. That is best illustrated in Deane's words - "let's say you are dealing with a small part of the man's left brain. Difficult to say if you are dealing with the man at all, in a case like that" (Neuromancer 120). In the novel, the author explains that by giving Deane the ability to have another life after being shot by Case. So, Deane might be a virtual entity. He simply cannot die, because he is constructed. In our present world, even if one constructor is caught, numerous others may step in and construct that entity. No one knows how many constructors are out there jacking in and off the web.
The real significance of such fluidity resides in their ability to stage resistance. We know the characters in the novel are resisting the patriarchal military for its betrayal in a special force activity. Armitage's constructed identity is Corto - "Corto gradually understood that the testimony he gave was instrumental in saving the careers of three officers directly responsible of the suppression of reports on the building of the emp installation at Kirsten" (Neuromancer 83).
The fluidity nature prompts Gibson to use Molly as the primary actor in the novel. Other males act only as her auxiliaries.
posted by
xianfeng at 6:13 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
In response to the many troubles we are all having in reading _Neuromancer_, I think that, like we discussed in class the other day, the book wants us to "jack in" just as Case must "jack in" to the matrix. In other words, we need to try to shed our "meat" as well as the limitations of our imaginations. This book is hard to get into because we do not understand every line, every word, every chapter. But, instead of focusing on getting a definite meaning out of the book, I think we should let the book _be_ and try to simply _experience_ it. I don't know if this makes any sense at all--but I promise that by the end of the book we will feel that we have a more complete understanding of the book. It's almost like reading a foreign language--you can translate word-for-word. Instead, you have to look for context clues, words you know, etc. M
Maybe this approach will help some of us who are having troubles.
posted by
Tory at 12:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Lillian Liang
Professor Blackmon
English 360K
May 29 2003
I am really in a mess today, so I can only blurt out some few lines here. I will try to write more after class.
I am still doubtful about the setting of the story. Is Japan used to represent modernity and future or something else? Chiba is not a big city at all, it is also kind of decayed. Why Chiba? I agree what a student said in class: you need to let your imagination sore when reading it, though I am still often stuck with Gibson’s inventions in the book. I agree that the book moves smoothly, though the plot is a little loose. It isn’t clear to me -- who exactly is Neuromancer? I am still wondering its theme. What generation does the book represent? But the story is good: computer cowboy completes a suspenseful mission.
I agree that the novel depicts the human-machine interface created by the widespread use of computers and computer networks. Everything about the world of the book is built around the Matrix. And the novel manages to grab you and pull you into its incredible depth, like what you experience in the Matrix.
I see in chpt 3 Gibson’s many satires of modern civilization. The Washington D. C, krill, dome, "Dixie Flatline's construct", etc.
Works Cited
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books, 1984.
posted by
lillian at 12:52 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I have gotten a litle behind with missing class and being sick, but I am curious as to why it seems we have skimmed over Balsamo's article about public pregnancies. Both of the presentations on Wednesday were about the article, but then the class discussion was almost entirely about HMT. And it seems the blogs have pretty much jumped from HMT to Neuromancer.
The article about public pregnancies really struck a chord with me. I am having a bit of a problem with the blog system in reconciling the public nature of it with the private idea of a journal, but here's what I think and it will probably offend some...
The idea of a public pregnancy make a lot of sense to me. I consider myself to be a feminist, and somewhat radical on many issues. I just don't see how anyone can say that the fetus completely doesn't matter. Whether abortion should be legal or not has been an ongoing debate, but lets put that aside for now. If a woman does in fact decide to keep her fetus alive until it is born, then I would say that legally she should have to take that fetus into account when making decisions. No, the fetus should not become more important than the woman, but nor should the woman be more important than the fetus if it is being carried to term. To use drugs or participate in activities that are going to harm the fetus and continue harming it after it is born and throughout its life is just cruel. Once a woman had decided for whatever reason to carry her pregnancy to term, she must treat that fetus as a human life.
And yes, the pregnancy is public. The woman is no longer just walking around as an individual having little to no effect on those around her. She is going to bring a life into the world which will become part of our society. We as a species have a vested interest in the well-being of this new life. It will become part of our gene pool. In our economy, it will be someone's financial burden for the next 18 years and possibly for longer if it is born with developmental problems.
Whenever a person brings a new life into the world, he or she is affecting more than just one person. Recklessly putting one's own wants above those of a helpless dependent is selfish. This is what our society seems to be deciding is one of our morals. This is also a fact for many other animal species where the parent will sacrifice itself for the life of its young.
I have a huge problem with the common feminist trend to only fight for reproductive freedoms that involve the block of reproduction or the end of pregnancy. All women are not the same as we have been reading. There are many women who desperately want to have babies and feel they will be complete as mothers and housewives. The feminist movement should not only fight for the career women who want pills and abortions. It should also be fighting for the mothers and caretakers of our children. Personally I think the women fighting for the insurance companies to cover their fertility treatments deserve more of our support than the crack head who doesn't care about her baby at all.
posted by
Sarah at 12:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I am having a hard time going from HTM to Neuromancer. It is definately not something that I would choose to read, but after the discussion yesterday, I feel much more excited about the book. I now have a more visual image of where Case and Molly are and what is going on. I am very excited to see what happens to Case considering his addiciton to the Matrix. It is hard to tell who to trust in the novel and that is interesting. I am exicited about trying to relate the movie today to the novel. The challenge of reading this novel is becoming less painful as our discussion progress in class. I am also curious about the coffin thing if someone has an answer.
posted by
Abby at 12:00 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Although we talked about the Balsamo article on public pregnancies earlier this week I wanted to comment on this issue since the article, Cat’s presentation, class discussion, and blogs have all kept me thinking about it. In response to Tory’s question I do find myself gazing at pregnant women because I find such a physical state to be quite fascinating. I feel guilty for it but like Tory I am in wonder since I have never experienced being pregnant. I think it is hard for a woman to keep her pregnancy “private” since her body changes in such a way that it is completely obvious that she is pregnant. I understand though that it is social attitudes which make pregnancy public. Jaime talked abut her sister. I would hate to have strangers touching me and watching me give birth and all of the other things her sister experienced. While I read the article and it discussed surveillance and medical technology and intervention I began to get worried. I would like to have a child some day and what I was reading scared me. I don’t like doctors as it is and I avoid them as much as I can so the control portrayed in the article was frightening. What Cat talked about in her presentation was interesting. I think our government spends too much time and resources turning drug users into criminals instead of trying to help them get better because really drug use is a personal problem. Also, when I read about the birthing chair in HMT is seemed strange but now I realize it is much more natural than lying down. The talk about midwifery was interesting as well.
posted by
loretta at 11:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Wintermute is a an interesting character to me. When he and Case get to talk we find out that he is basically a computer program and he has been using Armitage as a (meat) puppet the whole time. This is interesting because here we have a different play on the boundaries of cyborg. Instead of a human using something mechanical in order to do or accomplish a task we have something mechanical (wintermute) using something human (Corto/Armitage) to do or accomplish a task. This might show that although humans rely heavily on technology (very heavilly) it seems that (at least in this book) the machines also rely heavily on humans. Also, I noticed that there seems to be so many things in the future to get addicted to or high from. Even Case, with his trick pancreas, eventually finds something that can alter his senses besides jacking in. On a side note I was wondering about Riviera, he has hologram tricks but does it say how he has these powers, like is he using a machine or does he have some kind of implant inside him?
posted by
Nicholas at 11:00 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
since i missed class yesterday i missed the whole matrix conversation. but, in reading the blogs i agree. when i started reading the book my thought was, "oh, crap. i'm never going to get into this." but as i read on i find it really holds my attention. molly is an interesting character for me. her relationship with case threw me, but i guess cyborg sex is the thing in that world. i wish i could better visualize the world this takes place in. especially witht the coffins, are they like little apartments? i'm excited to find out exactly how each relationship plays out and what's in store for case. this book makes me have a lot of suspicion for every character and situation. will molly end up deceiving case like nick did to offred? also, my idea of a cyborg is quickly evolving, thanks to molly and some of the other characters. visualization, as i said before, is difficult for me especially when it talks about location. BAMA, for instance, i think is in the US, is Amsterdam where it used to be?
all in all i am enjoying this read. it's completely different from anything i've ever read. i'm letting go of preconceptions but keeping in mind any sci-fi i've ever seen just to give me a better idea of case and molly's surroundings.
posted by
jamie at 10:48 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I was curious if anyone could explain to me what "ice" is? It's mentioned several time. I'm guessing it's some sort of security like a firewall or something. But to add to our discussion today about people taking on certain identities on-line, many people I know feel more comfortable socializing with people on-line than they do in real life. It allows them to be themselves. It also makes rejection less harsh. Because it's not like you have to talk or see this person ever again. All you do is block them or stop responding to their messages.
posted by
Amanda at 12:33 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wThursday, May 29, 2003 |
|
|
|
I definitely have to agree with everyone who has said that this book is hard to read. I am glad that i finally saw the movie the Matrix though because it has made some of it easier to visualize. I skimmed through later parts and it looks like it gets better so I am really hoping that after i get through these first few chapters i'll start to enjoy it more. It has been a little better since we talked about letting go of preconceptions and not necessarily trying to understand every litte thing.
posted by
Shana at 10:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
You'll notice that I have changed the layout of the blog a bit so that it is easier to see individual posts and the dates that they were published. Hope it helps.
posted by
Samantha at 9:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
No need to apologize for not being a "huge sci-fi fan", Eileen. Some other people have blogged about being a bit disoriented (like Case while "riding" Molly for the first time) by the language. As my post below says and Tory pointed out in class today, sometimes we just need to release preconceptions and kind of go for it :-)
posted by
Samantha at 9:16 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I agree with all of you who have said that Neuromancer is like The Matrix...(Especially since they use that term in the first chapter)...I find this book so far confusing...I don't know if it's the names, or just the science-like wording...but it's a bit hard for me to keep interested in...Have any of you read ahead yet and found it to be pretty engaging after the first few chapters? I'm just finding it hard to read this one...(Maybe it's because I'm not a huge sci-fi fan...sorry!) Just curious...thanks!
posted by
Eileen at 9:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Here are my mass responses again :-)
Nick said:
When I read this I immediately thought of the movie "The Matrix" and lost a lot of respect for the writers of that movie...Gibson is good at making all the things that they use in the novel so far believable and conceivable. The technology is a little complicated but that only it makes it more believable. What intrigued me most was the ability to gene splice, and switch body parts and just the medical advances altogether. They seemed so realistic and it got me wondering if Gibson's vision of medicine in the future would ever come close to that because of all the things so far the new wave medicine and use of the body as a machine (i.e. eye implants) came the closest to our eventual medical evolution.
This is a great point. I, too, am still astounded by the fact that this book was written in 1984 and coined the term cyberspace! Gibson does seem to be a visionary and many of his ideas have taken off and been integrated into other books and movies, especially with all of the recent interest in cyberspace in books and movies. The Matrix is a great example.
Laura writes:
Also, what is the meaning of a "coffin" in this book? I don't think I ever figured that out. I just keep thinking of this vampire crawling into a coffin everytime the word is mentioned. Maybe it's the use of certain terms that is keeping me off track with this story.
Yes, reading sci-fi for the first time can be disorienting. Sometimes you do have to just release your current understanding that you have of words and concepts and allow new meanings to come in. Class discussion is also a great time to gain clarity. BTW the coffins are actually beds of a sort.
Amy writes:
i do find it challenging but i think he forces us to use our imaginations and really think about things, which can be fun, i can't wait to see how others interpret some of the words he uses, it will make for some interesting discussion. i have read neuromancer already and am reading it again because of the language, i don't feel comfortable discussing it in detail because i didn't pay enough attention to the context in some areas, i assumed that some of the words would be explained later and they are not, so hopefully this time around things will become clearer.
I agree wholeheartedly. The language and the way that we interpret it will definitely give us all different understandings of the text. The fun part will be arguing it out in class and seeing other points of view!
Lillian asks a great question:
Molly is depicted as a dominant, independent, competent woman. Such women are very common in contemporary action fiction. From a market point of view, is Gibson using her to entertain male readers?
Is Molly a big draw for the male audience? Who, predominantly, is the audience for sci-fi (or was in 1984)? She is strong, but still extremely sexy. What "samauri" would actually wear skin tight leather pants?
Xianfeng writes:
The development of the cyberspace re-crystallizes the multiple nature of our existence. To me, being multiple poses as a resistance to the binary restricting culture...The possibility of constructing a multiple personality renders communication technologies democratic in nature. Everyone knowing its language can use it to construct another sphere to express their meanings, to tell their own stories to the world and get instant feedback. In one word, cyberspace provides another venue for people to get heard, to break out of the control the society has sought to impose on them.
I've got to play devil's advocate here and ask, what about people who don't have access to the technology? What about people who don't have the economic ability to purchase communication technologies or don't have the knowledge necessary to use the technology even if they can physically access it?
posted by
Samantha at 9:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Yesterday in class we discussed the reason for the section entitled "Historical Notes" at the end of The Handmaid's Tale. I myself thought that this section was enlightening and added to, rather than detracted from, the story. What became most apparent to me was the arrogance of these future academians. I believe the final line, which claims that it is difficult to decipher the voices of the past in the "clearer light of our own day," was meant by Atwood to mirror our own hypocrisy. Those of the present day often believe that they hold all the answers, answers to the many questions which humanity has wrestled throughout the years. We always consider ourselves far more advanced than those of the "primitive" past, and, all too often, believe ourselves beyond reproach. Past societies probably labored under the same delusion when their own past was the present. Atwood presents this superior sentiment as a potentially dangerous one; this very belief in social superiority spawned the Gileadean regime. The Sons of Jacob believed that the pre-Gileadean society, with its decadence and liberality, was inferior to the society they themselves wished to construct. The Commander justifies their superior stance to Offred: "We thought we could do better," he insists (211). It was this arrogant insistence, an assertion of the superiority of their own creed, which resulted in the construction of the oppressive Gileadean regime . . . Thus, Atwood is not trying to suggest that the world in which the academians exist holds the key to utopia; just because they live in a far advanced time does not mean they have all the answers. Rather, she might be warning against the danger of their notion of their own superiority. While we should never forget the past, neither should we consider ourselves above making the same mistakes, either.
posted by
Jane at 5:46 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
What I found striking about the world of Chiba and Night City in Gibson's Neuromancer was the restlessness, the never-ceasing buzz and frenzy of activity. As Gibson describes it, "Night City was like a deranged experiment in social Darwinism, designed by a bored researcher who kept one thumb permanently on the fast-forward button" (7). Indeed, the ambience seems like an explosive result of a science experiment over which the researcher had no control. Genetically and mechanically modified beings walk the streets, byproducts of vast scientific and technological experimentation. While I find these cyborgian beings fascinating, I sometimes find their diminished humanity chilling. Mechanical prostheses, muscle grafts, optical implants, and especially, what Chase terms "vatgrown skin," I find both chilling and intriguing. That flesh itself could be scientifically and technologically cultivated seems unfathomable to me; that something so essentially human could be fabricated is at once both wondrous and disconcerting. But, applying Gibson's use of the word "Darwinism" to the scene, it is not unnatural nor improbable that we, as a species, evolve. As Darwin himself would have contended, humans are not exempt from the force of evolution.
In Gibson's futuristic world, technology exists everywhere, even imbedded and grafted into humanity. Holograms are a thing of reality, and other realities exist outside reality itself. The world seems to be florescently lit, alive with the glow of myriad neon lights. Even nature has been stamped with the unnatural glow of artificial light; the sky itself is described as a "television sky." It seems to emit no natural light of its own; the sun is never described. The heavens seem to exude no life or warmth: "the sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel," reads the opening line of Neuromancer. With all the suffusion of technology, nature has been almost completely crowded out. Even the grass in the courtyard of Cheap Hotel is plastic.
The setting of the clinic in which Case is taken to undergo his neural operation gives the reader some glimpse of nature, as a "cluster of sleek pavilions separated by small formal gardens" (29). However, the gardens are tended by a robot crab, which perhaps somewhat visually disrupts the "natural" ambience of flowers and foliage. But then again, a garden itself is constructed; it does not naturally appear, but must be landscaped and cultivated. There are many aspects of what we term "nature," even today, that are NOT untouched nature. Gibson's ultra-technological world lends itself to the idea that nothing in nature is pristine; perhaps we are under the delusion in our present-day world that this is not the case. But it is, and Gibson's stark contrast of the natural vs. the ultra-technological emphasizes this. Pristine "natural" nature is often an illusion, because nature has been largely married to technology; thus, nature, like the human hybrids that people the world of Neuromancer, is cyborgian.
posted by
Jane at 4:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
What get my attention when I read Stone's "Collective Structures" are the three spheres of existence of an individual in the society - the biological, the cultural, and the virtual spaces (Stone 41-42). But, in final analysis, the virtual space also belongs to the cultural sphere because in the virtual sphere, individuals are making meaning for themselves; only such constructions are realized through codes of communication technologies. So, the virtual sphere is actually an extension of the cultural sphere.
When Stone states that "the technosocial, the social mode of the computer nets, evokes unruly multiplicity as an integral part of social identity" (Stone 42), she reasserts the multiple nature of existence to individuals in the society. But, the patriarchal culture tends always to stripe people of their multiplicity by restricting them in a specific grid, a cultural phenomena that Foucault has exposed in the Birth of the Prison. The binary way of thinking of the patriarchal culture is mainly accountable for that. Stone terms the dividing technology "location technology" (43). With that, the patriarchal civilization has sought to pin everyone down, especially women.
The development of the cyberspace re-crystallizes the multiple nature of our existence. To me, being multiple poses as a resistance to the binary restricting culture. Stone acknowledges that "multiplicity alone … does not in and of itself constitute a successful resistance" (43), nonetheless it is a necessary and significant step towards staging fruitful resistance against the patriarchal nature of the culture. The multiple personality enabled and made more noticeable by the cyberspace poses a great threat to the patriarchal culture which is all for control and order. That is why multiple personality it is given a bad name - "disorder."
The possibility of constructing a multiple personality renders communication technologies democratic in nature. Everyone knowing its language can use it to construct another sphere to express their meanings, to tell their own stories to the world and get instant feedback. In one word, cyberspace provides another venue for people to get heard, to break out of the control the society has sought to impose on them. It is " a radical rewriting of the bounded individual" (43) in society. The computer technologies are beneficial to both and constructors and consumers of the information, provided we guard against the abusers who exploit the technologies for their ulterior motives.
posted by
xianfeng at 12:54 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Lillian Liang
Professor Blackmon
English 360K
May 29 2003
I am not a sophisticated SF reader, but I know the typical pattern of SF or also of Hollywood movies is a strong but lonely hero completes missions impossible to help remove disasters falling on to the vast masses of people. I didn’t finish the novel, so I am not sure in what ways is Neuromancer away from this pattern? The story itself so far seems easy to understand, though Gibson’s style kind of evades me. Is this what people usually mean by it is not what the story is that counts, but how the story is told that counts? His narrative techniques are ok to me, though his terminology stops the natural flow when I read. Take a few examples from the very first few chapters. Why he uses “meat” instead of “flesh”? What does “coffin hotel” suggest? What relation does “a Sprawl voice and a Sprawl joke” (3) have with the urban sprawl phenomena? What is "French orbital fatigues" (9)? What is a "simstim deck” (11)? What is a “taser”? What is “EMP”? I know that his imagery or terms more often must have carried symbolic or at least emotional connotations, like to call Case a “cyberspace cowboy”? (By the way, how is a cyberspace cowboy similar to or different from a traditional cowboy?). I learned a few years Japanese, so I am glad this little knowledge comes in handy now. For instance I can see immediately the implications of “sarariman” (10), “Gaijin”, “Shin” (10) in the text.
Cyberspace is a “base camp” (Stone 39) for Haraway’s cyborg world. Stone points out that we need to “venture not into the heart of “nature” in search of redemption, but rather into the heart of “technology” in search of nature” (Stone 38). “The interaction between humans and machines” (Stone 36) surfaces quite often in the very fist few chapters. Ratz said to Case that “you get maybe too artistic; you wind up in the clinic tanks, spare parts” (5). Case’s “prosthetic arm” is mentioned time and time again, and I notice that this term is also used in Stone’s article a few times. Readers need to remember that by then, organ transplantations have become quite common.
The opening sentence "The sky above the port was the color of television, tuned to a dead channel" (3) is really great. By paring nature to technology, Gibson not only sets the tone of the narrative, but also creates an environment deeply rooted in technology and cyberspace. "Case," the name of the protagonist, could suggest a lawsuit, a detective story, but whatever it is, it gives the book a clinic tone. What kind of man is him? Is he a hero? I guess not. But when does this “case” begin and when does it close? Why does this “case” happen in Japan or in Chiba particularly? Any reason why Japan is selected instead of any other countries? Machinery is introduced through Ratz's stainless steel teeth also—ugly looking but commonplace in Communist Eastern Europe. I appreciate Gibson’s satire here.
As for feminist issues, “working girl" is used and “endorphins” are linked with pain. It might be interesting to compare the sex Case experiences with Molly. Molly is depicted as a dominant, independent, competent woman. Such women are very common in contemporary action fiction. From a market point of view, is Gibson using her to entertain male readers?
Stone’s article talks a lot about the concept of “cyberspace” and With Neuromancer, William Gibson introduced the world to cyberspace. Today, cyberspace can refer to the Internet, "the Matrix,", or any space of “pure communication, the free market of symbolic exchange… of exotic sensuality mediated by exotic technology” (33). Don’t forget Gibson wrote Neuromancer almost 20 years ago, so I really appreciate his vision and creativity. He creates a complex future for us, but it is unbelievably believable. In the novel, Case roams through the cyberspace like a cowboy and I am interested to know his ending. Before reading this novel, I had never read a true science-fiction novel. I love it. And I know I will need to read it more than once to really understand it, which is ok to me.
Works Cited
Gibson, William. Neuromancer. New York: Ace Books, 1984.
Stone, Allucguère Rosanne. The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical
Age. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 1995.
posted by
lillian at 12:43 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
i too am having trouble digesting all of gibson's vocabulary-it's not like reading other books when you don't understand a word you just look it up in the dictionary. i do find it challenging but i think he forces us to use our imaginations and really think about things, which can be fun, i can't wait to see how others interpret some of the words he uses, it will make for some interesting discussion. i have read neuromancer already and am reading it again because of the language, i don't feel comfortable discussing it in detail because i didn't pay enough attention to the context in some areas, i assumed that some of the words would be explained later and they are not, so hopefully this time around things will become clearer.i agree that it is hard for us to conceptalize the kind of society in the book, it is comparable to the matrix movie, but there's a lot more left unsaid in this book about society than in handmaids tale. we discussed earlier inclass that all people are cyborgs, but i found myself thinking that the characters in neuromancer are more like how i would personally define a cyborg, especailly molly. the uses of technology in the book are amazing!!!
posted by
amy at 12:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Wow. My response to Neuromancer is almost identical to Nicholas'! I also immediately thought of the film "The Matrix". Everytime he said the word matrix, I kept thinking of the matrix in the movie. I think that may have taken me off track of what the matrix really is in the book. Anybody know what it is in the book anyway? I also was confused about the cobra. I didn't even realize it was a whip right away. The use of medical advancement in the book really placed me into a futuristic setting. Gibson makes this portion of the story seem realistic and obvious to the reader about time period. But, I have to say I really feel like I'm dragging along in this book. In comparison to HMT, I can see how this is more of a technilogical text, but it seems a lot more boring. I feel like i'm choking each page down and constantly making an effort to remain awake. Also, what is the meaning of a "coffin" in this book? I don't think I ever figured that out. I just keep thinking of this vampire crawling into a coffin everytime the word is mentioned. Maybe it's the use of certain terms that is keeping me off track with this story.
posted by
Laura at 12:08 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I found the beginning of Neuromancer to be a litte overwhelming at first but after the first thirty pages or so it became a lot easier to take in. When I read this I immediately thought of the movie "The Matrix" and lost a lot of respect for the writers of that movie. It was tough trying to put together all the new technology and futuristic images that Gibsaon tries to decribe. I am still trying to get an image of what a 'Cobra' whip looks like exactly. And there is all the technology that goes into Case's 'deck' and the stuff used for the Sense/net raid that is all jargon to me but I was still able to get a handle on the basics of the tools they use. Gibson's ideas of the technology of the future are incredible I wondered briefly where he got some of his ideas from (if anywhere). Gibson is good at making all the things that they use in the novel so far believable and conceivable. The technology is a little complicated but that only it makes it more believable. What intrigued me most was the ability to gene splice, and switch body parts and just the medical advances altogether. They seemed so realistic and it got me wondering if Gibson's vision of medicine in the future would ever come close to that because of all the things so far the new wave medicine and use of the body as a machine (i.e. eye implants) came the closest to our eventual medical evolution.
posted by
Nicholas at 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Before reading the Balsamo article and listening to the class discussion today I hadn't thought of a lot of the attention that pregnant women get as a negative thing. It's become very engrained in our society. We really give pregnant women no privacy and, as someone mentioned already, if a women doesn't accept this attention she's seen as a bitch. I know I would not be comfortable with strangers coming up and wanting to touch my stomach when i'm pregnant. You wouldn't think of going up and touching on a strangers stomach when they are not pregnant. Why should it make any difference. It is still that woman's body. But what is frightening is that groups like anti-choice (or pro-lifers) groups take the public pregnancy to an extreme and it's almost as if the woman exists only as a womb for that fetus. I completely agree with what Maria said about losing the right to choose and the question she presented as well. Who gets to judge which is more important? The fetus or the woman carrying the fetus?
posted by
Shana at 2:13 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wWednesday, May 28, 2003 |
|
|
|
When I first read the Balsamo article, I thought it was a little extreme. However, when I think about cases like the ones that were presented in class today, I realize that it is absolutely true. People feel it is their right and perhaps even their responsibility to govern the way that pregnant women conduct themselves. The part of the article that I fouind to be most frightening was the insinuation that the fetus inside the woman is perhaps more important than the woman carrying the fetus. The reason that scares me is because it seems to ring true in the arguments of many anti-abortionists. It is a scary thing when you no longer matter, but your body (or something inside of it) does. I don't want to start an abortion debate or anything, but the loss of control is the scariest part about the thought of losing our right to choose. If the pregnant woman is not important but her fetus is, then how far off are we really from the handmaids tale?
posted by
Maria at 5:35 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
i really enjoyed today's class discussion. involving accounts from around the world really aid in assuming this could happen to us. gilead is not so far fetched as it first seemed. in relating balsamo's article and hmt i can also relate a personal account. when my sister was pregnant she felt very much like a spectacle. first, because she was a young mother, second she was unmarried and third she is beautiful and was even more so while pregnant. people were always touching her belly. she hated it but took the torture because she didn't want to seem bitchy or ungrateful for the attention. she even proved balsamo's eroticism of the pregnant woman: once while at work a man actually hit on her and used flattery aimed at her pregnancy. she wasn't flattered, she was disgusted that a man (a stranger) would be so rude. even while she was giving birth i noticed a few extra nurses in the room just standing there watching. somewhere the magic of having a baby is lost when there are eyes looking at you from every direction and fixed on the part of the body also known as "the privates". atwood made the birth day seem a bit more intimate than today's procedure. i saw janine's labor as motivation for the other handmaids. another sign, like the hanging dead, in gilead that says, "this could be you."
posted by
jamie at 3:26 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Balsamo's article and Lilian's presentation have me thinking about the pregnant body as spectacle. In reading the article, I realize that I am guilty of placing my gaze on the pregnant body. One of my best friends is five weeks away from giving birth. Every time I talk to her, I bombard her with questions about how it feels to be pregnant, what changes she is feeling, and so on. I don't ask these questions to make her feel like a spectacle--they honestly stem from curiosity. As a woman who plans to be pregnant and give birth at some point, I feel compelled to ask my friend these questions. However, after reading Balsamo's article, I am much more aware of how often I do this not only to my friend, but to other women as well. As stated before I don't mean any harm to the women I gaze at, wonder about, etc., and I don't intend to deconstruct their bodies into wombs. Instead, as a women who has never been pregnant, I share in the "wonder" of child birth when I see pregnant women. Balsamo's article has made me aware that I am sharing in the process of making a private pregnancy public. I am wondering if anyone else has experienced this "gaze". If so, how do you feel about your (unknowing) participation in the process of rendering the pregnant body spectacle?
posted by
Tory at 3:12 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Two things stand out to me in reading Balsomo's "Public Pregnancies." One is her critique of radical feminists' "vehement denouncement of reproductive technologies," (Balsomo 86); and the other is the obscurity of male responsibility in the production of defect babies - those "male-mediated defects" (Balsomo 102).
Not immersed in the strong polemics of radical feminists, I fail to catch Atwood's criticism of the possible, horrible effects if radical feminists' total repudiation of reproductive technology is to be realized, such as the denial of use of anesthetics to women in labor. The development of reproductive technology is predominantly patriarchal in nature. Moreover, it seeks to control the maternal body, subjugating the rights of the maternal body against patriarchal intervention of male physicians and state organs, sometimes on the pretext of fetal rights. In fighting against such oppressive control and surveillance of the maternal body, feminists shall not go to another extreme of completely wiping out reproductive technologies and male doctors. They produce beneficial results for women. The imaging technologies can discover abnormal fetus. Other screening technologies can detect if the fetus has other diseases can seek to terminate diseased pregnancy before it is too late or is born. Such screening technologies are good for the mother, for the baby, the family, and for the society as a whole. And for women whose physical features make them unable to give natural birth, surgery ensures both the health of the mother and the baby. Otherwise, they both die.
The reproductive technologies and male physicians are to be strongly opposed when the doctors abuse the technology in disregard of the rights of the pregnant woman. The rights of the expectant mother must be guaranteed as a prerequisite before other considerations can be entertained, such as the rights of the fetus. The U.S. insistence of the rights of the fetus puts the cart before the horse, because a maltreated, abused mother often would not care for the fetus. The right of the mother is the field where feminists shall fight.
Absence of male responsibility in the culture is reflected in the novel's ironic rhetoric that there does not exist a term of "male sterility." The patriarchal culture problematizes the maternal body only, attributing birth defects to the unruly maternal body. This is another field that feminists should fight to disclose.
posted by
xianfeng at 12:58 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
am i the only person who did not get closure from the historical notes?!!! i did find them helpful in that they cleared some things up but i am not certain they learned any lessons. the main speaker laughs at women and the handmaids tale two or three times in his speech, i thought the historical notes were as disturbing as the rest of the book.as we were discussing yesterday the chapter divisions, we see that the narrator did not divide the tapes into sections named night, nap shopping, etc. i wonder if the text would be drastically altered if we read the book in the sequence the narrator spoke it, i think it is very significant that these two guys just put the tapes in order they thought was correct, knowing so little about gilead.
posted by
amy at 12:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Lillian Liang
Professor Blackmon
English 360K
May 28 2003
I’d like to continue the discussion of the several points we have already covered in class in here. Offred’s life can be divided into: 1) the past, when she lived in the States in the 1970s and 1980s; 2) the present, in Gilead. It seems like in the past, women are bold and confident, as depicted in women’s magazines, but in the present, the Handmaids are infantilized. So can we say that the pre-Gilead era is a time of freedom and choice for women while the present is a time of male domination and sexual exploitation? I guess not, because that would render the novel too simplistic.
“In the days of anarchy, it was freedom to. Now you are being given freedom from. Don’t underrate it” (24). It is easy to understand “freedom to”, but “freedom from” what? I think here the Handmaids are told that they have “freedom from” sexual violence, rape, etc, which existed in the past. And although other women think the Handmaids dirty (Somewhere in the novel we are told Offred is shunned.), they are told to think themselves as pearls.
This leads to the gaze theory in Balsamo’s article. Yes, traditionally pregnant women are gazed upon, are seen as erotic emblems, and in the novel the Handmaids are also cast in the public gaze. But the gaze here is nothing full of wonder and intention, and on the contrary, it is negative: it diminishes them, and renders them unseen. If in a conventional society women need to be objectified first to be seen, in here, women are both objectified and unseen. This is why in the novel the mirror image surfaces quite a lot.
Another issue that provokes my thinking in yesterday’s discussion is the fatherly role of the Commander. I agree that he protects Offred and we do see the evidences in the text that the Commander takes on the role of the father, but in the end “He looks worried and helpless, but already withdrawing from me [Offred], distancing himself. Whatever else I am to him, I am also at this point a disaster” (294). This reminds me that quite often we are also told that Offred is only a “whim” to him. What does “whim” mean? Why does Commander want her? She is special, she behaves like a pet, or he is bored with Serena or “men are just sex machines”, as mentioned in the novel? But whatever it is, wouldn’t the fatherly image of him render the Ceremony scene an incest drama, because we have the sexually victimizing father on the one hand and sexually abused daughter on the other? That is why I agree the teacher comment that the Commander belies what he claims.
And this leads to another issue: what role does Serena Joy play in this “incest” scene, if readers are carried along with me? And also, if Atwood purposely gives Offred a father, why Offred lacks mother’s love or care or whatever it is although she has a real mother? What role does her real mother play in her life? Mothers are supposed to be part of kids’ school, but her mother is away from her physically and emotionally. We know that her mother is a radical feminist whose professional goal is to fight for women in general, but Offred tells Moira: “I thought she was dead” and Moira answers: “She might as well be … You should wish it for her” (252). What does Atwood want to convey to us with this feminist character?
This leads us to think about Moira, another rebel in the novel. We are told toward the end that “[Moira] is frightening me [Offred] now, because what I hear in her voice is indifference, a lack of volition. Have they really done it to her then, taken away something ---what---? That used to be so central to her?” (249) To come back to the freedom issue, is this what Atwood wants to imply by “freedom from”, if we can transplant the Gilead world to our contemporary society? Is she trying to say that this kind of freedom is also something to be wary of, because freedom is also dangerous essentially?
Works Cited
Atwood, Margaret. The Handmaid’s Tale. New York: Anchor Books, 1998.
posted by
lillian at 12:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I agree with Loretta on her comments about the salvagings and the prayvaganzas...I don't see them as being technologized, but they are most definitely a part in this religion that the Gilead society has accepted...however, I wonder if maybe there's point to that...maybe by this part of their beliefs not being technologized, Atwood is making a statement that this society's religion is not a religion at all...it just uses the term religion to make control easier...if people believe that what they are doing is in the name of God, then they would have less reservations about it...just like with the salvagings...the women hosting it had no problems watching the bodies...yet the Handmaids all felt sick...Is this another commentary that since the Handmaids had the inside knowledge about the ones being hung that they are the only ones who truly are able to break out if they wanted? To leave this "religion"...?
posted by
Eileen at 12:31 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I have to say that I was dissapointed with the ambiguous ending of the novel, however as Abby indicated, the historical notes do provide some closure. As I finished the book, I wondered what the significance of Offred's mother and Moira were in a deeper sense. Perhaps Moira stood for the hope Offred had to escape the lifestyle she had been subjected to. For instance, when she met her for the last time at the 'club' she started to feel a little nervous with the fact that Moira seemed to have lost her resistance and simply gave in to the life she had been trying to escape. Also, why continue to think of her mother throughout the whole of the story? Did it signify her feelings of guilt? Perhaps for not listening to her? Spending more time with her? The fact that Offred noticed her in the film at the Red Center as an activist and Moira had seen her in a film displaying the colonies might imply that even the strong are eventually broken down. But, the fact that she is only seen in films might imply her presence as being distant, not real, a dream (perhaps?). I guess this is my question. What is the role of Offred's mother throughout the story (or her memory anyway)? What effect does it have on Offred?
posted by
Laura at 12:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
In response to Wendell's confusion on the significance of the female body with regards to public pregnancies I think Balsamo is making the point that the state of being pregnant has a different set of cultural constructions that due to reproductive technology are being ascribed to all women who may have potentially pregnant bodies. My point is that once a woman is pregnant and certainly when her pregnancy becomes physically noticeable she is no longer regarded as an autonomous individual. The human body is a "physical manifestation." This is what we talked about in class as being sex. However, social construction of gender has different consequences for the pregnant woman and she is thus deconstructed by these cultural notions.
Although I see Balsamo's argument for religion being technologized while reproduction is ritualized (p. 86) in Atwood's novel, I don’t see enough evidence for this assertion. I definitely agree that the ceremony and birth day rituals characterize reproduction, but events such as salvaging and prayvaganzas (which I don’t see as technologized) are also rituals that define the Gilead religion.
In response to Samantha's comment on my blog concerning Native American women and literacy: I see your (counter)point. Literacy may not truly or may I say accurately give us a voice. Being able to read and write does not ensure being heard. However, in our society history is a patriarchal construction that includes written accounts but dismisses oral accounts (especially with respect to Native Americans). Sometimes to beat the system you have to work within the system. Thus the history of women, African Americans, Native Americans and others may be brought to light through writing and reading. Although, everyone may not become so readily aware of these added histories their existence counteracts the complete male domination of history. Also, in today's world we acquire a considerable amount of knowledge through reading, thus these "new" historical accounts are a means of communicating knowledge that may otherwise not be known.
posted by
loretta at 12:18 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I finished HTM and I really found the historical notes important to the whole novel. It gives the reader some closure that the country did not survive living in a Gilead society. It also gave the reader hope that the protagonist sent a message out about the ways of this society. I also have to agree with Wendell's comment yesterday, that the society seemed to be bad for everyone. The men had desires to have the women back in a variety of ways. These men thought that this would be perfect and they are the ones sneaking around trying to get a taste of what it was like before. I also feel like when Offred is really transforming is when she starts to have a relationship with Nick and when she finds out what happens to Offglen. She starts to see that this is who she is now. A cyborg of this society. She realizes that this is the best that it is going to get for her.Everyone in the society including the men, wives, handmaids, etc were sneaking around trying to be more like they used to be in the time before. It would be interesting to read about the deconstruction of this Gilead.
posted by
Abby at 11:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I was really confused in the begining of the reading for Wed. with Jainie. Was she brain washed, when she said "Hello, I'm Jainie...". Or was she just upset about what had happpened to her baby?
posted by
Emily at 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Ok, having just now found Professor Blackmon's response to my working definition of what a cyborg is...I would like to expand on that having now finished THT...What I feel the stress should be on with the issue of cyborg in regards to this novel is the fluidity of what cyborg is...according to Haraway (correct?) a cyborg should be able to change, to be fluid...not stagnant...It doesn't necessarily mean in what we would think of as a positive way, however...for example...Offred is cyborg--going off her ability to change--because she has had to change...she has had to adapt to her new surroundings, she has been fluid...however, her fluidity has become rigid due to the harsh rules she must follow...her mind has not been allowed to expand further, therefore she finds certain things shocking that would never have phased her before...Offred goes from being able to change, to being less adaptable...if that makes sense...(sorry all, it's early)
Also, I would like to comment on Amy's blog about Offred's real name...That's a really good guess...You're right, that's the only name we don't find again...I bet you're right...or at least it's a really good assumption!
posted by
Eileen at 2:20 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wTuesday, May 27, 2003 |
|
|
|
i have yet to finish the novel, but what i have read so far is very intriguing. i imagine a world similar to offglen's and shudder at the thought of any one having so much control over my life. i am surprised that atwood doesn't put more power into offglen's hands at this point. like jane says, the story really illustrates racism, religious fanaticism and male oppression. what was it about non-whites that made whites want to erase those populations? can we make any references to current topics that would lead us to that decision? we have seen examples of religious fanaticism - you all remember david koresh in waco or charles manson? granted those didn't work as widespread as gilead, but why is gilead exempt from such a future? we see how offglen has thought of murder or running away but she never does it. why? is she really receiving drugs as she suspects? the most interesting detail in the novel is the ceremony. why isn't it counted as adultery? because the wife is present? because it's for the good of mankind? i suppose if artificial insemination were the method, the men would have to masturbate, and that's a no no, too. today in class samantha asked who is a cyborg in the novel. i say everyone. they are all machines used to fuel an economy. in those terms i guess we are all cyborgs too. right? every person has a place and every place has a purpose. also like jane, i don't see the idea of us all being cyborgs as outlandish as i thought at the beginning of the course. i hope that the two other books will help me expand on the concept furthur. i am excited to finish this book, which i plan to do right now.
posted by
jamie at 11:27 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I think the Handmaid's Tale illustrates the dangers of racism, religious fanaticism, and male oppression. There is no separation of church and state in Gilead; rather, it is a male-governed theocracy, and the subjugation of women is justified by biblical scripture. I myself am a Christian, but am perfectly willing to admit that religious fanaticism - sadly - is not entirely unknown to Christianity (the Spanish Inquisition and the Crusades, for instance). Atwood uses this Gileadean society to imagine an extreme, almost Puritanical fanaticism; that there are religious fanatics of nearly any and every religion is thus not to be denied. Christianity, like Islam, is susceptible to fanaticism, whenever there are those who rigidly interpret the text deemed as sacred, and suffer those who share different beliefs to adhere to their own.
posted by
Jane at 4:07 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
The idea I had originally conceived of a cyborg wad a dehumanized creature, half organism, half machine - the fusion of flesh and blood with mechanism. I also had in mind the image of the Borg from "Star Trek," and recalled that oft-repeated line: "You will be assimilated. Resistance is futile." Thus, my conception was of a cold, calculating creature, the mindless mechanism of which had replaced a human heart. I envisioned a futuristic world in which man was conquered by machine, to the detriment of all our innate human nature. Now, however, my conception has broadened, and the notion that we are now, in essence, cyborgs, no longer seems outlandish. The cyborg has not conquered man; rather, man and machine are symbiotically linked. As Haraway states: "A cyborg world might be about lived social and bodily realities in which people are not afraid of their joint kinship with animals and machines" (A Cyborg Manifesto, 154). Mankind may not, as yet, be interfaced with the wiring and circuitry of technology, but it is strongly dependent upon it. Our close and frequent interaction with technology forms an almost inextricable link between man and machine, much as a mechanically interfaced prosthesis would. The tools we use become extensions of ourselves. I know that when I write, imprinting my thoughts with the written word, I feel that my pen has become an extension of my very being. There seems to be a fluidity of motion between my inner thoughts and their outward representation. Thus, the notion that mankind is evolving into the cyborg may not be as farfetched as it at first might sound.
posted by
Jane at 3:37 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
In this part of the novel, the author expands the form of writing history to voice, so women still possess the power of writing one's history - "when I get out of here, if I'm ever able to set this down, in any form, even in the form of one voice to antohter, it will be a reconstruction then too, at yet another remove" (HMT 134). In that world, they are denied access to the written word. Therefore, they always communicate in whispers and silent body signs. They still possess the way to resist such totalitarian body and spiritual control.
Yet, during the process of resisting male control, it is important that women should enlist whatever support they can from males, even though those males harbor their own motives for rendering women help. The Commander let the Handmaid into the power of letters for his own amusement, but the Handmaid can utilize his motives and turn the table around - "We can always look it up in the dictionary, he said. He said we. The first time, I realized, he'd let me win" (HMT 156). Because the Commander still appreciates the old times when women possess the freedom to go anywhere they wished to go and did anything they liked, women should enlist men's sympathy to resist, though scanty such sympathy may be - "Some of us, he said, retain an appreciation for the old things" (HMT 157).
The rationale behind this strategy is that it is impossible to create a women-only enclave, referring to the lesbian alternative some feminists might have entertained. To change the world, women have to deal with men - "I said there was one way of living with your haed in the sand and that if Moira thought she could create Utopia by shuttering herself up in a women-only enclave she was sadly mistaken. Men were not just going to go away, I said. You couldn't just ignore them" (HMT 172). Women's strategy is to undermine men's power individually, like the subtle power of the Handmaid over the commander. As a collective, women's strategy is networking, to be united - "And networks. Networking, one of mother's old phrases, musty slang of yesteryear" (HMT 202). Offglen belongs to the network of Underground Femaleroad. So does Nick. The survival of the story indicates the Handmaid has survived. Otherwise, the reader could not have the story.
posted by
xianfeng at 12:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I feel the same as many of you do about the scariness of the novel and the possibility of such a society in today’s world. Of course I believe one of Margaret Atwood’s points was to scare people into thinking bout society. The “Historical Notes” puts another spin on Atwood’s message. There are good times and bad times, Gilead definitely representing a bad time because of all of the oppressed people involved. But Atwood also implies that nothing lasts forever, governments and state boundaries change as well as our analysis, construction, and reconstruction of history.
Wendell mentioned the oddity of the “mating” ritual. I think maybe the men in pre-Gilead society were angry about women’s sexual freedom: the freedom to enjoy sex, chose partners (who may not even be men)…so what it all came down to was power and thus control. I agree, it doesn’t seem to be anyone’s “ideal” version of sex, but it’s not like the men are stuck with the ceremony. Their power and control has allowed them to create an alternate sexual outlet that is very similar to men’s clubs in “the time before.” (I’m referring to the Jezebel section, pages 229-225)
I think one thing we need to keep in mind when analyzing the text is the fact that HMT is autobiographical. Offred tells her story not that of the whole Gilead society. For instance we don’t know what the lives of econowives and their husbands are like.
To Samantha: I just read your comment on my first blog…I’ll think about that and post a response.
posted by
loretta at 12:51 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
Lillian Liang
Professor Blackmon
English 360K
May 27 2003
The main argument of this paper is in the big para on page 115, somewhere in the middle.
It is very clear and logical, much easier than the first article about cyborg. I don’t have many arguments that I can argue against him. The article is divided into several parts: each part with a subheading. I am going to talk about section by section until page 38. Cat is going to talk about the rest.
The author starts by saying that “Pregnant women… can not easily avoid the scrutiny of a fascinated gaze” (80). This gaze basically means that pregnant woman “becomes an eroticized spectacle, the visual emblem of the sexual woman” (80) and “the state of being pregnant is so “wondrous”. But the author also says that “our magical thinking about reproduction” is “culturally determined” (80). So what looks “wondrous” (80) in one culture may look ordinary in another, or what look erotic for women may look nothing unusual for men. I remember I heard a guy said to a bunch of us once that he found it hard to develop an interest in any pregnant woman, no matter how pretty she looked. I am not generalizing here, but I mean our mind sets are really “culturally determined” (80). But Balsamo also mentions even though a pregnant woman looks erotic, this is not exactly something to wonder and marvel at, because “the female body is deconstructed into its culturally significant parts and pieces: here the womb serves as a metonym for the entire body. … Not only does this fragmentation culturally reduce a woman to an objectified pregnant body, it also supports the naturalization of the scientific management of fertilization, implantation, and pregnancy more broadly” (81). I am quoting this not only to suggest woman’s body is objectified but also want to ask a question. We talked about reproduction is a technology last time, so do all the different stages of the reproduction work together to make the whole process a technology? Or each stage itself constitutes a technology? If, say, fertilization alone is a technology, I mean, if fertilization alone without necessary producing pregnancy is also a technology, then we can say, sex is also a technology. But I can comfortably accept that reproduction is a technology, but when it comes to sex is a technology, I need to think twice.
On page 83, Balsamo gives us a summary of “the five classes of women in Gilead regime. Wives, econowives, aunts, marthas, and handmaids”. He continues with “Two other classes of women exist: ‘Jezebels,’ women who are used as unofficial prostitutes at the military club; and un-women, the women who resist their class assignment, are nonfunctional for the society” (84). This classification is crucial to our understanding of the novel.
From page 84 through 86, the author talks about different rituals in that society and these include: The Ceremony, Testifying, Birthday, Salvaging, Mandatory monthly visit to the gynecologist to determine her fertility status, etc. Things these rituals have in common include: first, they destruct individual identity and construct collective identity, remember how the female protagonist longs for privacy; second, the public rituals, working together with the private moment when she visits the Commander and when she has affairs with Nick, demoralize the handmaids. The first analysis is obvious, but the second, to juxtapose the public and private and show the demoralizing effect, is a very good analysis. I like that.
But I like most here is on page 86, Balsamo points out “Atwood inverts the contemporary association between religion and ritual on the one side, and reproduction and technology on the other, so that in her novel religion is technologized and reproduction is highly ritualized and radically detechnologized” (86).
This is really exciting to me. First, it ties well with what Balsamo says later on that “the 15 chapters, …alternate between chapters titled “Night” or “Nap” and chapters that describe the focal rituals of the Gileadean society” (84). I remember we haven’t worked into the chapter headings so far, so this could be a starting point. Can we interpret it that night or nap signify reproduction, and these alternate with chapters about daily rituals?
Second, this reminds me the blurring of all those boundaries between man and animal, man and machine, body and mind, nature and culture in the cyborg world we have learned earlier on.
But before I agree with Balsamo, I need to verify his assumption first. I took course “defining china” last semester in history dept. and we read quite a few articles about rituals. I took these articles out this morning. Smith’s article uses ritual in Chinese culture to examine the relationship between cultural unity and cultural diversity”. He uses a quotation in the article “Through ritual, the positions of honorable and lowly are fixed, intimate and distant are separated, Heaven is served above, Earth is served below, ancestors are respected, and sovereigns and teachers are glorified… In the end, ritual is what distinguishes men from beasts” (281). So his basic point is that “ritual facilitates the rectification, solidification, and standardization of customs, and hence the restoration or maintenance of social harmony” (283). Sometimes “rituals created a solidary community that cut across other social boundaries” (Rawski 264). And now in the cyborg world and also in this novel, rituals don’t take these functions any more because rituals themselves are blurred with others.
The article goes on and talk about incorporation of technology into all fields of medicine, and some people critique that use of reproductive technologies “embody and institutionalize the patriarchal domination of women and of the scientifically managed reproduction” and some argue that whether or not reproductive technologies may not be inherently patriarchal. His conclusion in this section is that if we say, “technological devices, specialized knowledge, scientific practices” (96) are culturally determined, then “the mass-mediated narratives about the relationship between women’s bodies, technologies of surveillance, and threats to public health” (97) determine the meaning of new productive technologies. He is using examples from popular media to prove that and Cat has a lot to say about this next time. It is a great Southern tradition to tell tales.
Works Cited
Balsamo, Anne Marie. Technologies of the Gendered Body: Reading Cyborg Women. Durham:
Duke UP, 1996.
Rawski, Evelyn. The Last Emperors: A Social History of Qing Imperial Institution. Beverley:
University of California Press, 1998.
Smith, Richard J. “Ritual in Ch’ing Culture”. 281-310. (I am working on this away from home and that copy of the essays collection which contains this article is not at hand, so I am omitting the latter part of the bibliographical information for this entry.)
posted by
lillian at 11:05 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I think that, obviously, the men are in control of the situation, or actually, the old white men are in control. And, of course, there is a certain heirarchy that the people must follow which is something that cannot be avoided in society (or has not yet). We have discussed how the new government is persecuting other religious factions, including the Jewish, as well as the african americans and of course the handmaids are treated horribly no matter what kind of propaganda is layed out by the government but I think that the bigger picture or the biggest picture is the overall loss of everyone's freedom in the novel. If you think about it no one is getting 'the good life' except for maybe the commander's (even they have to hide to play scrabble) but even they still fall under the strict regulations of the government. It seems that everyone is scared or is aware of the fact that their position is not permanent. The complete loss of ALL freedom seems to me to be the big picture and it is just articulated through one of the worst positions to have, the handmaid's.
posted by
Nicholas at 10:58 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
I think the scariest thing about this novel is that there is a possibility that it could happen today. We would have mass chaos if the entire govt. were killed and then all of a sudden an army takes over. This is exactly why so many people defend our right to possess guns. In a modern situation like this, we would not be able to defend ourselves in any other way. Think of how quickly they could do the same to women in our future (or any other minority for that matter). The reliance on mechanical banking etc... was also a cause for the downfall. Leaving everything to be computerized caused women to lose control of their assets/money. Think of how much we depend on computerized accounts for our own money, ATM machines, online account balancing, etc.... It's scary. Perhaps we should be warned by this novel, just as others on the blog have indicated already.
posted by
Laura at 10:54 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
One would think that men would enjoy the independence that is created by having women being less dependent on them. But instead, it makes men feel threatened and useless just because they're no longer the bread winners of the household or are the head decision makers. Plus their purpose of providing sperm for reproduction uses is being threatened as well, since fewer women are deciding to have babies. But basically men are threatened because their gender role of being male is changing. Even though HMT may portray men in a negative way, not all the men in it are that sexist. For example, the Commander is shown as being sympathetic towards women by the way he treats Offred. He is also quite liberal with his wife. He lets her smoke, drink, and cuss. I think that the Commander doesn't like the way this society is set up, but he just goes along with it because he has to or else he could be persecuted.
posted by
Amanda at 9:24 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
In response to how, the men are portrayed in this novel; it is perhaps a bit one-dimensional. I think that in general the men in HMT are just oblivious to the women around them, the whole system reeks of something set up by men, who have no idea what they have done or how it will impact so many people.
The thing that I think is important to point out is that the men’s lives suck also, for example it seems odd to me that all these perfectly ok (I don’t have better word for this) like Nick guys have to wait to be promoted up to rank high enough such that they can marry or have any other interaction with women. A related thing to this is why did they design the mating ritual as they did. I mean it is difficult to imagine that that ritual is anybodies idealized version of sex.
Another thing that bothers me is the only people that we see going any work are servants there appears to be nothing new, old us army blankets, old clothing and such things are every where, and I suppose it is nice from an environmental prospective is nice to see so much reused J, but the social costs are too high.
As far as politics go, isn’t this why books like Animal Farm, 1984, Brave New World, The Giver, HMT other distopic novels are taught to sever as a warning. It is just my opinion that many things lie in the balance, and little one way and we would slip in to chaos, and a bit the other way we would be in a totalitarian regime.
posted by
wendell at 1:31 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wMonday, May 26, 2003 |
|
|
|
My thoughts were similar to Maria's when reading HMT. I kept wondering how people would react to something like this if it happened today. Would we just agree because everyone is so scared about our national safety? They basically shot anyone who protested what they were doing. That would be a very big deterent to putting up much resistance. On the other hand the US goes into other countries and changes their way of life "for their own good." Where do we draw the line? What is o.k. and done for our safety and what is too extreme? Why is it ok for the US to impose their ways on other countries but if anyone tried to change the way of life in the US, riots would break out? Americans are so accustomed to the rights we are given (even though it seems as if some citizens of this country have more than others at times) that it is interesting to think about how we would react. Many of the rights that our ancestors fought (and some died) for would just vanish in a matter of seconds. Do you think that this transition (or some variation of it) could really take place? Would it go over that easily?
posted by
Shana at 11:29 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
w |
|
|
|
It is always a controversial to bring up politics, but when I was reading the flashback to how this new government took over, I was really freaked out by some of the parallels to modern politics, suchs a the references to terrorism and making political decisions based on national security. It is almost unbelieveable that this was published in 1986 but has so many references that hold true for us. This novel could be a bit of a wake up call to us, a warning to not let ourselves be controlled just so that we can feel safe. Although it is extreme, you have to ask yourself what you would do if all of a sudden you were fired from your job and your bank card stopped working. I think the scariest thing about this is how easy it was for the "new regime" to take over. Do you think that is realistic?
posted by
Maria at 10:50 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|