"It is, in fact, in shallow games, ones in which smaller amounts of money are involved, that increments and decrements of cash are more nearly synonyms for utility and disutility, in the ordinary, unexpanded sense--for pleasure and pain, happiness and unhappiness. In deep ones, where the amounts of money are great, much more is at stake than material gain: namely, esteem, honor, dignity, respect--in a word, though in Bali a profoundly freighted word, status. It is at stake symbolically, for (a few cases of ruined addict gamblers aside) no one's status is actually altered by the outcome of a cockfight; it is only, and that momentarily, affirmed or insulted."
Page 71-72
I found this quote utterly important in the sense that Geertz dismays the importance of money and upholds the argument of status in the Bali community. He argues that the betting is slightly relevant in shallow games (in terms of money) because the betters have more to lose. In larger games however, it is status that is perceived to be won and lost. Conclusively, I chose this quote because Geertz speaks volumes about the insignificance of money and the perceived importance of status during cockfights.
Wednesday, January 25, 2012
Monday, January 23, 2012
OWS Summary
In the article "Ask Not What Occupy Wall Street Will Do Next; Ask How We Will Change The Status Quo", the author explains how the lack of publicity Occupy Wall Street is receiving now may indicate that the impact of the movement is dying down. The author uses unique analogies to compare OWS to a reality television show and even a brand name, but the fact of the matter is that as long as OWS and Wall Street are coinciding, the effectiveness of OWS is questionable.
The analogies that the author uses speak volumes when it comes to OWS's attention and effectiveness. First, Fitzgerald compares OWS to a character in a reality TV series, where "Americans cannot wait for the next episode." OWS has been depicted as the good guys, the protagonist, the "99%", while the "1%" is the elite, the villain. Known by a collection of images and phrases, much like today's MTV hit "Jersey Shore", OWS has slowed down and has the American public on the edge of their seats for season two. Furthermore, the author emphasizes the point of reification. Reification is the process by which something abstract and malleable turns into something concrete and not up for debate. The author feels that this is what is happening to the OWS movement. Much like brand names such as Nike and Starbucks, OWS is what it is. Whether people disagree with it, love it, or hate it, OWS has become a fixture that isn't questioned; it simply is. Fitzgerald feels that if the OWS movement wants to regain its influence, it must resist reification. People need to think of OWS "not as an organization but as a claim: that private interest is a public problem."
Conclusively, Fitzgerald notices the OWS movement slowing down and relays his advice for it to regain power and reach its full potential. For progress to continue being made, Wall Street and OWS cannot co-exist, as they are doing so now. When the focus shifts from "them" and "it" to "us", OWS will no longer have a brand name attached to it which will lead to the "99%" breaking the status quo once again.
The analogies that the author uses speak volumes when it comes to OWS's attention and effectiveness. First, Fitzgerald compares OWS to a character in a reality TV series, where "Americans cannot wait for the next episode." OWS has been depicted as the good guys, the protagonist, the "99%", while the "1%" is the elite, the villain. Known by a collection of images and phrases, much like today's MTV hit "Jersey Shore", OWS has slowed down and has the American public on the edge of their seats for season two. Furthermore, the author emphasizes the point of reification. Reification is the process by which something abstract and malleable turns into something concrete and not up for debate. The author feels that this is what is happening to the OWS movement. Much like brand names such as Nike and Starbucks, OWS is what it is. Whether people disagree with it, love it, or hate it, OWS has become a fixture that isn't questioned; it simply is. Fitzgerald feels that if the OWS movement wants to regain its influence, it must resist reification. People need to think of OWS "not as an organization but as a claim: that private interest is a public problem."
Conclusively, Fitzgerald notices the OWS movement slowing down and relays his advice for it to regain power and reach its full potential. For progress to continue being made, Wall Street and OWS cannot co-exist, as they are doing so now. When the focus shifts from "them" and "it" to "us", OWS will no longer have a brand name attached to it which will lead to the "99%" breaking the status quo once again.
Thursday, January 19, 2012
"Strong Reading" and "Reading With/Against the Grain"
Strong Reading
As defined in "Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers", "strong reading" occurs when a reader cooperatively reads, thinks, and writes about a topic. This happens when the reader takes what is given in the writing, but also infers and relates the material to his/her own life. This form of reading is encouraged because it allows the reader to grasp the material and makes it easy to comprehend questions, as presented on a formal test. This is one of the reasons that students form different conclusions when asked the same question. One student, who was adopted after jumping around foster cares, may have a different view on the nature/nurture debate than the generic child that was born into a wealthy family. I believe our family and experience define us as individuals, and "strong reading" helps bring out the variety of inferences that stem from the same reading.
Reading With/Against the Grain
Strong readers have the ability to read both into the grain and against the grain. When reading into the grain, the reader puts himself in the authors shoes to fully embody the points the author is trying to make. Psychologist Carl Rogers called this "empathetic listening", where the reader takes the stance of the author and thinks as though he agrees with what the author is saying. Some examples where I have read with the grain include on formal tests, such as the SAT, and song lyrics. For comprehension exams, such as the reading portion of the the SAT or ACT, I believe it is imperative to analyze the piece for the message that the author is trying to convey. This allows you build on what the author is saying and easily answer questions based on the context. Secondly, I read song lyrics into the grain because it allows me to listen to what the singer/songwriter is trying to get across. Once I can understand where the artist is coming from, it is easier for me to relate and even build upon the lyrical message in the song.
Reading against the grain is a whole other way to approach things. This form of reading is more analytic in the sense that you question and sometimes even dispute the points that the author is trying to get across. You may feel that everything the author says you have a rebuttal for, and although he/she may be knowledgeable in the subject, you get the sense they are missing some key components or even ignorant to refuting information. One minor instance where I recall reading against the grain was when I read an article saying that in order to conserve water on golf courses in this new "green" era, course conditions will inevitably suffer. Immediately I could tell that the author was an environmentalist and since I am an avid golfer where the condition of the course is of utter importance, I immediately forced judgement onto the article. It seemed every argument that the author made, whether it be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or preserve wildlife, I had a counterexample. She seemed to be leaving out easier solutions such as environmentally friendly fertilizer or advanced drainage systems that use less water to keep the course in pristine condition. I knew I had strong feelings about the subject, but little did I know I was reading "against the grain".
As defined in "Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers", "strong reading" occurs when a reader cooperatively reads, thinks, and writes about a topic. This happens when the reader takes what is given in the writing, but also infers and relates the material to his/her own life. This form of reading is encouraged because it allows the reader to grasp the material and makes it easy to comprehend questions, as presented on a formal test. This is one of the reasons that students form different conclusions when asked the same question. One student, who was adopted after jumping around foster cares, may have a different view on the nature/nurture debate than the generic child that was born into a wealthy family. I believe our family and experience define us as individuals, and "strong reading" helps bring out the variety of inferences that stem from the same reading.
Reading With/Against the Grain
Strong readers have the ability to read both into the grain and against the grain. When reading into the grain, the reader puts himself in the authors shoes to fully embody the points the author is trying to make. Psychologist Carl Rogers called this "empathetic listening", where the reader takes the stance of the author and thinks as though he agrees with what the author is saying. Some examples where I have read with the grain include on formal tests, such as the SAT, and song lyrics. For comprehension exams, such as the reading portion of the the SAT or ACT, I believe it is imperative to analyze the piece for the message that the author is trying to convey. This allows you build on what the author is saying and easily answer questions based on the context. Secondly, I read song lyrics into the grain because it allows me to listen to what the singer/songwriter is trying to get across. Once I can understand where the artist is coming from, it is easier for me to relate and even build upon the lyrical message in the song.
Reading against the grain is a whole other way to approach things. This form of reading is more analytic in the sense that you question and sometimes even dispute the points that the author is trying to get across. You may feel that everything the author says you have a rebuttal for, and although he/she may be knowledgeable in the subject, you get the sense they are missing some key components or even ignorant to refuting information. One minor instance where I recall reading against the grain was when I read an article saying that in order to conserve water on golf courses in this new "green" era, course conditions will inevitably suffer. Immediately I could tell that the author was an environmentalist and since I am an avid golfer where the condition of the course is of utter importance, I immediately forced judgement onto the article. It seemed every argument that the author made, whether it be to reduce carbon dioxide emissions or preserve wildlife, I had a counterexample. She seemed to be leaving out easier solutions such as environmentally friendly fertilizer or advanced drainage systems that use less water to keep the course in pristine condition. I knew I had strong feelings about the subject, but little did I know I was reading "against the grain".
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)