Place and Purpose

"It is never possible to speak of 'the experience of a building; every building is a fragmented space"
-pg 23 An American Icon


The reading from An American Icon made me reflect on the true purpose or function of a house. This quote made me realize that a house has no single function, but is a compilation of several purposes made necessary by the fragmented nature of life. On the most simplistic level a house is where a person lives. But what constitutes living? As students we live in dorms which can be social places, work places, resting places, sometimes eating places, sometimes even party places. In a house there is less of a melding of these purposes because houses provide separation between these activities through rooms. Separation of rooms and thus separation of activities takes away from the integration of purposes and makes it near impossible to experience a building as a whole. Each space has a purpose, but the purpose of the entire house becomes unclear.
  I also think the purpose of houses comes from 1) who lives in it and 2) what they own. This reminds me of the probate lists we studied a few weeks ago. A big part of who we are is what we own. For example if a student doesn't have a fridge, their room can't really be an eating place aside from dry snacks. Our desks can transform the room into a study place (or at least there's the option for that purpose.) It also depends on the personality of the inhabitants as to how the rooms in their house should be used. For example, I don't use my room for studying because I am a more social person. My roommate almost only uses the room for studying. It is her STUDY place whereas the room is my RESTING place. Again, of course living in a house is different than a dorm, but I think the dorm room illustrates the variety of purposes that a house as a whole can encompass.

An Exercise of Restraint

I suppose in American Conversation one of the things we are learning to do is converse effectively. Our exercise today, although I can see its purpose, almost discouraged conversation mainly for three reasons: 1) at its start the exercise puts enormous pressure on the first person to start, 2) spectators who may have an opinion or a response to something said are forbidden to speak, and 3) by the time people shift out of the hot seats, the opinions or responses that people in the outer circle had to the previous conversation are no longer relevant. Although this made the discussion very uncomfortable and frustrating to endure it does reflect some important points about our own society.
    1) At the start of the exercise the responsibility to begin the conversation rested entirely on the shoulders of one person. Not only is this exclusive to everyone else who may have an idea of how to begin, it also mounts enormous pressure on one person to begin the class period. It puts the student underneath the magnifying glass so to speak because amidst the silence one person is expected to speak and, in the class setting, speak intelligently. I believe that when put on the spot, people are less likely to argue or assert a point effectively because the person feels as if everyone is staring at him or her and fear that he or she will be judged by those watching. I don't believe people function properly when they are afraid. Fear is nonconductive to conversation and is thus a restraining element in the classroom setting.
    2) During the exercise people in the outer circle were forbidden to speak. There was a seat for people from the exterior to come in and out of the center conversation, but this seat quickly became just another permanently occupied spot. This kind of conversation seems contrary to the purpose of the class. When people are prevented from speaking, the conversation becomes restricted, and closed. I think this is really a shame when others may have legitimate points or responses to arguments made within the circle. Other points could have opened the conversation up to a higher level of intellectuality and widen the spheres of consideration of the middle people. Inclusion of points or topics in a conversation generally makes conversation richer and more meaningful. Because the conversation was restrictive rather than inclusive, it was difficult to have a real comprehensive view of what was being discussed.
     3)  Because people were prevented from speaking and giving opinions, by the time the people who had comments to offer got a chance to reach the middle and speak, the conversation had been steered in a different direction and their points were no longer relevant. The conversation as a whole was choppy and many points were revisited in order to mention points that had been rendered irrelevant. Additionally fear of the conversation moving beyond an appropriate point to interject a response made it difficult for the audience to pay attention to what was being discussed in the center. The tension in the outer circle of people getting ready to race to the center to say something as well as peoples' comments when someone didn't get to the hot seat in time was very distracting. There were a number of points that I missed because of this.
      Although today's conversation was difficult to endure I can see the value or intended lesson. Firstly it got everyone to participate and make at least three important points as opposed to simply agreeing with points others had made. The exercise also spoke volumes about our own society. There are certain demographics or groups or people who do not have opportunities to make points, defend themselves, and contribute to our society because of prejudices or fear of judgement or lack of power. The four people in the center of the class held all the power to steer the conversation. They controlled what got discussed and what was said about the topics. The feelings of restraint of the people in the outer circle are very real for many citizens in discussing issues much larger and that have much greater consequence than our classroom discussions. This kind of conversing also reflects our own system as a republic. We put our trust in Senators and Representatives to represent the viewpoints of an entire region or larger group of people. Of course the four people in the center couldn't represent the views of all the other students in the class. The feelings of those in the outer circle probably reflect those of the members of the  Tea Party Movement who feel they don't have a voice in political matters because the power of conversation is concentrated on a smaller group whose responsibility it is to represent larger areas. This makes the points of the Tea Party much more real to me. Perhaps they aren't all crazy radicals or loud republicans. Perhaps they just feel restrained.

Wide and Tall

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGufiv5PB2A

Today we further explored what a dense fact really is and this video, I think, is so jam packed with implications about the value of interdisciplinary study in our society and the media, I could talk about it forever, but maybe that's just because I am a dancer. I been dancing ballet since I was five years old, but I have never been savvy about companies and their personal aesthetics or famous dancers of the times. I believe that if you don't exert the effort to go and study these kinds of trends, particularly for non-mainstreem art forms, the practice of the art itself can be far removed from its culture, history, etcetera... Upon researching dancers I came across this video which featuring a ballerina, Alessandra Ferri and the singer Sting. He plays Bach's Cello Suite No. 1 in G Major on acoustic guitar as she dances. I found the union of the classical arts with such an icon of popular culture ironic because it is often because of the pop-culture that the more classical art forms are hushed away. Using an element of pop-culture to expose non-mainstream art such as ballet and classical music transforms the way these art forms are viewed and encourages interdisciplinary understanding. Transposing Bach's Cello Suite from cello to guitar remains true to the original piece yet allows it to transcend the stigmas of classical music as boring or old-fashioned because it is performed by a current popular icon, Sting, and through a medium that more people can relate to and understand which is guitar. The same logic applies for the ballet which is the real visual component of the video. The dancing is mesmerizing, but attention is only originally attracted because there is something to relate to through Sting as a popular artist. As I was watching the video I began to think about the growing value of interdisciplinary understanding in our culture. It is no longer enough to be proficient or exemplary in one discipline. As we were writing our papers on St. Olaf that was a value that many of the students and professors mentioned. I believe it is even included in the St. Olaf mission statement as a goal. One professor used a metaphor of height and width explaining that the goal at St. Olaf is not to produce people who are experts in one subject, or "tall" in one area, but instead are wide, in that they have a good understanding of multiple subjects or aspects of life. He said that the wideness is what will make us effective contributors to the world. Being "tall" in one area is almost exclusive and therefore not always useful to society as a whole. I think this video exemplifies this concept and allows  viewers to be a little bit wider in terms of their knowledge and appreciation for art and entertainment.

Lots more could be said as well about media the method of communication of this project. The project was accomplished through a video which makes it easily accessible by anyone with a computer. It is appropriate for the age of technology and really expedites that resource. Additionally directly from this video comes one of the most famous images of contemporary ballet photography shown below. I had seen this image many times before; it is famous, but I never knew it came directly from this project. Interestingly photography as media sometimes has an inverse effect compared to video because it is often circulated among a more specific demographic, in this case people involved with dance whereas videos are much more universal and can be 'happened upon' much more easily by anyone. Because of this, as media the photograph and video are complimentary in that they accomplish both, exposing non-mainstream art to the general public, and draw people out from within the dance world to experience this cross-disciplinary more contemporary exercise.

http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/7545/alessandra12preludepd0.jpg

You Are What You Own

The difference between "what you need and what you want" is no foreign concept for Americans. This is a motto by which mothers raise children to practice good shopping habits, but I wonder how much weight this phrase truly has in our culture. Last night, while taking inventory in my room, I realized how much STUFF I really have yet at the same time how much I couldn't imagine life without. For example, I probably have more than thirty shirts in my room.  Having a lot of different things to wear, I suppose, give my wardrobe variety, but is variety really a necessity? This exercise really showed me the extent of American consumerism and how that affects our culture. In a sense what we want almost becomes what we need or at the very least the boundary becomes blurry. I probably don't need thirty shirts, yet when try to think of what things I could live without, I can't imagine life without the luxury that quantity allows me to have.
These are a few of the GENERAL things I have in my room:
Technology:
   Cell phone
   Laptop
   Ipod + chargers & protective cases for all of the above
   Printer
   fan
Bed:
   Comforter
   4 Fleece Blankets
   Pillow
   pillow case & sheets, 2 sets
   mattress
Desk
   pens, pencils, markers, colored pencils, glue stick, scissors, tape, desk lamp, packing tape, binders, folders, dividers, paper, Textbooks, picture frame, chair
Food:
   mugs, plastic cups, plates, bowls, water bottle, dish towel, dish washing soap, water heater
   various snacks
Standing lamp
Book shelf
Dresser & Closet
   too many shirts for my own good
   jeans, yoga pants, performance slacks
   a few dresses
   about 7 pairs of shoes
   pjs
   sweatshirts
   laundry bag
   laundry detergent, bleach for colors, oxyclean
   towels, washcloth
Backpack, shoulder bag, purse
Toiletries
    Tissues, makeup, toothbrush & toothpaste, hair products, soap, deodorant, sewing kit, face creams/washes
    nail polish
Chair
Window seat
2 throw pillows
2 suitcases

Pocahontas Perplex

"The Native American woman like all women, needs a definition that stands apart from that of males, red or white."

Rayna Green's essay, The Pocahontas Perplex, mainly focuses on portrayal of Native American women as sex symbols and she makes the point that these representations of Native American women stem from the white male (and of European origin) perspective. I would like to elaborate on this point and explore the identity of the Native American woman. Some distinctions that Green makes in her article are the concept of the "good indian" as one who helps white men. She also distinguishes between the idea of the Squaw and the Princess. The Squaw is physically described in crude terms portrayed as sexually more 'savage' which may perhaps translate to the contemporary adjective, 'easy,'  than her 'sister' the Princess. On the other hand the Princess, descended from a barbarous, primitive indian Queen, resembling the European perspective of Natives of South America, is the morally transformed, closer to Caucasian in appearance, with adornments reminiscent of Roman dress and figure, yet somehow this makes her more 'American'. Equally so both identities were given to the Native American woman by European males. They controlled the identity of this demographic and their influence on the minds of people throughout history is profound. The images and the identity that white European males created for the Natives have stayed prominent throughout the course of history. Even Disney's interpretation of Pocahontas is heavily based on the notion of the Indian Princess. The virtue of Pocahontas is determined by the standards of white men.  She is good because she saved John Smith. She is good because she served as a liaison between conflicting groups of people, yet often seemed to remain in favor of the Virginia company. Additionally, even the way Pocahontas is depicted physically is determined by white men's standards. In the film she is incredibly thin with legs that extend for days. She unmistakably well endowed in hips and bosom. Her arms and fingers are gentile and feminine. She is portrayed this way because that is the way whites wanted to see her. Her identity comes from a desire to create something desirous out of a seemingly compassionate 10 year old. In the identity white males created for her, we lose sight of the reality that she was in fact a child when the Europeans first encountered her. Furthermore, the fact that her identity and the identity of Native women in general comes from white men is also a product of a cultural and language barrier. Unfortunately because of the influence of white culture in America there wasn't really a way, historically for whites to receive an identity coming from the Natives themselves. Unfortunately because of the few primary documents (most if not all of which containing a white bias) that exist of Pocahontas we may never truly understand Native American women as they were when the Europeans first encountered them. Thus the identity that whites created for them is the only one we can study and analyze, yet at the same time it is one that we can never trust.

John Rolfe

In his letter of 1614 John Rolfe says,

"I make betweene God and my own conscience, be a sufficient witness, at the dreadfull day of judgement...to condemne me herin, if my chiefest intent and purpose be not, to strive with all my power of body and minde, in the undertaking of so mightie a matter....for the good of this plantation, for the honour of our countrie, for the glory of God, for my owne salvation and for the converting to the true knowledge of God and Jesus christ, an un beleeving creature, namely Pokahuntas."

After paring down this line, if found it's true meaning slightly disturbing. Underneath the unfamiliar spellings and the confusion of the long run-on sentence, basically John Rolfe is making a covenant with God that for the benefit of his community, his country, and for the glory of God, to convert Pokahuntas to Christianity. To believe that converting one Native woman to Christianity would have such an overwhelming effect is beyond me. At first it opened my eyes to the weight that Pokahuntas had in their society. She must have carried great significance if converting her would dramatically benefit their entire community. However, as I continued on in his letter I began to wonder if it wasn't just about John Rolfe. The way he glorified her and her potential made me think that it wasn't just that she had particular significance in their society, but it was that Rolfe was, i think it is fair to say, obsessed with her. Later finding out John Rolfe married her only affirmed this suspicion and, as disturbing as it was, began to see a humor in the relationship between his feelings toward her and contemporary interactions between people who are interested in each other today. Whole concepts such as facebook-stalking which are widely understood today are rooted in the same emotions Rolfe felt in writing this letter, although he couldn't explicitly admit to those feelings because it would have been socially inappropriate at the time.

Native American Imagery as a Symbol of America

Many images of Native Americans have famously represented America and although other images have come to contribute to our national identity, this image has remained most constant. I find this ironic because throughout our history we spent so much effort in conquering Native American lands and ultimately crushed their culture. Why would something that we have historically destroyed hold such weight in our own identity? Perhaps it is because the Natives were the first beings Europeans encountered upon arriving in the New World. The people here were different than themselves. They wore different (and sometimes less) clothing. They lived within nature as opposed to apart from it or conquering it to shape it in their own fashions. These were the first impressions Europeans got of America. America, as a place, absorbed the seemingly 'wildness' of it's inhabitants thus the image of America reflects that first impression.

On the Subject of Stress

I think it goes without saying that for the past week my blog has been subpar or....non-existant. Last week I had my first couple serious college writing assignments and exams (multiple on the same day) and I think it is fair to say that the stress is starting to get to me. In coming to this realization, I began to wonder how I should remedy this, and then started to consider how Americans, on a whole, deal with stress. Much has been said about our culture relating to our work ethic. Americans are efficient. Americans are ambitious. Americans are busy, driven, productive. Essentially Americans are workaholics. I don't think we really know how to relax. Perhaps more sleep would help with the stress. Perhaps I need time to myself apart from my work, however; neither of these seem like good options because they take time away from work that needs to be done. They are anti-productive. Instead, I think the more 'American', reaction to stress is to do is to do more work in order to distract yourself from the other work you don't have time to do. There are many Americans who live this way. I think one of the things we value most is time and how to use it instead of how to use it and how to not use it. Even our entertainment mostly revolves around instant gratification. We might rather watch a 2 hour film than read the corresponding 500 page book over the course of 2 weeks. We don't like to wait for plots to develop slowly, as in many French films. We always need to be entertained. I think sometimes we confuse entertainment with relaxation. I think what Americans really need is to find the time to do nothing and to change their view of nothing. Time to do nothing can be just as fulfilling as time spent cramming to get work done and I believe it would help make us a healthier people. So perhaps although detrimental to my grade, i'm sure, leaving my blog alone for a few days has given me a chance to recharge, but to those who read my blog know that I will catch up and I am back to stay.

Puritans

"[the Puritans] were united by their opposition to and the persecution experienced from the Church of England...the removal to New England effected for the migrating Puritans that same lost. There was no persecution, no heretical church to oppose."

In this light the Puritans were no set of outstandingly righteous people. They weren't necessarily united by common spiritual beliefs, but were by the fact that they were targets for persecution in England because they were different from everybody else, yet not necessarily different in the same way. This created immense problems in trying to create their own cohesive society in the New World. Once the persecution was removed, they had nothing to bond over and thus they were uncertain as to how to act as a society and which direction they wanted to take their settlement. The result was a community which strict behavioral rules which were rooted in fear. I think the Puritans, after having experienced persecution, had a genuine fear of each other and how each individual would be received by the community as a whole. Relating to their belief of predestination, their strict society was set up so that each individual had to prove his placement, not that he/she was worth of their predetermined place in heaven (because they're already placed, their placement cannot be changed, as is the definition of "predetermined"), but they wanted to appear to their neighbors as they had been placed into the kingdom of heaven for fear that if they did not show this through their actions, their neighbors would judge them. Ultimately this society based on fear could never survive, because the focus was so much on the individual and his or her spiritual rank that they never considered it necessary to cooperate and interact with one another as a true community.

To Whom Does Love Apply?

John Winthrop's A Model of Christian Charity is commendable in it's persistent theme of abundantly giving to those who are in need and treating others with love, however; I felt that there was a conflict of Winthrop's intent regarding the matter of who should receive Christian charity. In the beginning he says, [The Law of Grace] requires two things. First that every man afford his help to another in every want or distress." In this case the recipient of help is very non-specific and the message is clear, Christians should help everybody. Later in the passage he starts talking about relationships between Christians saying, "True Christians are of one body in Christ...no body can be perfect which wants it's proper ligament." which implies that only fellow Christians are eligible for Christian aid. If a part of the body is in trouble we should help that part recover from it's distress so that the body may again function as a whole. Unfortunately the Puritans of Winthrop's time lived by this exclusion policy , as they had a relatively low tolerance for people who upheld different beliefs than theirs. This is unfortunate because I believe it played into their own downfall. As individuals we are naturally different from each other. A society which requires us to all be the same can never flourish because by default we are all different.

Americans are...

This past Tuesday, Fox's popular television show "Glee"returned for it's second season. One of the characters, Rachel, a head-strong, lead vocalist for the high school's glee club, perfectly personified our definition of Americans as 'ambitious' from our first day of class. Generally we positively associate ambitions with dreams and aspirations leading to ultimate success, however the rigor with which Americans protect and pursue their ambitions can have detrimental affects on society as a whole. In the Glee episode, the group has lost members so they must recruit new members. Out of fear for her own place as a lead vocalist, Rachel misleads a prospective member, (and a very talented singer) to a crack-house instead of the correct time and place of auditions. As a result of Rachel's selfish actions to secure her own spotlight, the group suffers because without more members they do not qualify to compete at Nationals. We often don't realize that we have become blinded by our ambition until it is too late. Rarely do we consider the consequences of our actions for the environment and society as a whole rather than just ourselves.

The Double-Edged Sword

"He had his faults and his defects, but they were largely the defects of the qualities that made him great..."
             -Samuel Eliot Morison in Christopher Columbus, Mariner
For a recount of historical events, as the title suggests, Howard Zinn's, A People's History of the United States seems to be incredibly emotionally charged, but perhaps that is where the word "people's" comes into play. I wonder if it is true that humans can document anything without a biased influence. I believe that it is in our nature to voice our opinions on subjects about which we feel passionate. In America the Freedom of Speech permits us to do this. Essentially, the only thing which stops us from sharing our viewpoint is our own fear of how we will be received, thus the only thing stoping us from acting in our nature is ourselves. This represents the same "double-bladedness" of humanity as Morison's quote. Columbus was determined, stubborn, deeply religious, persistent, but the way that he put these qualities into action brought forth cruelty and violence, even racism. I think, as Morison eloquently notes, that humanity is double sided. Our best qualities which are virtuous and give us moral guidance can also lead us astray if we do not consider the consequences of pursuing such things as greed.

A Question of Purity

Shirley Geok-Lin Lim's poem, Learning to Love America, poem starts with a clearly cynical tone, "because it has no pure products". The emphasis of the word 'pure' causes the effect of cynicism because it is unclear what the narrator is trying to imply. Perhaps she means 'pure' in the sense that our products are tainted by foreign influences. America's diverse population would support this assertion. If our country represents a confluence of so many different cultures, how can we put forth any purely 'American' product if by definition our culture is impure? Or perhaps she means 'pure' in the sense of honest or honorable intentions. For ages the idea of the American Dream has pushed Americans to 'get ahead' economically by whatever means necessary, sometimes, unfortunately, at the cost of the freedoms of others. Rarely do we think how the processes we take part in to put forth a product affect others. For example, Walmart's current slogan is "Save money, Live better," but who does this freedom for Americans to pay less for everyday items conversely affect? The people who work for minimum wage to produce Walmart products probably don't live better because others are saving money. In this sense our commercial morals are less than pure. Although, the cynicism may feel harsh, I feel the weight of a very important question that the narrator of this poem asks readers to consider which is, what can Americans be proud of?

Freedom of Self Expression

            As Americans, we pride ourselves in fact that our country allows us to express our individuality without fear of judgment or penalty. We strive to be unique as much as we try to “fit-in” to a cohesive society, and the freedom to express who we are as a part of the American “melting pot” allows this to occur. We are one yet we are many. I think this concept really highlights the freedom of self-expression and it’s place in American society. I chose my pointe shoes to represent this freedom because it represents a manner in which I express who I am and what I feel. The shoe itself connects to a specific art form, ballet, which has been preserved since its origins in the Baroque period in Europe, yet this specific pair evokes a more modern image of dance because they are brightly colored. Interestingly Modern Dance began in America as a sort of rebellion against the strict rules and limitations of ballet technique. Additionally, the contemporary music associated with Modern Dance could be considered more ‘American’ as opposed to classical music, which came from Europe. The art on the shoes is also my own. I used bright colors because I feel I am a bright person. I intended the pattern of colors to be random representing my busy senior year, although some hidden features which remind me of specific elements of my life. For example, the purple waves represent Cape Cod, a place that serves as an escape from my busy life. The idea of ‘personalization’ is important to Americans. We want to make every product our own from a dance to a desktop background or even cell ringtones.  Personalization allows us to express who we are and what we feel and allows us to be individuals.

Where do our morals lie?

Last class our ORC group talked about the Amy Tan article and her struggles with finding the place of American freedoms in the rest of the world. In other words, where does the line lie between respecting another country's sovereignty and a moral responsibility to help other human beings in need? One lens through which we could answer this question is one of a global perspective. For example, which side would maintain peace between nations? Clearly the first value, respecting another country's sovereignty over it's own domain, would maintain a peaceful political balance between nations, however is the World really at peace if a country denies it's own people help that they need? This then also begs the question, 'what is peace'? Is it enough to achieve 'world peace' from a political stand-point? I believe that it isn't but I also don't believe that peace is accomplished by requiring everyone to cherish the same values and beliefs that we do as Americans. I think humans possess an innate sense of compassion and our humanity drives us to help others when we can, however, often we limit ourselves in the help that we can give by only trying to help in ways that are familiar to us. This 'my way or the highway' standpoint which we saw in Tan's editorial failed to help the orphans of China and in fact worsened their situation, barring them from receiving further assistance. Perhaps a compromise can be made in situations such as these. Perhaps it is best to exercise our sense of compassion and moral responsibility in a way that is most convenient for those who we are trying to help rather than only considering the ways of helping with which we are most fluent. In this manner we avoid dictating how other countries should help their own citizens, yet we can still have a voice in securing a better future for those in need.