agitation

Okay, so I tend to participate in crit class a lot, but I am too grounded in text. That's me -- not to the point where I think the work is unalterable, but I make references to the text, reminding people what such critic said, you know, to remind me what the critic is arguing about. It saddens me, however, to admit it is sickening in lots of ways; but now I am aware of what I do.

Problem: too much theory -- or theorizing -- paralyzes people from engaging in a serious debate, or not even debates but just candidly talking -- opening up conversations about problems/arguments /assumptions at stake. What else? sounds like a debate about theory vs practice, that is, effecting change on a grassroots level.

How do you talk about culture when there is too much theory? What happens? exclusion and alienation. What do you do, or how do you address a problem when part of the problem lies in the power structures of an institution? publish an article that addresses concerns?

Sometimes I think I am really, really close to articulating what Cultural prof says, but still not quite, and I end up feeling like a pebble, a speck, a piece of unwanted lint. But it is strange to work with Cultural prof knowing that he is grounded in psychoanalysis, b/c everything seems to come down to internalization of power structures to the point where one no longer questions but accepts the institution, complicit in its actions.

another problem: Now, do I spout psychoanalytic jargon b/c I have internalized my Prof's bent, b/c i noticed that i've been leaning towards internalization and mass fantasy and i can't tell if i really think that, or i've suddenly been influenced by prof. In other words, am I just feeding prof what he wants to hear? like a pat on my back? Hm. what other explantions did I have before the internalization of big Other?


(example in class: not voting as a woman, but internalizing and therefore subscribing to the dominant institutional ideology).

Reminder:
Post about Dr. Ivy league's advice.