Comments on: Quote for Questions 1-3 http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/ Class blog and wiki for CCC Thu, 04 Dec 2008 20:11:57 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: sallen http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-52 sallen Fri, 21 Sep 2007 16:05:24 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-52 From Brendan: I feel that the scene in Malcolm X in which the defintions are read out of the dictionary are a reflection of the times in which Malcolm lived. I feel as though the deffinition of truth is something portrayed by every new generation as their truth, for they are the society who gets to define it. This definition influnces the future generations definitions but the future generation will always put their own spin on it. I feel that the way we can change racist truths in our society is not only to look at the definition of truths left for us by our ancestors but also understand that these truths are influenced by society. In this way we can take action with our everyday lives to change inappropriate truths then influencing future generations. From Brendan:

I feel that the scene in Malcolm X in which the defintions are read out of the dictionary are a reflection of the times in which Malcolm lived. I feel as though the deffinition of truth is something portrayed by every new generation as their truth, for they are the society who gets to define it. This definition influnces the future generations definitions but the future generation will always put their own spin on it. I feel that the way we can change racist truths in our society is not only to look at the definition of truths left for us by our ancestors but also understand that these truths are influenced by society. In this way we can take action with our everyday lives to change inappropriate truths then influencing future generations.

]]> By: katiewalsh http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-46 katiewalsh Fri, 21 Sep 2007 13:06:03 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-46 When something is ‘given,’ it is inherent. Current societal forces cannot influence (and thus change) what is ‘given’ because it was made concrete before me, before you, and before this society. Something that is ‘produced,’ however, has been manipulated by outside forces. Society has changed it so that it reflects a certain perspective, and this produces a bias in favor if that specific society's beliefs and opinions. When something is ‘given,’ it is inherent. Current societal forces cannot influence (and thus change) what is ‘given’ because it was made concrete before me, before you, and before this society. Something that is ‘produced,’ however, has been manipulated by outside forces. Society has changed it so that it reflects a certain perspective, and this produces a bias in favor if that specific society’s beliefs and opinions.

]]> By: Cassie http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-43 Cassie Fri, 21 Sep 2007 03:24:38 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-43 I think some people believe there are certain truths or ideas that are obviously "given" to us by some force (nature, reason/intellect/God/science). They usually are not argued or at least we don't think they are. An example would be that the earth is round. I think most people here would say that is a "given." Yet, it's not. It's been produced by society. People have used math and science to "prove" that the earth is round. Some people think it is a given, but it is actually produced. I think some people believe there are certain truths or ideas that are obviously “given” to us by some force (nature, reason/intellect/God/science). They usually are not argued or at least we don’t think they are. An example would be that the earth is round. I think most people here would say that is a “given.” Yet, it’s not. It’s been produced by society. People have used math and science to “prove” that the earth is round. Some people think it is a given, but it is actually produced.

]]> By: eliz1 http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-38 eliz1 Fri, 21 Sep 2007 00:48:09 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-38 Based on Belsey's theories, I would say there is not much difference between what is a "given" and what is "produced." The main distinction, though, is what is taken as a given is a natural and obvious assumption that may be produced but it has been around so long, it is accepted. Based on Belsey’s theories, I would say there is not much difference between what is a “given” and what is “produced.” The main distinction, though, is what is taken as a given is a natural and obvious assumption that may be produced but it has been around so long, it is accepted.

]]> By: seand http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-32 seand Thu, 20 Sep 2007 19:18:42 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-32 This quote is too reductive when it speaks about "produced" meaning. Belsey assumes that society at large and all of the discourses within it must 'produce' a meaning, which means that they must necessarily agree upon a 'product's meaning'. I don't even think structuralists ever believed that an entire society could agree upon a single definition of anything. Now if she means that specific discourses within a society could agree upon how they think and reflect upon themselves and conflicts came from competing discourses, that I could buy. Maybe I'm too embedded in my post-structuralist thought to accept that structuralists ever believed that multiple discourses between multiple groups of people ever agreed upon language's natural and obvious meaning. This quote is too reductive when it speaks about “produced” meaning. Belsey assumes that society at large and all of the discourses within it must ‘produce’ a meaning, which means that they must necessarily agree upon a ‘product’s meaning’. I don’t even think structuralists ever believed that an entire society could agree upon a single definition of anything. Now if she means that specific discourses within a society could agree upon how they think and reflect upon themselves and conflicts came from competing discourses, that I could buy. Maybe I’m too embedded in my post-structuralist thought to accept that structuralists ever believed that multiple discourses between multiple groups of people ever agreed upon language’s natural and obvious meaning.

]]> By: angiek http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-30 angiek Thu, 20 Sep 2007 11:04:59 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-30 When I think of the word "given" I think of something that just is. There is no thought of how it came to be. There is no process involved. "Produced," on the other hand, makes me think of a complex set of steps that get to the thing. Work is involved. It is almost as if one takes the given things and puts them together to make something else. When I think of the word “given” I think of something that just is. There is no thought of how it came to be. There is no process involved. “Produced,” on the other hand, makes me think of a complex set of steps that get to the thing. Work is involved. It is almost as if one takes the given things and puts them together to make something else.

]]> By: sfinn2id http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-20 sfinn2id Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:43 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-20 To me the idea of something being "given" is more so about a word or language that is not under the influence of society. However, in one of my other classes we were discussing how it is practically impossible for something, an idea a concept, to not be influenced by society. The difference perceptions people have directly influence everything. Something which is "produced" is more socialized and knowingly influence by society. Society itself has such a strong influence on everything therefore I believe the majority of concepts, language and so on is "produced" rather than "given." To me the idea of something being “given” is more so about a word or language that is not under the influence of society. However, in one of my other classes we were discussing how it is practically impossible for something, an idea a concept, to not be influenced by society. The difference perceptions people have directly influence everything. Something which is “produced” is more socialized and knowingly influence by society. Society itself has such a strong influence on everything therefore I believe the majority of concepts, language and so on is “produced” rather than “given.”

]]> By: jparr7aj http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-5 jparr7aj Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:43:02 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-5 I think the difference between "given" and "produced" is a little tricky. I'm inclined to say that when something is "given," it simply is; it exists as an entity on its own without the influence of society. In contrast, this would mean that when something is "produced," it is created, or it's meaning is created, by someone or something; it is directly influenced by society in order for it to exist. As I typed that, I realized that it seems unrealistic for something to soley exist without society, or for it to be entirely controlled by society. However, I think the point from Belsey is that things (ideas, concepts, language, etc.) are, in general, controlled by society, are "produced," rather than existing on their own, are "given." I think the difference between “given” and “produced” is a little tricky. I’m inclined to say that when something is “given,” it simply is; it exists as an entity on its own without the influence of society. In contrast, this would mean that when something is “produced,” it is created, or it’s meaning is created, by someone or something; it is directly influenced by society in order for it to exist. As I typed that, I realized that it seems unrealistic for something to soley exist without society, or for it to be entirely controlled by society. However, I think the point from Belsey is that things (ideas, concepts, language, etc.) are, in general, controlled by society, are “produced,” rather than existing on their own, are “given.”

]]> By: ebald2np http://cultureandcontext.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-4 ebald2np Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:42:59 +0000 http://sallen.umwblogs.org/2007/09/13/question-1/#comment-4 There is a distinct difference between what is 'given' and what is 'produced'. What we "taken as given", we take without questioning and we tend to consider it truth and founded. Something that is produced needs to go through a process and is manipulated by other, outside forces. There is a distinct difference between what is ‘given’ and what is ‘produced’. What we “taken as given”, we take without questioning and we tend to consider it truth and founded. Something that is produced needs to go through a process and is manipulated by other, outside forces.

]]>