The climax of culture

After reading Eagleton and the blogs the general conclusion I get is that culture has taken a turn for the worst. But, I do not know if I agree. In high school we used to have decades parties, and it seemed like every ten years had some kind of social contribution to add. I wonder if we can do the same with the 2000s.

I think a point we are missing is that all these different cultures, different groups of people as America continues to assimilate, are mixed into one so that it keeps growing and changing. I would argue that it has not leveled out and that it cannot level out because everyone will always have something different to add.

Of course it has been said all the time that we are in the age of technology, which I guess is the dominate part of our culture, but is there all that is to it? Are we anything else but technology... oh and sex?? At this point of time I can't think of anything else, so maybe I do agree. Maybe we have come to a cultural standstill.

Religion and Sex

Jonathan Goldberg's article places a lot of emphasis on religion, using Aan Bray's book. What was interesting in this article is the mix of politics, religion, and sexuality. Bray's book discusses the last events of a man's life before he was murderered then accused of being gay. The article touches on the relationship between Christianity and homosexuality. The greatest accusation the man faced was being called a homosexual, which instantly turned into a case of libel
What makes the statement that someone is homosexual an instantly slanderous statement. What about homosexuality can ruin a person's reputation? The article shows how homophobic society is, esspecially in religion.
For example, in Denver during the Martin Luther King parade, many gay and lesbian rights activists march for their rights as well. But, if you think about it Dr. King, an extremely faithful Christian, would probably not have supported the homosexual agenda, based strictly on his religous beliefs.
Will there ever be a point in which religion will accept homosexuality into their society?

Seperate but Equal

I particularly found several parts of Gates's article interesting. First, the part about Abraham Lincoln pulling together some black people to tell them because of their great racial difference, they should go back to Africa. By this point, however, the Africans that were shipped to the United States are not the same black people who overcame slavery. These black people have begun to assimilate, and have never been to Africa, and know nothing about Africa. The equivilant would be telling the Spanish, Italian, or Irish to go back to the respective countries their realatives came from.
This is actually is probably something the English wanted to say based on page 1894 of Gates when the comment was made that the difference could be made between Irish protestants and Catholics based on their race. Of course, this is rediculous. Even light-skinned black people sometimes passed as white without notice.
I think the argument could be made that black people were not allowed to be educated, not because they were inferior, but because it would prove they are of the same intellegence as white people. The example of the black girl Phillis Wheatley shows that black people can be properly educated and create works of literature. Does it define them as a race? Well, I would argue no. If having the ability and freedom to express yourself defines a race as being equal to other races, then it must hold true for all races. Someone's blog (sorry, I forgot who) talked about the concept of "writing themselves into being," applying to everybody regardless of race.

The Power of Words

What interests me most is the beginning of Part II when Bourdieu starts talking about the meaning of words and the uses of language in society. I always thought writing is a powerful form of expression, something that people will read and understand the context and emotion the author was trying to have understood. But Bourdieu states that is not always the case. He says, "The power of words is nothing other than the delegated power of the spokesperson, and his speech - that is, the substance of his discourse and, inseparably, his way of speaking- is no more than a testimony, and one among other, of the guarantee of delegation which is vested in him" (107). I think I have an example of what he is talking about.
An author could be passionately writing her views on a topic (this situation could in fact be happening to me right now), in her mind she knows exactly the tone and emotions she wishes to convey in her writing. Then, when she presents it to someone else who reads her work in a dry monotone voice, missing her sarcasm, humor, and whatever else she wanted expressed, the message losses its power and therefore its meaning on the listeners. If she herself had read the speech the way it is suppose to be read the writing would have had more power and effect on the listener, and made all the difference in the world.
What he is saying is the words by themselves mean nothing, but it is the combined forces of words plus the authorized speaker, "because his speech concentrates within it the accumulated symbolic capital of the group which has delegated him and of which he is the authorized representative" (111).