SUDDEN ROOM CHANGE

Hi folks.  Scheduling has been so very considerate and has changed the exam room… the day before we write.  The new room is ATAC 1003.  The date and time are the same.  I will email everyone to update them of this change.  Spread the news.

Office Hours

I will be holding my regular office hours until the exam date.  That means I’ll be in my office on Monday and Wednesday between 3 and 4 PM, if any of you need assistance with the exam or your essay.  Or you we can meet by appointment if necessary.

Also, it’s worth noting that if you need more time to finish your final essay (or any other essays you haven’t handed in…), you have until no later than April 25th or 26th.  I have to submit my marks to the Registrar on the 28th, but to ensure I have time to mark your essays, give me some time.

Final Exam comments

Just some final notes on the exam, which is Thursday, April 9th, AT1010, from 9am – noon.

I will not test you on topics that were not assigned as readings.  For example: last class we covered four shady characters (Innis, Grant, McLuhan, Kymlicka), but only two were assigned as readings (McLuhan and Kymlicka).  For studying purposes, you only need to worry about McLuhan and Kymlicka.

This applies to every class.  Refer to the second-term reading list to see just who might show up on the exam.  Refer to your notes and to the blog to see if some topics feature more prominently than others; if I didn’t spend some time on it, I won’t be testing you on it.  I may be obtuse, but I’m not mean.

Further, I won’t be testing you on historical information, but only on philosophy.  No dates, no personal info, no trivia.

Lastly (I think), the final exam only covers material from this term (i.e. from January 5th to March 30th, Aquinas to Kymlicka).

I hope this is helpful for those feeling the pressure.  Remember, Wednesday, April 1st, is a review class for those of you who would like some clarification.  You come with the questions, I’ll do my best to answer clearly.

Also try to think back to the holiday exam, and how well most of you did on the short and long answer (let’s just forget about the multiple choice).  Take heart.  You probably know more than you think you know.

Class 44: Monday, March 30th, 2009

LAST CLASS!  A snapshot of some Canadian philosophy: Innis, Grant, McLuhan, and Kymlicka.

As a general observation, the most notable of Canadian philosophy has tended to wrestle with communication and media theory (Innis, Grant, McLuhan), political theory (Grant, Kymlicka), and literary theory (McLuhan, Frye). There are many – MANY – other stellar examples of internationally reknowned theorists and philosophers (some here at Lakehead), so keep in mind that our list for today is merely representatives of some dominant themes, and not exhaustive in any respect.

Here are the slides from today’s class.

Class 43: Wednesday, March 25th, 2009

Some contemporary examples of social/political philosophy (Chomsky, Rawls); Introduction to Queer Theory (Butler).

Again, some more fast-paced content, but as a result we’ve freed up next Wednesday for a voluntary review class as was intended.  That means the last lecture for 1100YA is going to Monday’s class on some Canadian philosophy (Kymlicka, McLuhan, etc.), and Wednesday’s class will be an open review class for those who need/want it.  There will be no lecture, no additional course material given on Wednesday, but rather it will be an opportunity for students to get clarification in areas of this term’s material they feel they may need – you ask the questions, I’ll do my best to answer.  As such, it is not a mandatory class – you don’t have to attend.

Today’s class was a quick look at three very different thinkers, two of whom take very different approaches to academic socio-political engagement, and the third picking up de Beauvoir’s critique of the social construction of gender, taking it beyond notions of physiological ’sex’ right down to social constructions of identity.

Chomsky and Rawls both acknowledge the existence of all manner of injustice in contemporary society – in the US, specifically – but take two very different approaches to handling it.  Chomsky argues that academics – philosophers, specifically – have much to offer in times of political and social crisis (like the kind of crisis he identified as the Vietnam war) and ought not to remain separate and necessarily unconcerned.  Rawls, on the other hand, seeks to redefine the notion of justice and the philosophical basis for liberal democracy to address what the current philosophical basis (i.e. a mish-mash of utilitarianism and Lockean social contract theory) seems incapable of handling: ongoing social, economic, and political inequalities.

With Butler and ‘Gender Trouble’, we see her analysis of the trouble of ongoing gender binaries in 2nd wave feminism (hence, ‘gender trouble’), and her conclusion that ALL identity is ‘performative’, even that which we have historically understood to be so basic – our physical sexuality: as soon as we identify a person with a penis as ‘male’ and a person with breasts and a vagina as ‘female’, we are immediately falling prey to the tricks of a language that has been entangled in a culture and history of use as (hegemonic) binaries of sexual identification.  There is no ’sex’; there is only identity.  Butler urges her readers to actively undermine these binaries, to cause ‘gender trouble’ by intentionally subverting traditionally held notions of gender and sexuality.

Butler’s analysis provides the foundation for ‘Queer Theory’, which (as you can see in the slides) is a critical theory of all manner of identity considered traditional, dominant, and ‘normal’.

Here are the slides from today.

Class 42: Monday, March 23rd, 2009

Philosophy of Science and the Environment (generally considered): Latour and Naess reading.

The character of contemporary philosophy of science and of the environment is the result of philosophy’s new role of merely asking questions, as opposed to trying to provide a meta-narrative.  Science, having become the de facto authority for just about any concern in Western culture – political, social, cultural, economic, industrial, medical, ethical, academic… you name it, “Science” has the final word – is the ideological norm that goes generally unquestioned… hence the declaration of our friend, Esqueleto (Hector Jiminez in ‘Nacho Libre’).

Here are the slides from today’s lecture.

Class 41: Wednesday, March 18th, 2009

Finished Derrida, a brief introduction/overview of Philosophy of Technology and Privacy

Here are the slides for Derrida.

Here are the slides for Philosophy of Technology/Privacy.

For Monday, we will cover current philosophies of environment and of science.  Enjoy the weekend – and if you have any questions about your essays (either #3 or #4) or the exam, please let me know.

Essay #3 News

Hi folks,
Just a note to say that I will not have the essays ready to hand back by Wednesday’s class. Looks like Monday the 23rd. I’m entering marks as I go, so keep an eye on MyInfo for your status.
See you tomorrow – we finish Derrida and do Technology and Privacy.

Class 40: Monday, March 16, 2008

Finishing Foucault, beginning Derrida… cut short (darn it!) by class evaluations!  Arrgh!   So, for those of you itching to tell me what you really think… you missed your chance.  Well, you could always tell me to my face.  (What a thought!)

In rounding out Foucault today,  I made some mention of his discussion of social control of the body, of sexuality in particular, as mentioned in the reading.  I need to make some clarifcations, I think, because I don’t think I adequately summarized the idea.  I’ll make more mention of this in Wednesday’s class, but for the moment it’s helpful to know the following: all of Foucault’s analyses are directed at the various ways existing structures of power seek to ‘normalize’ citizens  – medical systems, psychiatric systems, penal systems, legal systems, etc., are all engaged in ‘producing’ normal citizenry (this was explained well enough in class).  Each and all of these systems are forms of social control, not so much of individuals, but of bodies. We make this distinction because any time you attempt to control a thing, it becomes an object – i.e., it is no longer a subject of inherent value, but rather a ‘thing’ that can and should be controlled and, if need be, ‘fixed’.

What I failed to mention/explain in class was this: Foucault makes a big deal out of how Western (read: French) culture has historically not just attempted to control the body, but has repressed sexuality as matter of course.  While this does speak of an inherent and hierarchical dualism in Western considerations of the person, for Foucault it’s more significant that sexuality has become separated from our individual sense of self as something to be measured and controlled – in other words, since our bodies have become objects, our sexuality has also become an object.  The result of this has been a general cultural acceptance of the objectification of sexuality to the point where it is no longer ‘acceptable’ to appear naked – or even reveal skin – unless the body conforms to now normalized ideals of sexuality.  It’s perfectly acceptable, for instance, for there to be models with barely any clothing in visual media if and only if those models are of certain dimensions and musculature, fitness, without blemish, tanned, etc.  However, what was once an ideal of human sexuality (we only need to look back to classical greek and roman sculpture to see these ideals suggested – but it only suggests the existence of the ideal, not of a general cultural approbation of the ideal) have become expectations that we privately enforce upon ourselves, more recently with the aid of proliferating tanning salons, hair and beauty salons, gyms, hair and skin-care products, other beauty products, etc., etc., etc…  This is done unquestioningly because we have been successfully conditioned to objectify our bodies, including our sexuality.  It gets more complicated/interesting when you throw notions of sexual orientation into this mix and stir vigorously, but I’ve said enough for now.

Here are the Foucault slides.

Also, if you are interested in a good documentary about Derrida – the thinker, the celebrity, the cad (!) – here it is on google video, as promised.

Finally, I’ll do my darned-est to have the essays completed by Wednesday.  Cross your fingers.

Class 39: Wednesday, March 11, 2009

Hi Everyone,

A few notes: I apologise for Monday.  I don’t like to cancel classes, especially when we are sliding behind in our schedule, and especially on short notice – but I really was feeling unwell. April 1st’s class, originally an extra day, may have to be used for a normal lecture day.  Not ideal, and I’ll try to get back on schedule in order to leave it as a review day.

Also, I’ve had to make a couple of changes to the reading list: 1. I’ve changed the Arne Naess reading to an “Introduction to Deep Ecology”, a more direct and approachable overview of deep ecology than the original planned reading, available still at the Library Circulation desk; 2. I don’t yet have a hard copy of Judith Butler’s ” – it is available as an e-text through the LU Library website.

Today’s talk was an insanely brief and insufficient overview of the Critical Theory of the Frankfurt School, and an introduction to Michel Foucault.  We have so much to cover, I fear that many of the forthcoming lectures will be akin to a forced march, all made worse by my absence on Monday.  I’ll do what I can.

Here are the slides from today’s lecture on the Frankfurt School.

We’ll finish up Foucault on Monday, as well as “cover” Derrida – if such a thing is possible, especially in 2/3 of a class.