A Relatively Simple Thing

As you set out to write on The Routledge Critical and Cultural Theory Reader, keep in mind that I am really asking for a relatively simple thing. When writing about the selections I suggest that you consider these two questions:

How does the reading participate in 'apocalyptic' (or post-apocalyptic) rhetoric?

What does the reading present that can be seen as a critique of apocalypticism?

For instance, look at Mia's post on Marx. Mia quotes the selection and makes some speculations about how we might understand Marx's rhetoric as 'apocalyptic'. (We can always use that word 'apocalyptic' in scare-quotes, because we are developing a working definition: we are in the process of questioning just what it might mean and how it might be used.)

Or consider Melanie's discussion of Freud's unconscious; again, we get a direct attempt to contextualize the unconscious as an 'apocalyptic' idea. If I were to add anything to Melanie's post, it might be a quotation. For instance, I might simply point out how Freud suggests "...that the laws of unconscious activity differ widely from those of the conscious" (14). This means that we barely (if at all) have a way of consciously grappling with what goes on in the unconscious! That's a terrifying and profound idea—with far reaching implications in terms of how we conceive of the individual (which still happens to be an important concept in our society).

Calvin's post on Saussure dives into the depths of linguistic theory, and while he does not exactly mention the word 'apocalypse', we can see how Calvin is banging his head against some difficult and mind-expanding ideas. (Though, really, my description of this is not exactly accurate if we take Saussure seriously.) Our posts do not always have to lead with the word "apocalypse"—in some cases, it might be an ambient condition of sorts. But if I were to ground Calvin's post, I would want us to really spend some more time on Saussure's claim that "language is a form and not a substance" (23). How might this claim challenge the ways we think about language, and what its limits and potentials are?

If we are going to talk about Joan Riviere's piece "Womanliness as Masquerade" in terms of apocalyptic thinking, we might linger on this passage:

The reader may now ask how I define womanliness or where I draw the line between genuine womanliness and the 'masquerade'. My suggestion is not, however, that there is any such difference; whether radical or superficial, they are the same thing. (28)

Riviere calls on us to rethink some allegedly basic categories and common sense acts of everyday life; this alone is enough to upset a seemingly stable system of (self-)relations. What do you think, how do you act, once your identity has been exposed as a 'masquerade'—no matter what you do? (As Todd astutely hinted in class, we'll return to this topic with a vengeance in Butler's Parable of the Sower.)

Our goal for this class is to think about these readings as a collection, in conversation (however oddly, at times) with one another, and to see how what joins them might be a sense of 'apocalyptic' thinking—or a critique thereof. When you write your posts and comments, try to keep the two questions above in mind, and don't feel like you have to do much more than that. Really, it is a relatively simple thing: isolate a challenging or enigmatic sentence or passage, and demonstrate the 'apocalyptic' implications contained or illuminated therein. You do not have to become an expert overnight about these thinkers. Just be precise and specific, and let your audience take care of the rest.