Gender is a social construct which has been heavily adapted into society for centuries, with expectations set for each person of the binary sex. Men are viewed as the providers and conquerors; women are expected to be submissive and take care of the house and home. Behaviors such as chivalry in women or tenderness in men are frowned upon, treated as defects in the perfect societal model. In order for everyone to measure up to such high expectations, personality traits are classified as “male” or “female.” Anyone who falls out of this exhibits androgenyous gender expression. In The Golden Compass, Daemons provide a countering set of traits to their bonded individuals; they are a separate yet connected entity which take on the role of serving as their other half. Through this, Pullman’s work creates a paradox of nonbinary identity in two forms two forms: human and daemon.
Reading through Moers’ classic essay Female Gothic: The Mother’s Monster, she discusses the implications of Shelley’s prior education and its significance on how the novel was brought to fruition. In today’s society, Frankenstein is hailed as a masterpiece from an ingenious woman’s mind; however, numerous critics during her lifetime accused her of merely reconstructing ideas around her opposed to pioneering a new source of horror (322 Moers). Challenged by a kind of misogyny which would rather credit a studious woman with an excellent education, in lieu of creative genius, Shelley’s works are scrutinized by far too little information for such a conspiracy to be given the time.
The claim that Shelley only took from her present day source material beyond lacks in validity, even beyond the blatant fictitious elements in the horror classic. As Moers details, while there are semi realistic details regarding the flow of electricity, the study of anatomy and biology, and fluency in a number of languages could aid in the story, it takes a very different mindset to record and charter facts than it does to bring a creation to life. But much like the essay, which focuses heavily on speculations that Shelly rejected her children as monsters much as Victor did The Creature, they are merely that: speculations.
There is very little proof to back up such a claim – and, in fact, the rejection of one’s child is far from what Frankenstein preaches to begin with. Perhaps Shelley’s education became focal in hopes of making Frankenstein more a tale of caution of creation and birth opposed to treating people with respect and kindness; looking at Victor Frankenstein himself, he, too, had the education and intellect, and much like Shelley breathed life into her work, managed to create his own [“artistically flawed”] magnum opus. The major difference? He is a man who is hailed as a genius who went too far. While in class, we discussed the common misconceptions of the novel: a general audience who hasn’t read the book (or knows only of references in pop culture) would declare it serves a warning of the dangers of playing god (Meyer-Lee 2021). The focus, then, shifts away from the mistreatment the creature suffers, and misses a very different point: ostracization. The Creature is a misunderstood being in society, subject to people’s misgivings and stereotypes far prior to their actions – particularly, and most notably, by their own creator, Victor Frankenstein. The title “Monster” is one which the Creature deigns no association to, given by his own father and those around him, not some sort of honorific worn with pride. Shelley shows the damage that ostracization can do to a member of society, even though the creature’s actions are their own. Victor’s actions are not scorned for creation, nor is the creature for being created – and similarly, false accusations thrust upon the novel were far more caustic than the creation itself. We are brought to feel a sort of disdain by Victor’s treatment of his creation, and thus the notion that it symbolizes a hatred for her own children seems a blatant red herring.
It is interesting, then, that opposed to discrediting Shelley’s reservoir of knowledge, it is the application and transformation which is brought to the front for questioning. Even the male audience, which scorns her craft, cannot deny that she has an intellect and scholarship that rivals theirs; as mentioned in Moers’ footnote, the bias is towards intellect over creativity. Perhaps it is by assumption that such knowledge came only from other male scholars, and that Shelley’s application is a mere vessel for what is already known. But even by doing so, they are still giving her the credit of that scholarship, creating somewhat of a paradoxical situation when it comes down to intellectual prowess. And Shelley herself is no stranger to this kind of double standard.
According to Bringing The Author Forward: Frankenstein Through Mary Shelley’s Letters, even Shelley herself shuns the notion of such an idea; she is cited in the essay to be far from “conventional or conservative,” and actively “questions the priority and authenticity
of the authorial and female self in the context of a profound awareness of woman’s position under patriarchy” (Carson 432). Opposed to accepting the misogyny of acceptable culture, she instead rebelled against it – and perhaps, in a sense, created the birth myth within Frankenstein as a critique of feminine and masculine gender ideals. Both creation and birth myths entail the production of another entity in the end, presumably adding that as a common ground between the binary sexes – the very last thing that a sexist society would want. Without a doubt in the world, if a man had created the work, nobody would bat an eye; however, the fact that such classic literature wasn’t created in “acceptable” male society does say a lot when compared to its themes.
Which is worse in the grand scheme of things; the removal of power altogether, or merely mitigating it to a controllable amount? Society at large can question and demean those who have it in them to create new life, regardless of whether that is through high fiction, scholarly essays, or birth itself. However, when you give those individuals the power to spread that mindset, and to give them the agency that they desire, then that is when it becomes dangerous.
At the end of the day, it is impertinent to speak for Mary Shelley and her intentions; fiction has its links with reality, yes, but that does not mean that it is entirely parallel all the time. Writers take bits and pieces of themselves and put them into their novels, inspired by the comings and goings in their life; it is a bit presumptuous to claim without proof that Shelley had any disdain for her children, and a far cry to remove all context of her life altogether. Moers left “the bias of her scholarship” as an unsourced given due to the fact that it was not debated if she was educated, but rather if she contributed anything new with such education. The assertion that she hadn’t is a work of pure misogyny – an attempt to leave a woman erased from history.
Works Cited
CARSON, JAMES P., and James B. Carson. “Bringing the Author Forward: ‘Frankenstein’ Through Mary Shelley’s Letters.” Criticism, vol. 30, no. 4, 1988, pp. 431–453. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/23112085. Accessed 6 Mar. 2021.
Meyer-Lee, Robert. “Perspectives on Literature. ” ENG 280 A. Agnes Scott College, 23 February 2021, Agnes Scott College, Atlanta.
Moers, Ellen. “Female Gothic.” Literary Women. Garden City, NY: Doubleday &, 1976. 90-99. Print.
New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Shelley, Mary Wollstonecraft, 1797-1851 and J. Paul Hunter, Frankenstein: The 1818 Text, Contexts, Criticism. New York: W.W. Norton & Co, 2012.
Basic Information
The supplement is an additional element added from the outside, but can also be understood as but it can also be understood as supplying what is missing; in this way, is already inscribed within that to which it is added. In this way the word, “supplement” seems to account for “the strange unity” of two gestures (Bernasconi 19). The result of supplementing these words often is easiest when used within the theory of double reading.
Function In Essay
Le Supplement is mentioned in the essay much more in passing than gone into at any depth; it is presented in a list of Derrida’s most notable terms throughout his philosophical works. While not as important in the essay, however, it does help us to help flesh out some of our understanding of binaries and the spaces lacking thereof.
Further Information
The term le supplement works in tandem with Jean-Jacques Rosseau’s more rigid sense of binary opposites, both in terms of creating a dyadic relationship between sharp polar differences and shading the previously blank spaces in between. It is perhaps a more challenging subject to completely come to grips with, but not entirely incomprehensible with a little bit of research into the matter.
Works Cited
Colebrook, Claire. Jacques Derrida: Key Concepts. Routledge, 2015.
Basic Information
Le Pharmakon, the route of the English term “pharmaceutical,” refers to a triad of impacts that a particular substance can provide: poison, medicine, or scapegoat. Something that can heal has the power to hurt in the wrong hands, and vice versa. It is in part the sense that the pain that we cause others can be diverted by transmuting it into something new, or can be blamed (scapegoated) for the conscious actions of others; in philosophical terms, it refers to the ethical stance of the dyadic (and very morally gray) lines between good and evil, in a sense, and the significant debt we owe one another in upholding our responsibilities to one another.
Function In Essay
The term is all but mentioned in the essay in passing, amidst a number of Derrida’s other terms which help us to understand deconstruction and his other contributions to philosophy. The essay gave more of a brief overview of the majority of these, including some other notes such as le supplement and others.
Further Information
The most commonly used example of Le Pharmakon is present in the Phaedrus, where Plato provides the example of Theuth creating a symbol to represent all of the works of art existing in the world. Prior to judgement from the other gods, he pronounces his creation as a godsend (pun intended), stripping it of its previously neutral connotations, or “replacing an unknown for a known” (54 Durate). In order to gain the other god’s favor, he needs to prove that not only will the totem stand in as something that is positive for humanity, but potentially life-changing for all that come involved with it – a sort of medicine, opposed to poison, on the human mind. It is often true that this sort of redirect is used within scholarly communities and even as a basis for the value of other people’s work and ethics; is what is being put out into the world harmful or helpful? Even if it is helpful, is it something that can be twisted into something far more sinister, and become a toxin in of itself by misattribution? This is there the concept becomes somewhat more risky, as intention doesn’t necessarily matter; when we take things out of context and follow through with Death of the Author, we have the potential to poison beneficial words and vice versa.
Works Cited
McCarthy-Nielsen, Patrick. “Education as Pharmakon: Plato and Derrida’s Dialectic on Learning.” Philosophy of Education Archive (2016): 152-158.
Basic Information
Positions was a collection of essays in which Derrida went through his terms in previous works, such as Dissemination and other more complicated works of deconstruction. They were crucial in outlining and configuring his prior outlines in a more digestible way for the readers.
Function In Essay
In the essay, it is used primarily as the source for Derrida’s more complex concepts, such as “hundred blanks” and others. The work itself is not so much the focus as much as a brief look into what information it could potentially hold for the reader, and little more than that.
Further Information
Critics often felt some resentment towards Derrida’s works due to the fact that they were complex, lengthy, and not the easiest to look into even from more sophisticated scholars. Derrida himself countered the criticism with the assertion that readers were not reading deeply enough into his prose, and therefore fell short on their understanding. His recommendation of double reading (reading the same book again to gain additional insight) was unpopular with his readers, and he later revised those down to more simplified terms in Positions.
Works Cited
Derrida, Jacques. Positions: Entretiens Avec Henri Roux, Julia Kristeva, Jean-Louis Houdebine, Guy Scarpetta. Minuit, 1972.
Basic Information
Translated approximately to “the double session,” it is a philosophical phenomenon wherein by moving forward with an explanation, there will always be something added, and something removed in order to maintain a delicate equilibrium. These variables will not always be the same concepts or phenomena, each time, but are revised to help an audience get a better (if not somewhat more complex) understanding of the situation. It pairs well with Derrida’s concept of double reading, where a text is read numerous times in order to get a greater understanding and better digest proper terms involved within it. However, one must always be careful which details they decide to remove and which to add in; the equilibrium can be tricky to achieve if not carefully attended to.
Function In Essay
In the context of the essay, the double session is mentioned after a slew of terms which Derrida coined in various works. “La double séance” is mentioned with specific regard to an essay in Dissemination, one of his works on deconstruction. It is much less explored in length in the essay than used as an anchoring point, much as the other terms are used as examples. It sets the stage for the example that is yet to come.
Additional Information
The initial example of La Double Séance seems to be present with a tale about two mimes, wherein delving deeper into the tale various information is removed and added in order to make sense of the current predicament. This thematic story is present throughout Dissemination and another of the other works simplified in Derrida’s essay collective Positions.
Works Cited
De Nooy, Juliana. “The Double Scission: Dällenbach, Doležel, and Derrida on Doubles.” Style, vol. 25, no. 1, 1991, pp. 19–27. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/42945881. Accessed 27 Feb. 2021.
Regier, W. G. “Delible Derrida.” Prairie Schooner, vol. 57, no. 3, 1983, pp. 92–94. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40631218. Accessed 27 Feb. 2021.
“How can we showcase and embrace diversity in our society?”
Despite the variety of people present in America, more often than not the main focus takes away from them in favor of the majority. Media turns a blind eye to anyone who does not fit into certain parameters, and violence continues to spread within minority groups, fueled by hatred for people who are different than themselves. Without a shift in our thinking, society will collapse and we will have little left but our own mistakes to live with. Therefore, it is about time that we got together and determined how to solve the issue.
While I may not be as impacted by it as some people, I certainly notice the lack of positive media coverage in areas such as neurodiversity and LGBT characters from personal experience being part of both these groups. That is not to say those are the only areas the issue is prevalent. My question is a beautiful question because it is broad enough to provoke change, yet specific enough to be actionable. I chose the question because it is a prevalent issue in present society and one which I strive to change. My question started out with an emphasis on media representation, but in the end, there is more to it than what appears in those messages. In order to achieve this goal, we need to span out and take action from a number of different facets.
One of these facets is theater. As explained in one of our rotations, musicals such as Hamilton provide an open premise for diverse casts and ability to get talent from a broad spectrum of people. Theater, like most art, is produced in relationship to the time periods from which it is created; therefore, the more progressive the society, the more progressive the content which makes its way into the mainstream. By adding more representation into the media, it shows that this is vital in a society which thrives on diversity.
However, fictional media isn’t the only way to bring about change; nonfiction works about significant events can promote it as well. As we learned in the class discussing the article How It Feels to be Forcibly Fed, lived experience with events and describing them to the public can widen overall understanding and empathy with the use of literature. While it is an unfortunate truth, sometimes the only way to get your experience out there is to create the work itself. Therefore, encouraging people to share their thoughts and create work surrounding those themes is vital, as is promoting works by people in minority groups.
Understanding people’s cultural mindsets is also key in being able to create change; often times, people wind up so focused on their own views of the world that they forget to look outside of it and people are forgotten in the midst. At Agnes Scott, we are taught to be mindful of our different backgrounds and to be educated about the world around us. Better education of individuals through the emphasis on much wider cultural standpoints helps to mitigate stigma and learned prejudice because it allows people to see things from an open-minded perspective.
There are numerous ways in which we can improve as a society and work to widen our audience, and it is about time that we explored them.
Works Cited
Barnes, Djuna. How It Feels To Be Forcibly Fed,” New York World Magazine, September 6, 1914.
Berger, Warren. A More Beautiful Question: The Power of Inquiry to
Spark Breakthrough Ideas.
New
York: Bloomsbury, 2014.
During my time at Agnes Scott, I have managed to develop some useful skills as a leader. Prior to my coming to this school, “being the leader” in group assignments was something more akin to wrangling unruly classmates and making sure that the entire group didn’t fall apart. While I was more than simply aware of leadership in the broader scale, the notion of this kind of dynamic wasn’t something which was at all appealing to me. At the very least, that was before I learned about the different kinds of leadership.
According to Gilligan: Making Connections, there are two distinct forms of leadership. The first is interdependent, where an individual works to come up with solutions and goals with a handful (or even larger scale) of people through listening to and adhering to feedback. It functions under the mentality that everyone is connected, and that it is important to work as a team with one’s peers in order to make the most satisfactory impact and hear things from the greatest number of perspectives. The second way of thinking is autonomous, which entails a leader [allegedly] working for people of their own volition, and taking little to no feedback from other people. Interestingly, autonomous leadership is both more desired and prevalent in men, whereas interdependency is a female-dominant form of leadership; however, that is not to say that either is more important than the other. They are merely two different ways to approach the construct of leadership and how one leads.
For me, I do follow this model. I definitely consider myself to be an interdependent leader, following my own voice and those of others in order to make it to a shared goal. I enjoy having the help of my peers, listening to feedback, and overall doing my best when it comes to assignments. I aspire to be a leader out in the real world as well, not just on the college campus, and this is certainly good practice.
A prime example of my leadership was in my author presentations assignment. I sent out the email coordinating my group, and made sure that we were all able to meet up at an agreed-upon time. We divided the work up in accordance to our areas of knowledge and the research we pulled up, shared a Google Slides document to place our results in, and made sure to get the work in on time. The presentation itself was divvied up based on who chose each assignment. This shows my leadership as I took initiative yet was still more than willing to hear my group’s feedback on the project, and how they felt it should best be handled.
Similarly, my film project also helped me to develop my leadership. Details were discussed, a theme was settled upon, and work was given out based on skills. Since I consider myself to be a writer, I was in charge of writing the script. My teammates helped with editing. One of them did the storyboard, and editing the film. I and my third teammate were actors in it, and we all pitched in to create the PowerPoint.
During my group projects, I learned a significant amount about time management. Between cramming in last-minute changes and planning things long in advance, I would gladly stick with the latter. I gained some speaking skills through presentations (nervous as I may have been with those), and overall became more confident with time and practice. My writing capabilities grew with assistance from peer editing and working on PowerPoint slides.
I feel that my LDR class, especially my group work, has showed me that working with peers can be fun, and nowhere near as arduous as it once was back in high school. I look forward to seeing how my interdependent leadership grows in the coming years.
https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archivo:Completo_italiano.jpg
OVERALL
A completo is a Chilean-style hot dog, consisting of a variety of condiments which typically include ketchup, mustard, avocado, chili, and cheese in some combination. There are many different types (avocado, ketchup and mayo is an Italiano, without the avocado it is a tomate-mayo) but they all share copious amounts of toppings on top of Vienna sausage and a hot dog bun. They are a favorite of the common Chilean as a quick meal or snack.
BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES
Food production and associated avoidance of ethical and environmental difficulties are always prevalent in modern industry, as there is often a substantial amount of water, food, land, and output required to be able to produce goods. Meat takes up a substantial amount of this, even more so than crops, and may deprive some people in need of required food and water in order to tend to livestock. While aforementioned ethical concerns are things to worry about particularly with meat, they are less of a concern in Chile. This is because most of production is done on farms with slaughterhouses, and is much less large-scale and impersonal as it is in the United States. All meat production requires a vast amount of land to be able to produce, and concerns of beef and pork (both used in Vienna sausages) definitely fall into this category. Large production of beef leads to larger problems with methane and associated greenhouse gasses, and while there is an infinitely smaller carbon footprint in Chile when compared to large-scale factory farming and pollution, it is still something which should be considered.
CULTURAL PERSPECTIVES
These Chillean-style hot dogs are a common fast food item among locals, and are served at a variety of fast food restaurants, sandwich shops, and carts which specialize in their vending and creation. They are eaten about as casually as typical hot dogs here in the United States. It is most commonly understood that these Vienna sausages are indeed a spin on the American hot dog, and shape a part of everyday life for consumers. They do not appear to have any religious significance, and are more a treat and part of the local culture.
SOCIO-ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL PERSPECTIVES
In accordance with Chilean law, it is required to label if products are high in salts and sugars. Food production companies are striving to be able to avoid these labels by creating healthier food. Consumers are aware of their intake of food and associated health risks which it can cause. While it may not seem the case with dishes such as the completo and the chorrillana (another incredibly caloric dish, consisting of French fries, beef strips, and fried egg), they are both prepared with, while caloric fixings, ones which undergo significantly less processing and additives than in the United States. However, United States imports are still considered more or less “safe” for consumers, and this may lead to some difficulties with the actual production of healthy, ethically-sourced foods. While there is an adequate local meat industry (particularly with regards to seafood, poultry, and pork), Chilean reliance on imports adds significantly to this problem.
SOURCES
https://www.thisischile.cl/the-best-places-where-to-enjoy-a-traditional-completo/?lang=en
(Photo)
https://www.export.gov/article?id=Chile-Agricultural-Sector
Autonomous Rebels Of The Patriarchy: The Troubled Fates Of Lyra and Ms. Coulter
Philip Pullman’s series His Dark Materials is renowned and scorned alike for its criticisms of potentially toxic societal conventions, including things such as social class struggles, the manipulation of religion, and other varied means of discrimination. Aside from the apparent racial clashes, another commonly portrayed method of discrimination in the books is sexism, and the path to overcoming it. Pullman’s novels portray a chiefly patriarchal society, but it is important to note that both the protagonist and antagonist are indeed female, and what effect this has on the book – especially considering the fact they are both portrayed as autonomous leaders.
With regards to the traditional western society, autonomous leaders are most valued, because they stereotypically represent a force of undeniable and often unquestioned power. The autonomous leadership style is, as defined by Gilligan: Competencies and Visions, one in which “the leader characteristically is one who acts or is delegated to act for others” (191). Its counterpart is interdependency, which is where the individual takes feedback from a group into account when coming to a decision. According to this study, autonomous leadership is more common in males while women follow more interdependent styles. Therefore, Pullman’s choice to give his two lead women a more traditionally masculine leadership method is significant.
Ms. Coulter is a prime example of strong, autonomous female leadership; she is a sweet, dainty woman on the outside, which she uses to her advantage. She manages to manipulate the magisterium’s fear of Dust under a facade of daintiness and elegance which convinces them to trust her – and reeks of, as Lyra notes, “the smell of glamour” when it comes to her confidence and lavish lifestyle (210). Ms. Coulter truly exemplifies the female stereotype, although keeps her wits about her so that she can, siren-like, get precisely what she’s after. Indeed, she manages to coax children into her open arms despite her foul intentions, as, stated by guest at a (in the film, nonexistent) party, “what child could resist her?” (263). Her demeanor creates a false sense of security which allows those around her to let their guard down and do a significant amount of damage and gain autonomy while living up to societal expectations of [weaponized] femininity. She bends societal norms to her will to carve a name for herself and assert her dominance.
In the movie rendition, however, Ms. Coulter’s leadership is much less apparent. She is hardly given screen time devoid of a crowd of surrounding male figures, and seems to be much more a part of the system than the one spearheading her own mission. Ms. Coulter is still shown in the film to be knowledgeable and witty, flaunting her facts about the north and King Ragnar’s mentality before Lyra as a means of enticing her; nevertheless, she is portrayed much more provocatively. During her entrance to the College, Ms. Coulter wears much more suggestive attire than depicted in the book and appears to flirt her way into the scholars’ arms as a means of coaxing them into relinquishing Lyra to her. To put it more simply, the movie depiction of Ms. Coulter represents the feminine stereotype of sexual appeal versus feigned innocence and charisma, which in many regards is much more sexist than the former. This portrayal weakens the movie’s validity on the subject of leadership with the implication that Ms. Coulter is only able to win over Jordan College by taking advantage of men’s lust, and while perhaps effective is not a positive message to female viewers.
Lyra, conversely, rebels against the system. She has been noted early on into the books as refusing to act proper, favoring the company of boys, and wreaking havoc on the Scholars of Jordan, who have “more important things to do than attend to the affections of a half-wild, half civilized girl” (59). Lyra is considered by many as unladylike, and efforts are made by those around her to acknowledge this as some form of flaw on her part – efforts which evidently fail in the end. Lyra utilizes autonomous leadership by using her strength and intellect, and scarcely takes the input of others except her own daemon (which, in the context of the book, is not much different than conversing with herself). She is a formidable opponent for Ms. Coulter and the magisterium, and shows prowess in her abilities to stifle Iofur (named Ragnar in the film) by convincing him that she is Iorek’s daemon. While unapologetically unapproachable by many means, Lyra knows precisely what she needs to do in order to achieve her goals, and goes out to do it – a message which hopefully empowers young women to do the same.
The movie rendition of Lyra is, much like their take on Ms. Coulter, much less impactful; she is given all information required for her to complete her mission by Ms. Coulter, The Master of Jordan, or her Uncle Asriel, and merely needs to string it together (examples of this are but not limited to Ragnar’s desire for a daemon, the information on panserbjorne, and the fixing form of one’s daemon). The inquisitive nature of Lyra as portrayed in the book is almost nonexistent on the big screen, and puts a damper on her autonomy as she more or less follows what she is told without question.
The movie rendition of The Golden Compass is, especially when compared to the book, deeply dissatisfying with its portrayal of leadership. The film took two strong independent women and objectified them, or merely forced them further into the laws of an undeniably patriarchal society. Without explicitly depicted rebellion of the system which was quite apparent in the novel, the movie paints the world as difficult, if not impossible, to overcome gendered stereotypes, with very few ways for a women to lead in that society. The movie does not depict strong female leadership, and sends a message of submission to its female viewers – one which should not be encouraged.
Works Cited
Lyons, Nona P., Jane Forbes Saltonstall, And Trudy J. Hanmer. “Competencies and Visions.”
Gilligan, Carol, et al. Making Connections: the Relational Worlds of Adolescent Girls at Emma Willard School. Harvard University Press, 1990.
Pullman, Philip, and Chin Wong. The Golden Compass. Muses, 2002.
