And NaNo Begins!!!!!

[jhameia]

..... With me working on my draft. =(

Ah well, Word War Tournaments will take care of THAT!

There is a huge chicken or the egg dilemma in social theory: "the individual or the society?". It is at least five times more complex - the chicken or the egg dilemma only asks one question: "Which came first?" This particular societal dilemma must answer for questions such as, "which dictates the actions of the individual?" which might lead to "which creates the social codes required to function in a community of several individuals?" which then might lead to "which is at fault for social deviance / violence within society?" These questions all fall into themselves, not necessarily following that order and not easily answered, as the individual makes up part of the society and the society forms the individual. There are two ways of viewing the dilemma: with regards to the individual and with regards to the society.

However, as society is made up of communities of individuals, it is important to consider how the individual is shaped and portrayed and the conditions involving the shaping and portrayal. Discussing the shaping of the individual by the self is Stephen Greenblatt, in the introduction of his book Renaissance Self-Fashioning. On the other end of the scale, bell hooks, in her book The Will to Change, calls out the system of patriarchy as the system that shapes the individual through oppression and violence, causing the individual to perpetuate it unawares. Greenblatt's book does not deal directly with gender, but the shaping of an individual is often tied to the gender roles that they must fulfi.

For Greenblatt, the self-fashioning process in literature is a manifestation of the authour in text, expressing and reflecting upon the codes that played a role in shaping the authour. Through his study, Greenblatt has identified conditions that enable of limit self-fashioning. For hooks, however, the shaping of the individual is not through the agency of the individual, but rather imposed on by the system of patriarchy, a manifestation of socia coodes that more often than note negateself-expression and self-reflectiopn in individuals in order to shape the individual accordingly to perpetuate the system itself. Patriarchy, for hooks, is a highly gendered system, negating not only women, but men as well, forcing them into specific rules and behavioural patters.

Although disparate in their arguments, the basics of both theories are similar. The most obvious similarity is that both hooks and Greenblatt speak about individuals being formed. Greenblatt's chosen authours are outstanding individuals of their time, whereas hooks draws from a list of people she has read or observed, including herself and her brother. The individual is an important focus, for neither writers are concerned with statics as they are with individuals engaging with the systems that they learn to function within. These systems, where it is patriarchy as it is for hooks or medieval England as it is for Greenbatt, have clearly defined hierarchies in place in which individuals are shaped: Renaissance England was structured with monarchy, aristocracy, middle class, artisans and labourers; hooks' patriarchy has institutions with clearly defined reigid gender roles that delineate who is the superior and who is in the inferior in any environment, from the domestic (the family) to the public (a President's administration).

For both Greenblatt and hooks, opposition is needful for the systems to remain in place. Greenblatt is more obvious in his explanation: the individual must submit to a higher authourity and there must be something to fight against, except for Marlowe who set himself against high authourity to start with. In hooks' chpter, opposition in the system also needs to be stamped out, usually by violent displays of power. If there is no physical violence, then it is carried out by psychological terrorism. Without such displays, it is doubtful that the system would continue to be in place. At the core of system maintenance, however, is the act of opposition upon which self-fashioning or patriarchy prop themselves up against.

Not only do these systems oppose something or another, very often the individuals within them are undermined as well - in patriarchy, individuals are undermined to not pose any threat to the patriarch, and in self-fashioning, the individual is undermined by the power of the higher authourity because the individual can get so overzealous in assaulting the opposition, that the higher authourity will be threatened as well. Within these systems, the individuals lose some of their "selves" (as Greenblatt puts it) or repress themselves for security and approval (as hooks puts it).

Even within the similarities, there are distinct differences between the systems. Whilst in broad terms the systems are similar, the complexities are not, particularly at the individual level. Firstly, in Greenblatt's theory, the self-fashioner is usually a socially and economically mobile individual, often of the middle class, who doesn't already have an identify rooted in a "a title, tradition.. class or caste". These individuals have enough money to dedicate themselves to writing, and thus, to creating their own image within the system. In hooks' writing, patriarchy encompasses all individuals, no matter what gender, cree and even living environment - it has been internalized, by society at large that it is impossible to avoid its influence altogether, if Terence Real's anecdote is any indication.

Within the hierarchy, there is always a higher power that Greenblatt's self-fashioner will submit to as a point of reference. There is also a sense of an Other, a concept which is threatening and thus be destroyed to defend the higher power. The concept does not necessarily have to exist beforehand, but the self-fashioner must always have a threat to attack and a higher power to defend against. Within hooks' patriarchy, the individual is forced to submit and follow prescribed social codes in order to avoid disapproval, or retaliation, or negation. The entire system is set up against individual deviance that must be destroyed, outcast or made to conform. Individuals will therefore react against deviance to uphold the system because of the system is threatened, the basis of the individual's identify is also compromised. (This is best illustrated by hooks' father beating her up as a child). As the patriarchal individual responds with violence against threats to the "natural social order", Greenblatt's self-fashioner has no such obligations; if either the point of reference or threat is gone, she or she simply moves on and creates another. The point of reference and threat are replaceable, but they must exist for the individual.

As discussed before, the individual in both systems is effaced or undermined in some form or fashion. This is more obvious in patriarchy, which takes power away from individuals in order to impose its authourity and values the way hooks' father did - beating hooks into submission until she acknowledged her wrongdoing in attempting to behave any way other than what was prescribed to her in her gender role. In Greenblatt's self-fashioning, self-effacement is necessary in the balance between attacking the Other and defending the higher authourity - an individual given too much power to fight the Other is threatening to the very authourity that she or is is defending: the point of having a higher authourity in place is for it to be a point of reference, not to for the individual to usurp.

The manifestations of both theories are vastly different as well. Cut and dried, the methods of self-expression lie in text - unless the self-fashioner is someone like Queen Elizabeth I, who used both text and images to fashion herself. Today's equivalent are the Internet, webcams and Photoshop. Self-fashioning is conscious output of the authour wanting to express themselves through an accessible medium; agency comes from with the authour to manifest externally all that he or she has internalized from his or her society. Creating an individual in patriarchy, however, always involves external influences imposing on an individual who is completely unaware that they are internalizing them. The individual's agency in patriarchy manifests in attitudes and actions which perpetuate the system further. The output does not comprise of still text and images, but in thought, which results in an interpretation of the text and images - yet another form of imposition and shaping.

Comments

[sparklemagpie.livejournal.com]

Pfft, at least you HAVE a draft. I'll be winging it from scratch kthx. <3 Have fun!