“The contents and processes put forward in curriculum and its associated pedagogy constitute the design for future human dispositions. They provide one set of important means and resources for the individual’s transformative, shaping action in making herself or himself as social humans” ("English" at the Crossroads Rethinking Curricula of Communication in the Context of the Turn to the Visual, Gunther Kress 87-88).

This passage resonates with me. What is it to be a “social human?” I happened across an article called “Emotional Intelligence” which prompted me to think of social progression in terms of emotion. According to the article, the degree of one’s success is not dependent upon IQ alone, but is influenced by his emotional response to the world around him (or her). Perhaps we have lost the connection with our emotional component? Or perhaps it can be better understood as an inhibition of sorts. Logic and reason seem to have distanced us from our more “irrational” emotional selves. The patriarchal ideology of the West has branded emotion as a “feminine” trait, thus automatically creating an inferior bubble in which to place it. Because emotion has become subordinate to logic and reason (its “masculine” counterparts), we have neglected to embrace it as a device for social and intellectual progression.

In Black Sexual Politics, Patricia Hill Collins claims that the issue of racism cannot be tackled without first attending to sexism. This also upholds the idea that patriarchal ideals stifle social progress by creating unnecessary subordination of “feminine.” The sexual dichotomy of our species produces differences that indeed cannot be questioned. However, in the quest to propagate itself, society has applied certain generalizations to gender that should be questioned. I am inclined to believe that (whether by a singular omniscient being or by nature itself) we were created so that we, by our mere existence, could preserve the creator. In terms of society, ideologies are created so that the dominant class can preserve itself. If the current culture (in the context of industrial capitalism) is based upon the preservation of the elite class, one must only recognize the dominant “inhabitant” of that class to pinpoint the origin of such ideologies.

So then, what exactly is it to be a “social human?” Does the quest that Kress implies begin with embracing our emotions? Should we, as Collins suggests, do away with gender-based generalizations? If we equate “masculine” with “feminine” are we then more capable of reaching our potential? There has been a lot of talk about how the world is getting smaller due to advances in technology (not to mention that human population is at an all time high). Is the world getting smaller or am I getting bigger? As I (and many others) shift from “user” to “designer,” as Kress suggests, will the world be big enough to hold the tsunami of ideas that results from such a shift? If the line changes so will the compartment, and the boundary, and the concepts of rule and guideline, as well as temporal space, and dimension, and time.

I’d like to better understand Barthes’ description of Time (as is discussed in Camera Lucida. I see Barthes as a proponent of emotion. Also, association and memory are elements which he consistently refers to in order to better explain the idea of Culture.

I’d also like to connect the idea of the ISA (Ideological State Apparatus) to such an emotional revolution. In “Culture, Ideology, Interpellation,” John Fiske implies that the ISA is both the source of propagation and potential demise of an elite-centric culture by introducing elements that are “free” from its design (and thus control). In other words, because the societal structures of family, education, governmental politics, and media are codependent upon each other and not directly controlled by any one particular class, they can ultimately be used to facilitate change within that society. Where to start?

I feel as if, by answering these questions and understanding these relationships (or at least attempting to), I can locate a point of origin by which to focus my research in Rhetoric as it applies to Cultural Studies.

If you enjoyed the Kress article, you may want to check this out.

Fiske's article was inspired by the works of Althusser. This article does a great job of summing up their relationship.

If you need some help understanding the Barthes selection for this week, read this review. Giving the piece a historical context may faciliate a deeper understanding of it.

---