Mary Louise Pratt: "Arts of the Contact Zone"

          Mary Louise Pratt explains what a contract zone is, and tells about her personal experiences with this zone. It is people from different cultures interacting, and going past the boundary that has been placed between them. She says that it is “the space in which transculturation takes place – where two different cultures meet and inform each other, often in highly asymmetrical ways.” When transculturation takes place, one is able to learn new things, and gain new perspectives on the foreign culture. She explains her own experience with this in a class that she taught that was made up of many different cultures. In this class they discussed their different cultures, learning about different things; this is what she calls a contract zone. 

          I think that the contract zone is most definitely a good thing. It allows people from all different races, religions and cultures to learn about people different than them. This boundary is an important boundary to break especially here in the United States because of its diversity as Thomas Paine says in "Common Sense". He talks about how America is very diverse, therefore cannot have a single mother country. Furthermore, I think that the contract zone is an excellent thing in general, but especially here in America.

Question: Why would someone argue that the contract zone is a bad thing?

T.S. Eliot: "Tradition and the Individual Talent"

          Eliot starts off by explaining that "traditional" literacy should be definitely discouraged if it is simply following the ways of generations before us. However, he says that it has a much greater significance that must be worked hard for by really digging in deep to the authors before hand wrote, in a temporal and timeless fashion. He goes on to say that essentially, no author has his complete meaning alone, but when reading him, one must compare and contrast him with dead authors. He says that either you will find a conformed individual, or an individual who conforms, but it is not likely to find one and not the other because authors look at the more important mind of his country than his own personal mind. Eliot also claims that great poetry is made without the direct use of emotions, but composed of feelings because in poetry on is not trying to express a personality, but a particular medium of impressions and experiences to combine in unexpected way.
          Eliot connects with William Wordsworth. Eliot says that poetry should not include personality in contrast to William Wordsworth who says that "poetry is emotion recollected in tranquility" The two disagree because Eliot thinks that poetry should be consisted of feelings and experience, while Wordsworth believes that poetry should consist of ones emotions.

Question: Do most people say it is feelings or emotions that make poetry good?

William Wordsworht:: "Preface to Lyrical Ballads"

          William Wordsworth sets out to explain his view of what a poet is. He says that a poet is a man who is "possessed of more than the usual organic sensibility, had also thought long and hard."  He says that poets feel things more keenly than your average person, although the nature of their feelings are the same as everybody else.  A poet is able to regurgitate these feelings in a new, interesting and exciting way. William claims that simple poems are better than complex because simple is still well thought out well while being spontaneous, powerful, and more easily comprehended.

         William Wordsworth can be connected to Aristole in that they argue against eachother. Wordsworth argues that a simple poem is better, while Aristotle explains why he thinks that complex poems are better. However I agree with William Wordsworth and his claims that poetry should be simple, and exciting. Personally I would rather read a long complex novel, and a simple poem.


Question: Do you think that he was challenging Aristotle/

Aristotle: "Poetics"

          In poetics Aristotle claims that poetry is higher and more philosophical thing than history. He argues this because poetry sets out to express the universal by creating a plot, and then inserting characters, relating to what may happen that is possible according to the law of probability. On the other hand, history is only the particular, who write about particular individuals and relate to what has already happened.  He says that a poem start off first with a plot, which should not be written to please others or for competition or it will break its natural continuity, and consist of many elements. Many different elements could be in simple or complex plots including; reversal of the situation, recognition, scene of suffering, the prologue, episode, exode, choric part, stasimon and commos.The best tragedy is a complex plot, consisting fear and pity, change of fortune from good to bad,  and is single in its issue. Furthermore, Aristotle would claim that poetry is higher than history because it is an art, needing much thought and effort to carefully plan it out, and is more than simply just writing in verses. He then explores tragedies versus epic  poetry, concluding that tragedies are higher than epic poems.

           Aristotle makes a valid point and good reasons when he says that poetry is more philosophical than history, however I think that saying it is higher is kind of a different story. They are different things all together. History is simply recording what happened in the past. Therefore when Aristotle says poetry is higher, it is completely opinion based with no convincing evidence to back it up. Although he does make  good argument on why tragedies are better than epics, explaining them in detail discussing the different elements which goes into each.

Question: Why would he consider poetry to be higher than history, when they have different purposes?

Crevecoeur: "Letters from an American Farmer- What is an American""

            In Crevecoeur's third letter "What is an American", he discusses what he thinks an American is. He claims that an American is anyone who is willing to leave all of their past ties, and move on to the new colonies, and live a new life abiding by new rules. He says that Americans are not classified based on race, however there are many different races.

            His third letter connects to Immanuel Kant's ideas about being released from bondage. Crevecoeur is saying that an American is one who has been released from the bondage of their former country or life.

Question: Were people affected/moved by his letters?

The Declaration of Independence

           The Declaration of Independence states that all men are created equal. This document also sates its independence from England, and the colonies being repeatedly injured by King George III.

          The Declaration of Independence connects with Thomas Paine in 'Common Sense'. Common Sense discusses how England is a bad mother country and American needs to fight for its freedom, for itself, and for the world. The Declaration of Independence is doing exactly what Thomas Paine says is common sense.

Question: Do you think that the Declaration of Independence had an influence by his writings?

Thomas Paine: "Common Sense"

            In Thomas Paine's "Common Sense", he claims that America stands for the cause of independence and needs to declare its independence from England. He says that America should not be bound to England just because it is their mother country. If this was the case than shouldn't England be bound to France? He also says that since England declares to be Americas mother country... than England is a bad mother. Paine claims that it is common sense that to break away from war.
           Thomas Paine can connect with Immanuel Kant. Kant talks a lot bondage and being released from bondage. While Paine also talks a lot about being released from the bondage of England.

Question: Why is America fighting for freedom of the world?

           

Immanuel Kant: What is Enlightenment?

              In Immanuel Kant's 'What is Enlightenment', he argues that enlightenment is being released from self indulged tutelage. When he says self indulged, he means that we are responsible for the tutelage-others thinking for us- that we are bonded in. Kant says that in order to be released from the bondage, we need to first realize that we are in bondage.
            'What is Enlightenment' can be connected to Paulo Freire's 'The Banking Concept of Education'. In this article Freire explains the Baking concept which is where the teacher tells the student what to know. He says that it is dehumanizing because the students do not think for themselves. Kant argues that this is exactly the cause of enlightenment, so that people can start to think for themselves, and be released from their self indulged tutelage.

Question: Why does some one else have to release us from bondage?