"Unbelievable," by Owl City (feat. Hansen) is a song that encapsulates the emotions associated with childhood. Although the song is upbeat in sound, it is grounded in melancholy and retrospect, putting into words the loss of one's childhood innocence and sense of wonder. Adam Young states, "this is as good as it gets," ultimately claiming that the best part of his life is already behind him. In discussing the elements of his childhood, Young keeps himself real, offering an intimacy with the listener as he describes the activities and products he enjoyed as a child. Many of his listeners are able to relate to these things if they grew up in the 90s, leaving them with the sense that they also grew up with Young. Although I missed a 90s childhood, I find that the emotions associated with the song are true and relatable to me personally. But this consumerist childhood leaves the listeners with a hollow sense of loss--a final confession that childhood is long gone. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1FbJ4hDeQQ

While Taylor Swift's "Look What You Made Me Do" has been portrayed by the media as petty and dramatic, it still highlights one of Swift's biggest strengths: her ability to relate with her audience. I may not have experienced something as particular as a celebrity feud such as Swift has with other popular icons, however I can identify with her underlying struggle. Swift claims that the media and select celebrities put so much pressure on her to look, act, and think a certain way she had no choice but to become who they said she was. In my own life, I have experienced this same reality of constantly fighting the opinions of others and after a while, it becomes exhausting and your best option is to just give in. Swift is able to pin-point this internal struggle in her single as she allows her listener to see an inside look at her frustration with a situation in which many can relate to.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tmd-ClpJxA

"My Way" is not only relevant to Sinatra's career but to anyone who feels like they've done the best they've could and nearing the end of their careers. He sings this after 30 years in the business about how everything he's done, including his achievements and pitfalls, are done in his own way, which I feel captures the spirit of authenticity in a musical sense. It captures his success as a world'famous musician and even if I'm still young, I am proud to believe that everything I've done in my life was through my own actions and feelings.

Questions, especially questions like these, involve the reader in the thought process.

It may not have intentionally been fiction. I wonder if he sang that with the intention of making it true.

This touches on something I really like here. It is not "free" to be authentic. It should be, but there is a high cost to pay to be the only one in the room willing to be honest about their own shortcomings.

This is kind of the same dilemma as Rousseau faced. Why is he telling us everything? What is his true motive?

This indirectly calls those who sing fictional songs inauthentic. I don't know if this is necessarily fair. If someone creates a story in an art form, is their character outside of their creation necessarily fake? I don't think we can say that.

I think it was a smart choice to not elaborate how exactly his audience knew it was genuine, but nonetheless, we are told that they knew it was genuine.

The song I chose is Rehab by Amy Winehouse. I have always liked this song because of the catchy chorus and the authentic emotions conveyed through the spirit in her voice. While I don't exactly personally relate to the problems in the song, the honesty with which she presents this sad true story in her life makes it very relevant for me. This is a very good example of an autobiographical song because Amy is opening up about an extremely personal part of her life. It is especially chilling and emotional to listen to now, after the singer has been gone for so long. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUmZp8pR1uc

https://youtu.be/v-Dur3uXXCQ This is a link to "Praying" by Kesha. This is her first song back from a long hiatus. which she took after being sexually assaulted by her producer. Here, she shares with the world the new perspective she has found through self-reflection and a lot of praying (hence the name of this song). She also responds to her past producer with what she hopes for him.

A pretty clear example that first came to mind was "Hey There Delilah" by the Plain White T's. While the song is associated with the band, it was written singularly from an experience by the lead singer, Tom Higgenson. He wrote the song to confess his love to a girl named, you guessed it, Delilah. He meets her through mutual friends, and while she has a boyfriend and reciprocates no interest in Higgenson, he still falls in love with her. What results is this song, a personal confession of his desire to be with her.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h_m-BjrxmgI

As a reader, this statement immediately puts me on the defensive. For being written in 2007, this claim could be considered highly controversial in the music world. Is it possible that in the last ten years, the outlet social media provides for artists to reach their audiences has allowed a few modern-day singers to surpass Rogers in terms of popularity?

This reminds me of the millennial trend of handing out participation awards - if everyone is receiving "honor", doesn't it lose its value?

I think Herder's concept of authenticity being applied to culture is an interesting idea. For the most part, authenticity in our minds, has been rooted in the genuineness of oneself. However to add this second meaning of authenticity, does that imply we are defined and limited to the culture we come from? Coming from the other angle, is it even possible to completely disregard the culture we come from when establishing our identity?

we establish what our identity is by talking with ourselves (the construction created by our perception of what others think of ourselves. so of course its going to be a contained idea of what our identity is)

Interesting assertion. We don't have the language to comment properly on how we are originally. Its like trying to refer to things in only the present tense as if time had no relevance. We only learn about ourselves through other people so how can we truly be authentic?

so it seems that we've always been "socially inwardly looking at ourselves"

the blue pill

James is using his own voice here (first person narrative) to explain a side. Its familiar to the they say I say example.

can we be original if we set out to be different?

each person is original. blank slate kind of deal

hey I know this guy!! Taylor utilizes this allusion to draw credibility to his argument about authenticity.

I think the beginning and the end are very strong, and the middle is very strong, but I do not think they support each other well. There seems to be a disconnect, in my mind.

I think Taylor has been making logical steps throughout this process, which is great rhetorically, as I, his reader, have followed him on this "journey," but I think he jumps back into "recognition" too quickly without strong enough of a connection.

I am struggling to understand Taylor at this point. He says we find our identity from within, yet we are defining our identity based on what others see and want to see from us.

I find it strange that Taylor is suggesting that only we can define ourselves, yet that language must come from an exterior source.

I'm slightly irked by how separate these thoughts were until now.

He is bringing back a word from the beginning of this text; however, I don't know if he has completely connected these ideas yet.

Fun fact: My current phone wallpaper is a quote that says "Set your course by the stars, not by the light of every passing ship." I think there is a similar sentiment here.

It seems as though we've completely changed the subject from recognition from others to recognition of our "inner selves"

These are simple examples his readers experience in everyday life. Taylor does a remarkable job of using very familiar ideas to describe his views.

Taylor makes an interesting point here as he shifts the dynamic of his argument. He moves to assign a great deal of responsibility to the reader by explicitly clarifying the "so what?"of his thesis- due recognition is vital to our being. Here he abruptly brings the reader into the conversation of his argument and makes it more personal by discussing the obligations they have as a human.

Taylor takes something that his audience would be familiar with to further explain how part of the honor of an award is the fact that not everyone is given it. This makes a direct connection with the readers familiar with this.

The concept of individuality paired with authenticity is presented very effectively in this paragraph and the author uses the context of Rousseau and Herder pretty well as evidence.

Ok, this leads back to my earlier point, so given historical context, in this case the prevalence of patriarchal societies, women have been forced to act inferior which then affects how they view themselves.

Rhetorical note: Taylor is bringing together authenticity and morals to highlight the significance of morals within our current society, although they do not always align with our feelings/authenticity.

He waits until he has built up his argument before saying what is essentially a controversial statement. I think the main argument about recognition is whether or not it is absolutely vital, and he is here to argue that it is.

Taylor is using a strategy here that puts his readers on the same page as he is--by starting at the beginning, he offers his readers the ability to view the topic from the same perspective as he sees it, allowing them to become "experts" as well.

Context: Caliban is a character in The Tempest by William Shakespeare who "symbolized the Third World as imagined by Europe to justify colonization." (according to the essay linked below, which is actually a very interesting read)

http://digitalcommons.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3492&context=gradschool_theses

This is evidence of misgiven identity and as a result suffer because of it. This is a great example of where people think there is a link between what one's identity is and what recognition as a person is.

Taylor names specific groups like feminism in particular due to how much of an impact they have on humanity in general and how easy it is to develop the concept of misrecognition through these groups given historical context.

the use of the term mirror implies that the misrecognized people have a hand in developing a demeaning view of themselves which then other people expand upon. So this could mean that the concept of misrecognition can apply to everyone and more people can be blamed for this than expected. I think its part of human nature to at least have some form of false judgement.

Caliban is the a main character in Shakespeare's "The Tempest." Some have claimed him to be a representation of Europeans colonizing North America and Africa.

Identity is influenced by how it is perceived, drawing parallels to the argument for nurture over nature.

Hegel was a German philosopher who became very well renowned during his lifetime and is universally recognized for his work.

If our identity is so centered in publicity, would it really be possible to purge ourselves of what other people think of us? Although this seems like a worthy goal, the execution of this goal would be very difficult.

Taylor leads us on a train of thought that quickly brings us to the same realization: that the lack of proper recognition given to some groups of people is actually creating real harm.

A clearly stated thesis that is multifaceted! Here Taylor claims that identity is (not entirely) crafted by "recognition" (either its presence or its absence). Because of this claim, the implications are that identity is always public--which Rousseau would approve--and that our identities are fundamentally dependent on what other people think of us. We become what the world thinks of us; we become a "distortion."

Might be worth looking into post-Gandhi India (@Sarah), in which the previous Caste system was done away with, but people still identify with the hierarchical system of what their caste ItalicwouldItalic be.

YOOOOOOOO is this like bbcode?

UPDATE: It is decisively not bbcode and I hate it

Taylor uses vivid, almost violent language when describing the harm caused by misrecognition or nonrecognition. He is making his point through strong diction.

Presumably with reference to Rousseau's "Confession", which we previously read. Seems to be suggesting a major cultural shift to being more open, more honest, sort of in line with post enlightenment era writing, which in turn followed the Renaissance, an era of being more open, less afraid, and more scientific.

Taylor gives us an analysis of recognition that is at the same time a discussion of authenticity. You will see a number of resonances with what we've read thus far.

When annotating Taylor, please make both rhetorically focused notations and interpretive/analytical notations: I want you to consider both the overall substance of Taylor's argument and the way in which he addresses his reader.

The text will be open for annotation until the end of the week (week 5).

At the end of this week, I will give everyone a preliminary grade for "annotations so far", with a brief breakdown of how well you're doing what I'm looking for and how you can do (even) better!

There are many Charles Taylors! I will let Wikipedia handle the disambiguation: we are reading the Canadian philosopher.)

For a recent piece on Taylor, see this essay from the New Yorker magazine entitled "How to Restore Your Faith in Democracy.". The profile was published on the occasion of Taylor's winning a major new prize in philosophy, awarded to a thinker “whose ideas are intellectually profound but also able to inform practical and public life.”

I think here there is a distinction between the word honesty and confession. Foucoult I think is establishing confession as something that is long and drawn out. Something that has a lot of dramatic hang time. But the word honesty could be substituted in place of confession in this passage. in fact id go as far to say that honesty has always had a part in justice, medicine, education, and family relationships. Not confessions. I think Foucault is adding something here that was already here. there was already honesty in all these things, but not necessarily the dramatic confessions that are seen in EVERY MTV reality tv show.

Rousseau.

this reminds me of the general scene of the solitary reaper (will finish this in a minute)

Foucault describes confessions as sort of a "gritty" thing. Confessions are not necessarily pretty, but they do result in a kind of "burst" of truth

It's interesting to see how the idea of confession and the idea of science are so interwoven in this piece, which I had previously never connected.

All this to say that through confession, we were able to achieve science. We were able to "decipher" the truth by going about it in an honest, confessing way.

(2) It's interesting to continue to see the contrast between art and science that Western culture has developed.

Not a super helpful annotation, but I really like what he did here with this wording.

(3) I find this example funny because I know Foucault knows that this is not a perfect example of what he's talking about. He's basically saying that he is connecting together ideas that have previously been connected by Ancient Greeks, but they aren't connected in the way Foucault is connecting them.

(1) This immediately brings me to "Beowulf," because I remember it being described as kind of an archaic text from a time when glory and being remembered were the main goals and values of society. This contrasts with the more "modern" and "refined" writings of Rousseau and Foucault.

(3) Foucault does something important (in my mind) here, which is he addresses the negative connotations associated with the word "confession." Confessions are connotatively known as something that is derived of a shameful experience. He dispels some of that in the prior few sentences, but then he directly addresses it here.

(2) Foucault asserts this boldly. This might not necessarily be true, but he leads with evidence that is indisputable, so that causes the reader to go along with his claim as well.

(This is a summary rather than a comment type 1-3, which I think is valuable and valid because this piece says a LOT and it's difficult to keep track of every point he makes with his wording)

Foucault gives examples as to why he believes confession as we know it to be a Western idea that pervades all public and private life

interpreting, particularly through the bible

psychological tests

Foucault would rather look at the scientific procedures of analyzing sex which proves more informational and knowledgeable than past attempts to understand the subject.

of which rose Freud who also believed sex was a fundamental part of psychology. I believe he would have agreed with many of Foucault's points regarding how sex and confession are connected.

church member confesses sins to priest and is given absolution for forgiveness

curious to see not earlier than that

So basically what even the confessor doesn't even know about him or herself, a confession can hold more than just what is meant to be said

This repetitive sentence structure is used by Foucault to emphasize how commonplace the act of confession has become in the daily life of man.

Foucault offers some valuable insight here as he suggests that confession has become too accepted as truth because we are bombarded with confession so often when in reality, it is a way for us to be controlled.

I can't help but think Foucault is referencing the act of confession in the Catholic church, suggesting that the priest is gaining power over the participant by listening to their sins. This might be a stretch but the scenario could at least demonstrate the principle Foucault is explaining in the text.

These people wrote about the topic before the author and were regarded as experts. Krafft-Ebing was an Austro-German psychiatrist and wrote the Psychopathia Sexualis which was a foundation for the topic in the 1800s.<br> (type one)

This statement is kind of a paradox, but makes a very good point regarding what confession is in the context of society.

Begin here! Note my two "page notes", available for your reading assistance....

This note consists of an outline of our selection!

IV. Confession: power/knowledge form at base of our S.S. [58-60] A. Brief historical sketch of confessional practices B. Modern “confessional society”: justice, medicine, education, family, love ... C. Cultural symptoms

1. Metamorphosis in literature: from epic to confession
2. And in philosophy: consciousness as basis: [again, F’s antipathy to phenomenology] D. We miss power relations of confessional practices bcs we see power as repressive

V. Sex-confession: part of “immense labor” of "subjection" [assujettissement] [60-63] A. Sex as privileged theme of confession:

1. linking discursive incitement
2. and proliferation of perversions B. Ritual elements of confession
3. Speaking subject is also subject of statement
4. Unfolds w/in a power relation: interlocutor is an authority
5. Truth corroborated by obstacles and resistances to be overcome 4. Expression produces intrinsic modifications in confessing person C. Differences of confession with other forms (education or initiation) D. Power elements in confession thus different from these other forms:
6. Direction of discourse from below
7. Secrecy from its general baseness
8. Veracity guaranteed by bond of speaker and listener 4. Domination by the listener/questioner
9. Effect on one from whom truth is wrested

VI. Transformations in confessional practice [63-67] A. Spread & intensification of confession: constitutes great archive of sex/pleasure B. solidified by medicine, psychiatry, pedagogy: paradox of a confessional science

1. Problems: a. conflict of two modes of producing truth: confession vs. science b. validity of introspection; lived experience as evidence, etc.
2. Solution via 5 procedures: a. clinical codification of inducement to speak [=combine conf. w/ exam] b. postulate of general and diffuse causality [=sex behind everything] c. principle of sexual latency [=sex hides itself from confessee] d. method of interpretation [=self-blindness redressed by confessor's interpret] e. medicalization of effects of confession [=catharsis as cure of pathology]

VII. “Broad historical perspective” [67-70] A. sexuality as correlative of scientia sexualis

1. Its features are not ideological mis-representations [Marxist/Reichean] or taboo misunderstandings [psychoanalytic]
2. But functional requirements of a discourse producing its truth a. Thus “naturality” of sexuality is effect of power-knowledge b. Characteristics: (1) susceptible of pathology and hence object of normalization (2) field of meanings to be deciphered (3) site of processes obscured by certain mechanisms (4) focus of indefinite causal relations (5) an obscure speech to be listened to
3. Thus sexuality must be seen as part of history of discourses [their "economy"] B. F's "general working hypothesis"
4. 19th C society set up "an entire mechanism for producing truth about sex" 2. this demand for truth sets up suspicion of sex as secret, cause, sign ... C. Two linked processes of sex-truth
5. sex must speak the truth [even if it must be interpreted]
6. sex must tell us OUR truth [the buried truth of the supposed truth of our self-consciousness] D. knowledge of the subject produced confessional sex-truth
7. knowledge of what causes subject to be ignorant of himself
8. unconsciousness of subject; truth in the other, etc.
9. “tactics of power" in sex discourse [sex-truth as power/knowledge]

Outline by John Protevi / Permission to reproduce granted for academic use<br> protevi@lsu.edu / http://www.protevi.com/john/Foucault/HS1.pdf

Michel Foucault is among the most cited of 20th-century authors across the humanities. (link courtesy of the foucault.info site...)

A reliable short biography of Foucault can be found in the Britannica:

http://academic.eb.com.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/levels/collegiate/article/Michel-Foucault/35013

Our selection from Foucault's History of Sexuality V. 1 focuses on confession in relation to sexuality. For Foucault, sexuality is a "discourse" that "produces" a truth about the self: there is no prior, natural truth that is discovered. And "confession" ( a "technique" it is far older than modernity, encompassing more than sexuality) is crucial to understanding how truths about sex become truths about the self. This may seem an abstract or strange perspective: note that a "They Say / I Say" structure is prominent in Foucault's argument, helping ground it....

In annotating, feel free to work in any of our three categories. You will find the text difficult!--expressions of struggle in your annotations are OK. I have provided, in a second "Page Note", a complete outline of our selection written by a Foucault scholar.

Here Rousseau acknowledges the insignificance of the romance novels and in this moment in time, would agree with WW's condemnation of "idle texts." However once Rousseau begins to develop feeling from these novels, it is here he that he breaks away from WW's theory that books written about extravagant stories are always evil.

Essay 1 Prep: Interesting claim that our authentic selves are drawn from our surroundings and experiences.

Essay 1 Prep: Rousseau admits that it is much more difficult to confess shameful events--he is lead by his feelings when he decides which scenes he wants to confess, and how he wishes to explain them. One should view Rousseau's anecdotes as being tainted by the feelings which drove him to confess.

Essay 1 Prep: I really like this sentence and the few paragraphs leading up to it. There is vulnerability in Rousseau's description of himself, but after stating all of this, Rousseau continues on to say that there is no need for him to describe himself so accurately. The "real" Rousseau should be self-evident, and obvious to the reader.

1. This is incredibly honest and vulnerable, this admittance to traces of masochism; this leads the reader to believe the rest of what he says more readily, or at least to be more sympathetic to him. How much of ourselves should we be required to share to gain one another's trust?

1. Rousseau seems to be rather candid, yet also very jaded about this development in his life. He seems resentful of his own nature, which is something to which we can all relate.

1. This is fascinating and a little whiny, but very relatable to many different types of shortcomings. These portions at the end of his experiences where he ties them to his whole being help to give tone to the whole piece.

Rousseau detracts from another life he could have had by stating he would have been just another simple, obscure man, thus stating to readers that his melancholy experiences have helped individualize him.

by exposing his life story he clearly intends to prove his truthfulness by asking readers if they can do the same as him

straight off the bat, Rousseau asserts authority in himself and his audience by declaring he is different anyone else

What an insightful statement! The contrasting ideas of nothing and everything make it not only conceptually appealing to the reader, but articulate an important distinction between experiences and the feelings that come from them. There is a common theme throughout literature and humanity in general of simplistic events that end up leaving us with great emotions. For example, Rousseau's experience with the broken combs was less than extraordinary but the emotions he felt as a result had a tremendous effect on the rest of his life.

Common sense tells us that you have to know someone before you are able to love them but I think that Rousseau highlights the only except to this rule. With family there is this sense of obligation to love those you are immediately related to, simply because of blood connection. Regardless of the fact whether you know them or even like them, there is a family bond that still exists.

Gautier was a French officer for the Continental Army in the United States during the Revolutionary War and then served in the French army during the revolution there.

by referring to himself as a little architect, Rousseau removes himself from the story and comments as a spectator and somewhat more objectively on his past. (type two)

Our selection takes Rousseau only up to age 16; at the time of writing, though--as Rousseau notes in the text--the author is an older man. Moreover, he was a man with a reputation. Rousseau was perhaps the most famous writer of the 18th century; along with a few others (most notably the poet Lord Byron ) he has been called the first modern "celebrity." His intellectual reputation derived largely from works of political philosophy; but he owed European fame to the sensational success of his novel Julie, ou la Nouvelle Héloise, a novel consisting of letters between two lovers.

As a famous author, Rousseau was part of the world of "literature"; at the same time, Rousseau distrusted all established social institutions as sources of conformity and control--as sources, I'll suggest, of inauthenticity. (This perspective, similar to the attitudes expressed in WW's "Preface," is left implicit in our selection). Rousseau's work presents especially vividly one of the central problems of authenticity: how can we trust that another is telling the truth, not merely about matters of "fact," but about their own innermost self? In your reading, you may take note of matters of fact that seem dubious--but matters of feeling are ultimately more crucial.

A reasonably short biographical essay on Rousseau may be found in the Britannica:

http://academic.eb.com.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/levels/collegiate/article/Jean-Jacques-Rousseau/109503

Note: when reading a translated work, it can be worthwhile to consult multiple versions. Here is an alternate translation of our reading:

http://knarf.english.upenn.edu/Rousseau/conf01.html

(The French original may be easily found online as well...)

Perhaps WW's disdain could be extended to the romance novels Rousseau reads with his father as a young child. Even though WW condemns these types of texts as "idle and extravagant," it is worth noting that such readings are what taught Rousseau how to feel, which ultimately characterized him as a person and as a writer. Is it possible that Rousseau would slightly disagree with WW's claim here that these styles of text are inherently bad?

this comparison between poetry and prose during wordsworth's time could be useful to understanding the word choice in his poetry and thus what emotions he hoped to evoke by choosing words that could also be used in normal prose.

After rereading this, it reminds me of the scene from Rousseau's confessions. This line mirrors his experience of developing adult emotions or as Wordsworth would say, "essential passions of the heart" through a quite simplistic event, reading romance novels with his father. Rousseau gained a great deal of maturity from this experience as he claims the emotions he was exposed to shaped him for the rest of his life. In this case, "a better soil" for Rousseau would be his mother's romance novels.

Wordsworth speaks about why he chose nature as the topic of his poems because feelings are more developed and are easier to be expressed without too much explanation which in relation to his Cloud poem explains why it theme is so successful(The theme of nature and how it simplistically provides satisfaction).

this could be used to explain the intense emotions portrayed in both solitary reaper and lonely as a cloud and why he chooses those specific episodes to convey those emotions.

also points out that wordsworth is trying to answer the question of the relationship between words and feelings

Rhetorical: Goldberg's strategy in this article is interesting to me. Although the title of the article is "What is a Woman?" the focus of the article does not seem to be so much about forming an answer to that question, but rather showing the continuing debate. Why would the focus be on the disputes and disagreements, such as the tension between speaker and audience? Perhaps Goldberg believes that this will make the reader have more at stake in the article, answering the "So What?" question in a provoking way.

Contextual: The two sides in this article are the trans women and the radical feminists. Trans women believe that a "real" female is based solely on emotion and a personal self-reflection, whereas radical feminists find that being an authentic female is much more public than merely having feminine thoughts. Difference here in arguments about what it means to be real.

Interpretive: Rousseau would probably agree with the trans women, as he supports a public confession of one's feelings, and finds this to be authentic.

2) The previous three sentences serve to rhetorically highlight more specifically the different types of opposition the radical feminists face. Their ideas primarily clash with the transgender community but they also have the opposition that comes along with being a feminist. These sentences give a better idea to the reader that it isn't just one group of people that disagree with them.

1) This sentence is perhaps a reference to Rachel Doleful, the caucasian woman who tried to assimilate into the African American culture and faced a great deal of criticism. There is a similar argument shared between this article and the events surrounding Rachel Dolezal. Just like radical feminists believe transgender women should not be able to receive the benefits from being female, many people were upset Dolezal was getting to reap the benefits of being African American without having to experience any of the related struggles.

Goldberg's article takes discussion of sexuality and identity into the present day, while at the same time rooting this debate in a history of feminism (considering her return to 1973, we might even call this "feminism after Foucault").

We will use this article as a point of transition into our next unit, in which we explore the relationship between individual authenticity and group membership. (Unit 2 has been retitled "From Popular Music to Populism")

As a piece of recent journalism, I've also provided this article to stimulate possible research paper topics.

Annotation on this one is optional (for those of you who need to catch up; I will read and give extra credit to all of you who do participate, thought! (And remember: participation using the 3-category annotation breakdown is the best kind of participation....)

This note consists of an outline of our selection!

III. Procedures for producing truth of sex: ars erotica and scientia sexualis [57-58] A. Ars erotica:

1. truth drawn from pleasure itself:
2. pleasure evaluated and used to shape sexual practice; 3. esoteric practice guided by master B. West seems to have no ars erotica [but cf 74ff], but is only one w/ a scientia sexualis

IV. Confession: power/knowledge form at base of our S.S. [58-60] A. Brief historical sketch of confessional practices B. Modern “confessional society”: justice, medicine, education, family, love ... C. Cultural symptoms

1. Metamorphosis in literature: from epic to confession
2. And in philosophy: consciousness as basis: [again, F’s antipathy to phenomenology] D. We miss power relations of confessional practices bcs we see power as repressive

V. Sex-confession: part of “immense labor” of "subjection" [assujettissement] [60-63] A. Sex as privileged theme of confession:

1. linking discursive incitement
2. and proliferation of perversions B. Ritual elements of confession
3. Speaking subject is also subject of statement
4. Unfolds w/in a power relation: interlocutor is an authority
5. Truth corroborated by obstacles and resistances to be overcome
6. Expression produces intrinsic modifications in confessing person C. Differences of confession with other forms (education or initiation) D. Power elements in confession thus different from these other forms:
7. Direction of discourse from below
8. Secrecy from its general baseness
9. Veracity guaranteed by bond of speaker and listener 4. Domination by the listener/questioner
10. Effect on one from whom truth is wrested

VI. Transformations in confessional practice [63-67] A. Spread & intensification of confession: constitutes great archive of sex/pleasure B. solidified by medicine, psychiatry, pedagogy: paradox of a confessional science

1. Problems: a. conflict of two modes of producing truth: confession vs. science b. validity of introspection; lived experience as evidence, etc.
2. Solution via 5 procedures: a. clinical codification of inducement to speak [=combine conf. w/ exam] b. postulate of general and diffuse causality [=sex behind everything] c. principle of sexual latency [=sex hides itself from confessee] d. method of interpretation [=self-blindness redressed by confessor's interpret] e. medicalization of effects of confession [=catharsis as cure of pathology]

VII. “Broad historical perspective” [67-70] A. sexuality as correlative of scientia sexualis

1. Its features are not ideological mis-representations [Marxist/Reichean] or taboo misunderstandings [psychoanalytic]
2. But functional requirements of a discourse producing its truth a. Thus “naturality” of sexuality is effect of power-knowledge b. Characteristics: (1) susceptible of pathology and hence object of normalization (2) field of meanings to be deciphered (3) site of processes obscured by certain mechanisms (4) focus of indefinite causal relations (5) an obscure speech to be listened to
3. Thus sexuality must be seen as part of history of discourses [their "economy"] B. F's "general working hypothesis"
4. 19th C society set up "an entire mechanism for producing truth about sex"
5. this demand for truth sets up suspicion of sex as secret, cause, sign ... C. Two linked processes of sex-truth
6. sex must speak the truth [even if it must be interpreted]
7. sex must tell us OUR truth [the buried truth of the supposed truth of our self-consciousness] D. knowledge of the subject produced confessional sex-truth
8. knowledge of what causes subject to be ignorant of himself
9. unconsciousness of subject; truth in the other, etc.
10. “tactics of power" in sex discourse [sex-truth as power/knowledge]

Outline by John Protevi / Permission to reproduce granted for academic use<br> protevi@lsu.edu / http://www.protevi.com/john/Foucault/HS1.pdf

Michel Foucault is among the most cited of 20th-century authors across the humanities. (link courtesy of the foucault.info site...)

A reliable short biography of Foucault can be found in the Britannica:

http://academic.eb.com.ezproxy.lib.ou.edu/levels/collegiate/article/Michel-Foucault/35013

Our selection from Foucault's History of Sexuality V. 1 focuses on confession in relation to sexuality. For Foucault, sexuality is a "discourse" that "produces" a truth about the self: there is no prior, natural truth that is discovered. And "confession" ( a "technique" it is far older than modernity, encompassing more than sexuality) is crucial to understanding how truths about sex become truths about the self. This may seem an abstract or strange perspective: note that a "They Say / I Say" structure is prominent in Foucault's argument, helping ground it....

In annotating, feel free to work in any of our three categories. You will find the text difficult! Feel free to ask questions; I have provided, in a second "Page Note", a complete outline of our selection written by a Foucault scholar.

During our class discussion, I found it interesting how similar WW's argument is to that of George Orwell's in "Politics and the English Language." While WW is discussing poetry and Orwell is discussing political language, they both criticize the english of their time and advocate for simpler language that the common man understands. Orwell's essay is published more than one hundred years later and is speaking on an entirely different topic, however their two arguments run so parallel is it apparent that the over complication of language is a problem that is reoccurring throughout time.

I've always believed that you don't need a good story to tell a good story; only a good storyteller. The devices of plot and story structure, in Wordsworth's estimation, are less meaningful than the passion with which an experience is conveyed.

Wordsworth makes the most prominent and explicit sentiment to the Poems' purpose here - directly sharing his authorial goals, technique, and train of thought. Taking what's ordinary, and presenting it otherwise.

Latin poet of the late Roman Republic who wrote neoteric poetry

I would make the claim that Wordsworth is attempting to portray a likable sense of humility for public appeal, and I just have to say that we see right through that Wordy.

big claim!

3) In this excerpt, Wordsworth is advocating the "Art imitates Life" approach to writing. While personification of an abstract idea can add weight and depth to a concept, it can also be seen as foreign and even pompous to the average colloquial man.

1) Wordsworth is observing another trend that has persisted even into contemporary times. The divide between rich and poor continues to diminish. Access to language and literature, once a luxury exclusive to the wealthy elite, is now readily available to the general masses. Literary works have even tempered their perspectives to appeal to this expanding market.

2) Wordsworth is implementing prolepsis here to realign his audience's expectations. He will be tackling language from a new, less structured viewpoint, so he addresses any confusion or frustration before delving into his argument.

1

Wordsworth declares that the normal convention is too much restriction for poetry, and that breaking free will enhance writing to the common people, especially using simple things like country life.

1 Ok, this was a mouthful, but what I think I understood was that he wanted to take common elements of life and throw in his own imagination to expand and relate them as vivid as possible. He's taking dirt and making a bonsai tree out of it.

3 So it appears no other writers stood out from the pack? I find it strange that he is assuming readers are reading the same styles and words when there were plenty of great poets in the 19th century like Dickinson and Thoreau. Maybe he wasn't aware of their works or did not consider them unique.

2 Even though Wordsworth was disinclined to make a preface, he found it necessary to explain to his audience his point of view and his thoughts into making these poems. It wasn't enough to just shove his poems into peoples' faces, even more so with controversial poems; he had to develop his own personal thoughts to share.

opposite argument

3: Again very early in the preface, Wordsworth does not feel the need to defend himself as he believes his writings are the embodiment of a great new style of writing, and those who disapprove or disagree are those who are mistaken. Wordsworth presents as perhaps the most fearless writer in poetry because his style was revolutionary and he did not have qualms about changing writing forever, as well as viewpoints thereupon.

The author contends that poetry and prose are basically one in the same. Later the speaker argues that in writing poetry it is hard not to use metric language to write, these two forms being inseparable and impossible to avoid the connection between them even if it were desired.

Wordsworth is citing an extremely long novel written in 1748 about a young girl whose wealth is tragically taken. (#1)

by metric composition the speaker means poetry

2: This is possibly a manipulative statement to make so quickly in the preface; by mentioning the mindsets of his particular readers, Wordsworth almost "challenges" those who would disapprove to reconsider their own biases and judgments. By proposing that he was almost afraid of his own works causing him to be disliked among his readers, he gives readers every reason to consider his works more fondly, as one would not be happy to know that their own judgment was too harsh upon a writer. Furthermore, as discussed earlier, Wordsworth was "ahead of his time", making his motive easy to pick up on: anyone who chooses to disagree or disapprove is behind the times and they are therefore the ones who should be ridiculed.

1. To get background info on why these poems were controversial, Wordsworth has been vying for common speech among the people which in the 1800s was very rare. Even poetry was very biased as certain types of poems were favored over others which in his case was epic over lyric.

Wordsworths motive in this side note is to not drive away part of his audience. he is writing to other poets at the time this preface was written and wishes to expand what poetry can be. As such he needs other poets to be on agreeing what he says or at least try his different style of poetry. #2

this word means pretentiously

1: Providing context for the revision: while Wordsworth's own life was vastly impacted in 1802 by the meeting of his daughter for the first time, this is not the purpose of Wordsworth's new rendition; I would argue that the legal binding of Ireland to England in 1801 was largely responsible for his rewriting of this selection. Wordsworth discusses language in the concrete and in the abstract, possibly to convey the new relationships he could see between his readers and the language: some of his new audience members were largely Irish-speaking rather than English-speaking, as Irish remained the primary language of Ireland up until the union in the early 19th century, so it would make sense for him to use a difference of linguistic styling to appeal to this fresh crop of readers. He also speaks of language in the abstract sense, the language of prose versus the language of poetry, because he intends to appeal to the class of readers with little experience in the way of reading verse, those who may not respect the art of poetry.

3: This concept rings familiar to the claim paragraph I wrote about the Solitary Reaper poem, in which I argued that one's perception and the emotion which they bring to an event or scene matters more--at least in their perception--than the scene itself. Based on this particular statement in the preface, I believe Wordsworth would strongly agree that it doesn't matter what the reaper was actually singing about; what matters is how it affected the narrator and how he will never forget the impact that she left on him. The feelings and emotion of humans can be applied to situations through so many lenses that events can be seen in entirely different lights and contexts, such that in many ways subjectivity often trumps objectivity. Interpretation is everything. There are no absolutes, only perspectives.

2: This is a clever bit of wordplay; in case any readers had been hardening their minds against his preface at this point, they might be somewhat amused by this and thus more likely to look favorably upon the whole work. He makes it clear that he doesn't intend to persuade the reader into accepting his poetry; he recognizes and acknowledges that his poems will not be everyone's cup of tea. With this basis in place, the author invites the audience to give this work a chance despite any misgivings they might have at this point.

Analytical notation: I find that I agree with this statement on a personal level. The complicated imagery and vocabulary that many poets use serve a different purpose than what Wordsworth seeks to do here. Generally--although not always!--poetry is utilized by taking words and making them into mysteries. Perhaps this is why so many people are intimidated by poetry! Wordsworth attempts to connect with his readers on a more personal level, drawing upon situations and feelings that everyone experiences, as a way to make himself better understood. I think there is something to be learned from Wordsworth's strategy. Language is fundamentally about allowing one's meaning to be clearer, not to further confusion. There is no answer to the "So What?" question if no one is interested enough to read or understand what one has written.

Rhetorically focused notation: Wordsworth's thesis/motive in this work, he claims, is not to write poetry as others have, but rather to serve as an accurate representation of the language of humans. But, the audience that he is targeting seems to be people who wish to see "ordinary things ... presented to the mind in an unusual aspect." He is writing to be understood, not to throw riddles into the wind of humanity to be swept away.

1. Wordsworth was one of the loudest first proponents of writing poetry in common speech and vernacular, rather than lofty, incomprehensible patterns. Likewise, his focus on pleasure as the main goal of poetry was revolutionary and not entirely appreciated by many of his contemporaries at the time.

Contextual notation: In this preface, Wordsworth is seeking to defend a project ("an experiment") that he performed in the Lyrical Ballads poems. With them, he is trying to find a universal type of poetry, one that will appeal to generations of people. Thus, he is attempting to find a "real" poem, one that will stand the test of time.

2

Wordsworth uses lots of "low level" words here to signify his target audience: commoners. He starts off talking about something he's been worried about the whole time. He's worried about what is "proper". But he throws these off and instead gives worth to simple passions of life, saying instead: "The great and universal passions of men, the most general... supply endless combinations of form and imagery." This professes a belief in the intelligence of the uneducated, and their ability to feel just as the upper class do. I suppose it was something of a revolutionary concept for the time. Interesting Syntax too, the way he reverses the expectations stemming from his previous writing.

one) This request is one that could still be made of our society today. How often do we judge not only poems and literature based off the predicted judgements of others but also music, art and other personal preferences? Social media could be to blame for this continued trend.

3

Straight up garbage. Punishable by death due SOLELY to the irony that is "The Solitary Reaper". I mean, he thinks assigning questionably attached emotions to poems makes them stronger? Jesus you guys back me up on this, I'm not crazy, right?

Discuss.

three) By referring to the works of his day as "general evil," WW goes beyond just expressing his disdain for the various writings in his time. By associating evil with the other works, he makes it clear he is not just talking about his personal preferences but instead condemns the popular works in a more final claim.

Wordsworth believed that his poems would make a lasting impression on people in his time and in future times. He thought that emotions and themes of his poems would be permanent.(#3)

I find this whole paragraph very effective at getting across that he is not attempting to write a style of poetry that has written before. He is not trying to get a pat on the back for extravagant diction. He is trying to express himself to other living and breathing humans in a way that everyone may relate to. Comment style #3

Wordsworth is trying to convince his readers that his poetry is not worse than other poems, but very different. His whole preface is written to prevent critics from thinking he has failed in his new poems. (#2)

two) Before WW begins to explain his main reasons for his purpose in verse, he addresses the "so what?" portion from his thesis. He explains that this preface matters because many people are going to be disgruntled with the work he produces in terms of what they expect from him. He contrasts his style with the "gaudiness and inane" writings of his time and uses this idea later to reveal why his verse and the works from the past should be defined as real poetry instead of the writings popular at the time. These few sentences are important because it is here that WW addresses the reasons for the preface and his explanations.

Wordsworth is warning his readers that they are about to read something that is "too real." He has unapologetically chosen to write from a place of true authenticity, which he contrasts with the "gaudiness and inane phraseology of modern writer" (Wordsworth). He is asserting the value of poetry with a real voice that portrays real emotion, because he knows that he is writing a kind of poetry that has never been written before.

Comment style #2

This preface is written just prior to the Victorian Era. People in this point in history are remembered for their refined tastes and manners, yet at the same time, Wordsworth is wondering how healthy or depraved the society he is a part of really is.

Comment style #1

Here are my annotation instructions again from the "how things work" / syllabus page:

1) informational/contextual notations: These sorts of notations are “footnotes”: providing a chunk of information that furnishes helpful context for readers. Different printed editions of texts have different styles of footnotes; I expect that you will make annotations of this sort primarily for your own purposes, or to fill in gaps in the context I’ve provided for you (and I’ll be making these annotations on texts myself!)

2) rhetorically focused notations: Here we’ll be focusing on what the author is doing and why they are doing it: annotating to enhance our understanding and build a foundation for engaging with the author's argument.

3) interpretive/analytical notations: Here we get to the kind of thing that might happen in an online “discussion forum.” You will be making claims; offering contexts to show why those claims matter; analyzing texts, events, and ideas to generate evidence to support those claims...

My instructions for your annotations on this text are as follows. I've provided annotations in category #1; I want you each to make three annotations, one for each category. For #2, I'd like you to comment on some aspect of WW's thesis/motive, since those are the first "Elements of the Essay" I've introduced in our class. For #1 and #3, you have free rein. (An often misused idiom: the metaphor involves horses, monarchs...) Please set your annotations to private until the start of class Tuesday!

Link your annotation to the specific word/phase/sentence you're commenting on. This is a "page note": don't reply to it, unless you have a question about these instructions.

Lyrical Ballads first appeared in 1798, without a preface. The volume was a co-production of William Wordsworth and his friend Samuel Taylor Coleridge. Our text of WW’s “Preface” combines the 1800, 1802, and 1805 versions. The “Preface” was added in 1800 and revised significantly in 1802: I indicate the major 1802 edition with a black underline. (If you simply skip the addition, the sentence picks up in paragraph 22 where it leaves off in paragraph 13—this is how the text looked in 1800, and this is what I want us to focus on!.

Neither of the two WW poems we have read were included in Lyrical Ballads, but they were part of the same period in WW's career. (They were composed slightly later, in 1804/5; both first appeared in book form in 1807.)

WW’s “Preface” is important because in many senses he is “ahead of his time”: he anticipates a perspective that has become our modern perspective. By 1800, a mass, literate public existed and was growing rapidly. What relationship should the ancient traditions of art, particularly literature, have to this rapidly growing audience? How would this public come to understand its own life in and through reading imaginative writing? Discussions of literature around this time (and ever since!) tend to focus on language because literature is made out of language, and language is something used by everybody for many non-artistic reasons all the time. (This makes literature different from classical music, or painting.) And different kinds of language, historically, are associated with different groups of people. Thus, arguments about literary language (“what language should be used?” are always associated with arguments about society (“whose language should be used?”).

Moreover, Wordsworth’s “Preface” is important because the terms it which defines poetry are terms that would prove hugely influential in the developing understanding of what poetry should do–an understanding we now capture with the term “lyric” poetry.

Do you have any suggestions on where to go to locate additional texts?

What times?

It is interesting to see that the struggle for authenticy is universal yet personal. Ja Rule and Wordsworth were (I'm assuming) experiencing very different circumstances, yet they both were searching for "realness" around them.

I did it! Are you proud of me?

So what counts as too long? It may be hard for some people to condense their thoughts.

During our class discussion, I explained that my initial thought about this quotation was its application to people. Conversationally, one might use the word fake to describe someone who is perceived as “too nice” or “too outgoing.” In this case, the user’s definition of authenticity is based solely on their perception of what they believe is genuine and what is fake. However, in this quotation, the speaker makes the argument that even though they are deemed “real” by the evaluation of others, they are still in fact faking it so much that they should be considered beyond fake.

Kenzie poses the question, “Where does the line between fake and beyond fake begin?” While there might never be a full answer to this question, it is worth considering that all humans could possibly be beyond fake. The persona we allow strangers to see is different than the persona we allow friends and family to see and even that is different than the person we truly are. In this sense, even if the people closest to us consider us “real,” to some degree, are we not still hiding a part of ourselves that no one will ever know? In this sense, humans are then “faking it so real,” making us all beyond fake.

In my initial response to this quotation, I examined the quote as though it were a declaration of personal discovery, where the writer has found a real that transcends the fake. The more I think about this quote, however, the more I wonder if the author is making larger claims about the relationship between the real and the fake. One might interpret this quote as arguing that the act of faking something can also become a kind of reality, depending on intentions and abilities. What does it mean to be "so real" at faking oneself? Does a kind of authenticity emerge from the acknowledgement that one is faking? And where does the line between "fake" and "beyond fake" begin? Perhaps personal reflection becomes the key here, and analyzing authenticity makes one "beyond fake."