1. How do binary ways of thinking about the world shape one's understanding of the three major themes involved in this program?

Rubric:

1. Demonstrate an understanding of the term binary. Know what the three major themes of this program are. Be able to discuss in detail the relationship between the citizen, the self, the subject and binary modes of thinking about them. 

Question:

2.Does the method or medium in which different ideas are discussed effect how they are recieved or understood? Please discuss your reasoning and give an example. (You are not limited to one example. The more the merrier!)

***For example: Gender and identity are concepts that we have explored in several different manners, such as film (Southern Comfort) performance (127 Easy Steps to Becoming a Man) and many our readings (My Gender Workbook, The Technology of Gender).

Rubric:

2. Know how to distinguish difference in medium. Exhibit an understanding of the materials that they are discussing. Stay away from hollow or lengthy quotes. If employing quotes really break them down and give them purpose.

Question:

3.Kate Bornstein, in My Gender Work Book describes a gender/identity/power pyramid that is constructed to demonstrate a function of power in which the perfect gender would claim the top of the pyramid. How does the pyramid help or hinder your understanding of the gender/identity/power system?

Rubric:

3. Clearly display an understanding of the reading. Be able to express this understanding in connection with a sound estimation of the purpose of the pyramid and its power relations.

(with a little Bertolt Brecht)

Through two very different modes of teaching Bornstein and Schofield discuss issues of gender, identity, and power in an interesting and involved manner. In order to better understand why each chose to fashion their lesson plan the way they did I created an exercise similar to ones in My Gender Work Book and I built a fort! Each had created difficulties within my analysis because of time constraints but in the end enriched my understanding of the reasons behind their decision to utilize their chosen medium.

Schofield's approach was to bring his audience into a space that was comfortable enough to discuss sensitive issues in a humurous way by inviting the audience to participate in the experience. By means of building a fort in which to perform Schofield took control of our general expectations for the performance's outcome. By inviting his audience to participate in the action he added a little bit of unpredictability. In building my own fort I learned that when you invite others to join you it only adds to the experience and brings up things you may have never thought up on your own. On the other hand, you are inviting them into a space that you own because you created it. That ownership gives you license to guide the discussion any way you see fit. Schofield's detailed examination of his own gender offers up a unique understanding of gender and identity. In an interview on the topic of his performance he says: "Transbodies can do things that other bodies can't...When I take off my clothes...I go from being this cute young man to an adult female to both of those things and more in a single moment. To me it's the moment of beholding a human body that contains so many complexities that really drives it home. Of course not every queer theorist wants to get naked to prove thier point!(homofactuspress.com). His comfort or willingness to put himself into a pretty vulnerable situation is assuring to the audience and creates a sense of intimacy while shocking them into thoughtful consideration of his story. From my own experience with fort building I found that the structure of the fort became something of a conductor in the sense that it allowed conversation and ideas to pass through. In view of this experience Schofield's performance becomes the tangible version of this particular type of conductor.

Something I have neglected to explore further as of yet is the way in which the audience is encouraged to participate in the performance. The audience is given several objects of importance to seperate portions of the performance, otherwise known as props. Because these props are important to the performance the bearer of the prop becomes just as essential. People seated in the right areas are asked to help Schofield in the construction of his fort. This also gives the audience value because they have been able to assist him in his purpose. In addition to all of this audience participation the audience is given the opportunity to guide his performance by calling out numbers that correspond to one of his 127 Easy Steps to Becoming a Man. Subsequently Schofield becomes a conductor allowing different concepts of gender and identity to pass through him in the form of his life stories as he is differently labeled, double labeled and sometimes even triple labeled. In his workshop for our class he had the class come up with different names for gender or identity such as male/female, trans, hetero, homo and so on and so forth. All of these labels seemed to be included in his performance and were combined to create an alternative identity unique in its creation.

In order to understand exactly how he does this I turned to Bertolt Brecht. I wrestled with choosing whether or not Schofield's performance was epic theatre or dramatic theatre. I ended up realizing that in doing so I had created a binary out of his performance. Through this realization I have come to think that perhaps his performance lies somewhere in the middle. His performance includes attributes of both forms of theatre as defined by Brecht. With regards to the dramatic theatre Schofield's performance: implicates the spectator in a stage situation, provides him with sensations experience, the spectator is involved in something, the spectator shares the experience." Concerning the epic thetre his performance is more of a, "narrative, turns the reader into an observer, she is made to face something, brought to the point of recognition, the human being is the object of the enquiry, she is alterable and able to alter, montage, jumps, social being determines thought." In the end Schofield's  performance was a sort of epically dramatic or dramatically epic theatre. Whether he did so conciously or not Schofiled blended Brecht's well-defined and completely seperate forms of theatre to create a modern theatre to which we have not yet assigned a label. Perhaps this is something Brecht would even approve of, the idea of the theatre changing throughout time creating something considered other in respect to the more accepted forms of theatre.

Bornstein utilizes a much more subtle, conversational method of introducing the reader to different ideas about gender, identity, and power. Through phrasing the writing as a dialogue Bornstein draws the reader into the topic of discussion. Throughout this discussion she uses different visual aids, such as the gender/identity/power pyramid based on the basic food group pyramid, to build understanding. Another powerful tool she makes use of are the exercises through which the reader also learns about gender identities and the power that they wield, in a more generalized sense. Along-side that lesson the reader also learns about their own identity or gender and the power or powerlessness that accompany it. Choosing what kind of exercises to include must have been very difficult and time consuming. I had a great deal of trouble deciding what type of exercise to create on my own and figuring out how it would relate to to this program wasn't easy either. This process gave me a little perspective while thinking about the exercises Bornstein used and how they were used to better the reader's understanding of the topic. Bornstein's carefully chosen, deliberate and intriguing exercises can be difficult for the reader to work through but she always reassures them in keeping with the discursive nature of her writing. By using these exercises to compliment the reading Bornstein has created an interactive learning environment in which the reader is encouraged to grow. This is absolutely essential to the comfort and ease of the reader as they are working through some pretty difficult material. Bornstein even alerts the reader to the dangers of, "gender play,"  in the very beginning of this reading saying that, "...You need to know where you are, where your tools are, what they're capable of doing, how they're capable of hurting you if they are misused"(35). In her dealings with these controversial topics she creates and uses the pyramid of gender/identity/power through which she builds understanding much the same way that Schofield builds his forts. Her pyramid becomes a conductor through which an understanding of the gender/identity/power system passes. Below the pyramid she goes so far as to ask the reader to try and place themselves on the pyramid. This invests the reader in understanding how the pyramid functions and fosters an enriched understanding of how to operate the system in the context of the pyramid. This demonstrates the careful consideration both Bornstein and Schofield employed when deciding upon the materials or tools they would use with special attention to how useful or destructive each tool could be in the attempt to serve their purpose.

Another interesting concept that Bornstein works through via the pyramid is, "real men/women." She describes them as a social construct and explains a little later that some thoerists have even started to take the influence of sociological factors into consideration when talking about gender. She goes on to break up the gender pyramid as if it represented humanity as it is influenced by western cultures. The upper level of the pyramid would represent a function of power and the very top point would represent the perfect gender(39). This is an interesting thought to ponder, gender as a construct, for Schofield, "...becoming a man is less about equipment and more about attitude." So how does he and his "attitude" fit into Bornstein's concept of the perfect gender? This thought crossed my mind as I re-read Bornstein and it occured to me that there were few if any possibilities for Schofield to climb very far up the pyramid. This pyramid as a guiding general principal of the dynamics between gender/identity/power is quite effective in that it clearly depicts the construction of the perfect gender from many different angles while allowing the reader to explore any other angle they could possibly think of.

Throughout the reading the experience of this gender/identity/power dynamic I questioned are these the right means to the ends which Bornstein and Schofield sought? The answer I came up with is yes! They obviously put a lot of thought into exactly how the audience/reader would react not only to what they presented but how it was presented; the two were of equal importance. This means that although the performance of these ideas and the written work on these ideas may not reach out to the same people the people they reach and are able to teach are leaving with a genuinely bettered understanding.

"Discourse" would seem to be a rather simple and easily defined word. In the context of Foucault's The History of Sexuality, it is not. Wading through the murky waters of Foucault's alternative word meanings has been mentally exhausting. However, I found an enlightening bit of information in the Pocket Oxford English Dictionary; The definition of the word "discourse" reads:

"Discourse: 1. Written or spoken communication or debate;2. A formal discussion of a topic; 3. to write authoritatively about a topic."

It goes on to describe the latin origin, "discursus," which means, "running to and fro." Visualizing the movement is what brought me a better understanding of Foucault's usage of the word. Discourse is a mobile term; it shifts and is molded by Foucault's writing style. Throughout the majority of the seventy-three pages I have read so far, Foucault utilizes the word discourse to describe the ongoing discussion of sexuality. Early on he informs the reader that, "...the essential thing is the existencein our era of a discourse in which sex, the revelation of truth, the overturning of global laws, the proclamation of a new day to come, and the promise of a certain felicity are linked together"(7). This tells me that discourse, as he describes it, is a movement of human sexuality, bringing it back to the place it once held in the seventeenth century. This is where he begins his discussion of this particular topic. At this time, he says, "Codes regulating the coarse, the obscene, and indecent were quite lax compared to those of the nineteenth century"(3). All of which describes discourse as it moves throughout time.

In the nineteenth century sexual discourse became a "screen-discourse"(53). In this form of discourse one had to become selective when speaking about sex or sexuality. The language chosen or not chosen was of the utmost importance.

"...it was a new regime of discourses. Not any less was said about it; on the contrary. but things were said in a very different way; it was different people who said them, from different points of view, and in order to obtain different results...There is not one but many silences, and they are integral part of the strategies that underlie and permeate discourses"(27).

This was an interesting way to describe discourse. He speaks of it as though it were a game in which the rules are constantly changing. This means that in order to participate in the conversation you had to first familiarize yourself with the rules and regulations. This new discourse, "...has coded contents and qualified speakers"(29). Going back to the word's Latin origins helps to make sense of his describing discourse as some sort of strategic game; "discursus: running to and fro" Imagining this game in which society says that in order to play, "One had to speak of sex; one had to speak publicly and in a manner that was not determined by the division between the licit and illicit, ....one had to speak of it as of a thing to be not simply condemned or tolerated but managed, inserted into the systems of utility, regulated for the greater good of all, made to function according to an optimum"(24). This game, however, became too unruly and had to find a higher form of control. In the eighteenth century discourse became a form of communication powerful enough to inspire movement or change. Transforming sex into discourse became a form of communication powerful enouggh to inspire movement or change. Transforming sex into discourse made it so much more than it had been before. "...these discourses on sex did not multiply apart from or against power, but in the very space and as a means of its exercise"(32). So, although there was an attempt at policing the discourse on sex the quantity of various discourses has, "...been multiplied rather than rarefied...it has also, in a more fundamental way, ensured the solidification and implanttion of an entire sexual mosaic:(53). This is what created a space in which the act of discussion makes sex an acceptable topic of conversation. So it seems as though screening or regulating discourse on sexuality is what, in a roundabout way, makes it into a suitable bit of conversation. It all comes full circle, like a cog in a machine; a discursive machine. This is ultimately what discouse becomes. Foucault says, "The society that emerged in the nineteenth century...did not confront sex with a fundamental refusal of recognition. On the contrary, it put into operation an entire machinery for producing true discourses concerning it"(69). Throughout Foucault's writing the topic of discourse is a somewhat fluid term. Sometimes it is true to its dictionary definition, sometimes it takes on another form of the word as it is molded and shaped by the imagery produced by Foucault's writing style, and sometimes goes as far back as its Latin origins. But as Foucault reminds us, "This sceme for transforming sex into discourse had been devised long before in an ascetic and monastic setting"(20). Meaning that as much as it has changed and been changed by time the foundations for the true meaning of discourse were laid down long before the greater society began the disursive transition.

I am a pretty chill, motivated and disciplined person working on discovering the deeper relationship between people and culture as it relates to images, sound and popular culture with an emphasis on blues and jazz because they are the basis of contemporary forms of music. So looking at this from a historical point of view is key. I have a great deal of experience in research. Gathering infromation is an essential part of this project so I'm looking for someone open to new ways of researching. Of course there are the typical trips to the library and whatnot but I'm looking more towards going out into the world and experiencing it as I learn more about it.

I grew up in a house full of women who would be considered "Tom boys" because we were all raised by our two older brothers. This is the order of things: Sam and Joe, the two oldest brothers and then the girls Grace, Mattie, Sharon, Cerise, Manoknae, and Hotahae. These progressivley unusual names correspond to how crazy our mother was becoming. My youngest sister, Hotahae, has this theory that goes a little something like this: Our mother having given birth to ten children and having eight of them survive had a lot of herself drained from her body. Everything that was drained was very unsystematically gifted to us, her children. The oldest got the cream of the crop, the common sense, responsibility, basically half a brain. The younger ones on the other hand had to take from what was left, the CRAZY. 

Because the older siblings were in better shape than us young ones they had to deal with our crazy by trying to evenly distribute our mother's good and bad attributes. An undertaking of this sort is bound to take time so until we have come to some kind of agreement on which parts of our mother go to which of her children we are bound to live a life full of drama. My two younger sisters and I have a miliion and one theatrical performances for me to choose from so I will try and pick one of the most memorable...

 

In Portland there is this mass transit light rail system called the MAX. Recently I went home to visit and I was riding with my younger sister, Hotahae, on a very crowded train because it was the red line to the airport and people had all kinds of luggage stuffed everywhere. Anyways we came to a pretty abrubt stop and Hotahae fell on top of this womans luggage and she got really upset and was accusing Hotahae of falling on her things on purpose and started calling her names. She hollered out racial slures, often informing us and the other MAX passengers that she was an American citizen, and told my sister to go back where she came from! (this last part was quite ludicrous and kind of funny because our family is Native American). Me and Hotahae couldn't get off the MAX just then so I tried to get us as far away from that woman as possible but she rolled her little suitcase right behind us ranting and raving, demanding that my sister give back whatever she had stolen from her bag when she fell on it. Now Hotahae has never been one to just put up with anyone's shit and her usual first reaction is to come out swinging. But I was trying so hard to keep her from fighting with this strange woman that she made a somewhat out of the ordinary decision. She whipped her entire body around, stared the startled woman directly in the eye and sang out "American woman stay away from me! American woman momma let me be!"