Blida Department of English: Free Stand to Stand Free
Hello dear mate, we'll be pleased to have you joining our community, so would you please register. You have to identify yourself to admin or to the moderators to be able to join the hidden group where you can see all the forum material.

Is Critical Theory Useful?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Hush on Thu Apr 09, 2009 1:50 pm

A question that requires more than a simple short answer!

Whatever an attempt of a given answer is undertaken, it should start with defining the concept of "Critical Theory". The debate about the question is held in order to come out with a satisfying answer. In order to be fair I'll advocate it's use and effectiveness, so I would be pleased if we have someone vindicating the antithesis.

In order to be methodological in working, I'll set some questions that should be answered in order to direct the debate (those questions might be modified and modelled according to the contributors).

1- What is Critical Theory?
2- What is the use of Critical Theory? (illustrations are required)
3- Can we do without Critical Theory?
4- Is Critical Theory beneficial for a student?



avatar
Hush

Number of posts : 528
Age : 32
Location : Dreaming land
Registration date : 2008-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Thu Apr 09, 2009 5:28 pm

A question that requires thorough comtemplation, and a
serious debate indeed !


Since I’m a novice, and really in a state of confusion and fear of this complex concept, I’ll be the one who repeats what the author of Critical Theory Today says « Why should we bother and learn about critical theories ? », I’d say also let us enjoy literature, let’s our interpretations be personal, unsullied by theoritical concepts which are most of the time difficult to be understood by students .

As for the definition I’ll let it for the one who believes in the effectiveness of critical theory in our literary analysis.

In the mean time I’ll carry on reading that wonderful book, to be able to argue.
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Hush on Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:29 am

Before I start I should carry on the quotation you have taken from Critical Theory Today:

"Why should we bother to learn about critical theories? Is it really worth the trouble? Won’t all those abstract concepts (if I can even understand any of them) interfere with my natural, personal interpretations of literature? These questions, or ones like them, are probably the questions most frequently asked by new students of critical theory, regardless of their age or educational status, and such questions reveal the two-fold nature of our reluctance to study theory: (1) fear of failure and (2) fear of losing the intimate, exciting, magical connection with literature that is our reason for reading it in the first place."

Lois Tyson in this book explains best the use of Critical Theory!

But I'll try to do it my way, since I am a student as all of you here.

As I have stated in my previous post, the starting should be defining Critical Theory, and I think only it's definition will sweep away a lot of misconceptions. Literary Theory is not an imposed way of interpretation, neither it is an esoteric field, nor a follow-me policy. It's simply an understanding of the different trends of interpretation and their motives.i.e why a given person reads the same literary text othergates than the others? Why is the same text interpreted endlessly? What makes you interpret a text the way you do?(and I guess that's a crucial question).

Whether you know it or not, you are reading texts according to a specific, oriented, canonised way. You are being critical from a view point you think is yours, whereas you have acquired it through your process of learning and maturity. It means no one is outside critical theory!

To quote Asma: "I’d say also let us enjoy literature, let’s our interpretations be personal, unsullied by theoretical concepts which are most of the time difficult to be understood by students"

Allow me Asma to give you my analysis of your saying. First you said that "let us enjoy Literature" as if when reading Critical Theory we're not going to enjoy it, which I believe by personal experience totally wrong. Critical Theory helps you get in-depth in a literary work and enjoy it not only once but as many times as critical theories are. The more you read about critical theories, the more you'll find ways to interpret the text anew.

Second you've said " let’s our interpretations be personal, unsullied by theoritical concepts". Do you think your interpretation is personal? I say that it's only when you read Critical Theory you'll have a personal reading. Let me explain myself: Imagine you're closed-eyes in front of 5 paths, then we put you on one of the paths and open your eyes. You're not aware of the other ways, you'll walk by yourself thinking you're having your personal way! But the fact is that there are 5 other ways there, and if you don't see them before choosing one of them you're not in what you called "personal" way. For theory it's the same thing. What you think is your reading is not, you've been put in the way of a specific interpretation by your place of birth, your religion, your beliefs, your teacher, your education as a whole... Are you still saying "personal"! If you're not aware that you're having an already chosen path for you, it doesn't make your way personal at all. Theory gives you the opportunity to see what others are thinking; and then, when you think, it's going to be personal because you've seen the different ways that exist!

The fact is that we're afraid of Critical Theory and we don't know about it, that's why we say it's useless! It is when someone is bad in a module that he's gonna say I don't like it! We are afraid we say we like theory and we can't speak about it! We are afraid someone asks us about it and we say we don't know! It's better to say it's useless and I don't like it, like this no one will say a word! But is it the attitude of someone who wants to seek truth? Is it the attitude of someone asked by God to "learn"? I guess not.

Something else, funny but real. Those who say we are with art for art's sake, and we are anti-theoritical, they themselves have a theory which is anti-theoritical attitude! It is an approch in itself, studied by Critical Theory!

I challenge anyone to show me someone who's not
included by Critical Theory! Show me a single teacher who doesn't use
it, consciously or unconsciously! Isn't it better to be conscious about
what's someone is doing? I know that even our teachers that claim they are
against literary theory are doing with it! What's text and context
relationship? What's the techniques of normalisation, universal...


Critical Theory is not a rule to be applied like in mathematics, but it is a set of different approaches to literary texts. Different visions from different perspectives to the same thing. I hope I've brought something new to this debate.

Waiting for your answer...
avatar
Hush

Number of posts : 528
Age : 32
Location : Dreaming land
Registration date : 2008-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Fri Apr 10, 2009 1:41 pm

Good morning,

Thank you for your answer, and for the things you made me aware of. I just want to repeat what I said perviously; I'm a novice in the field of critical theories, and I guess that anyone will say all what I said without altering a word if it's the first time she/he reads words such as: Deconstruction, Feminism, Historicism, Reaser-Response and Reception
Theory...etc. The difference is only between the one who says I don't like it, it's USELESS, and the one who says it's complex, I don't understand such and such theoritical concept. The fear from the complexity of the theories doesn't lead to ignore its importance.
I agree with you that critical theory is needed, of course we can't do without it in any literary study.
I admit that I was a lazy student, and I rellied only on the copious notes I take in classroom.
I think you asked about someone to vindicate the antithesis, and if I didn't choose to be that someone, maybe I would never have the chance to be a part of this debate! which is fact not a debate because I agree with what you said!. So lucky me!!!

May Allah reward you immensely.

PS: Our next debate insh'Allah will be on how we use critical theories to get in-depth in a literary work, using some illustrations.
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Hush on Fri Apr 10, 2009 2:40 pm

Thank you for your active presence.

I never said that Critical Theory is easy or simple, and I am a novice in the field too, I've relied too much on what my teachers ( and I like them so much) told me. But it's never enough!!! For the complexity of it, I would say it's natural! Do you think 1+1 for a novice in mathematics is easy and simple? I guess not! The fact is nothing is complex or easy or simple in itself, but it depends on our former knowledge and our ability to cope with concepts and notions and to assimilate theoretical knowledge.

Any discipline is like a building with an endless top, you go higher step by step, each floor you reach allows you to see the world differently and gives you an insight about places that you couldn't see from the lower floor!

Let's carry on the debate (which is not always about two opposite views but can be an expression of different views). I wish you start the next step.
avatar
Hush

Number of posts : 528
Age : 32
Location : Dreaming land
Registration date : 2008-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Mon Apr 13, 2009 1:50 am

I finished reading the psychoanalysis criticism from Critical Theory Today, did I say before let’s our interpretations be personal unsullied by theoritical concepts !!?. I guess I did, and I must say now that all what I wrote is nonsensical, truly ignorance makes me unaware of the usefulness of critical theory. I’ve changed my mind so it’s better to say: ‘the importance of critical theory is without doubt obvious, it grants us a deep inderstanding of the literary work’, it helps us to better interpret those works, and I think Lois Tyson ( author of Critical Theory Today) explains it perfectly saying ‘Critical theory, I think you will find, provides excellent tools for that endeavor, tools that not only can show us our world and ourselves through new and valuable lenses but also can strengthen our ability to think logically, creatively, and with a good deal of insight’ P 2/3. So, Critical Theory is very beneficial for students, it enriches our readings, it helps us see new ideas we might not have seen so clearly without it. The four questions you stated in your post are answered now I think. So let’s carry on our englishtening discussion, and this time we discuss how we use theories in our literary interpretation and analysis to go deeper in the work . Since I’ve read only the psychoanalytic theory (both Classical psychoanalysis of Freud and Lacanian psychoanalysis of Lacan), let’s discuss them, because I couldn’t understand fully some concepts. You said : ‘For the complexity of it, I would say it's natural’, you’re right !

I-Classical Psychoanalysis Theory : How it is useful in our literary interpretation ?

Freud’s Psychoanalysis grants us many concepts, if we apply them in interpreting a literary work, we’ll be able to explore and understand the text deeply. We’ll be able also to understand the characters’ psychology, to reveal the problems that may affect their behaviour. The first concept developed by Freud, is the unconscious, a place where all our wounds, fears, desires, and also all the disorders (inferiority, complexes, sibling rivalry…etc) are repressed, of course we don’t know about them, but they appear in our dreams as symbols. Knowing about all this interesting issues, we can make a good meaningful psychoanalytic interpretation. It’ll be based on theory, and not just love/hate this literary work. I can for example read A Grain of Wheat psychoanalytically, saying that Mugo’s suffering from an internal remorse for betraying Kihika. He lived a miserable childhood, was orphaned and left lonely to live with his ruthless aunt. Howerver, Kihika is the leader of the movement, he is loved by his family and friends. This may suggest the hatred, the fear and the jalousy which are repressed in his unconscious. These repressed disorders drew him to betray Kihika.

The psychoanalysis theory is long, I’ve chosen to discuss only the unconscious, but I invite my mates to read more about it.


I don’t know if what I’m going to write next is correct or not, but I think I’m going to follow this approach: Don't laugh please! khbat2
1- I read the theories, and understand them first.
2-I read the literary work be it a novel, story, peom…
3- Then I interpret. In Critical Theory Today, the author explained to important concepts, one is to read with the grain ,i.e. to interpret the work the way it seems to invite us to interpret it, thus using the psychoanalytic interpretation, I give an example : I’m reading the novel Y, I start asking questions saying what does the author try to say here ?. I read that X ( a character) dreams that he’s killing his son and he’s suffering from this nightmare. Then , I learn that he has problems with his boss. In this case I attach this to Freud’s theory about dreams and dream symbols, and so I say X’s dream is a mere message that reveals his hate to his boss which is repressed in his unconscious. I think this is reading with the grain.
The other concept is reading against the grain, I didn’t undertand it, so I won't use it ! .


To be continued…

Lacanian psychoanalysis...Marxism...
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Hush on Mon Apr 13, 2009 6:16 pm

Smile I'm just too happy to read such a post, I hope you've understood what I meant when I said that if someone says theory is useless, it means he doesn't know what is it! Because I don't think a sane person would say this (unless he has a purpose behind that, or for personal reaons!). I would apologize not to carry on this discussion now, it's because I am delighted by your post that I'm afraid I won't be abjective; thus I prefer to answer later.

PS: Thank you very much indeed, and I hope that the forum is not useless as some of our mates gave said!
avatar
Hush

Number of posts : 528
Age : 32
Location : Dreaming land
Registration date : 2008-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Wed Apr 15, 2009 10:49 pm

I've understood that very well!, and I wish that everyone can read the post in which you've explained the importance of critical theory. This topic's one of the best topics in the forum. Thanks

Thank you once more for saying:" I'm just too happy to read such a post". There're plenty of mistakes in my post because I wanted to start the discussion again, and I wasn't sure what to write!. You don't need to apologize, I'm so happy to discuss this topic, and happier to read this lovely book. I'm just surprised why literary theory is not used throughout our courses!!. It seems odd that sometimes we do interpretation in class without a clear idea about for e.g. Marxism.
By the way I've found somewhere a title of another book which is very important as well, it's called The Nortan Anthology of Theory and Criticism by V Leitch, I'll try to download later on.


Conserning Lacanian Psychoanalysis, I don't think that I'm going to talk about it. It's a little bit complex. If I choose to discuss it, I'll be repeating the author's words. Besides, I don't have in mind any idea about a work that I can examine it through a Lacanian Psychoanalysis perspective.

I'll try to post something on Marxism and about a novel I read using a Marxist approach sooner. I need just to recall some events!

Salam
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Fri Apr 17, 2009 3:15 pm

Hello, let’s carry on ! miamiam1

Marxist Criticism : A Marxist interpretation of Upton Sinclair’s The Jungle

We’ve already discussed the crucial role of theories in our interpretation, we’ve discussed Freud’s Psychoanalysis and its plain usefulness in our literary interpretation. It’s Marxism’s turn now. Before I begin, I shall re-express my gratitude to Hush for the book he shared with us. It’s highly recommended for novices.

Firstly, I’ll try to talk about some Marxist principles , I can’t pretend that I’ve grasped the
whole meaning of Marxism, I can’t also say that it is easy, suffice it to say that it’s wonderful. Then, I’ll move on to discuss ‘The Jungle’using a Marxist perspective.

Marxism is an ideology based on the theories developed by Karl Marx and the other guy whatsisname, I guess Engels. Anyway, one of the important concepts in Marxist thought is the class system and how it’s stuctured. Here it’s important to make the difference between a social class( in the sense of upper, middle and lower class), and an economic class which includes the ‘haves’ and have-nots’, i.e, the Burgeoisie orthe hegemonic class, and the Proletariat orthe working class. The concept of class struggle is developed to refer to the conflict between members of two classes. In other words, between the economically priviledge ones, and the ones who suffer an economic privation. Marx wrote : ‘The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles, a fight that each time ended either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes.". Marx believes that the workers, the economically oppressed must rise up revolutions to create a truly free classless society ruled by its people who do the work and gain all the fruit of their toil.


Marx and his friend criticise ideology, namely the undesirable ideologies that promote repressive political agendas. They believe that Maxism is a nonrepressive ideology, because it makes people aware that ideologies like Capitalism blinds them because it serves the dominating power. In other words, it serves the few not the many, it asserts the self-centered individual, while Marxism believes in cooperation. Before extending to other Maxists concepts, I should briefly point at the American dream, and survival for the fittest which are part and parcel of Capitalism. I’ll talk about them it details in interpreting The
Jungle.


According to Marxist critics the American dearm is just a tool to give poor people false hopes , that by hard work they can join in the ‘ get rich quick’ game. This is nonesense for Marxists, because the working class is deprived from every aspect of a comfortable life, simply because all the means of production, and all the resources are privetly owned. Workers, or the poor are forced to do a tiresome labour, deluded that one day they’ll too catch up and gain a financial success. Marxists also believe that in a capitalist society survival is for the fittest,i.e for the few who accumulate capital ; the working class however are struggling to stay alive. They are lucky if they can provide enough food
for them and their children.


I’ll try to talk briefly about The Jungle, one of my favourite novels, that moved deeply because of the vivid descriptions of the harrownig conditions of the working class in America in early 20th century. After reading the theory, I think that The Jungle is more than a naturalistic novel full of extensive detail. It tells facts.(my opinion)

The Jungle can be interpreted using a Marxist perspective. It serves as a good example to illustrate Marxism’s critique of Capitalism, of the evil of industrialism and the impacts of the factory work on people.The emptiness of the American dream. It examines capitalism’s exploitation of the working class, both men, women, and children. Those who suffered immensley to earn their living, to survive in a destructive capitalist society. They are destroyed by a cruel economic and social system for the benefit of the few, i.e, the bourgeoisie. For instance, Jurgis Rudkus (the protagonist) and his family, a well-to-do
Luthanian family that fell into dispair and live in squalor once moving to America. The family has to toil daily under harsh unbelieveable conditions, to be able to survive. I can still remmeber how old Dede Antanas (Jurgis’ father) was forced to work either, and how chemicals gnaw his toes.
The novel also expounds the negative effects of factory work on people, old or young. Alienation is one of the ills of industrialsim, the workers like Jurgis, Ona(his wife), Dede Antanas… become objects, commodities who sold themselves to their bosses. They suffer in factories without even sharing the income of their labour, and without being valued for their contributions. Upton Sinclair criticises the alienated labour , describing how Stanisloves (Jurgis younger brother) works : ‘…and so was decided the place in the universe of little Stanislovas, and his destiny till the end of his days. Hour after Hour, day
after day, year after year, it was fated that he should stand upon a certain square foot of floor…making never a motion and thinking never a thought, sace for the setting of lard cans.’ Chapter 6-89.
Time is valuable for capitalists, and workers are not allowd to chat, or even to think, thus, they become aliens.

Moreover, the novel plainly tends to reinforce the Marxist view of the Amercian dream. The ideology which promises everyone a rise ‘from an extreme poverty to an extreme weath in few years’. However, marxism believes that the American dearm is a mere myth which tends to give people false hopes.
Jurgis and his family, who went ‘to America as full of hope as’ all those who were blinded by
the myth. Sinclair writes : ‘ It was Jonas who suggested that they all go to America, where a friend of his had gotten rich…That was a country where, they said, a man might earn three roubles a day...In that country, rich or poor, a man was free, it was said …he might do as he pleased, and count himself as good as any other man. So America was a place of which lovers and young people dreamed.If one would only manage to get the price of a passage, he could count his troubles at an end’.Chapter 2. 29. However, ‘the family is helpless with dismay. So much they had toiled’ in vain. The writer wants to ask :
Where’s the American dream !?

The end of the novel shows that only Socialism can provide relief, because Capitalism ruins peoples’ lives only ; like Jurgis Rudkus’ family.
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Hush on Fri Apr 17, 2009 9:53 pm

ya3omri1 Wonderful! you can never imagine how much I am happy because I recognise in your post the euphoria I get when I discover a new thing! I feel pity for those who won't have the chance to live a moment of delight got from knowledge! Don't thank me, I owe you much from your posts! I would apologise because I am apart those days and didn't carry on the debate at it should be! I agree with much of what you've said and I think you're doing a great job!
avatar
Hush

Number of posts : 528
Age : 32
Location : Dreaming land
Registration date : 2008-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Fri Apr 17, 2009 11:00 pm

Thank you for your compliment! . I'm so happy that I'm a member in this forum, it's one of the best things in my life. plz1
Your not apart I think. We're all busy these days!,may Allah help us. I think I won't carry on this debate now, so we'll let it for another time if you agree of course!. Gotta go now, loads still to do in Bri-civ tasks!


Last edited by Ezinma on Mon Oct 11, 2010 7:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Clown on Fri May 08, 2009 12:17 am

Do you think someone is gonna read all this euh22 You have to make it in pills and give it to them through the help of a doctor and they might not be interested

jocolor Keep your smiles on jocolor
avatar
Clown

Number of posts : 25
Age : 31
Registration date : 2008-09-16

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Fri May 08, 2009 1:00 am

Very Happy , noooooooooo please read it, because there're other theories we didn't discuss and insh'Allah we will sooner!
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Hush on Fri May 08, 2009 2:09 am

What! whaat1 Remember what have been said about the Arabs:

The Arabs don't read, and if they do, they don't understand, and if they do, they don't act... I think it sums up everything about our attitude
drefdref
avatar
Hush

Number of posts : 528
Age : 32
Location : Dreaming land
Registration date : 2008-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Mon Jun 15, 2009 12:10 pm

Hello mates,
This thread was buried for a long time; it's time to revive it again and raise it back to the surface!

We've been talking about the usefulness of Critical theories in our literary interpretation and we'd chosen both Psychoanalytic criticism and Marxist criticism as illustrations. In the beginning we've had a debate about critical theories, I've changed my perspective towards its usefulness and now I stress its crucial role in our studies of literature. (This introduction is just for the new comers who perhaps couldn't read all what is written in this interesting topic).
Anyway, let's carry on the debate, and this time I've chosen to talk about one of the funniest theories of criticism (my view point); Feminism. Then I'll discuss two literary texts—Danielle Steel's Changes and Katherine Anne Porter's Flowering Judas from a feminist standpoint.

First, let's give a quotation from Critical Theory Today in which the writer said:
"Feminist Criticism examines the ways in which literature reinforces or undermines the economic, political, social or psychological oppression of women".


To understand the quote let's explain some major feminist claims and issues. It all started with women's movements of liberation and their struggle for equality and rejection of patriarchy. That's to say, by rejecting and challenging patriarchal ideology which stressed men's superiority and domination over women.
Moreover, feminists reject patriarchal or traditional gender roles, an expression which refers to the view that men are rational and strong; however, women are weak, emotional and submissive.

In Critical Theory Today, I read an interesting example about one of the feminist claims. It's the use of the pronoun he to refer to both male and female. Feminists reject the use of 'inclusive he' and believe that it's a patriarchal attitude which renders women a second inferior position. (You may have noticed in my posts that I always write he/she, this doesn't mean I'm a feminist. You'll find my opinion at the end of the post).
Furthermore, feminists reject sexist ideology, which objectifies women, that's to say, treats them like objects without opinions or feelings.
Another issue raised by feminists is the marginalization of women writers. The latter's contribution was underrepresented and not recognized as part of the literary canon. In other words, female writers were marginalized; hence by writing they tried to defy their marginality and assert their individuality and creative ability. One of the female writers who resisted patriarchal ideology is Virginia Woolf in her work: A Room of One's Own.

Let's return to the quotation from which we can understand that a feminist reading requires an interpretation of a given text by scrutinizing the presence of one of the issues discussed above.

Briefly let me talk about the works I mentioned earlier in my post. The first one is Changes by the American female writer Danielle Steel. The novel is a romance in which Steel depicts a man (Peter Hallam), and a woman (Melanie Adams) who after facing great challenges and changes in their lives decided to marry one another. A feminist reading, however, would reveal that the novel is promoting and reinforcing a patriarchal ideology. Let me explain. Steel could depict a couple who succeeded to reunite in a world where changed roles have altered the old 'patriarchal' conventions and norms of love and marriage. Melanie Adams a famous journalist and a TV documentary producer with a glamorous lifestyle, gave up her hugely successful career, her house, and her town (New York) to move with her twin to LA in order to marry Peter. Danielle Steel wants to tell the reader that Melanie seems to have it all; however she needs a man by her side to fulfill themselves and each other.

The second work is Katherine Porter's short story, Flowering Judas. It's a story of Laura who moved from Arizona to Mexico to assist in the revolution there. She met Braggioni –a revolutionist who sings to Laura every night though his performance is bad. The writer says "Nobody dares to smile at him. Braggioni is cruel to everyone, with a kind of specialized insolence".
We can say that the story depicts a patriarchal ideology in order to criticize it. For instance, let's take this sentence "This is nonsense, she knows it now and is ashamed of it. Revolution must have leaders, and leadership is a career for energetic men". A feminist reading of the sentence would reveal the position given to men as superior and women as inferior unable to take leadership. However, the writer carries on saying that Laura is "full of romantic error" which proves that women are considered weak and emotional and their sensitivity is a defect.
In the story there's also a claim that Laura is oppressed by Braggioni, the writer depicts Laura saying" Sometimes she wished to run away, but she stays. Now she longs to fly out of this room…and leave Braggioni singing to himself".
Now let's illustrate with this striking example which plainly seems to reinforce the patriarchal ideology. The writer portrays Braggioni's wife after a month of separation from her husband :" Braggioni enters his own house where for a month his wife has spent many hours every night weeping and tangling her hair upon her pillow", she adds " She is weeping now, an she weeps at the sight of him". A feminist critic would say that women are considered as emotional, hysteric and weak, and they are good only if they accept their feminine role without objection, the writer says about Mrs. Braggioni " She says:' Are you tired my angel? Sit here and I will wash your feet' ".

As I promised I'll give you my opinion, ok, so of course allow me to say that feminism is nonsense. Imagine we are not Muslims, what would happen? Alhamdoulilah Allah sets everything clear in the Qu'ran and says: "الرجال قوامون على النساء بما فضل الله بعضهم على بعض " Surah An-Nisaa, Ayah 33.
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:00 pm

I'm really surprised that nobody could stop and leave a comment!
Well this indifference means two things, first either till now you can't see the importance of critical theories, or you're not interested and that's worse!
Second, maybe you agree with me that feminism is nonsense and let me tell you that this is a debate so you can give your opinions, and you can disagree
Anyway, I feel a great pleasure to write in this topic and a kind of nostalgia for the past is coming back to me!
Cheers everyone!


Last edited by Ezinma on Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Hush on Wed Jun 17, 2009 10:46 pm

Ezinma I think most people don't care and personally speaking I'm really disappointed to an extent I can't describe! I am even thinking about leaving the forum since almost no one reacts to interesting topics, so may be I am in the wrong place wasting my time!

For Feminism it's a a movement that I am personally indifferent to, it's a clear complexed way of thinking and even the concept of equality between the two sexes is such a nonsensical, absurd idea! It's like trying to say what's better a pen or a syringe?!

I hope people will get conscious about the importance of some topics and about the debate in itself!
avatar
Hush

Number of posts : 528
Age : 32
Location : Dreaming land
Registration date : 2008-09-17

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by imy on Thu Jun 18, 2009 5:10 pm

I DO CARE MATES.It's just i don't have much information about this topic i'll try to search.But believe me if you decide to go i'll do it too since the other mates aren't interested.I think Ezinma we are thinking in the same way"we have things to do for our future and wasting time isn't in our benefit!!!!.
avatar
imy

Number of posts : 104
Age : 29
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Ezinma on Thu Jun 18, 2009 10:57 pm

I KNOW YOU DO CARE IMY! and I'm waiting for your contribution in this debate! So get ready!
Maybe we can discuss Post-Colonial Theory I know you're interested so much in this field! . What do you think?
avatar
Ezinma

Number of posts : 491
Registration date : 2009-02-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by imy on Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:54 pm

Ok,i do EZINMA but we need some time to read it don't you think so? khabachou OF COURSE I' M READY TO ANYTHING,although laziness started to penetrate to my daily doings"may be because im still late with one year!!!!!!" cou7a
avatar
imy

Number of posts : 104
Age : 29
Registration date : 2009-05-07

Back to top Go down

Re: Is Critical Theory Useful?

Post by Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum