| 29) |
Hypertext People story society theory |  |
People self individualism life autonomous |
 |
http://Hypertext.org |
|
Hypertext: Transforming Our Relation to the World
Hypertext has exploded into our literate world and here we remain: the same people, the same dirt and soil we’ve always known, the same surroundings, the same life we had yesterday. Unchanged, unaffected, undisturbed? Absolutely not. We are experiencing a cultural shift and an equally transformative revolution in consciousness in large part because of this elusive, mysterious, intelligence we call hypertext. What is this “thing” that is supposedly changing your life, you may be wondering? Hypertext, as termed by George Landow, is “an information technology consisting of individual blocks of text, or lexias, and the electronic links that join them” (Landow 1). The point- and-click way of life we are now submersed in and take as common place has not only invaded the way we shop, plan vacations, or research, but it has seeped into that idealistic leather-bound favorite collecting dust on the bookshelf. It has revolutionized the novel, or for that matter, everything that contains a printed word. Hypertext has not just befallen our society but has evolved out of the continuum of various communication customs our world has experienced. Although still a new, ever-changing and advancing facet of life, hypertext can be examined in terms of our cultural history. Starting from a pre-literate or oral culture and moving to where our culture resides currently, hypertext can be deemed as moving one step further away from reality or coming full circle back to where it all began. Such is the most interesting aspect of this literate/cyber reality: one does not yet know if its movement is forward or reverse. What we do know, however, is that, as our society changes, it also transforms our relation to the world.
 Saturday, July 26, 2003 at 10:45 |
| 28) |
Discovery autonomous society theory | |
People self individualism life story |
|
Discovery of the Self
It is not only intellectuals and English theory professors who spend countless hours and study attempting to determine the notion of self. People all over the world do it everyday, whether consciously or unconsciously. People question who they are and how their lives are structured in relation to the society in which they live. From questioning why they forgot the eggs on the grocery list to why life seems to be an eternal roller-coaster, people have an innate desire to learn about the self and how it functions in day-to-day life. People are always searching for an answer, which seems impossible to find: was I pre-determined to forget those eggs regardless of how prominent I made them on my list? Am I the cause of the chaos in my life because of the personal decisions I chose? People look towards various higher powers in their lives for answers to the eternal ‘self’ question, but an often overlooked and misinterpreted response comes from the minds of intellectuals who work on literary theory. Literature provides readers with various notions of the origin of the self. Only through analyzing and interpreting complex text, however, does this information bring to light a discovery of the self within the searching mind. Understanding the modernist and post modernist views of the self in association with individualism is important in comprehending the divide between the ideal and oneself: is the pinnacle of self an autonomous being? Examining the works of Richard Sennett, “Autonomy, An Authority Without Love,” and Stephen Frosh, “Social Experience and the Constructed Self,” provides a solid foundation for the reader in understanding and deconstructing the notion of self.
At different moments in our lives it is convenient to vary and change our notion of self. When you work hard and diligently on a paper, turn it into your teacher, and get it back with an ‘A’ on it, you know that you created that moment and result by choice, a modernist notion of thought. When, however, you receive the paper back with an unsatisfactory grade, you associate it with a determined self – something over which you had no control. This would lean closer to the post-modernist view, where, “the self, constructed laboriously from elemental incorporations of cultural material, is the center of the experience and the focus and source of resistance and creativity” (Frosh 275). Other theories attempt to explain the ‘self’ as a deep submersion within the physical body that is hidden beneath culture, society, and language. This theory contradicts the notion that the ‘self’ is on the surface, being created in real time through language. By utilizing these theories people can begin to conceptualize individualism and the divide between the ideal and oneself in terms of autonomy.
We all have people in our lives who we look up to in admiration, respect, and awe. We think there is nothing in life they could not conquer with success. We think they have it ‘all together’ and live in perfection. Sennett would refer to this individual as having “personal mastery…the one who appears master of himself and has a strength which intimidates others” (Sennett 209). Autonomous individuals are described by Sennett as being “self-possessed…not desperate for the approval of others and possessing the ability to maintain a strength of calmness and above-the-storm,” particularly in the eyes of others (210). Through their characteristic “self-possession and act of indifference and withdrawal,” autonomous individuals exert a superiority which creates an imbalance of control (223). The superior controls the situation and causes others to feel “as bits and pieces of human beings who are not whole enough to be strong” (212). This contradicts Frosh’s image of the self as “creating a work of art…just as art to some degree involves taking the bits and pieces of the world and fitting them together to say something, so does the self” (Frosh 273). Sennett describes people who fear they will always remain partial selves, whereas Frosh identifies the process of becoming a whole self through building upon various layers of the partial self. This complex notion leads us to the discovery of why some people never realize their potential ‘self.’ Sennett argues at length the impact autonomous people have upon others and how they use the shaming factor as a tool – keeping their role as a superior in tact. Shame can cause people to feel like they will never achieve the creation of a full self. Sennett explains how inferiority results from the shaming technique deployed by autonomous individuals, which in turn, reflects how images of the ‘self’ are shaped and molded into modernist and post-modernist notions.
Shame has “taken the place of violence as the routine form of punishment in western societies” and granted implicit control to those in the position of superior (Sennett 215). Through an understanding of the image of ‘self,’ autonomy, and ideals, the reader will be prepared to understand and become enlightened about the dichotomy of individualism. The “mixture of fear and awe which is the most essential ingredient of authority” combine to help portray the contradiction of conformity and individuality (217). Through shame individuals are made to feel inadequate: it ignites a desire within to pull yourself out of nothing and become something. This drive begins to consume the individual who once felt shameful and low in the culture of his or her autonomous superiors; therefore, to prove equal ability and power, an egocentric sense of individualism, “passionate and exaggerated love of oneself,” infects the individual (219). This leads to the individual finally feeling both loved and a part of the superior, autonomous realm while at the same time asserting the individualism or ‘self’ he or she has been seeking.
It is through such a process that the dichotomy of individualism is brought to light – an individualism of free self-determination. Though it doesn't seem to be the case, however, the foundation of individualism is ultimately a need to conform. A modernist theory suggests that people believe that they are doing what they want to do, not what society and culture has influenced them to do. However, this belief stems from the desire to eliminate shame and better oneself to become the autonomous person who elicits control over the ‘self. Even though society forces them to behave in a certain way, people themselves feel they are to blame. When people try to rise to the top of society, to gain high social status and power, they are forced to conform to society's ideals. Being high in status allows people to express their individuality, but rising to the top requires conformity in which people lose a sense of themselves as individuals. This dichotomy, however, is invisible to people: they only believe that they have separated themselves from others, not that they have conformed. This striving for individuality makes people believe that they are “self-assured, independent, a stand out from the crowd…they believe they have class” (214). Sennett describes this category of people as “beacons” among the masses who are mere “shadows” (214). Have these “beacons” truly reached autonomous individualism or have they merely entered the prison of conformity?
To differentiate oneself from society it's essential to deviate from the norm: to stand out in a manner in which no one stands beside you or to be alone as the focus. Sennett describes this concept of individualism as “someone who is distinctive because he or she has a failing which is not ‘normal’…a deviant way of standing out from the crowd” (218). To be profound one must be alienated, tragic, and dramatic; something must individualize them from the ‘other’ individuals. The dichotomy becomes increasingly complex as people move from one prison to the next showing how self-determined and determined the concept of individualism truly is.
Complex, intricate, but profound are the views of literate theory on the notion of ‘self.’ After such a dissection of the ‘self’, one may wonder if its origins and intricacies will ever be truly understood, particularly within the context of Sennett and Frosh. Oftentimes it takes works such as theirs to force the mind to think differently and generate more questions than answers – a sign of intelligence, learning, and understanding at their best. Each person has their own notions of what it means to be a ‘self,’ and theory should expand and solidify these notions while at the same time bring those ideas into question. By uncovering ones belief of the ‘self’ the self then lives and thrives on a higher plane – the pinnacle of understanding the ultimate question: “Who am I?”.
Saturday, July 26, 2003 at 10:39 |
Short story exchange
