The Hard Part: Last week we offered a 'show and tell' project. They're seldom boring, because we get to find things and talk about them. This week we're asking you to engage with ideas and readings. It's so, so easy for this sort of writing to fall into the 'school essay' trap: quotes, dutiful summaries, claims about which nobody could possibly care, blah, blah, blah.
Please don't. There are stakes in these readings—how we lead our lives; what our families and friends will be like, the relationships we form. The nature of society.
So follow the basic rule of CSCL 1001: 'don't bore your friends.' Take a position. Think about how it matters. Put yourself in it. Mean it. Read close and sharp. The job here is to help us all to see all the possibilities in these two readings—and maybe a few things we hadn't thought of.
The Issue: Susan Bordo offers a methodology (actually a few of them) for understanding women's bodies and the things that 'construct' them (she calls it an 'analytics' or a 'praxis,' or a 'new discourse'). She offers a view of 'human nature': how the things we do make us who we are. She treats the body as a 'text' and shows us how to read it–through the hard, disturbing practices of anorexia and bulimia. She reads some ads, and mentions lots of other cultural texts and practices. She offers hope: if we can see, we can act against forces that limit our lives.
Richard Leppert has much the same political goals in mind, but works very differently—trying to show us how several hundred years of visual representation of women's bodies and their spaces has given us a 'way of seeing' women and finally, a definition of women and their place and nature. Neither of these writers think their view is complete, perfect or always right. But they see patterns.
The Project: Take one of Bordo's main claims (thesis, arguments) and describe it so that normal humans will understand. Then select one of the paintings from the Leppert essay (the images are on the Moodle in good detail and full color), and explain how it—and Leppert's account of it—supports, contradicts, or otherwise relates to Bordo's claims.
No right answers here. Welcome to agree, disagree, expand, illustrate or otherwise work with the articles and their ideas.
How long? Though you should never assume that longer is better, we'll read whatever you write. For this one, maybe 300 words.
The Issue: Susan Bordo offers a methodology (actually a few of them) for understanding women's bodies and the things that 'construct' them (she calls it an 'analytics' or a 'praxis,' or a 'new discourse'). She offers a view of 'human nature': how the things we do make us who we are. She treats the body as a 'text' and shows us how to read it–through the hard, disturbing practices of anorexia and bulimia. She reads some ads, and mentions lots of other cultural texts and practices. She offers hope: if we can see, we can act against forces that limit our lives.
Richard Leppert has much the same political goals in mind, but works very differently—trying to show us how several hundred years of visual representation of women's bodies and their spaces has given us a 'way of seeing' women and finally, a definition of women and their place and nature. Neither of these writers think their view is complete, perfect or always right. But they see patterns.
The Project: Take one of Bordo's main claims (thesis, arguments) and describe it so that normal humans will understand. Then select one of the paintings from the Leppert essay (the images are on the Moodle in good detail and full color), and explain how it—and Leppert's account of it—supports, contradicts, or otherwise relates to Bordo's claims.
No right answers here. Welcome to agree, disagree, expand, illustrate or otherwise work with the articles and their ideas.
How long? Though you should never assume that longer is better, we'll read whatever you write. For this one, maybe 300 words.
No comments:
Post a Comment