First off, this is a wonderfully plain-spoken summary of some key movements in critical theory. I like it. Thanks.
Your last paragraph reminds me of a line of discussion I've seen over and over about Fifty Shades of Grey: "Oh noes! Naïve women might read this, believe it depicts a healthy, desirable D/s relationship, then go out into the Big Bad World and find themselves in a world of trouble!" There's so much angst about the intellectual powers of all these fabled innocents, but even more, the supposedly paper-thin line between reading and acting. You see that in Mark, in the Fifty Shades concern trolls, talking heads trying to blame violence on Batman and Marilyn Manson, video game activists, LJ banning people's Harry/Snape watercolours....
The problem is they're half right: of course texts have immense power. Lately Foucault even has science on his side: just a few weeks ago I read about a study showing how people mirror protagonists they relate to. But the matter of where, why, and whether the rubber ever hits the road is hopelessly idiosyncratic.
What's Mark judging? My acts of reading, interpreting and enjoying, or his own reading of what he thinks these things reveal about my superego? Where, precisely, is the locus of his indignation?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 01/08/2012 22:18 (UTC)Your last paragraph reminds me of a line of discussion I've seen over and over about Fifty Shades of Grey: "Oh noes! Naïve women might read this, believe it depicts a healthy, desirable D/s relationship, then go out into the Big Bad World and find themselves in a world of trouble!" There's so much angst about the intellectual powers of all these fabled innocents, but even more, the supposedly paper-thin line between reading and acting. You see that in Mark, in the Fifty Shades concern trolls, talking heads trying to blame violence on Batman and Marilyn Manson, video game activists, LJ banning people's Harry/Snape watercolours....
The problem is they're half right: of course texts have immense power. Lately Foucault even has science on his side: just a few weeks ago I read about a study showing how people mirror protagonists they relate to. But the matter of where, why, and whether the rubber ever hits the road is hopelessly idiosyncratic.
What's Mark judging? My acts of reading, interpreting and enjoying, or his own reading of what he thinks these things reveal about my superego? Where, precisely, is the locus of his indignation?