White Noise

"Man’s guilt in history and in the tides of his own blood has been complicated by technology, the daily seeping falsehearted death. "

“You’ve evolved an entire system around this figure, a structure with countless substructures and interrelated field of study, a history within history.”

"I've got death inside me. It's just a question of whether or not I can outlive it."

From these quotes and from reading White Noise I have found Jack Gladney's view on history to be a mesh of several people's theories that we have discovered and analyzied this semester, including Hegelian, but mostly I thought that his ideas and beliefs were something totally new and more close to my own perspective on history which I found very interesting. Not so often this semester have brought up the idea that history and the people who have shaped and made it throughout the years, were effected by their own lives and that they are just people like all of us. Jack brings up the idea that Hitler should be thought of as just a man, who did very bad things, not this iconic figure in World History who was an evil force all mighty and powerful. Often forgotten are ideas about the countless "histories within histories" that exist around every person, every system and every substructure that is formed throughout history and the writings about history. By taking the ideas back to Hitler and his mother it makes him into a man, we all know many men who have had relationships with their m/others that effect the decisions they make in life and the mindsets that they have, positive or negative. There is more to a story than just the events of history that are most notorized, and so much of those stories are never heard of or taken into account. In the first quote that I have listed, Jack brings the idea into place about "Man's guilt in history and the tides of his own blood" to me this is saying that some of the things that are done in history, more than many people have considered ,have been effected in some way by the personal histories and family patterns, or intimacy dances that have occurred throughout one's personal life or family history, or what happens to be a make up of their blood or family ideologies and traditions. However drastic or not, the ultimate effects and actions may be from a person, you can usually tie something back to their personal history or family life.

The last quote that I noted did not really have much to do with this same idea that I am pointing out but it struck a cord with me and really stuck out. We all do have death inside of us, death is in each and everyone of our futures, this is taken in the literal sense. To ask the question of whether or not one will out live it says to me that by agreeing with what everyone else has to say, taking things for face value or ending our own personal search and discovery for what things are, what they were or what they could be to add to our personal knowledge is allowing our minds and souls to die. By not continuing to always search for something more or to not be a sheep and figure out a different answer for ourselves, one that may be real, such as digging into Hitler as a man instead of the figure that history has made him, is one of these ideas that one can search into to find a new answer.

Materials remind us where we've been

Initially, I was very confused by the story. Once I continued reading, however, I began to notice the metaphors and analogies that Delillo uses help put what Jack says into perspective. I picked out three instances where I felt that Jack uses these analogies to describe how he views the concept of history.
"...Things, boxes. Why do these possessions carry such sorrowful weight? There is a darkness attached to them, a foreboding. They make me wary not of personal failure and defeat but of something more general, something large in scope and content." (p. 6)
Here I think he is regarding history as material-things that we see around us that force us to reminisce, often in the bad portions. This is Hegelian, in the sense that both Jack and Babette have remnants of their past, failed relationships, but have both moved away from them and toward each other, working together in a new direction that will ultimately bring them closer to finding their true happiness.

"They watched him with something like awe. Nearly seven straight hours of crying." (p. 79)
This quote reminded me of discussing Hitler and how he created presence and was able to be seen as a strong leader. This chapter focuses on a crying child who dictates how his mother spends her day, and when he stopped everyone was very careful not to upset him. Its like if he did enough to them that he was in control, they would have no choice. I think Jack sees history in this way as well-those who are willing to be that sort of presence to people will be able to control them (like Hitler).

"I want to believe he lay in his tent, wrapped in animal skins, as in some internationally financed epic movie, and said brave cruel things to his aides and retainers. No weakening of the spirit. No sense of the irony of human existence, that we are the highest form of life on earth and yet ineffably sad because we know what no other animal knows, that we must die." (p. 98-99)
I found this quote interesting because it brought me outside of the box and got me thinking about death. Jack sees death as a terrifying thing-we see this throughout the first portion of the book. I think it relates to historiography because he references movies and unwavering strength and courage. Its how he has been taught to view handling this situation and so feels that his lack of courage in death is wrong and maybe even shameful.

White Noise

“Denise came in and sprawled across the foot of the bed, her head resting on her folded arms, facing away from me. How many codes, countercodes, social histories were contained in this simple posture?” p. 61

“As the most prominent figure in Hitler studies in North America, I had long tried to conceal the fact that I did not know German… I was living, in short, on the edge of a landscape of vast shame… Wasn’t Hitler’s own struggle to express himself I German the crucial subtext of his massive ranting autobiography, dictated in a fortress prison in the Bavarian hills? Grammar and syntax. The man may have felt himself imprisoned in more ways than one.” p. 31

“It is interesting to wonder if he looked back from the furhrerbunker, beneath the burning city, to the early days of his power. Did he think of the small groups of tourists who visited the little settlement where his mother was born?” P. 72

I have come to see Jack Gladney’s view of history not as Hegelian, but as one that is driven by normal, individual people. In middle America, where fast food reigns supreme and people have few reasons to get out of their cars, each person is so wrapped up in their own universe with themselves at the center. Therefore, each person has an individual history that is increasingly isolated from all others. The exception is the family, where most socializing with others occurs. When he thinks about Hitler, it is not so much of his impact on the world and society. It is a personal relationship that he has with the man. He tries to get into Hitler’s mind. He tries to see aspects of Hitler within himself (the quote from page 31 about their somewhat similar difficulties with the German language). During Hitler’s last days, Jack thinks of how Hitler’s thoughts go to his mother and his childhood, not to the immense destruction he has caused. This is not to say that Jack in any way admires Hitler. As I was told by a high school teacher who had a Gladney-like obsession with the man, “to learn about and understand Hitler as a simple human, not as an evil force, is to take back some of the power that he holds over our history and society.” Aside from all of this Hitler business, Jack is well aware of how personal histories and societal histories affect us as individuals, such as in the quote from page 61. His stepdaughter is playing out a role that has been highly affected by certain historical moments that affect young women, as well as moments from her own personal history. In Jack’s view, we are a product of both of these histories, and they dictate all aspects of our behavior. This view of takes history away from the “great men doing great things” and the “world spirit” of Hegel, and instead shows how history is for all of us, and by all of us.

Gladney's Perspective

Although Gladney’s not an expert on German, I think it just shows a lack of interest in histiography and more of a interest in history in general. He’s more concerned with the way history was constructed and the impact it had on people, also how it became installed in them.

“‘Waves and radiation,” he said. I’ve come to understand that the medium is a primal force in the American home. Sealed-off, timeless, self containing and self referring. It’s like a myth being born in our living room, like something we know in a dreamlike and preconscious way.” (p.51) In this quote Murray compares his idea to Jacks phrase “codes and messages.” which continues to install the idea that we’re learning throught “Waves and radiation,” such as media.

“You created it, you nurtured it, you made it your own. Nobody on the faculty of any college or university in this part of the country can can so much as utter the word Hitler without a nod in your direction, literally or metaphorically.” (p.11). This quote represents that history, no matter how deep or known it is already, can be re-made. It can be re-made through the right kind of media targeting the right audience. A quote on p.51 reads, “It’s amazing how many people teach these days... there is a teacher for every person... Everyone I know is either a teacher or a student.” That quote has a deeper meaning, such as we are all constantly learning or teaching whether we intend to or not.

“Everything in concealed in symbolism, hidden by veils of mystery and layers of cultural material. But it is psychic data absolutely... energy waves, incident radiation. All the letters and numbers are here, all the colors of the spectrum, all the voices and sounds, all the code word and ceremonial phrases.” (p.37) This quote says that depending on what culture you come from, is the kind of history you’ll be taught, but in a way its all the same just worded differently with some parts left out or added.

The Twilight Zone

How does Jack Gladney, the narrator of White Noise, understand history (and historiography) -- and, how does he try to argue the reader into understanding history (and historiography)? To answer that question of how Jack understands it is that he understands it by asking questions. He also does his observing as is well put in the opening of the story. He is creepily observing college kids moving onto campus and him and Babette enjoys observing them. He gives a revelation of buildings that used to be in places around the campus and changes from his days to today. He also has an obsession it seems like with Hitler. The quote I got was on page 16, “The Chancellor warned against what he called my tendency to make a feeble presentation of self. He strongly suggested I gain weight. He wanted me to ‘grow out’ into Hitler.” He is not only teaching about Hitler, but he aspires to be him physically as close as possible. My second moment is on page 26, “When the showing ended, someone asked about the plot to kill Hitler. The discussion moved to plots in general. I found myself saying to the assembled heads, ‘All plots tend to move deathward. This is the nature of plots. Political plots, terrorists plots, lovers’ plots, narrative plots, plots that are part of children’s games. We edge nearer death every time we plot. It is like a contract that all must sign, the plotters as well as those who are the targets of the plot.’ Literally, I feel like this would be considered a foreshadowing, but since we’re not suppose to look at it from a literature perspective, I would say that either Jack was possessed by the world spirit, because he asks inside his mind if this was true and why did he ask it, or that Jack views life and history with beginnings that has endings. My third moment is on page 45, “‘He now knows he won’t go down in history.’” I find that the passage belonging with this quote relates back to what I learned from the first day of class where we learned the concept of making history by killing someone famous or doing something really bad and being known for doing it. Maybe Jack’s son Heinrich believes in this theory because he’s keeping in touch with this guy from jail. Jack probably believes in something different. I guess he believes in Hitler and there was his talk about trying to turn the college to a Hitler community. I don’t feel like Jack is trying to argue the reader (me) into understanding history though. I just feel like he observes too much, has very few to say, may be a play boy considering multiple wives, and doesn’t really care about his kids considering the fumes from his kid’s school. If I were a parent, I would be suing the school or state for harm. Overall, Jack’s community, Blacksmith sounds like a strange place. I keep thinking about an episode from the Twilight Zone. I could talk more about the guy Murray on how he tries to understand history, but maybe for another day.

White Noise

“The system was invisible, which makes it all the more impressive, all the more disquieting to deal with. But we were in accord, at least for now. The networks, the circuits, the streams, the harmonies.” Pg. 46

In chapter 10, Jack goes to an ATM and finds that the bank computer confirms his personal accounting. The value Jack places on such small things reflects both the importance of numbers and technology in defining identity To me, this quote shows that there is a deeper meaning to everything. In this passage, Jack is saying how there was a deeper, more personal value to an ATM machine then people can see with the naked eye. This could also pertain to history because in history, there is always a deeper meaning and we need to look beyond what is obvious.

“Hitler fantasized. He took piano lessons, made sketches of museums and villas. He sat around the house a lot.” Pg. 71

I believe this quote tells a lot about Hitler. It shows us the life of Hitler that may have led him to fantasize a perfect world. I enjoyed this quote because it allowed me to think more about Hitler as a person before he became powerful then just at the moments we know him as. In class we talked about thinking about people’s lives in history before the time when they are most well known for. This quote shows us that Hitler was always the type of person who “fantasized” about things and had an imaginative personality. When reading this quite my mind was immediately brought to Hitler fantasizing about a perfect world and his ideas about concentration camps.

"He took pains to avoid self-deprivation, self mockery, ambiguity, subtlety, vulnerability, a civilized world-weariness and a tragic sense of history-the very things, he says, that are most natural to him." 21

This quote shows us that Murray has a personal attribute that women will find most attractive. Throughout history, people have different attributes that make them who they are. We have talked about many different historical figures throughout class, each having a different persona that makes them who they are. This helps us understand who they where and what they did to make them a well known person.

"wie es eigentlich gewesen"

Pg 12- “ 'We’re not here to capture an image, we’re here to maintain one. Every photograph reinforces the aura. Can you feel it, Jack? An accumulation of nameless energies.' ” DeLillo is making a point that throughout history, American culture has focused more upon their subjective viewpoints of history rather than take things as they really are. For example, the appeal of the Most Photographed Barn is that it holds that title, and we as Americans follow in allowing such an item to gain its fame. It seems that there does not even have to be anything particularly significant about these copies, other than its fame alone. People are not seeing the barn, but rather the picture of the barn, and moreso, THEIR picture of the barn. So no one cares about what it really is. To describe America's relationship with historiography in this instance, it is not always essential what historical [fill in the blank] exists, but rather how our culture perceives it.

Pg 24- “Man’s guilt in history and in the tides of his own blood has been complicated by technology, the daily seeping falsehearted death...'Can you prove here and now, that this stuff is rain? How do I know that what you call rain is really rain? What is rain anyway?' ” I love this quote because it is so revealing of the skepticism of "truth". It is difficult for anybody to view reality entirely objectively because what we as humans have defined as reality is entirely made up. Things are the way that they are because we have made them to be so. The debate about whether it is actually raining proves that there are so many more things to question in order to see how things actually are.

Pg 45- “ 'He would select more carefully, kill one famous person, get noticed, make it stick.' 'He now knows he won’t go down in history.’ ‘Neither will I.’ ‘But you’ve got Hitler.’ ‘Yes, I have, haven’t I?' " This passage brings me back to the Loughner study because as discussed, our culture has framed assassinators of famous people as historical figures. This conversation also relates to that theme of making a name for yourself only if you have the balls to kill someone famous. This is a twisted yet evident theme through our history.

Jack Gladney understands that history is something that we must strive to know on a more Rankian level, I believe. He makes points such as those found on page 12 that show how many instances provide our culture to view things with little skepticism. In the debate about whether it was raining, he delved right into that concept and tried to convey the message that things that are not often as questioned as they ought to be. It is vital to know how history actually was, not just take into our subjective accounts based solely upon personal histories. Gladney seems to be conveying a strong argument that humans ought to consider history “wie es eigentlich gewesen”.

White and other noises

“Telling him to go down in history. He was twenty-seven, out of work, divorced, with his car up on blocks. Time was running out on him.”(pg. 44)

- This is when Heinrich is explaining to his father why the inmate he plays chess with committed murder and I just had to include it because it reminded me so much of the skit during our first class. In fact he then goes on to say that he would have rather committed an assassination. This proves again how we all share some desire to be a part of history no matter what the consequence. This is then verified by the fact that Heinrich seems to almost approve and Jack allows him to communicate with such a man.

“I am chairman of the department of Hitler Studies at the College-on-the-Hill. I invented Hitler Studies in North America in March of 1968. It was a cold bright day with intermittent winds out of the east.”(pg. 4)

- Right off the bat I loved this quote because it is two parted. First, he begins by stating how important he is, “I Invented! I am chairman! Then, as all good story tellers of history do, he beings his story. “It was a cold bright day…” By doing this he captures his audience no matter what intrigued then more, his title, or how his story.

“I told him there was a Hitler conference scheduled for next spring at the College-on-the-Hill… Hitler scholars from seventeen states and nine foreign countries. Actual Germans would be in attendance.”(pg. 33)

- This is when Jack is explaining to Murray why it is important for his to speak German and I find it interesting because I, and I’m sure other would as well, completely understand the reasoning behind his need. What’s ridiculous though, is that he claimed to have invented this program of studies all on his own without knowing any German so why would it be important now? The rational of course is that some might not see him as entitled to this honor if they found out he didn’t speak German. They could even question his authority on the subject. And why? Because they are real Germans.

Fammily and Historiography

A little note:

Ben said, “In addition, try to keep your moments varied -- they should show different sides to what DeLillo is doing -- and spread out throughout Part One (if they're all from the first 30 pages, I'm gonna get a little suspicious...),” but actually, all the most important parts are in chapters 2~5 (first 21 pages)… Then I wonder if I can do ‘jump moments”…

Image to identity and “World Spirit” to “great men”:

“Babette, disheveled, has the careless dignity of someone too preoccupied with serious matters to know or care what she looks like…. I reminded her how much I liked the way she looked. I suggested there was an honesty inherent in bulkiness if it is just the right amount. People trust a certain amount of bulk in others…. The chancellor warned against what he called my tendency to make a feeble presentation of self. He wanted me to ‘grow out’ into Hitler…. I am the false character that follows the name around…. He (Murray) took pain to avoid self-depreciation, self-mockery, ambiguity, irony, subtlety, vulnerability, a civilized world-weariness and a tragic sense of history---the very things, he says, that are most natural to him. Of these he has allowed only one element, vulnerability, to insert gradually into his program of straightforward lust. He is trying to develop a vulnerability that women will find attractive. He works at it consciously… But his efforts so far have produced only this half sneaky look, sheepish and wheedling” (pages 5, 7, 16, 17). This is an example of my “jump moments,” all because Ben limited the moments to three. In here, Don explains about the ties of a person’s identity with his/her appearance, and the “Chosen Ones”. Jack describes his wife, Babette, as looking dignify because she does not care about her look but about something more important (ironically, that “thing” turns out to be death). When it is his turn, his appearance does not match his identity. He said that Hitler is a very big figure and if he does not “grow” his own identity, he seems unmatched to study about Hitler. As Murray’s advice, Jack starts to wear heavy glasses, grow beard, and change (or add initials to) his name, J.A.K., to make his character/identity bolder. It turns out to be back fired, his wife said J.A.K. sounds cheap and all of his “trying to look bold” seems fake and a bit forcing. Murray tries to make himself looks “vulnerable” and attract women because he thinks women like some certain kinds of vulnerable men. The more he tries, the more he looks suspicious, awkward, and flirty. From this part, I can find connections to Hegel in every way. Obviously faceless people who are not guided by the “World Spirit” are still faceless people no matter what the do to their appearance or even trying to “reinforce” their identity (Jack and Murray), while people with the “World Spirit” are naturally shine even if they want to or not (Babette the wife).

Silly human cycle and unpredictable history cycle:

When the wife said she wants to eat healthy food but she does otherwise…

“This isn’t the lunch I planned for myself… Where have we heard that before? … She keeps buying that stuff… But she never eats it… Because she thinks if she keeps buying it, she’ll hve to eat it just to get rid of it. It’s like she’s trying to trick herself… It takes up half the kitchen… So then she starts the whole thing all over again” (page 7). It is the cycle of narrative that Hegel said will lead all of us to freedom and end of history. The thing “This isn’t [add words here] I planned for myself” is way too Hegelish to not notice. Of course human plan things all the time but they will not simply achieve the goals they plan, there are always something additional. “Where have we heard that before? [Someone] keeps [doing something]” is just way too generally historical. History is a bunch of synthesis-antithesis-solution, so of course it is repeated. The next part is the conflict. She buys it but she doesn’t eat it and they are left to rot. As Hegel said, if there is no conflict, there will be no history, thus, freedom. If Babette buys stuff and she eats them all, the kitchen won’t be too full, she wouldn’t feel guilty when she see them, and what is there for the kids to talk about? Then the conflict will continue until it reaches freedom and history ends.

Death to future and “great men” to legends (history):

“We’ve agreed to be part of a collective perception. This literally colors our vision. A religious experience in a way, like all tourism… They are taking pictures of taking pictures (Historiography!!!)…. Who will die first? This question comes up from time to time, like where are the car keys. I wonder if the thought itself is part of the nature of physical love, a reverse Darwinism that awards sadness and fear to the survivor… The question of dying becomes a wise reminder. It cures us of our innocence of the future” (pages 12, 15). Have to explain the second part first to make sense of the first part. The family talks about death rather often, or they are just too obsessed with it. Death brings sadness to the living… because the dead can longer feel? Or we just don’t know it. But death is a mystery. People (including me) normally think that as soon as you are alive you can do things, which means immortals can do lots of things all their lives. But actually it is not so. Because people fear of death (their own deaths), their fear is what drives them to act while still living (which also means immortals won’t do anything because they don’t die). This also concerns the “great men” and their history. “Great men” die and leave something to the livings, the livings only choose certain facts they believe in to record. Thus, history is no different than a religion, “This literally colors our vision,” and is also true to a certain point.

(Is it just me or Hegel’s everywhere? Maybe Hegel colors my vision…)

How do you understand history?

“All plots tend to move deathward. This is the nature of plots (26).”

This quote shows Jack’s extreme fear of death. He is talking about the plot to assassinate Hitler and how all plots, even in novels, have momentum to them and then after the climax is reach the characters then die. History is understood through the development of characters, but not until something catastrophic happens. Plots are developed in order to bring people closer to death and until a significant event happens the actually plot will not be evident and history will not be understood.

“For the rest of his life, Hitler could not bear to be anywhere near Christmas decorations because his mother had died near a Christmas tree” (72)

Murray is making a point about the close relationship between Elvis and his mother and relating it to how Hitler too had a very close relationship with his mother. The Christmas tree began to represent a symbol for Hitler and affected the way that he lived his life. Personal experiences are history in the making, but symbols usually aren’t understood until the death of someone. People usually don’t realize the importance of events and the history that is made until it is gone.

“Man’s guilt in history and in the ties of his own blood has been complicated by technology, the daily seeping falsehearted death (22).”

Jack believes that his son’s hair loss is due to toxic foods and the way that they have been raising him. This problem that his son faces can be related to the way that technology has changed the aspects of life. Just as jack unconsciously raised his child a poor way, technology has begun to take over the world without anyone knowing. Technology has eroded away the essentials of life, just like Heinrich’s hairline. In order to understand how history is eroding he relates it too a current problem.

White Noise

“Every semester I arranged for a screening of background footage. This consisted of propaganda films, scenes shot at party congress, outtakes from mystical epics featuring parades of gymnasts and mountaineers—a collection I’d edited into an impressionistic eighty-minute documentary” (25).
In the moment above, he is trying to give his students a primary account of the Nazis. But by editing the raw footage into his own documentary, he is putting his own imprint on it, almost making it more about what he thinks is important, as opposed to just being about the historical facts. It’s still very valuable for the students (it’s obviously important to see what a major scholar of Hitler believes to be important), but it’s interesting that Gladney doesn’t necessarily seem to realize that he is shaping the history, as opposed to just presenting the facts.

“He now knows he won’t go down in history.”
“Neither will I.”
“But you’ve got Hitler.”
“Yes, I gave, haven’t I?” (45)
The Hitler studies program is Gladney’s legacy. It was the first program in North America, and for that, he will be remembered. But Gladney seems sort of unaware of his importance in the field, or that his work is something worth remembering.

“My dog-eared copy of Mein Kampf rested on the floor at the side of the chair” (95).
I thought that this moment was hilarious- I love that he obsessively reads Mein Mampf, is a prominent Hitler scholar, but can’t even read or speak German. The picture of him reading an English translation of the most important text in his field is priceless.

We see that Gladney has a complicated relationship with history. He has dedicated his life to history, but in some very weird way, I almost got the impression that he doesn’t completely respect history. Really, how can someone specialize in Hitler studies without learning German? He has to know that translations are never perfect. Since he only ‘knows ‘Hitler in translation, he doesn’t really know Hitler at all. He doesn’t know what he really wrote in Mein Kampf, and he doesn’t really know what anyone is saying in the propaganda films (assuming they’re in German). But yet he has dedicated his life to history, loves it, and his Hitler studies department is how he will be remembered. I can’t really figure out what I think his relationship with/feelings towards history are.

Jack Gladney tells history.

Jack Gladney tells about history in a very interesting way. There were so many different points he makes that it was very hard to choose which ones to blog about.

"You've evolved an entire system around this figure, a structure with countless substructures and interrelated fields of study, a history within history." (11-12)

This quote really stuck out to me. Gladney relates his studies of Hitler to other parts of history. Within Hitler there are many other parts of his past and other parts of history that lead to making him a historical figure. Many different parts lead to history. This quote reminded me a lot of when we studied Jared Lee Loughner. We looked at his history to try to figure out why he committed an act that made him a part of "history". Just as Hitler's childhood lead to him becoming a part of history. Hitler being a dictator lead to other actions and events that are also considered history. History is within History.

"There's not much doubt that Hitler was what we call a mama's boy." (71)

This quote is from a section where Gladney challenges Murray with facts about Hitler when Murray is presenting facts about Elvis. The two compare Elvis and Hitler's relationship to their mothers. Gladney shows that he has an immense amount of knowledge on Hitlers life before he was a dictator and evil. He mentions how his mother and niece were the women with the greatest hold on his mind. I find it interesting on how he presents this history. He does not tell you he is going to tell about Hitler's upbringing, yet he shares information that is not commonly known. Gladney gives Hitler's history so people can get more of an understanding about Hitler that doesn't involve concentration camps or death. He is sharing positive facts about Hitler and all the while comparing it to Elvis, who is very popular.

"Let me whisper the terrible word, from Old English, from the Old German, from the Old Norse. Death." (73)

In history death is a huge factor. In class we have seen how in history death is always brought up. This quote is from the section that deals with why crowds surrounded Hitler. Gladney says that they were resisting death. He says they formed a shield to protect them from death. This makes a lot of sense. If people appeared to be in support and were in the crowd they are at least avoiding death for a while. The reference to old english, old german and old norse show that death has always and will always be a part of history. As Mariana and Gina both mentioned that Death and dead people. Gladney too acknowledges this.

Momma's boy

"The least of my Hitler colleagues knew some German" (31)
This captures the shame that Jack feels. He is the most prominent figure in Hitler studies in North America but he doesn't know the language in which his subject matter spoke. A little ironic but he also relates his struggle with German to the struggle Hitler felt trying to express himself in German.

"He now know he won't go down in history"(45)
This is regarding the man in prison that Heinrich plays chess through the mail with. Jack finds out that this man regrets killing in the way he did because he won't be remembered for it in history like he would have been if he had killed someone important. But instead he'll pass through people's mind maybe a few times but then forever be forgotten.

"For most people there are only two places in the world. Where they live and their TV set." (66)
This shows how most people receive their history, from what happens directly around them, to what the media tells them is important to know. But this is bad because there is a lot more out there that should make it into history but doesn't get recorded because the people don't want to see it because it makes them feel bad.

"...then Bee was a silent witness, calling the very meaning of our lives into question." (94)
Jack uses this to say that sometimes it takes someone from the outside, to really see what your flaws are. Or in context of history -- the people that are apart of the history don't realize it and need a spectator to put it into the light


Waves and Radiation : Radiation is roughly defined as energy that is transmitted in the forms of rays, waves or particles. I feel by choosing this particular title, he was telling us how he views history. That history comes at us in waves, nothing for a while then another event hits, but also that history comes at us like radiation, flows right through us and we barely pick up on it until we notice the aftermath.

Obsession --

"I watch her all the time doing things in measured sequence, skillfully, with seeming ease, unlike my former wives, who had a tendency to feel estranged from the objective world -- a self-absorbed and high-strung bunch, with ties to the intelligence community."(Delillo,6)
Here jack speaks about his beloved wife Babette you can visualize her warm easy going character which stands out to the reader’s mind. This shows a sense of ease that jack has for Babette that he’s never felt with the other wives. It kind releases him away from the tension and worry he feels constantly. Someone with more important things to think about than her appearance she brings something extra to the world, since she’s a teacher and takes care of the kids. I think Delillo is deliberately trying to tell us that this is what Jack’s been missing prior to Babette. She’s is also the other person that feels what he’s going through! In a way his confidant and emotional support, that he desperately seeks. Another way Babette bringing ease is by making the whole family watch TV together on Friday nights this kind of unity brings comfort in the room.

“He took pain to avoid self-depreciation, self-mockery, ambiguity, irony, subtlety, vulnerability, a civilized world-weariness and a tragic sense of history-- the very things, he says, that are most natural to him. Of these he has allowed only one element, vulnerability, to insert gradually into his program of straightforward lust. He is trying to develop a vulnerability that women will find attractive. He works at it consciously,..." (Delillo, 21) Jack is confused as a person which is evident in this scenario where he’s at the supermarket. His feelings of the world around him is what triggers him to avoid his pain into this make belief person that he’s become, which goes further into deeper anxiety that he always obsesses about. Dellilo is dealing with history by taping into peoples emotions! People’s emotions are a major part of history because their emotions change depending on what’s going on in their surrounding at that time. Which in jack’s case he is prone to pay attention to detail such as the frozen food aisle and brightly colored products. This goes further into his anxiety. This highlights his fear and it’s not something people generally obsess over.

“Crowds came to form a shield against their own dying. To become a crowd is to keep out death. To break off from the crowd is to risk death as an individual, to face dying alone”. (Delillo, 73) With this quote Jack illustrates how dying in a crowd saves you from dying alone. I think this is why he’s the chairman of Hitler studies because this gives him the opportunity to relate Hitler to death, where he invested in Hitler at the surface and seems more preoccupied with the cultural myths surrounding Hitler than in the historical facts about him. Delillo shows how Jack relies on Hitler’s larger then life persona to hide his own fragile sense of self-worth and self-identity, capitalizing on Hitler’s surface to build up his own.

Delillo sees history as ever changing moments and the same time discovering things that are already there. Through reflecting on these moments! Life is hectic, time is valuable before you know it your time is up.

J.A.K's view on History

“You’ve evolved an entire system around this figure, a structure with countless substructures and interrelated field of study, a history within history.” (11-12)

I believe that through this quote Jack is trying to tell the audience that there is always another story within the greater picture that we know. He is showing us how he has broken down one major category in our world history into many different subcategories. These subcategories have enough information behind them to create an entire class about them.

“Everything is concealed in symbolism, hidden by veils of mystery and layers of cultural material…All the letters and numbers are here, all the colors of the spectrum, all the voices and sounds, all the code words and ceremonial phrases. It is just a question of deciphering, rearranging, peeling off the layers of unspeakability. Not that we would want to, not that any useful purpose would be served.” (37-38)

This quote is quite Hegelian because it is saying that all the information we need to know is there, all the code words and ceremonial or important phrases. The last sentence also emphasizes on this because they say that we already know the important information, so why do we need to know the rest? The information is from primary sources, and the stuff we find out by peeling off the layers is not useful because those are not primary sources hence they would not serve any purpose at all.

“’How is Hitler?’” ‘Fine, solid, dependable.’” (89)

I really enjoy this quote because it uses adjectives that are not usually used to describe Hitler. Even though this quote is referring to Jacks work as a department head of Hitler Studies it says a lot about how he feels about history. With this quote Jack is trying to tell the audience that history is always solid, because it comes from primary sources AKA the facts. History is dependable because everyone can depend on facts. We must believe the History because we have no way of finding out if what is being written about is legitimate information from primary sources.

The Creation of History, as told by Jack Gladney

Jack Gladney understands history by both living and creating it. He seems to understand it through his role as a teacher and in some ways, as a father. For him, history is constantly being created.

“I am chairman of the department of Hitler studies at the College–on–the–Hill. I invented Hitler studies in North America in March of 1968” (4).

I found this passage fascinating yet baffling. How does one possibly “invent” the study of Hitler!? Hitler has been a historical figure of fascination since his rise to power and chancellorship in 1933. Yet here, this is exactly what Jack Gladney does: he makes “new” history (read: being the FIRST to make this study of Hitler “official”) by drawing from “old history”, namely, Hitler.

“The chancellor warned against what he called my tendency to make a feeble presentation of self…He wanted me to ‘grow out’ into Hitler” (17).

Yes, I realize these passages are really close together, but I found them both extremely fascinating and note–worthy. First off, this was amusing to me, as the head of the school where Gladney teaches was called the ‘chancellor’, the same title Hitler was given when he ruled Germany. But that aside, I found it alarming, this idea that one needs to embody one of the most evil dictators, to make it more understandable for students. This is an instance where history is understood by making it real and ‘here today’, not ‘back then’. Again, Gladney creates history and understands it by trying to live and embody it.

“Denise came in and sprawled across the foot of the bed, her head resting on her folded arms, facing away from me. How many codes, counter codes, social histories were contained in this simple posture? “ (61).

This is not necessarily what one might call history in the traditional sense, but this concept of history as an accumulation of ideas seems to be an important one for DeLillo. Denise, his stepdaughter, embodies not just her own individuality, but the history of the so called ‘social codes’ that came before her and that influence her every day.

In short, history is a living and changing process, and always being redefined in this novel. I would go so far as to argue that it is not Rankean, although it may try to be. Nothing is “wie es eigentlich gewesn”, because for Jack Gladney, history is subjective.

White Noise

The way DElillo understands or think about history is interesting, as well as the way others think. Trying to translate what he is saying is a bit difficicult, but i think he is a smart guy, as well as others ha.

Jack told his students, "All plots tend to move deathward. this is the nature plots. political plots, terrorist plots, lovers' plots, narrative plots, plots that are part of children's games. we edge nearer death every time we plot. it is like a contract that all must sign, the plotters as well as those who are the targets of the plot." (26) Jack himself asked what does it mean? why did he say it? and was it true? well i'm not quite sure what it means but i see it as if certain people are planning a big change for the "better" than WE all have to agree and either way, everything is going to head "deathward". So no matter what, people that are being targetted, or part of it know thatt it will work to a certain extent and than it dies.

I also wanted to quote " but its not a question of greatness. its not a question of good and evil. i dont know what it is. look at it this way. some people always wear a favorite color. some people carry a gun. some people put on a uniform and feel bigger, stronger, safer. it's in this are that my obsessions dwell." ( 63) i agree with the blog post bellow me, i too found this quote interesting because it makes perfect sense. if people werent obssessed with the things they did, would they acheive? its not whether they are a good person or not. its the way they believe the world should be, i wouldnt necessarily call them psycho or crazy because people do have different opinions. just ilke Jack named his kid Hienrich to make him feel unafraid (63). And maybe thats why the world does what it does, because they want it to be bigger, stronger, and safer for everyone, people just take different approaches to fufill that.

"...It's wasted motion. people waste tremendous amounts of motion. you ought to watch Baba make a salad sometimes."
"people dont deliberate over each tiny motion and gesture. A little was doesnt hurt."
"but over a lifetime?"
"Over a lifetime? you save tremendous amounts of time and energy," he said
"what will you do with them?"
"Use them to live longer." (101)
I found this quote interesting as well because we dont exactly take the time to notice all the time we "waste" by doing certain movements/ actions. i think this ties well with fact that we/ people dont necessarily take the time to actual read histroy and understand it. we just go through the motions and don't realize anything, until we have those people that tell us " hey you can save time if you dont go through these extra motions." than thats when different believes and confusion comes into play and than we head to "deathward". ... &sorry if this is confusing!

Death and all his friends

This is going to be a bit tricky, summing up Jack Gladney’s understanding of history without referring to any other passages in the book, as I think I’ve developed an obsession for Delillo’s way with worlds, but I’ll give it my best.

Jack has a curious approach to history – yet one that is seems pretty familiar at second glance. He and his son, Heinrich, have a conversation that alludes to his view of history while the two of them are discussing Tommy Roy Foster, the man Heinrich plays chess by mail with and criminal who killed six people in Iron City.

“‘He says if he had to do it all over again, he wouldn’t do it as an ordinary murder, he’d do it as an assassination.’

‘He would select more carefully, kill one famous person, get noticed, make it stick.’

‘He knows he won’t go down in history.’

‘Neither will I.’

‘But you’ve got Hitler.’

‘Yes, I have, haven’t I?’” (45)

This passage shows two basic ways Jack sees history – making it (in this case, killing people, though even that may not be enough for Tommy Roy Foster to be considered important) or studying it, as Jack does; with this we’re back to our first blog post, caught between Ranke and Sam Byck’s methods. This passage also echoes the urge of being remembered, of wanting history to keep note of what happened, even if it is something terrible, as in murder. Like Loughner, Sam Byck and others, Tommy fears being forgotten – a sentiment Jack himself can understand. But as Heinrich reminds him, he has Hitler to fall back on, something to cling to and perhaps, through his creation of Hitler studies, be remembered for his work.

Jack mentions more of his association with Hitler, this time in a conversation with Denise, Babette’s daughter about the Third Reich.

“‘They lost the war,” she said. “How great could they be?’

‘A valid point. But it’s not a question of greatness. It’s not a question of good and evil. I don’t know what it is. Look at it this way. Some people always wear a favorite color. Some people carry a gun. Some people put on a uniform and feel bigger, stronger, safer. It’s in this area that my obsessions dwell.’" (63)

Jack admits that his study of Hitler is more than just work; it’s an obsession. Connected to this obsession is the idea of belonging to something bigger than oneself – to feel “bigger, stronger, safer” as Jack says. Jack also admits that he doesn’t quite understand why things are this way. Through a simple, basic way of explaining this to Denise, he also works to convince the reader of this stance – that there is something prevalent in history with groups that bond together, whether for better or for worse – in revolutions, in political parties, and (in more current situations) the Tea party.

Interconnected with his Hitler obsession seems to lie another obsession – death. Jack mentions it repeatedly and towards the end of the chapter, he ruminates on it once again.

“When I read obituaries, I always note the age of the deceased. Automatically I relate this figure to my own age. Four years to go, I think. Nine more years. Two more years and I’m dead. The power of numbers is never more evident than when we use them to speculate on the times of our dying.” (98)

Though he is dealing with small, local histories, reading the obituaries of people from his town, Jack is heavily impacted by this, especially as he has a fear of death, notably dying alone. He also effectively impacts the reader in a personal way, playing off of the idea of running out of time. He and Heinrich discussed this before with Tommy, and now Jack seems to be feeling it himself – he could be dead in two years. Numbers indeed do gain more power in that aspect. This certainly made me think about how I feel about my age. I always cringe a bit when I tell people that I don’t have a boyfriend, have never had a boyfriend and thus feel like I am subtly being judged. My grandmother, who was married by my age, already fears I have become a spinster. Though I’m only twenty (or already twenty, depending on your mindset) there’s already pressure that I’ve missed some specific opportunities in my life and that, as the saying goes, “I’m not getting any younger.” Through fear of missing out on opportunities (like relationships and so on) is there a fear of death? Kind of seems like it, from Jack’s way of thinking.

Life is short, time is running out – all of these common sentiments play into Jack’s worries and these powerful ideas powerfully sway the reader to understand where he is coming from. He worries about death and dying alone, which references his obsession with Hitler and bonding together into a greater entity… which involves more death. And once more, history is focused on dead people and dying. Yay.

White Noise History

Jack Gladney understands history and historiography in his own work in Hitler studies through Ranke.

“The least of my Hitler colleagues knew some German; others were either fluent in the language or reasonably conversant. No one could major in Hitler studies at the College-on-the-Hill without a minimum of one year of German. I was living, in short, on the edge of a landscape of vast shame” (31).

It is not only a source of irony but of shame for Jack Gladney to be the founder of Hitler studies without knowing German. It is assumed that all historical knowledge must be constructed from primary sources, and the knowledge that Jack does not know German is a serious blow to his credibility as a historian because it pulls into question his ability to produce history scientifically, according to the “facts.” Jack argues to the audience that using Rankian methods to construct historical knowledge is not entirely necessary to produce history, but what is essential is that the illusion of credibility is maintained. He does not question the validity of his own knowledge but rather his reputation and appearance as a respected authority on the subject.

“The chairman, Alfonse Stompanato, seemed to feel that one of the other instructors, a three-hundred-pound former rock ‘n’ roll bodyguard named Dimitrios Cotsakis, had established prior right by having flown to Memphis when the King died, interviewed members of the King’s entourage and family, been interviewed himself on local television as an interpreter of the phenomenon,” (64).

When Murray is seeking to start an Elvis Presley power base at College-on-the-Hill, Cotsakis is seen to be more qualified by Rankian standards to do so. He is qualified because he has had more first hand experiences surrounding Elvis himself and can be seen as a primary source of evidence in his own right. This provides him visible credibility and it is assumed that he will do a better job at producing historical knowledge because of his connection to primary sources. It is maintained that the (illusion?) of credibility must be maintained in order to be a good historian.

“But Blacksmith is nowhere near a large city. We don’t feel threatened or aggravated in quite the same way as other towns do. Were not smack in the path of history and its contaminations,” (85).

It is evident that Jack has a very Hegelian way of seeing the world and the town in which he lives, Blacksmith. History doesn’t “happen” to small, quiet, out of the way towns such as Blacksmith that are devoid of the world historical spirit. Blacksmith is not a significant, important place such as a large city where history does “happen.” Being “outside” of history also means that the people of Blacksmith can avoid its “contaminations” and don’t need to feel “threatened or aggravated.” This implies that history itself is seen as contaminating, aggravating and threatening. Jack argues that not only can one live “outside” of history but that history is something to be avoided.

Posting assignment #5 (due Sunday 2/27, 11:59 P.M.): A novel approach to history (...pun intended)

If you're feeling a little overwhelmed right about now -- that's understandable.  (We've only been trying to understand two of the most important thinkers in contemporary economics, one of the slipperiest phenomena in contemporary American politics and culture, and some of the most difficult and debated political ideologies in modern history!)

Not to worry.  We'll re-visit all of this again in the second half of the course, after we have a lot more history and philosophy under our belts -- and you'll be amazed how much more you understand.  For now, if you have a basic idea of what Hayek and Rand are arguing for (i.e., [B]'s position in the Facebook debate I sent you), and what they're arguing against ([A]'s position), and some idea of what a declension narrative is, and what the words "liberalism," "socialism," and "fascism" might refer to (in a circulating way), you're doing fine.  And if you're fuzzy on some of this, again not to worry:  just come talk with me, and we'll get it cleared up.

I'm tempted to say, "Now for something completely different."  And in some ways, it is:  DeLillo's White Noise is a novel, not a piece of political ideology or philosophy or historiography.  And it's about (somewhat) ordinary people living (somewhat) ordinary lives.  Nonetheless, it's not completely different.  We'll be talking about a lot of the same stuff, from a very different perspective.  I think you'll see the connections -- and Hitler Studies is just the beginning.

Your assignment is simple.  (Perhaps deceptively simple.)

1)  Read Part One ("Waves and Radiation") of Don DeLillo's White Noise.  Read closely.  Annotate.  Keep notes.  Watch, especially, the way the book deals with history -- the stuff that happens, both "big" and "small" -- and with historiography -- the way the stuff that happens is remembered, recorded, and put into narrative form.

2)  Choose three moments  from the text, which you think are particularly important for understanding how DeLillo is dealing with history.  (As in the Hegel post, a "moment" is a quote that's longer than a word and shorter than a paragraph.)  At least one, but no more than two, of your moments must include the word "history."  At least one, but no more than two, of your moments must include the word "Hitler."  In addition, try to keep your moments varied -- they should show different sides to what DeLillo is doing -- and spread out throughout Part One (if they're all from the first 30 pages, I'm gonna get a little suspicious...).  And as much as possible, don't use the same moments as people who posted before you.

3)  Write a post, at least 300 words long, in which you suggest an answer to the question:  How does Jack Gladney, the narrator of White Noise, understand history (and historiography) -- and, how does he try to argue the reader into understanding history (and historiography)?  In answering this question, you must draw all of your evidence from your three moments -- and no others.  (Of course, feel free to give context for these three moments as needed.  Just focus on those three moments.  You'll have plenty to work with.)  And feel welcome, and encouraged, to (a) make connections to other things we've read and discussed, and (b) read the posts before yours and write your own post in dialogue with the points that other people make.  As Hillary Clinton said (rather disingenuously) at the beginning of her presidential campaign, "Let the conversation begin."

Have fun with this.  I think you will.  It's easier than Hayek.  I'm really looking forward to seeing what we can find in this book.  It's intrigued me for many years, and I'm interested to see if you will feel the same.

Protokoll 24.02. 11- elissa

The day started somewhat unusually with everyone having to wait outside the classroom while the group set up for their difficultation. To be fair, this is what I was informed of, as I arrived 2 minutes late. Ben wondered where he should sit before proceeding to take attendance.

Ben began by discussing our upcoming writing assignment and fyi, the rough draft will be due two weeks from today. For some background, we did a little review of Ranke and Weber. As we remember, it was Ranke who made the switch from writing history as a story to writing history “wie es eigentlich gewesen”: how it really was, as fact. Weber argues that it is not as easy though, as Ranke makes it out to be. There are charismatic truths which are very influential, but Ranke seems to not take these into account.

But as far as the writing assignment goes, there are four key components. First, we have to find a truth and legitimize it. It can tie into anything that we have studies thus far. For example, Ben was going to make us read a dissertation concerning eugenics and the University of Minnesota. Interestingly, Coffman, Nicholson, and Johnson were all very involved in the eugenics here, yet very people know this side of the U’s darker past. Many of what we consider Nazi ideals of racial purity actually developed here in the Midwest. At one point, U of M students were REQUIRED to take a course on APPLIED eugenics! Anyways, after that short tangent, it was told to us that the “truth” we are going to discuss must be both important and “inconvenient”. This has to be something that people don’t want to be made known.

The second part of the paper involves doing research on our topic, and include four sources, including one book. It was advised to check out Wilson or the CSCL library.

For the third component, we must find an institution that we believe needs to hear this truth we have researched. We must then send them a written piece (or a YouTube video with a 1000 word metacommentary) explaining why our truth is important, and basically to just present it. We should use citations when necessary.

Lastly, we have to write Ben an email explaining how the writing works. The final paper will be due when we get back from break.

Our grades from external writing #1 are coming, and they will be returned before external writing #2. We have one more blog post due before spring break on DeLillo…read part one by Monday!

We had a quick recap of Tuesday’s class before the difficultation, in which two important terms were defined: confirmation bias and circulating reference. A confirmation bias is when you strategically choose and eliminate sources to confirm your pre–determined argument. In terms of a Rankean historian, this is bad. Here Ben also made a quick note on how he has a bit of an advantage over us, because he knows a lot more about the topics then most of us do. So it makes it a little difficult to argue with him. But no worries, keep arguing and sharing your thoughts and opinions J

Moving on, a circulating reference is a given term alive in culture that doesn't have a fixed definition. In other words, the definition of certain terms (eg. Socialism) are always changing depending on who you ask and when you ask. After this, there was a shift towards getting into the difficultation.

For the difficultaion, we each had to be in groups of about three or four, and each group was sitting by a picture of Glenn Beck, Georg Hegel, Theodor Adorno, Ayn Rand,or Howard Beale. The task was to come up with an argument to debate a resolution in the perspective of who we were sitting next to, keeping Hayek in mind. My group had Glenn Beck. The resolution was as follows: “Our current economic system is headed toward socialism. Because socialism is equivalent to Nazism, we are headed toward Nazism.”

In my group, we talked about things Glenn Beck would how he would approach the resolution. He would probably agree with it, claiming that Obama is a socialist wanting to help the poor people, and that we are headed toward Nazism under Obama’s policies. He would also claim, like Hayek, that the government is trying to control our economy, which would entail a total loss of freedom and this is equivalent to socialism. Bottom line: we are headed towards repeating ourselves in history.

15 minutes or so later, we reconvened and each group gave their character’s hypothetical position. Ayn Rand would have agreed with the resolution, that Nazism and socialism are the same in which they both inhibit individual by requiring a sacrifice to the whole. Hegel would have opposed the resolution because we are moving toward freedom, not socialism, because that is how the world has and will work. Adorno would have opposed the resolution. He would have blamed Hayek for using manipulation techniques, more specifically, the one involving the apocalypse, to win his audience. Lastly, Howard Beale would agree with the resolution: we are headed toward socialism, and we should all be mad as hell! Ben concluded that each resolution was pretty accurate of the character we were portraying. We now had a few minutes to get back in our groups and develop an argument against an opposing opinion. My group chose Hegel.

We all engaged in a lively debate, mostly picking apart Hegel. A lot was said but one of the things that stuck out to me personally was how Rand would have argued that the world spirit was based on religion, which is anti reason, and therefore not legitimate. Hegel argued back that the world spirit wasn’t God. Can only an atheist move toward reason? Yes! Was Rand’s emphatic response. Religion and reason, in her opinion, could not coincide.

After the debate, in which many of us got pretty excited, we talked about why it is useful to argue within different perspectives. How does it let us understand Hayek better? We concluded that it helps us to view things holistically from all sides, and it pushes/challenges our own beliefs and biases. We also realized that no one is really ‘right’ because everyone has their own fact base. One of the most important points: there are more than just two sides to a given issue, and sometimes, it is difficult to even pinpoint the issue. As we were running a little late, we ended here with Ben dismissing the class and wishing us all a good weekend.