PROTOCOL 3.22.11

On Tuesday, March 22nd I came into class around 11:13 and when I went to sit in my usual spot I was told that we had to sit somewhere we haven't sat before and sit besides someone new. It was only after I found my new place that I saw what Ben had written on the board, “Please sit somewhere you’ve never sat, next to someone you’ve never sat with!”

When Ben got settled he started to take attendance but not without first commenting that there seemed to be a lot of absences and he also accused Mariana of sitting in the same place as always. I was quick to defend her because I know that she normally sits along the side of the classroom and not in the back.

Ben asked how we were all doing and we talked about how we were tired. Ben seemed surprised by this since we just got back from break. But its just too easy too mess up your sleep schedule when you have nothing to do in the mornings all week. Then like good Minnesotans we discussed the weather. I commented on how at least the rain was better than snow because that means spring was coming but Ben was quick to disagree and went on to say that snow is better than rain because of the reflection of light off the snow.

We then moved the discussion toward housekeeping items. He reminded us that the second external writing assignment is due thursday and asked if we had any questions. I asked how he would like us to submit them since I would be sending my written portion through snail mail instead of regular mail. He said that whatever makes the most sense would work. Most likely emailing him a copy would suffice. Jordan asked about citations because she thought it would look a little weird to cite throughout her letter to someone. Again, Ben said that whatever makes the most sense will work, and you could explain your approach in the metacommentary portion of the paper. Ben then reflected back to before break and told us that Robin had nothing but praise when describing how class went. :) He also mentioned with a look of relief that all of our grades should have been sent out to us along with instructions on how to calculate our mid term grades. He made sure that we knew we could discuss it with him during office hours if we were confused by the process. The calcuation should show us a rough but pretty accurate estimate of our grade thus far, unless you have an unexcused absence or tardiness.

Continuing on with his monologue, Ben mentions that the blog post this weekend will be on Flynn --but no, we don't have to get through the entire novel to be able to do the post, but enough to get an idea of the novel. And no, that does not mean read just 30 pages and call it a night, he thinks a couple hundred pages should suffice. Ahmed finds that humorous since Ben makes a couple hundred pages seem like nothing. But the majority of the people in class who had already started the novel agreed with Ben that it's a fast read. I asked Ben to give us a little more background info on the main character, Mitch Rapp, because I noticed that Flynn has done a series of novels with him as the main character so I was worried we may be missing some important info. Ben said that he is basically a textbook CIA agent likened to Jack Bauer and James Bond but we should be able to pick up on everything we need to know about him from just reading this story.

Ben brings up the readings for thursday by Wolf and Vidal. He encourages us to find out more information on them and tells us that they are very interesting. He said he struggles with them but wants to like them and also that we should think of Strauss and Schmitt as we read through their pieces.

I then brought up the Libya/Japan crisis's. I wanted to put it out to the class to see if anyone else realized how fast the crisis in Japan became old news to the media and how quickly they just moved on to Libya coverage. Ben then mentioned how Japan took over the Wisconsin coverage and brought up the Hegelian logic of the World spirit and how it travels. This leads him into a monologue about European history. He wanted to point out that in the focus changes countries in different eras and relates this back to Hegel and to the media now about what they choose to cover. He then proses the questions; who is deciding what is most important? Who is deciding what is important to study?

With that he ends the discussion and tells people to move their chairs in so we can be closer together and makes a big fuss about taking off his coat. He mentions that if this were court, he would have to ask the judge for permission to shed his coat. Interesting.

After we got settled we moved on to the readings for today, Schmitt and Strauss were the authors we were focusing on and as a class we agreed that they were pretty hard to get into. Very dry and difficult to understand. We played context boggle next and while Brittney put up a good fight, Heidi ended up winning the game --- AGAIN.

Ben then told us that we had to say hi to the person next to us and split us up into three sections. Each section was told to analyze one of the readings for today and talk to another person about where the question and thesis's were in the reading.

I was paired up with Kate. We were assigned to discuss Carl Schmitt's piece, "Political Theology" We had trouble with both until Ben came over and told us how easy he thought it was to find the thesis. That was when I realized it was in the first sentence of the piece.

After the given amount of time, we all came back together to go over and discuss our findings.

Jordan says for Carl’s first piece, The Concept of the Political: the question is on page 26, “The question then is whether there is also a special distinction which can serve as a simple criterion of the political and of what it consists" She said it was easy to find since it explicitly says, "the question then is..."

Ahmed points out that Schmitt never clearly defines what “the political” is and Alyssa agreed while Ben didn't. Ahmed then said the thesis is on page 26; “the political must therefore rest on its own ultimate distinctions, to which all action with a specifically political meaning can be traced” Ben didn't agree it is that because it doesn’t answer question – but it is the ground work.

Mariana thought the thesis was a little further down the page, “The nature of such a political distinction is surely different from that of those others.” Ben says its getting there – really important but still doesn’t answer question

Sophie then says she thought the thesis was even a little further down the page “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” or at the end “ Thereby the inherently objective nature and autonomy of the political becomes evident by virtue of its being able to treat, distinguish and comprehend the friend-enemy antithesis independently of other antitheses”(27)

Ben agrees with Sophie about the first one, and I added that the second one at the end seems more like a conclusion while the first one is a better thesis. I then asked about the footnote about the difference between a enemy and foe. Ben said that an enemy is public while a foe is private. A person cannot have an enemy, but can have a foe. A state can have an enemy.

To better understand the friend/enemy relationship, Ben directs us to this quote, “The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions." and "Emotionally the enemy is easily treated as being evil and ugly, because every distinction, most of all the political, as the strongest and most intense of the distinction and categorizations, draws upon other distinctions for support." (27) and he adds, The Sovereign may mislead the followers – with us or against us. Stronger the distinction between friend and enemy the stronger you’ll be

Ben then asked for some examples from history. Heidi mentioned that this reminded her of the salem witch trials – used it to strengthen their community, to come together with a common enemy. and then Ben brought up the Nazis about what they did to the Jews. Alyssa mentions that the persecution of Jews was not new and while Ben agreed with her, he added that the need for a genocide was new. Germany chose to define Jews as their enemy to bring together their country. They are the enemy.

We then moved onto the next section that analyzed Political Theology by Carl Schmitt. As a whole, none of us had found where the question was so Ben said we would come back to that later as class time was running out. We did discuss the thesis and everyone agreed it was the first sentence, "Sovereign is he who decides on the state of exception" The book translation left out the "state of" but Ben said it was important to add it. Kate put it in better terms by saying the state of exception is where the normal law does not apply; and Ben added, the outmost extreme. Ben also pointed us to the quote on page 150, "The exception, which is not codified in the existing legal order, can at best be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state, or the like. But it cannot be circumscribed factually and made to conform to a preformed law." Since class time was closing in on us we moved on to the next reading, Persecution and the Art of Writing by Leo Strauss. For the question, Heidi and her partner thought that it was "How have they been convinced? And where does the time factor enter?" (22) But Ben didn't agree but placed is right before that. Kate then said he partner and her thought the thesis was (36) "An exoteric book contains then two teachings: a popular teaching of an edifying character, which is in the foreground; and a philosophic teaching concerning the most important subject, which is indicated only between the lines." Ben agreed that this is part of the thesis. He also defined Exocteric to be what is obviously there, what is explicitly written and Esoteric is what's hidden or what's in code; reading in between the lines. Ben then pointed out several quotes; "Persecution cannot prevent even public expression of the heterodox truth, for a man of independent thought can utter his views in public and remain unharmed, provided he moves with circumspection." (24) "Thus one may wonder whether some of the greatest writers of the past have not adapted their literary technique to the requirements of persecution, by presenting their views on all the then crucial questions exclusively between the lines." (26) and "Even if they had nothing to fear from any particular political quarter, those who started from that assumption would have been driven to the conclusion that public communication of the philosophic or scientific truth was impossible or undesirable, not only for the time being but for all times." (34) And Sophie also pointed out that she thought the thesis was "For the influence of persecution on literature is precisely that it compels all writers who hold heterodox views to develop a peculiar technique of writing, the technique which we have in mind when speaking of writing between the lines." (24) That brought our discussion to a haphazard end as usual, because we never seem to have enough time to fully discuss everything that we want to. And Ben brought the class to a close a little late with another reminder to read Vidal and Wolf for thursday's class.

Protocol [March 22, 2011]

The words “Please sit somewhere you’ve never sat, next to someone you’ve never sat with!” were written quickly on the board by Ben as people began to file in closer to 11:13am. Ben took role sitting at a desk along the wall by the door, and made mention of the numerous absences. Upon discussing the gloomy weather, Mandi debated that at least the overcast sky was preferable to it snowing. Ben retorted by saying that, “The real romantic metaphors in idealist history is that light is a sign of progress and I think that has been internalized at least in my body. When there is light, I feel better about the world. Heidi is documenting all of my thoughts, I feel like the pharaoh sometimes.” I rapidly typed away. Ben went over the fact that we are to have our external writing draft #2 by Thursday and that he needs a copy of what we are sending. He also said to make clear in the metacommentary what is being sent whether it is an email or letter. He needs both a copy of the text and the metacommentary by Thursday. He answered questions regarding the citations and said to do them in a way that makes sense; do what’s appropriate. You do not need formal MLA citations, but do put them in the metacommentary so Ben knows where you’re coming form. It is not formal writing; tell him what you did, why you did it, and describe in the most detail as possible. He asked about further questions about the writing which was met by silence. Ben also made mention that Robin sang our praises apparently and found us a delightful class.

Ben also went over the grades that were sent out; the only thing not included were things about absences and lateness; if you’ve been absent and not excused, expect that grade to be lowered a little bit, but otherwise that should be good. He is not too worried about anybody at the moment but is always willing to go over things with people.

Next Tuesday after the external writings are in (there will be a blog post this weekend) he will give you both of the big assignments for the rest of the term; they are not due for a while but he wants to give us time to think about them, plan them, and the final assignment will be a group assignment. You can work in groups of 4 to 6; much more information on that next Tuesday. Start reading Vince Flynn, it reads like an action movie. For the blog post, you’ll just have to get into it, as much as you can, perhaps a couple hundred pages. Ahmed found it humorous that Ben didn’t consider a couple hundred pages as a lot, but was reassured that the book flies and regarded the book’s entirety to the equivalence of reading 10 to 20 pages of Hegel.

For Thursday, two short articles; one by Gore Vidal and one by Naomi Wolf- find out things about them. Ben claims that they are really interesting and that he wrestles with them: he wants to like them, but struggles. Ben encouraged us to seriously look into Schmitt and Strauss when reading Vidal and Wolf; think about how those two are in their text, and consider how Vidal and Wolf respond to Schmitt and Strauss. Come into class having read both, and if you can, bring in one or two things in your head about what is happening with the Libyan conflict that is relevant.

Mandi sparked a conversation about how interesting it is that Libyan conflicts are much more prevalent in the news and media as opposed to the Japan crisis. It opened discussion among the classroom about where the media’s coverage priorities lie. Ben then urged us to note the Hegelian elements in this- how the world spirit works- first it was with Japan, then it was with Libya, when was it with Wisconsin? Upon asking that question, he continued, “Senate took out all the provisions in the budget so they could pass the bill at union quorum. People were pretty furious, and still massive protests are happening and we are not hearing anything about it. This is Hegelian, Rankian logic. Who decides it?” Ben furthered his point with a comparison of how in European history classes, the focus is typically on “what’s most important at any time”. Ben questions again, “What exactly is the criteria of what is most important? It is usually not talked about. What do we know? It’s not like important things aren’t important just because it is not covered by the media. It is always something to think about- who is deciding what is worth studying and what is not implicitly?”

After closing his “much-too long” monologue, Ben proceded to “shed some bureaucratic authority” and take his jacket off. He explained that in court, you need to ask permission to take your jacket off. That’s how strict things are.

Ben asked us to rate our comprehension of the Schmitt and Strauss readings on a scale of 1-10, 1=totally incomprehensible, 10=I got every word of it. People said 5, 6… said it was dry, had to try really hard to read between the lines, had to read it out loud. Then we context boggled, and shared a lot of Strauss and Schmitt knowledge. Ben explained that what was emitted from our sharing of context boggle facts, however, was that Strauss is generally considered, though it is controversial in saying so, the grandfather of the movement called neoconservatism. He continued by explaining that many of Strauss’ acolytes were in the Bush administration including Paul Wolfowitz, deputy of secretary of defense who more or less invented the Iraq War. Ben then ordered, “Turn to the person next to you, say hello. I am going to make an arbitrary decision in a Schmittian sense.” He advised a third of the classroom to look at the political first little piece by Schmitt, another group to look at the political theology, and the last section of the class to delve into ‘Persecution and the Art of Writing’. In our pairs, we were to share where we put the question mark in the circle and where we put the T in the circle. “See if you agree, if you disagree, see if you can come up with an agreement,” Ben encouraged. “See if you can convince the other and then we’ll share. Take about 5 minutes.”

After taking said five minutes to discuss these topics, we came together as a cohesive group again, and Ben asked the first group to share where they placed their question mark. Jordan shared that she put it by the statement, “The question then is whether there is also a special distinction which can serve as a simple criterion of the political and of what it consists.” Ahmed asked for a definition of what “the political” is, and Ben answered that It is a good idea to reference a title whenever confused- put the words “what is” before the title- in this case, you would ask “What is the concept of the political?” Ben disagreed with Ahmed that there is no explanation of what “the political” is in Schmitt’s explanation. Ben went on to say, “Schmitt is trying to make the argument that there exists something called “the political” opposed to ‘the aesthetic’ or “’the moral’ or ‘the economic’. When you’re talking about aesthetics, the question is, is it beautiful or ugly? With economics- is it profitable or non profitable? With morality- good or evil? He sets up a premise for his argument.” Mariana and Shukri were asked what the thesis would be. They were unsure, but answered with “The nature of such a political distinction is surely different from that of those others. It is independent of them and as such can speak clearly for itself.” Ben said that they were getting there. Sophie put the thesis at “The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy.” Ben said that he put his T there too. The third thesis was agreed upon as, “The inherently objective nature and autonomy of the political becomes evident by virtue of this being able to treat, distinguish, and comprehend the friend-enemy antithesis independently of other antitheses.” He reiterated that the political is in the ability to distinguish between friend and enemy. “So what’s up with this friend and enemy business?”, asks Ben. Brittany answered that it’s somewhat how politics are divided into fashions with who is with you, who is against you. Mandi said that in her class last year, it was emphasized how important it is to read the footnotes. She asked for clarification of a Feind which could be interpreted as friend or foe in German, Ben answered. Ben went on to say, “What’s new about Schmitt is the insistence that the political should have nothing to do with the other spheres. Take a look at bottom of 26. ‘The distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity for a union or separation, of an association or dissociation. It can exist theoretically and practically, without having simultaneously to draw upon all those moral, aesthetic, economic, or other distinctions. The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible. These can neither be decided by a previously determined general norm nor by the judgment of a disinterested and therefore neutral third party.’” Ben broke from the reading to exclaim rather enthusiastically, “For you are all my subjects, and I am your ruler and the decider of the exception, in order to persuade you emotionally that Liz should be the enemy of our state, I could tell you that she is ugly, no offense, or evil. You’re either with us or against us, and the stronger you make your friend and enemy distinction, the stronger your politics can be. Can anybody think of any real life examples?” We discussed the connection between the Salem witch trials and this idea. There was great fear in the community falling apart, so there was that much more strengthening in the community by persecuting others with charismatic persuasion, Ben explained. He furthered this connection by introducing the Jewish isolation. “If you are Hitler, or head of the Nazi party, you can make the Jews the enemy because you will frame them that way.” Ben shared an “amazingly terrifying quote” that he had to translate on the spot. Hitler: “If the international finance Jews should try to succeed in bringing the people once more in the world war, then the result will be the limitation of the Jewish race in Europe.” I failed to have that quote word-for-word what Ben said, but the overarching message remains. Alyssa made mention of the fact that the persecution of the Jews wasn’t a new concept, and Ben said that was a really good point and that “The classification of Jews as the absolute and total political enemy and the need therefore to exterminate all of them- genocide- was new; that’s the difference.” Ben explained that they thought that stronger politics are based on having an enemy. There’s very similar logic in how you have a very set view of what Asian people or African-American people are by the American media, there’s a Schmittian reason to that.

We then shifted over to the second group, and Ben asked where the thesis lay. They cohesively decided that it is stated in the first sentence: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception.” Ben corrected that the words “state of the” should be placed before exception because it was translated incorrectly. He advised that we remember these words and the friend and enemy thing from earlier. He then asked, “What the hell does the exception mean?” Kate answered, “The idea that laws can be broken because of a state of emergency.” To add onto that idea, Ben read from the text: “The exception, which is not codified in the existing legal order, can at best be characterized as a case of extreme peril, a danger to the existence of the state, or the like. But it cannot be circumscribed factually and made to conform to a preformed law.” We discussed how there is an agreed-upon idea in the modern state, but that Schmitt says there is always an exception.

We moved along to the third group; Ben mentioned that the thesis is a tricky one. We were asked to start off with the question before the thesis this time. I shared that I put my question mark toward the beginning when Strauss questions how the younger generation has been convinced and where does the time factor enter in regards to accepting the government-sponsored truth. I found that the article works to address that focal thesis. Ben said that he wouldn’t call that the overarching question; Kate shared that she put her question mark right before that statement: “It may be worth our while to consider briefly the effect of that compulsion, or persecution, on thoughts as well as actions.” This was where Ben put his question mark as well. After coming to that agreement, Ben proceeded to read from the text, “An exoteric book contains then two teachings: a popular teaching of an edifying character, which is in the foreground; and a philosophic teaching concerning the most important subject, which is indicated only between the lines.” Ben asked if anybody knew what ‘exoteric’ or ‘esoteric’ even mean. Brittany shared the definitions. She explained that exoteric is public knowledge, common sense, what’s obvious and out there whereas esoteric is secret, private knowledge much like a master giving to a disciple. Ben added, “It’s what’s hidden, what’s in code, what you can’t obviously see: the opposite of exoteric. Schmitt describes that persecution has always been there. He goes onto say that Rankian historiography has basically made it invisible to historians. Schmitt has an interesting viewpoint of Rankian history: Basically, it rules out the idea of text analysis which is something that I don’t think is entirely wrong. This I think is the other part of the thesis: ‘Even if they had nothing to fear from any particular political quarter, those who started from that assumption would have been driven to the conclusion that public communication of the philosophic or scientific truth was impossible or undesirable, not only from the time being but for all times….But he would defeat his purpose if he indicated clearly which of his statements expressed a noble lie, and which the still more noble truth.’”

As the class drew to a close, Ben told us to enjoy Wolf and Vidal, as well as to bring things in on Libya- this will be our case study. Ben apologized sincerely for being out of it for his head cold. At 12:30pm, we packed our things, and exited the classroom, with, I would argue, more on our minds than when we entered.

Looking out at Lake Michigan, thinking about dialectics

You will be amused, and perhaps envious, to know that last Thursday afternoon, when I called Robin and asked how the class went (he had nothing but wonderful things to say about you all), I was doing so from my room on the 40th floor of this hotel --

-- from which I had, approximately, this view of Chicago and Lake Michigan --

--and where I was staying, for two nights, for free.

Ah, the (occasional) perks of being a (usually very low-paid) choral singer.

But I'm not writing (just) to brag about my accommodations (as fun as that would be).  I'm writing because, as you can imagine, with a room like that, I spent a lot of time looking out those windows at that spectacular view, and I think you know me well enough to guess that it wasn't long before all that looking turned into some pretty deep and not-altogether-pleasant thinking.

From my vantage point up there on the 40th floor -- which felt very strange, given that most of my experience of Chicago was on the first floor of a cheap apartment on the South Side -- the city looked amazingly beautiful.  The imposing skyline of huge, architecturally striking buildings; the interplay of roads, buildings, river, and lake; the radiant colors and lights; the endless cars pulsing down tangled roads in a seemingly seamless ballet, etc.  I could not help but thinking, "What amazing things we humans have created!"  Then of course, I immediately (perhaps even simultaneously) checked myself:  yes, but think of all the suffering, all the poverty, the oppression and exploitation, the segregation, the environmental destruction (especially apparent at this moment, as I watch the news about Japan's nuclear plants), which maybe I couldn't see from my fancy rich-boy hotel room, but which made possible all the "beauty" that I was enjoying!

My only response:  yes.  Yes to both.  Yes to the overwhelming, amazing beauty.  Yes to the disgusting and awful suffering.  Both are true.  I won't say they're "equally" true, because I don't know what that would mean -- you can't put stuff like this on a scale or into an equation.  I will say, rather:  they're dialectically true.  As in, they're both part of the same truth, each a part of the other, the thing and its opposite, maybe even a thesis and an anti-thesis. 

If Ahmed showed us Hegel at his worst (see his post, and my comment, below), this might be Hegel at his best.  His concept of dialectics gives us, I think, the only productive way to deal with contradictions like this.  You can't discount the beauty, the progress, and the grandeur of human achievement.  (At least I can't -- and, I will argue, it's not particularly helpful to do so, whatever your politics.)  Nor can you discount the destruction and suffering that such achievement has caused.  (Again, at least I can't -- and those who can, I think, are either very naive or very cynical.  That includes Hegel himself at his worst moments; remember the boot trampling on the "innocent flower".)  You have to see them both as true, dialectically true, tied up in the same historical acts and movements.

And then, at least if you're me, you have to fight, not to destroy humans' technological progress, but to create a world where everyone has the comfort, security, and privilege to be able to behold Chicago's beauty from their own room on the 40th floor of the Swissôtel.

Thoughts, ideas, and criticism welcome, of course.

This is exactly what I am talking about

http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/meast/03/13/west.bank.family.killed/index.html

The link above is a CNN article about a so called "terror attack" on an "Israeli family." It proves my point that I am trying to reach in my external writing assignment number two. We also discussed this in class last Thursday that the media only cares when an Israeli person dies.... and it's called a terror attack. However, when a Palestinian person is killed by Israeli's.... it's an honorable kill; a heroic act. Five Israeli civilians were murdered according to that article and CNN is already making a big deal out of it. What the world doesn't know is hundreds of Palestinians die every day, and no one cares. CNN only reports when Israeli's are harmed.... This is exactly the point that I am trying to reach in my external writing assignment two. Just because of five people... US, UN, and other countries are making a huge deal out of it; where were US and UN when Palestinians were being murdered?

Protocol for 03/08/2011

Class starts unofficially at 11:05A.M., Ben brings the old Hegel posters, which were mistook for trash, and post them on the wall. Ben states that he is annoyed at how his “precious” class materials are kept being mistaken for trash. After that, Ben writes down the outline for the class which includes: 1. Lots of Housekeeping, 2. Isolation- Solitude- Loneliness_ reviewing and extending, 3. Delillo: reflections, connections, conclusions, 4. Mid-course evaluation.

Class starts officially at 11:15A.M., with Ben checking attendance and he notices that some students are missing. He reminds his students about the External Writing #2 for Thursday. For extra credit opportunity, there are still three slots open (out of four). He encourages students to send to him and go over it in class on Thursday because it may help students write good final drafts. He also encourages students to begin on the meta-commentary, though it’s not required. Ben makes a joke that breaks the hearts of the two poor protocol writers. Ben announces that he will not be in class this Thursday, some students are very content about now, but Ben says that a professor called Robin Brown will be his substitute, some students have heart attacks about now. Also, some students are surprised as Ben announces his “classical choral” trip to Chicago, (whoever says that Ben does not look like a singer is probably right). Then Ben gives students handouts of Leo Strauss’ text and tells students to pay attention to this and Carl Schmidt’s text. Ben mentions that these are not long readings but still hard and important. He tells students to annotate the question and thesis. Ben tells students to submit drafts to both him and Robin Brown via this email: brown004@umn.edu. Ben swears that all grades will be e-mail tomorrow or students are free to punish him after break.

Then the class moves on to the discussion part. Ben demands the class to stand up and he writes the theme keywords (Isolation, Solitude, Loneliness) on a big sheet of paper for an activity. Each of the students must write new keywords drawn from Don Delillo’s White Noise, connect them to the theme keywords, and explain their connections. Ben gives the class a few seconds to find important moments in the book that they think is important. Ben records on the board as the students take turn telling their moments. The list is as follow: 187_ Jack and Babette finally talk about Dylar, 263_ Jack talks to doctor about tests, 6_ all the stuff from the past, 291_ nuns pretend to believe, 282-3_ Babette’s body -> Jack, last chapter_ fear of death, Dylar, airborne toxic event, 112_ disasters only affect poor people -> perspectives, shock, 298_ Mink scene, bathroom, bullets, 92_ there is no media in Iron City, 154-155_ the tirade, 15_ who will die first? The wish of the deaths pass on to the livings, 80_ Babette’s memory loss, 217_ Winnie Richards- death as boundary?, 272_ true or false, 253_ Orest- does death scare you?, 277_ Murray- killers vs. diers. Ben gives a bunch of moments that he likes: 162_ “I like being with Wilder… admirer”, 198_ “I know what you mean… and natural way”, 225_ “Jack not to die… he is forever”, 276_ “why do I feel… bewildered, staggered, shattered”, 298_ Hegelian moment: better do something regardless right/wrong than keep being neutral, at least history can progress with some actions, history can’t progress with neutral act and stalemates, 253_ “As you get closer… is all about”, 303_ “You’re a nun… another place”, 163_ “Changes every day… the time being”. Now, free discussion!!!

The discussion starts with the last chapter as Ben guides. Some students mention that Jack has never talk about Wilder dying even though he is obsessed with death. Jack even mentions that he likes to be around Wilder because he can feel less worried about past/future, and he envies Wilder. Wilder is the ideal consumer. He is content with things he has here and now, simple happiness and at the present. Wilder has no history. He changes from time to time, no past, no future, and no sadness/fear of death… At some point Ben goes off topic by mentioning the original name of White Noise was The American Book of the Dead.

“Death” topic is now switched to “believe” topic. Jack says, “This is what Orest Mercator is about” (253), and Jack repeats this phrase a lot such as “This is what Babette is all about”. This shows that Jack has a strong believe of how certain things “should be” or “must be”. Another moment that belongs to this “believe” topic: 80_ “What do you know… Lagos”, this is bureaucratic truth, ‘It’s here, it’s on the map, and it’s real…’ and 302-3_ “Saved? What is saved… what you believe”, this is bureaucratic truth vs. charismatic truth. The question raised: Since there must be some certain believe that bureaucratic truth are truth/real to make bureaucratic truth credible/real/facts, what is so different between bureaucratic truth and charismatic truth? Ben says that this book is an example of post-modern literature and the idea is nothing can be reliable. Sometimes narratives can’t be trusted because it is a form of history writing thus, also bias and lots of narrow perspective (even in third-person).

After the discussion, Ben command the class to stand up and recall one thing/theme that is the stickiest since this first half of the semester and one hope each student has for the rest of the semester, can be corresponding with the stickiest moment. A lot of the students think about truth related matters such as bureaucratic/charismatic truth, some thinks about the “death” topic. As the students rush out of class, Ben thinks out loud and he is afraid that his “precious” class materials will be thrown in the trash can again if he leaves them over the break. He decides to take them down before break.

Protocol March 8

Before class started, Ben brought two posters in from our archive (which had been taken down and almost thrown out weeks ago). He noticed that the DeLillo mind-map poster from last week had been taken down, but everything else that we’d put on the walls remained.

As class started, we noticed that several people were missing, though a couple had told Ben that they were sick. Ben told us to not move the chairs yet, because more people might be showing up.

The program on the board said:

-Lots o’ Housekeeping

-Isolation—Solitude—Loneliness à reviewing and extending

-DeLillo: reflections, connections, conclusions

-Mid-course evaluation

Ben said that we have a lot of housekeeping to do today. On Thursday, there will be a writing workshop, so everyone should bring his or her drafts. It’s recommended to begin your meta-commentary, though it’s not required. There is no reading for Thursday; the rough draft is our only homework. At this point, Ben said that in the beginning, the protocols are very detailed, which always makes him very conscious of what he says in the beginning of class. But back to the housekeeping: Ben will not be in class on Thursday, because his classical choral group is going to Chicago. We will still have class, and it will be taught by Robin Brown, Ben’s friend and an accomplished writing teacher.

Over break, we will be reading a couple of pieces by Carl Schmidt. Ben has decided to add a couple of readings to what’s already in the course packet, and he passed around handouts. Whoever ends up with the extras should bring them on Thursday for the people who weren’t there today. But don’t worry, Ben said: it’s still not very much reading. Be sure to take note of context when doing the reading: Schmidt and Strauss link in important (though not obvious) ways. Strauss was an important thinker (at the University of Chicago), and popularized the term ‘read between the lines.’ So read between the lines in this essay! There’s a lot there, he said. There are three different theses in the Strauss reading, and each gets closer to what he’s actually saying. Annotate where the question and theses are (like we did in class last week). We’ll probably play context boggle when we get back from break.

Also, if you have time over break, you should begin Vince Flynn, which we’ll read two weeks after break. It’s about 400 pages, but it’s an easy read.

For the writing workshop on Thursday: Ahmed already sent a draft, but there are still three slots open. If you’d like to submit yours to be read and reviewed by the class, send it to Ben and Robin (brown004@umn.edu). Remember, you’ll get extra credit for this, and it will be very helpful.
Ben promises that all of our grades will be sent out by tomorrow. He wishes that he could just give us all A’s, but he can’t because it’s an economy and we need incentives.


The housekeeping is finally complete. Ben has all of us stand up, and puts out a sheet of butcher paper for an activity similar to what we did in last week’s difficultation. We are to write key words and draw lines to connect them, though we also have to explain the connection on the lines. We are to do this in complete silence. Ben began by linking loneliness and solitude; next, Heidi linked isolation to both. After we were all finished writing, we all stood to look at it and make any additions that we thought necessary. We noted that it was interesting that Mink was in the center of solitude, isolation, and loneliness.

We all then were given about thirty seconds to think of important moments in the book, which we feel are necessary to discuss or draw attention to. Our moments were as followed:
Hallie: when Jack and Babette finally talk about Dylar (187)

Hillary: when Jack talks to doctor about tests (263)

Liz: all the stuff from the past (6)

Brittany: the fact that the nuns pretend to believe (291)

Sophie: Babette’s body and Jack’s connection to it (282-3)

Kate L: fear of death, Dylar

Jordan: Whole last chapter, especially when Jack went into detail about the potential death of Wilder

Rachel: idea that disasters only affect poor people (112)

Mandy: the Mink scene (298ish)

Heidi: there is no media in Iron City (92)

Mariana: Disaster only affects poor people- she was shocked when she read that because it isn’t how she sees things, though she thinks that it’s an interesting (but kind of cocky) perspective (112)

Tam: when they wonder who will die first (15)

Shukery: Babette’s memory loss (82)

Elissa: Winnie and the idea of death as a boundary (217)

Kate G: when Murray asked, true or false, do you have to know when you’re going to die to live life to the fullest? (272)

Hongfa: when Orest is asked if death scares him (253)

Gina: Murray’s idea of Killers vs. diers (277)

Ben exclaimed that this is our collective intelligence about the book!

For the rest of the class period, we had more of an open discussion, so I apologize if some of this is disjointed- that’s probably how it happened in class.

We began by examining the last chapter. Jack never really says anything about Wilder dying: he is obsessed with thinking about death, but when someone close to him might actually die, his mind is somewhere else. The incident with Wilder serves to show us the other side of the fear of death: Wilder is young and doesn’t even know what death is, as opposed to his parents who are paralyzed by fear of it. In the book, Wilder serves an interesting purpose. Wilder is Babette and Jack’s escape, and Jack envies Wilder’s forgetfulness. Babette and Jack feel good when they’re with Widler (198), since Wilder is free from limits and doesn’t know what death is (276). Maybe Wilder is the product of waves and radiation: he talks less and less as the book goes on. Have the waves and radiation stunted his emotional and intellectual development? Wilder is the ideal consumer because he goes from one pleasure to the next. He is exempt from death and has no history; he is eternally present and history does not affect him. This relates to Nietzsche’s idea that sheep live happy lives and are happier than we’ll ever be because they’re not weighed down by the past.

We then talked about how weird it is that this book is already ‘dead’ and considered a classic. The only other books that we can think of that have this pagination are The Odyssey and The Tibetan Book of the Dead, which is very interesting. Ben told us that the original name for White Noise was The American Book of the Dead.

We turned the topic to Mink (Mr. Gray). Jack clearly laid out his plan to shoot him three times, etc., but then Jack skips the third bullet and ends up getting himself shot (298). What makes him diverge from his plan? Is it better to do something good and then bad than to lead a neutral life, Jack wondered? We were reminded of when Jack said ‘this is what Ornest is about’ (253). He also says ‘this is what Babette is about’ many times throughout the book, as well a variation of the phrase when he talks to the nuns. He is holding onto how things ‘should’ be; Jack needs to be reassured that things are the way that they should be: he is concerned that the nuns don’t actually believe what they are supposed to believe. Similarly, in Babette’s eating class, people need to be reassured that they’re doing what they should be (163).

We jumped to the question of whether or not you can change a harmful condition by reducing it to its simplest parts. Hallie mentioned that Babette always tries to sound smart and philosophical, but it just doesn’t work. Like the scene in the car on page 80-1: their information is wrong and they sounds stupid. This is an example of beurocrat truth. Ben wondered how this is related to Zernike on the Tea Party. The characters in White Noise are using charismatic truth, and they keep going further down that train of thought (basing an idea on the last charismatic ‘truth’ and so on), and until they get to a point where what they’re saying is completely untrue (beurocratically speaking). Maybe truth is imbedded in belief: does truth provide a comfort? Is there another way to get to truth other than belief? Truth, and the comfort gotten from believing, is what draws a lot of people to religion. This reminded us of Jack’s conversation with the nun: a nun’s job is to believe so that other people don’t have to; she’s not there to believe, but to give the impression that she believes (303).

Ben told us that this book is often taught as an example of post-modern literature, which is the idea that there is nothing certain anymore. No narrator is reliable and there are no fixed truths. Ben posed the question of to what extent is your world like this? Religious people (and devout Rankians) may not resonate with this as they have truths that they live by. But does it resonate with other people?

Ben gave a few closing remarks. First, he noted the connection between this book and Network. But no one is Mad as Hell in this book; no one is questioning this world anymore. Also, is the world of this book led by the Iron Fist? Is everything moving in one predetermined direction? We can go back to Loughner on some level: how does Jack (a professor with many socioeconomic advantages) become a killer? How does history make you a killer?

We ran out of time, but Ben told us that we’ll keep talking about this book after break, in conjunction with other things that we’re discussing.


As the final exercise, we were told to stand up and think one thing that’s stuck with us from this first half of the semester (something from the class which we’ve been thinking about) and one hope that you have for the rest of the semester. The vast majority of the class chose some variation of ‘what is truth?’ as an idea that has stuck with them.

Protocol 3/3

Class begins with a song: Happiness Is Overrated by the Indie band Airborne Toxic Event. Ben proceeds to do a Google search on the band’s website to see if they have mentioned the book White Noise. Nothing comes up except for an excerpt that acknowledges book signings of White Noise by the band at a show.

It is duly noted that many people are missing from class today.

The following is written on the board:

Program:

1. Workshopping our truths

2. Sex murders, solitude and loneliness

a. How, and why, to read political theory

3. Back to Delillo- making sense of history, everyday life, and emergency

Ben consults Hongfa about the previous blog post. He asks her that instead of writing about Jack’s argument, it would have been easier to write about Jack’s view of history.

Empty, dead spaces make Ben uncomfortable.

We begin the activity to workshop our truths (with the person next to you, talk for two minutes each).

The class finishes the activity ahead of time. The class begins a group discussion on topics (inconvenient truths) that will be written upon, and the person(s) that are to be addressed concerning said truths.

May it be known that many people in the class desire to write about the inconvenient truth that Fort Snelling used to be a genocidal camp, and that those individuals who desire to write about said truth can pool their recourses in order to investigate the subject further. It is suggested that Dakota activists be contacted and consulted. It is also suggested that a possible audience for those truth(s) might be individuals who work at Fort Snelling. The activity starts us thinking about possible topics and how we might go about writing our drafts for next week.

Who needs to hear it? Think about your audience very carefully.

It was decided by Ben that the class does not have to have a draft of the metacommentary next Thursday, only the letter itself.

Brittney asks for more detail concerning the metacommentary.

Ben responds:

· It should answer the question, “why did you do it that way?”

· It should be an explanation of your primary way of letting other(s) know about your inconvenient truth

· The text plus metacommetnary should both equal 1000 words

Ben mentions that if your project’s content doesn’t relate to what we have been studying in class, you should make a theoretical link to something in class.

Sex Murders.

It is asked if anyone investigated this topic further. Relative silence.

Ben says: Really? No one found anything?

Ben begins describing to the class what he calls Basic Research 101

Ben: “Look how easy this is children”

Class: murmurs

Ben: So.

Ben attempts to bring up Google but mutters “are you serious” when the University of Minnesota Internet fails to work. He apparently hates technology.

It is taught that the class should conduct research on sex murders by imputing “Hitler “Sex Murders” into Google. A famous book by Fiest entitled Hitler comes up in Google Books with a result.

Ben insists that this is really easy, that there is no excuse not to do it.

In the example from Hitler, Hitler’s speeches are compared to sexual processes. Some important key phrases in the text included:

· Holy erotic fever

· “Only bride”

· Obscene, copulatory character of mass meetings

The class learns that typing a phrase such as “sex murders” in order to figure out what it refers to is actually really easy. It is so easy that there is no reason why we should not have done it. Really. Google is an important tool for students to use, even for the most (minor?) tidbits of information to be researched.

Page 73 of White Noise is referenced.

A passing mention to the film, Triumph of the Will, a 1.5 hour film depicting mass meetings of people witnessing Hitler’s speeches.

Dialectic:

· Internal tension between a thing and its opposite often contained within the thing itself. It can be positive, such as when the thesis and antithesis combine to progress history (Hegel).

In literature, “little death” has historically been used to refer to an orgasm. Sex and death are inextricably linked.

Ben wants to discuss a couple more things, not limited to:

· The curious coupling of irrationality? and rationality

· For all his abandon, he never lost control

· Exist at the same time in dialectical tension

The masses, to Hitler, are seen as feminine. The class ponders why. What is nationhood?

I think (to myself that) the feminization of the masses to Hitler places his speeches further within sexualized, gendered discourses frequently used within the context of colonialist and imperialist thought. To feminize something is to justify its conquest, its obedience and subordination. To feminize the masses is to see oneself as dominating, powerful, penetrating, sexually potent. To impregnate, control. I stay silent, preferring to think this to myself than go into gendered colonialist discourse; referring to an engraving of Vespucci from the mid 16^th century seems out of place.

Wikileaks. It has been revealed that US diplomats have been involved in espionage. A US soldier was accused of aiding the enemy. Who is the enemy, exactly? Hallie corrects Ben on a minor point that the soldier who leaked the Afghanistan and Iraq war diaries has been in solitary confinement for a year.

We move on to the Arendt reading. The reading was at the end of a thick book. We pair off and and work together to determine the question that Arendt is asking and her thesis. The class seems to have some difficulty with the activity but seems to get it in the end. Ben provides hints: they (the answers that he got) are not on the same page.

The class learns that for every text they read that makes an argument, they should try to find the question that is being answered and the thesis that the author presents. The activity was designed to give everyone practice thinking critically about questions and theses presented in texts as well as practice finding them in a specific example (Arendt).

The difference between isolation and loneliness is discussed. Loneliness is decided to be the emptiness felt when you lose part of yourself. It is not chosen, but forced upon you. Isolation is not being with other people in a physical sense.