Week+12+Discussion+Question

Christina McKee Ashley Mondale Lisa Weddell

__Gender__ 1. Jehlen writes, “From the perspective of gender, identity is a role, character traits are not autonomous qualities but functions and ways of relating. Actions define actors rather than vice versa. Connoting history and not nature, gender is not a category of human nature” (265). In describing the Judith Loftus episode in which Huck fails at pretending to be a girl and thus re-enforces his masculinity, Jehlen asserts that femininity is the opposite of masculinity and comes to that conclusion on the basis of Huck’s actions. In the twenty-first century have the roles of masculinity and femininity changed? How do we define masculinity and femininity, and what does it entail to be trans-gendered?

2. Jenhlen uses the Judith Loftus episode of //The Advenures of Huckleberry Finn// to illustrate many points. On page 269 Jenhlen writes Mrs. Loftus’ warning to Huck is “that gender is nurture rather than nature.” This argument, in a sense, is also made by certain religious leaders and politicos who believe that sexual orientation is a choice, and that gender is correctly “as God intended.” How, then, would these people account for someone like Chaz Bono?

3. Is the vocabulary of a male writer able to articulate female experiences accurately? Is the vocabulary of a male writer able to articulate male experiences accurately? (page 271)

4. Because we live in patriarchal societies, would it be fair to assume that our language is also male-dominated? Do women speak or write differently from men?

__Class__ 1. On page 411, O'Hara states that once upon a time, students of literary studies could have promising professional careers (with the necessary work, of course), "whatever their familial and national identities and circumstances". Now, he writes, students must "posses the politically correct "original identity" or" ... "affiliate themselves with one or another such identity" to succeed in the job market and the academy. Do you believe this line of thinking? Is this experience apparent in our English programs here at IUP?

2. O'Hara's article, while interesting was published in the early 90s and has the potential of being outdated. O'Hara replaces Marx's 19th-century theory of class with Elster's twentieth century views. While Marx separates class into five separate and distinct categories, Elster's theory of class "sees a group ever in formation and reformation, whose members are rational and self-interested agents who can choose among different options when responding to perceived historical conditions..." (416). As twenty-first century scholars how do we see the issue of class? Is it one in which we are free individual agents capable of changing our positions in society, or is that easier said than done? Do we align ourselves with Elster that class is a 'rational-choice model' or given the current economy and the unemployment levels etc have we come full circle and re-aligned ourselves with Marx and believe that history is the history of class struggle?

3. Marxism believes that human activities are interrelated and this interrelatedness allows us to understand ourselves and how we as individuals relate to and are affected by our society; however, class seems to be the aspect that truly determines our place in society. American belief tends to allow us to dream that we can transcend our class, but will the beliefs of our previous class continually affect and influence our actions within our new class?

4. O'Hara argues for the abolition of tenure in his article. He states on page 419 that he does "not believe it works to protect "free speech", whatever that may be". In what ways does a tenure based system harm (or not protect) free speech?

5. Giving some context to this question, on page 417 O'Hara writes about Elster's vision of class as a "rational choice" compared to Marx, and that Elster views class as participants in a game who not only think of themselves as rational agents seeking to maximize their interests through each other, but as individuals (actors) who act when they see their interests over-lap or are threatened by cooperation. O'Hara concludes "this 'rational-choice' model thus begins with the empirical experience of individuals who, whatever their circumstances and positions, act as if they are intelligent free agents." Personally, I find the "as if they are intelligent free agents" problematic. How do you read this statement? Is O'Hara implying that we are not intelligent free agents and that we cannot easily change our circumstances and positions? Or is there a different understanding that he wishes to convey? Does rational-choice exist as Elster claims it does, or is there a more complicated model at work? As individuals we are capable of coming together in the attempt to create a radical change, but is it likely to produce a change in class structure?