Walking in the City- Michel de Certeau

the following is a write up on Walking in the City by Vandana S.

-------------------

Michel de Certeau was a French scholar whose work combined history, psychoanalysis, philosophy, and the social sciences. He was greatly influenced by Sigmund Freud and Jacques Lacan. Certeau’s essay Walking in the City is from his well-known book The Practice of Everyday Life. It was originally published in French in the year 1980. Steven Rendall translated it into English in 1984. The book is considered as very influential in cultural studies as it talks about the value of everyday life.

The essay is carefully poised between poetry and semiotics. It begins with looking down on the city of New York from the top of the World Trade Centre, and enjoying the pleasures of seeing the city laid out below. He says ‘to be lifted to the summit of the World Trade Centre is to be lifted out of the city’s grasp’. Through this one gets a voyeuristic pleasure by being able to watch the city from a distance. But to understand the everyday life, one must finally fall back into the dark space where crowds move back and forth.

A city can exist only if there are people in it. The ordinary practitioners of the city are the pedestrians who make use of the spaces to walk and they bring life to the city. The pedestrians on the streets write the urban ‘text’ without being able to read it.

Walking in the city turns out to have its own logic – or as de Crerteau puts it, its own rhetoric. The walker individuates and makes ambiguous the ‘legible’ order given to cities by planners, a little like waking lie is displaced and ambiguated by dreaming- to take one of de Certeau’s several analogies. Walking in the City has been very influential in cultural studies just because of the waay that it uses both imagination and technical semiotic analysis to show how everyday life has particular value when it takes place in the gaps of larger power-structures.

Myth Today- Roland Barthes

the following is a write up on Myth Today by Farah Aleem Ghori

-----------------

Roland Barthes born in 1915 was a French literary critic and semiotician. Barthes has contributed to the field of mythology, semeiology and structuralism.

Mythologies is the title of a book by Roland Barthes which was published in 1957. It examines the creation of modern myths. Barthes also looks into the process of myth creation. He revises Ferdinand de Saussure's system of sign analysis by adding a second level where signs are elevated to the level of myth. Mythologies is split into two: Mythologies and Myth Today, the first section consisting of a collection of essays on selected modern myths and the second further and general analysis of the concept.

Roland Barthes says that only rhetorical forms of bourgeois myth can be sketched and not the dialectic or categorical forms. Rhetoric over here means a set of fixed regulated figures according to which the mythical signifier arranges themselves. In the contemporary bourgeois society, it is through their rhetoric that the passage from the real to the ideological is defined as that from an anti-physis to pseudo-physis. This defines the dream of the bourgeois world. Roland Barthes also lists out its principal figures.

The inoculation

This is a form of captivating language. It consists of acknowledging a small or accidental detail (or evil, as Barthes calls it) to mask bigger details or problems. A good example concerns the army: “Yes, the army is a stiff and blind and narrow minded– but it is also our greatest defence, the savoir of our country and a tool for spreading bigger good”. This kind of language is usually used concerning institutions, to create a good-bad balance for them to exist in, where one side always outweighs the other, serving the purpose of the institution. Barthes here speaks about the changing nature of the bourgeois. It has changed its position from being rigid to flexible. This has given way to a balanced economy.

The privation of history

Barthes argues that myth-making removes from an object all of its history. He gives the example of the ideal servant, who prepares everything. However, disappears when the master arrives. The master thus enjoys this beautiful product without wondering from where it comes from. Myth-making removes from an object all of its history and place in reality, and through the irresponsibility of language, removes any freedom concerning the object. This is because anything outside of reality is hard to change. By making something eternal its freedom to be anything else disappears and it is caught in the false reality of language.

Identification

The petit-bourgeois is unable to imagine the Other. He either transforms the Other or denies it. One example can be media’s portrayal of women. The difference between men and women is minimized to the extent that they follow the same lifestyles. They have equal and same status as of men in the society. This confirms that the “otherness” is reduced to “sameness”. However women are not the main characters of the discussion and this implies the marginality, in other words, the bourgeoisie’s partial incapability to imagine the Other.

Tautology

According to Barthes “Tautology is this verbal device which consists of defining like by like (‘Drama is Drama’)”. When one is at a loss for explanation, there is accidental failure of language. Here, one kills rationality because it resists one, one kills language because it betrays one. Barthes also quotes a great example of this: “Because thats how it is, just because.” Another one I add is “It is what it is“. Such statements defy logic because they make anything permissible: the statement justify themselves. This work like in math, when one gets x=x, which is meaningless but absurdly true. Once again: this represent the boundaries of where language ends and cannot keep up with the reality is trying to describe. Thus, it creates an excuse to get around and further than reality, something of its own. Tautology thus creates a dead and motionless world as refusal of language is its death.

Neither-Norism

This is quite similar in method to Barthes’ inoculation. A balance is created by weighing too sides against each other. Here however, the myth-maker strives to create equality between both sides. Neither is better or worse than the other. They are weighed in relation to each other. Any objective qualities the two sides may have are lost.

The quantification of quality

When language cannot handle the complexities of reality, it strives to economize the world: qualities become quantities, and once again, language goes beyond reality to judge it. This is a figure concealed in all the preceding ones. Myth understands reality more cheaply by reducing any quality to quantity.

The statement of fact

Barthes argues myths tend towards proverbs, as a function of generalization and institutionalization. Barthes says that speech in particular can be of two types: active or reflexive. He uses the example of a farmer stating “the weather is fine” as active speech. This is because language here keeps a link to the real weather outside and its usefulness. Active language is almost technical language. Active language later turns in to reflexive language, which is removed from reality now. It allows for no freedom, and like a tautology, does not represent anything other than itself. Reflexive language is simpler and a form of generalization.

These rhetoric figures are without any special order. There can also be additions and subtractions to it. They can also be replaced with new figures.

Thus myths are born by trying to capture and possess the world. Myth-making tries to fix reality in one place and one form, to get out its essence by making it analogous to language. Myth-making tries to fix reality in one place and one form, to get out its essence by making it parallel to language. The failure of language merits myth-making. Simply because language cannot account for all of reality, generalizations must be made to deal with that.

In Barthes’s closing remarks in the ‘Necessity and limits of mythology’ section of ‘Myth Today’, he characteristically, positions himself (‘the mythologist himself’) as an excluded and alienated figure. The author begins this concluding section of his essay with a commentary on the nature and experience of mythologists, those who examine and understand myths (referring, it seems, and at least to some degree, to himself). He suggests first that "mythology is certain to participate in the making of the world," adding that "mythology harmonizes with the world, not as it is, but as it wants to create itself." He then goes on to write that that mythologists, by the very nature of what they do (examine and understand myths, their meaning and purpose) exist outside of both the meaning and purpose of myths, as well as outside the experience of the general, unenlightened humanity myths are clearly intended to affect.

Bibliography

"Barthes, Roland(1915–1980)." BookRags. N.p., n.d. Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

Krasovska, Laura. "Roland Barthes: Analysis of the Concept of Identification in Nowadays Media." N.p., 5.12.2006. Web. 6 Feb 2011. http://www.scribd.com/doc/4961779/Roland-Barthes-Analysis-of-the-Concept-of-Identification-in-Nowadays-Media

Kudryashov, Roman. "Roland Barthes – Myth Today."What are these ideas and why are they here?. 11- 9- 2010 . Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

"Mythologies Study Guide." BookRags. BookRags, n.d. Web. 6 Feb 2011. .

The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction- Walter Benjamin

following is a write up by Kusumika Mitra

-----------------

‘The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction’ by Walter Benjamin is a seminal essay that talks about how the advancement in technology, the emergence of new techniques has affected our perception of art. Structurally the essay has been divided into fifteen different sections with a preface and an epilogue. Each section deals with a separate aspect and contains arguments that the author successfully connects to the main argument of the essay.

Walter Benjamin begins by talking about the shift in the process of reproduction of image and the relationship of this shift with the society. He traces the reproduction of art from the hand (when a student tries to copy his master’s painting), to mechanical (lithography) and digital (photography) and says that with each of these shifts, the human effort decreases and the work becomes easier. Imitation has always been known to mankind. However with the coming in of mechanical reproduction (be it printing, lithography, photography), not only was there a development in the techniques but also the process of reproduction became faster. The author tries to explore the effects that the reproduction of art and the film as a medium have had on traditional art.

Walter Benjamin believes that time and space are two elements that can never be reproduced while reproducing any work of art. When a piece of art is created, it is done at a particular time and within a certain space. It is this that makes the work original and authentic. This particular time and space cannot be recreated. Thus the reproduced work cannot claim authenticity because authenticity lies in tradition. With the practice of reproducing works of art and recreating them, inevitably comes the question of authority. Benjamin believes that in the case of manual reproduction, the work reproduced is seen as forgery and thus the initial work of art maintains its originality and authority. However this is not the case with mechanical reproduction. The process of mechanical reproduction is independent of the original. For example, a painting put up in the museum can be captured by a camera and then later be reproduced in any studio in the form of a photograph. The original portrait need not be present in the studio while reproducing it. However during the process of manual reproduction, the painter needs to sit in front of the original and make a copy of it. Also due to mechanical reproduction the work of art is used in many situations where the presence of the original is not possible. For example a cathedral is captured through photography and put in an art studio. Thus though the original cannot be present inside the studio, a copy of it substitutes it. However Benjamin believes that though the mechanically reproduced work of art takes the place of the original under certain situations, there is something that gets lost in the process- the authenticity of the work of art. According to Benjamin, the authenticity of the work lies mainly in the history that the work has experienced. Thus it is the history of a work that determines its authenticity. Therefore this authenticity is lost in reproduction. Benjamin uses the term ‘aura’ to describe the element that gets lost in reproduction. Due to reproduction of a work of art the uniqueness is lost. With the medium of mechanical reproduction coming in, the number of copies of the ‘unique’ work of art increases. Thus its uniqueness decreases. In the absence of the mechanical reproduction, the aura is a natural one. Benjamin gives the example of a mountain and says that the shadow that is created by the mountain is a natural one and when we perceive it we know for sure that we cannot own it. However with the emergence of various techniques like photography and films, the same scene is captured and reproduced. Accessing it no longer become experiencing it but just visually seeing an image.

Art has always been known to be connected to tradition. It is context sensitive. Thus when a piece of art is created it is seen as a beautiful or an object of veneration by a group of people but the same creation is seen as ominous by another set of people. It is ritual based. But with the coming of mechanical reproduction, art no longer remains ritual based. In the age of secularization art becomes ‘art for art’s sake’. It is not as much based on rituals as much as on politics.

Benjamin also feels that with the introduction of techniques of reproduction of art, the emphasis has shifted from the cult value to the exhibition value. Earlier art was seen as something mystical and something that needed to be practiced in secrecy. This gave art its cult value. But with the coming of photography and films, art came to be for the masses. It got caught up in the economy and was seen as a source of profit. The value of art depended on the display of the work of art in public. This thus became the exhibition value. With the shift from cult to exhibition value, the quality of art also underwent a change.

Talking about the medium of film and the film actor, Benjamin believes that the actor and the audience are not in contact with each other. The actor is optically tested and the best of his shots, as judged by the director are compiled together and this is what the audience gets to see. Thus we are removed from the original actor and what we see is nothing but the manipulations of the camera. Again going back to talking about artistic aura, the author believes that though the actor does have an aura, this is a forged or a made up aura. The moment the person faces the camera, he is exiled from his own original self; he gets into the role of the character that he enacts. It is here where he maintains an aura (this aura is the aura of the character and not of the actor himself). Benjamin believes that this aura is forged because the moment the shot is over the actor gets out of the character and comes back to being himself. The aura too then vanishes. Benjamin also stresses on the fact that actors are individuals who have a false personality. This he says is because the actor becomes popular in the eyes of the audience because of the aura that he creates. This aura as Benjamin earlier points out is not the actor’s own but the character’s that he enacts. Thus he becomes famous because of the many illusions that he creates.

Talking about the painter and the cameraman, Benjamin believes that the painter maintains the aura of the work by keeping a distance from the work of art. On the other hand the cameraman destroys this aura by minimizing the distance from the desired object. Though Benjamin criticizes films for destroying the aura and tampering with authenticity and originality, he also appreciated films for increasing the audience’s visual perception. This gives rise to a deeper engagement and a closer study and thus understanding of the medium.

After talking about the nature of art in the age of new technological advancement, he concludes his essay by talking about the anti- art movement or Dadaism. He emphasizes on how this movement too destroyed the aura of art and aimed at shocking the audience with unfamiliar and dissimilar images. Thus it can be noted that Benjamin’s conception of art is classical and thus it will not be wrong to conclude that Benjamin saw art to be deteriorating in the age of mechanical reproduction.

Works Cited

http://rhetor.blogs.com/visual/2006/02/walter_benjamin.html

Base and Superstructure- Raymond Williams

The following is a write up on Base and Superstructure by Sudeepta Mukerji

----------------

Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory is a critical essay by renowned Welsh academician, novelist, critic and an influential figure in the New Left, Raymond Henry Williams. His writings on politics, culture, the mass media and literature are some of the major contributions to the Marxist critique of culture and the arts.

Williams in his essay, ‘Base and Superstructure in Marxist Cultural Theory’, establishes the proposition that “social beings determine consciousness” as contradictory to the conventional model of analyzing Marxist theory by establishing the relation between the base and superstructure where base denotes the forces and relations of production and superstructure represents societal behaviour and culture as a whole. He dwells back to the linguistic roots of the word ‘determination’ and follows its inversion pattern in its English translation. ‘Determines’ which is translated from the German word bestimmen which determines the relationship between base and superstructure. He also brings in the idea that in European language there is a possibility of synonyms which might alter the meaning of a word. He brings about two possible meanings to the word ‘determines’, which can either be an external cause which controls a subsequent activity or can be seen as setting limits to an action.

Williams examines the predominant terms in Marxist theory mainly the model of ‘base’ and ‘superstructure’ as is also indicated through the title. One of the established definition of superstructure is, “…the reflection, the imitation or the reproduction of the base in the superstructure in more or less direct way”. Williams says that this proposition can be contested due to the non-economical basis of some actions, such as philosophy and other such fields. The notion of reflection and reproduction was later modified into the notion of ‘mediation’ in which something more than reflection and reproduction actively occurred. In the twentieth century there was the notion of ‘homogenous structures’ which was viewed as a basic homology or correspondence in all structures which can be discovered thorough the process of research. He harps on the inter-dependence and inter-relation between activities which blur the distinction between economic base and superstructures but instead make them related and connected or intertwined with each other. Williams also harps on the proposition of economic base being more crucial and vital for understanding the realities of cultural process. He says that base is never static or uniform since there are deep contradictions in the relationships of production thereby effecting the social relations. The base can thus be seen as a continuous process and not as a ‘state of being’ or as being static and constant. Williams talks about re-valuing notions in order to make them realistic and rational when placed in contemporary socio-economic relations. He argues that Marxist ideology is based on a certain economic structure which might be ambiguous when placed in the modern cultural scenario which is fast changing. He presents a much dynamic, interrelated and complex structure of the developing social conditions which in certain ways contradicts Marxist concepts of economic relations. Williams says that most often the complexities of modern society cannot be examined based on the ideologies of Marxist concepts.

Another key Marxist concept which has influenced many other Marxist thinkers and is also associated to Georg Lukacs in particular is the concept of ‘totality’. It opposed the layered structure of base determining the superstructure which believed that ‘social being determines consciousnesses’. One flaw in the concept of totality is that it can easily empty itself of the cultural phenomena attached to any concept. Thus the question put forth through the essay is “whether the notion of totality includes the notion of intention.” Williams contests the idea of categorizing work of art as superstructure. But he contradicts himself and states that certain kind of practices and customs have been so naturalised that they have to be considered as a part of superstructure in order to understand reality. He argues that ‘totality’ should be combined with Gramsci’s concept of hegemony so that asymmetrical and exploitative aspects of the society are considered. Williams finds the traditional notion of superstructure incomplete and ambiguous and shows his fear on the proposed concept of hegemony being viewed in a similar static and stereotypical manner. He also talks about the modern concept of re-inventing, re-modify and re-work on the existing notions and concepts to make them compatible with the contemporary scenarios. He views the idea of hegemony not just as dominant or manipulative but as a complex power structure which is continuously modified and developed. Such concepts change from place to place and time to time.

Williams also introduces the distinction between residual and emergent form of cultures. He defines residual culture as a practice which has evolved or rooted out from a previously existing dominant culture. Some of the religious practices which are influenced from the mainstream practices could serve as examples. Williams associates emergent culture with the newly evolving cultural practices, which demand to be incorporated within the mainstream practice. Thus they are neither an individual cultural concept nor completely accepted in the mainstream culture. Such cultural practices are in a limbo like state. Williams says the emergent culture will be valued and recognized if the dominant culture has a stake or interest on it. Otherwise an evolving culture might not receive due acknowledgement or recognition. For instance, artistic pursuits are encouraged till the time profit is made and it doesn’t contradict the dominant beliefs. Williams also raises the issue of the connection between literature and society and concludes that literature evolves from the society and thus can’t be evaluated separately. It is an integral part of the society. He says that any form of writing is highly influenced by the dominant cultural practices in the society. It embodies features and believes of the dominant society. He also says that some of the art expressions might include aspects of the emergent culture which might appeal to the masses. The dominant culture thus tries to “… transform, or seek to transform, them.” In the process that dominant culture itself develops. Williams says that in modern cultural society, dominant culture should develop and change in accordance to the changing times and attitude of the masses in order to be realistic and remain dominant. Literature thus coexists as a part of the dominant culture and becomes a prime mode of its articulation.

Most critics seem to give little emphasis on the process of production. But Marxist model through its base and superstructure metaphor tries to stress and acknowledge the process of production. Williams puts forth the contradiction of cultural theory as the work of art being perceived as an object and the alternative view of art as a practice. Art can be seen as an object, i.e. buildings, sculptures etc which exist as objects, on the other hand the phenomenal work of Shakespeare, the melody of music and other art forms such as dance, drama etc are perceived as a practice. Williams says that we shouldn’t look for the components of a product but for the conditions of practice. He says an active, encompassing and self renewing mode of analyses is what is needed to understand the cultural context and value of any studied material.

Work Cited:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raymond_Williams

http://social.jrank.org/pages/1503/base-superstructure.html

http://dictionary.reverso.net/english-cobuild/limbo

http://www.ualberta.ca/~jwilliam/wst320/raywm.html

Suggestions and mid semester exam paper feedback-2nd PSEmg

My classmates did have some suggestions regarding the mid semester paper and teaching methods.

Exam paper:

• The paper was too long. Every question was for 10 marks which needed elaborate answers and many could not finish the paper on time.
• Overemphasis on structuralism. More questions only from that topic.
• Limited choice since we dint do deconstruction and the Terry Eagleton question was compulsory.
• Questions were too text-bookish.

In class:

A few of my classmates wanted to have group presentations. We suggested dividing the class into groups and having interested people interact with the groups about topics dealt with in class.

Apart from this the class dint have any problem with the teaching method and claimed they pretty much understood everything taught in class.

Online Books, Poems, Short Stories - Read Print Library

Online Books, Poems, Short Stories - Read Print Library

Course Plans - BA English, BA Media and Communication, MA English, MS Communication, MPhil English and MPhil Media Studies/Communication Programmes

Following are the course plans that developed to teach courses in various BA English, BA Media and Communication, MA English, MS Communication, MPhil English and MPhil Media Studies/Communication Programmes. I am putting them for the benefit and use of those whom might find them useful.

(I will put them up as and when time permits)

News: A Leaner Howard U. - Inside Higher Ed

News: A Leaner Howard U. - Inside Higher Ed

News: So, Students Don't Learn -- Now What? - Inside Higher Ed

News: So, Students Don't Learn -- Now What? - Inside Higher Ed: "Richard Arum"

Invitation to Contribute Posts to this Blog

Anybody from any part of this globe, who is in higher education as a teacher,  researcher or student is welcome to contribute to this blog. If you do not belong to higher education, but are interested in academics and research, you are welcome too. You may post your lecture notes, class notes, analysis of essays, poems, novels, for the benefit of other's who might be searching for information, for class assignments, lecture preparation, professional development, and research grants in social sciences and humanities. You are also welcome to share experiments in teaching-testing-evaluation-research.

I hope people from non-English and marginalized languages and literature post write ups on their languages, literatures, and textual knowledge systems.

This blog does not encourage information or posts that are intended for commercial benefit.

If you are interested in becoming a regular contributor, please email me you gmail id at ajpinto42 AT gmail DOT com, along with some details about you and the nature of posts you wish to make.

All the Generations Before Me - Yehuda Amichai

Following are some of the links to resources on the poem 'All the Generations Before Me' by Yehuda Amichai.
1. A PPT on the Poem
2. Analysis of the poem
3.  From Google books
4.

2CEP- What Is Literature? by Terry Eagleton

WHAT IS LITERATURE

-Terry Eagleton

ABBREVIATIONS USED: lit= literature, lang= language

ABOUT TERRY EAGLETON:

- Still alive, from UK, Teaches at Cambridge, currently working on theology, comes from Marxist tradition.

-Raymond Williams influenced Eagleton. Williams is a key figure in culture studies. Eagleton differed from Williams, a general pattern in academic relations.

WHAT IS LITERATURE- General ideas

- Kant organized academics into disciplines

- Only 18th century Romantics, began trying to define lit.

- ‘Theory’ cannot have a single exception, because method means that all research should arrive at the same conclusion. Science does this best

- In Social Sciences, answers and conclusions are unimportant. The method or arriving at the conclusion is important, ie: how and why. ie: argumentation > conclusion

-Humanist vs Post Humanist

Post Humanists emphasize the varied ‘Positions of Author and Recipient’, and interactions of Speaker and Listener, Identity and Subject Position, Individual and Subject.

-Texts undergo cycles of relevancy

E.g.: Feminists loved, then hated, and are now re visiting Marx and his theory of labour. Environmentalists are referring to Marx’s idea on resources.

Broad topics argued by Eagleton, to define literature:

a-Imaginative writing?

b-Fact or fiction?

(His first 2 ideas, were Common Sense explanations of Literature. Common Sense is a literary concept from Plato till 1967, until Derrida broke it.)

c-Literature vs. Literature

d-Formalism (“organized violence committed on ordinary language”) (associated to Linguistics, Structuralism, Saussure). Formalism employed ‘scientific spirit (Pg 2)’: they relied on method and tried to be Objective. (Science can be falsified- Karl Popper) --Emphasis of Form/ Structure over Content -Importance of Devices

(Eagleton isn’t saying that the Formalists didn’t believe content was important. He says that Formalists believed that content isn’t the business of critics, but devices are)

e- Paradox: This estrangement from ordinary language (that the Formalists spoke of) brings us into a fuller possession of experience!

f- Norms?: Formalists identified lit. as a deviation from the norm (ordinary lang.). But what is the norm then?  Ordinary lang. itself differs across time and place. Slang doesn’t fit into this idea of the Formalists either.

g- Shift and Change: of time, place and context. (“context tells you it is literary but not the language”)

h- Making strange/ Matter of contrast (Pg 6)

i- Formalists think all lit = poetry, and thus prose is judged by the same scale as poetry.

j- “lit. may be at least as much a question of what people do to writing as of what writing does to them.” .

k- “lit is a non pragmatic discourse with no immediate practical purpose, but referring to a general state of affairs” . But what about Orwell’s essays studied as literature? (Pg 7-8)

l- Points j. and k. imply that lit is not Objective, but is up to how a person decides to read a text and not the nature of what is written (see also Point g.). There is no essence of lit (pg 8 & 9).

m- “Some texts are born literary, some achieve literariness, and some have literariness thrust upon them” (pg 8-9).

NOTE- I have made no lecture notes for pages 10, 11, 12, 13

n- Ideology: there is no randomness (Pg 14) (In India, when we began to include texts by Indian authors in Lit sylabbus, we included Ananthamurthy, RK Laxman. They all happen to be upper class, Hindu, males while most students of Lit were women. Power is maintained and exercised.)

o- Lit is constituted of value judgments. There can be no absolute definition of it, and only definitions that are “according to xyz” (Pg 15)

NOTE/ DISCLAIMER- My notes are by no means comprehensive of Eagleton’s original text. I have only included the information given by Mr Pinto during his lectures and some broad arguements covered in the essay. And out of my lecture notes, only that which is (seemingly?) relevant has been put up here. You still have to break your own head over the essay:).

II Year BA EST 431 Literary Theory Material

1. a. On What is Literature - Terry Eagleton. Notes by Satya, III Yr JPEng
    b. On What is Literature - Terry Eagleton. Notes by Noopur Raval, JNU
    c. On What is Literature - Terry Eagleton. Notes by Anoo, II Yr CEP
2. On Plato by Simran Purokayastha, II Yr PSEng 
3. a. On Thinkers from Aristotle till Mathew Arnold by Jyotsna S., II Yr PSEng
    b. On Thinkers from Aristotle till Mathew Arnold by Marisha Vashi, III Yr PSEng
4. Structuralism
5. On Saussure by Satya, III Yr JPEng
6. a. On Psychoanalytic Approach by Marisha Vashi, III Yr PSEng
    b. On 'Creative Writers and Day Dreaming' by Marisha Vashi, III Yr PSEng
7. Some more links to material from an earlier post

(Dear friends, if these notes are in any way helpful to you, please make it a point to thank in person your friends who have written these notes. Just as they give their time and energy to someone unknown to make their life a little more comfortable, you too find ways of doing it, in your own ways, to the unknowns. AP)

All the best

Lecture on Levi-Strauss Analysis of Oedipus Rex to II Yr JPEng- Clarification

I had mentioned in my lecture about Yayathi-Puru achetype. I had also mentioned mentioned about a play by Girish Karnad on the same story. Karnad has not translated it to English. However, there is a small write up on the story in Wiki. Click here for it.

Following are some of the previous post on Structuralist Approach of Levi-Strauss on Oedipus Rex.
1. Anil's ppt presentation on Levi-Strauss' Structuralist Analysis of Oedipus Rex
2. Notes by  Ashif who was 2009 Student of III PSEng
3. Anil's PPT points of the presentation on Levi-Strauss' Structuralist Analysis of Oedipus Rex
4. Classnotes of Sumana Sri from II CEP

Masters of Media » Small is Beautiful: a discussion with AAAARG architect Sean Dockray

Masters of Media » Small is Beautiful: a discussion with AAAARG architect Sean Dockray