A Reflection on Tunisian Coffeehouses--Krystal Sweitzer

I was excited to read about “Café Tunis” in chapter 4 of Cantwell’s book…I just so happened to have spent a few weeks in Tunisia on a cultural immersion trip in 2009 and a whole group of memories were recalled.  I experienced something similar to what Bess Lomax Hawes noticed: “I wonder how many attending the Festival had any idea where Tunisia actually is?” since most of my family and friends had no idea where I was heading off to…and truthfully, I didn’t know either, until the trip of course.  On my first day in Tunisia (discounting that vague day when we landed and the jet lag sent us all to bed) I walked into a coffee shop with a male friend.  I dressed conservatively, and was comfortable seeing the familiar words for coffee, tea, and small food items listed out in Arabic (I had studied the language for about a year at this point).  I was surprised when my friend was served a small cup of thick espresso and no one even bothered to ask if I wanted a drink.  I was immediately unsettled when I realized that all eyes were on me, in a not so friendly manner.  I asked the waiter (in Arabic) for mint tea, please, and was “Shushed” in a ridiculously overdramatic fashion.  Needless to say, I was confused, offended, and wanted to get the heck out of there.  It was only later after speaking with my professor (who was born in Tunisia) that women were not allowed in coffee shops, ever.  They maintained their status as a sacred “watering hole” for men to talk, drink together, and establish relationships.  The burgeoning feminist in me was appalled by this.  I think, however, that this initial reaction was wrong.  I was an outsider, someone not aware of the intricate reasons why the men had their coffee shops.  My professor was kind enough to help me understand the issue better because men were often “kicked-out” of the house when the women prepared a large meal.  He explained that men were simply not allowed in the kitchen, and with no one around to talk with, the need for camaraderie and friendship sent them in search of their “exclusive” realm.  Just as his mother/aunt/sister/wife talked in the kitchen, kicking the men to the streets when it was busy, the men had their realm away.  When we were invited to my professor’s house (rather, his childhood home) for a “family” dinner of sorts, I never once saw the women who cooked our amazing food.  When we were invited in, we sat in front of a TV and socialized with the father of the house, were seated in the dining room, and served without every seeing the mom/aunt/wife who graciously cooked (all day) for us (the sister did come out and serve the food, but she was reluctant to linger).  It was odd not being able to thank the women who made that amazing couscous, and I felt uncomfortable as the only other women in the house not being part of that definitive household sphere where I would normally be helping to clean up.  It was a cultural experience, and one filled with moments of complete confusion, and delicious couscous!

More directly in context to Cantwell’s chapter I see how hard it would be to adequately (accurately?) convey a sense of a culture when that “culture” is not the same between family members.  The Tunisians had since moved to Canada; their culture was something unique from my in country experience.  How to invite a positive “glance” into a culture without putting that exclusive “box” of authenticity around it that negates all that do not make the cut??  Cantwell reflects: “The coffeehouse has something of a private character, like the household, and yet also a public character, like the marketplace; each man appears independent of his household relations, but at the same time as the representative and guardian of them” (88).  The social patterns of a community are difficult to elucidate as an outsider, and as an insider, they are likely even more difficult to translate.  What an American female in their coffeehouse meant to those that I intruded on in Tunisia was evident from their stares, but it is not that in another circumstance I would have been glared at for being an American or a female, it was that particular insight where I had unknowing trampled upon a custom, something important and crucial to their culture.  Just as the men are expected to be that guardian of their household relations, and accurately represent himself as such, the coffeehouse itself must also guard the “expectations” of its role as a coffeehouse.  The experience was awkward, but helps me reflect on the need to not pass judgment too quickly; often my “American” and uniquely “Krystal” lens will not help me see others more clearly, it can often serve to mar and corrupt my understanding.

See you all tomorrow!!

The American Face Performance by S Rocha

     The Claude S. Fisher chapter particularly resonated with me in his conversation on the 

American search for self.  The application of principles from this discussion allows us to look at the performance world around us as well as within us.  We are the constructs of script and presentation that dictates the social or political demands of the moment.  This goes back to our discussions on authenticity, the search for the real-self and how human sincerity is achieved or more specifically, how it can be actualized in this western construction.  I say construction, because the readings in this class have carefully led us through the foundations of European imperialist notions. These notions became tenets of a belief system that distinguished the common from the bourgeoisie. It fueled the misconception of the inequality of humanity that existed between varying social and ethnic groups.  And this is just within the context of Europe.  The response to variations in culture, language and image as existed on the frontier of the titled America, extended a now Euro-American search for self within the contextual challenges created by the dynamics of land and Others—all directed by the manifest manners (see Gerald Vizenor) that drove their oxen forward. 

     In the 21^st century, we as the Other, continue our struggle with the character personas we assume and the scripts that shape them.  We strive to deconstruct the illusion that the script is necessary and yet, in order to survive (not alone function) within the theater of what I will assert is indeed a neocolonial production, we try to “improve our characters” in order to defend our status (204).  Not unlike Fisher describes as the American endeavor to both authenticate the self while risking the “psychological disorientation and stress” of social “costume changing” (Ibid).

     Fisher’s discussion is so fascinating and illuminating because it gives insight into the essence of character and authenticity that guides the American conception of self.  It also insinuates that there is another way to re-imagine a psychology of authenticity.  For the so-called folk, there is an entirely different set of values or ways of understanding how the self manages and sustains.  For lack of time and space, I will not go into depth on this except to say, as Fisher notes, in other cultures there are variances in how groups reflect upon themselves and construct themselves.  In short form, if folk have what is essentially a spiritual/social/cultural framework still in tact, one that is not colonized or disassembled under the weight of the American imaginary, then there exists a praxis for maintaining health.  Health interconnects the spiritual, emotional, physical and spiritual and is based on ancient modes of human sustenance. Fisher frames a similar notion for twentieth century America as happiness scholarship (239).  The folk might call it “the ways”. 

     And in jest, I say that Facebook might define it as the “Profile Page”.

Ideology in Politics- Joshua Salyers

As is often the case with each week’s readings, I find myself following authors’ attempts to clarify terminology or conceptual positions. This week, Terry Eagleton’s discussion of the volatile nature of expressing a standard understanding of ideology especially struck me. Understanding that multiple ideologies exist at once, he effectively removes the discussion of defining ideology from the realm of academic speculation and presents a common understanding of the term in what he called the “person-in-the-street” definition. Eagleton’s person-in-the-street definition of ideology illustrates the implied pejorative accusation of someone claiming that another person “judges a particular issue through some ridged framework of preconceived ideas.” Aside from providing a definition clearly illustrating the common understanding of ideology outside of academic qualifiers, Eagleton does an excellent job of explaining the cause for such an understanding. With ideology, an oversimplification of the world is implied. As we learn later, however, ideology is considered less as a tool to simplify and more as a tool distort and mystify as it derives meaning from the intersections between discourse and power. This reminds me of several of James Scott’s works, specifically Domination and the Arts of Resistance and Seeing like a State. Clearly, ideology can serve a distorting purpose and assist in secure systems of domination. As I read his article with Scott’s works in mind, I wondered if he would offer a prescription for how to approach different definitions of ideology. Essentially, understanding that multiple ideologies can exist at once is a necessity of 

Without disclosing my personal political proclivities (even though this transparency might be considered ideal for a historian), these issues of the use of ideology are played out in political discourse all the time. How often has a more liberally oriented person complained that some poor southerners ‘ideologically’ (hence the implication of irrationally) support Republicans while they would materially benefit more from the social welfare programs of Democrats? To explain this seemingly incoherent phenomenon, the concept of ideology is evoked as an explanation within a certain power relationship. This illustrates Eagleton’s point that a form of consciousness should not be considered ideological because it is “in factual error.”

            

The Real Thing

Blog 7

Pat Bc

The Real Thing

The 1960’s through 1970’s was a period of change brought about by the unrest within the minds and souls of individuals.  Triggered by inequities within the political and economic structures, individuals were disenchanted with society within America.   Elitism shapes ideology in the superstructures of society which work to the good of the elite and not the proletariat (Eagleton, 1991).   The Chicano, Indigenous, Pan Asian, Black, and Feminist Movements’ struggles for equality and opportunity brought revolutionary changes to all of America’s institutions which spawned a shift in political, economic, and religious ideology.  It is through the commonality of the movements that an interconnectedness was created through the  bond of the masses (Eagleton, 1991).  This shift in turn fostered transformation in the self (Fischer, 2010).  Transformation of America occurred through new ideologies of civic virtues and values which were expressed through a renewal in the pastoral movement, arts and crafts.   Ideology is presumed to be passé but it is evident through the social movements of this period.

Renewal meant dropping out of the established societal ideologies for some and making a declaration for a new republic (Eagelton, 1991).   New civic virtues and values declaring  a collective mode of consciousness (Lears, 1981) in sharing of the responsibility in saving humanity and the planet  quite similar to the antebellum romantic period (Lears, 1981). Reformists known as activists sought to create and foster economic and social change in those who may be less fortunate.  This meant active renewal of one’s self through community and political world involvement through programs such as Peace Corps Green Peace, and The Wildlife Fund Organization.    

Arts and crafts articulate the values of the 70’s individual through expression in music, poetry, art and dress.  A revival of handicrafts was also prevalent through fairs and living styles. Individuals sought to express their skills through woodwork, and the integration of indigenous and other cultural arts through pottery, weaving, candle making, macramé, tie-dying, and so on.

The “Simple Life” (Eagelton, 1991) was a major aspect in the 60’s and 70’s with a return to pastoralism.  For some communes became a new lifestyle while for others similar adaptations of simplicity were developed within the home.  For example, the natural look became part of one’s identity through individuality in clothing and natural food styles.  Yet capitalism began to make changes as well by seizing on multiculturalism through the Earth Movement.  In 1971, the Coca Cola Company came out with a change in advertisement strategies, “It’s the Real Thing.”   The real thing was the need for authencity in people and its products.   Through multicultural advertisement it became one of the first indications of capitalism through the globalization of cultures (www.cocacola.com) and the loss of self. Thus capitalism continues to lure people into false consciousness (Eagleton, 1991) as evidenced in the transformation of 4^th Avenue and Mill Street in Tempe from hippie to new post modern establishments that indicate another shift in political and economic ideology and society’s illusion of self.

My Father, (a) True Character

In Fischer's article (and a bit in Lears), I see the struggles of my father's life.  Born in the 1930s, his youth in the 1940s ducked him out of WWII, and his education in engineering kept him safe from other twentieth-century conflicts.  My father is a distinctly talented man -- mathematical, musical, creative with his hands.  He and my mother started their married life together poor as molasses, with a child immediately on the way and the expectation that they would figure out how to carve out a life as an independent couple.  The opportunities presented to them by the economic boom of 1950s America allowed my mother to stay home and my father to become the ubiquitous "self-made man."

Despite raising a family, working for years in respectable positions for well-known companies, and eventually owning his own company, I see in my father the crisis Fischer mentions of modern America -- that of too many choices.  My father seems to feel that he needed to fulfill ALL of his talents in order to achieve his maximum potential .  This drove him, in addition to his reasonable success in the business/work world, to take up banjo, the guitar, singing, whittling (he would pick up a knife and piece of wood and carve a dog, a bird, a linked chain…), canoeing, baking, auto mechanics, aviation (he earned his pilot's license), downhill skiing (at this he has been and continues to be a master, well into his 70s), languages, and any number of artistic and athletic endeavors.  Perhaps some might interpret him as taking life by the horns and living it to the fullest.  Perhaps one might view him as a "Renaissance Man."  But despite his gregarious character and ready smile, I always felt he was driven not by a joy of life, but by a sense that he needed to fulfill all these skills, all these talents and qualities in his life -- or he would somehow fall short.  Jack of all trades, master of … well, enough of them (I don't want to sell my dad short … he is my hero after all), he somehow found himself swimming in the muck of modernity, lured into the vast potential of all the options available to him.  He seems to have bought into the idea that one could do anything, one could find the ultimate satisfaction and happiness through complete self-fulfillment of one's natural and genuine talents.  But when one is talented in so many ways, how can one follow them all?

Fischer raises the question about whether fewer options lead to greater happiness.  Counter-intuitively to a modern Western society that values freedom of choice, I would argue that fewer options might lead to a much greater sense of fulfillment when one achieves goals -- even if these are not in the area of someone's intrinsic strengths.  After all, our society never stopped appreciating the value of rising to the challenge, despite one's own personal weaknesses .  Don’t we all love the story of success when all odds are stacked against the hero?  Did such a story ever go out of style, through all the epochs, years, and contemporary trends Fischer highlights in his article?  And, when one thinks of the hero rising to the occasion despite personal weakness, isn't that the definition of character?  Perhaps Mary G. Chandler was onto something after all.

- Kelley Merriam Castro

Eagleton has saved my television...

Reading through Terry Eagleton’s article this week, I felt both extremely frustrated and simultaneously fulfilled. Often when I read of ideology, most often in history books (let’s admit historians in grad school have little time for much else), I am stricken by the complexity of the concepts and the layers of discourse that often exaggerated ideals intersect. However, time after time I find myself frustrated with the author’s inability to grasp the concept that just because some people may have agreed or articulated certain points of view that it does not make the conceptualization universal. I have, I must admit, found myself yelling at history programs on television for example that oversimplify such things as the Ideology of the Mexican Revolution, or the racial understandings at play in US slavery. I find that many scholars and television producers seem to think that if they disuse their confusion around the very concept of ideology and hide the extreme variety of individual and group opinions that viewers/readers will be happier and they can sell more commercial space with the extra time it would have taken to discuss alternative realities.

            The most rewarding contribution of Engleton’s work, besides saving me from having to curse angrily at the television (Now I can say, WHY HAVN’T YOU READ TERRY EAGLETON ALREADY!), is that he allows us to wrap our minds around the fact that two, three, let’s just say many, ideologies can co-exist within a desired space and can contradict and support each other at the same time. As scholars it is our job to make sense of the many layers of a situation rather than try and fit all the square pieces into a round globe. While we will inevitably be asked to bring focus to our work (most likely by a dissertation adviser or committee) we do not have to be guilty for thinking there is more to ideology than meets the eye.

- Sarah Howard

For those interested: Marx and Ideology… A dry but interesting short lecture on Ideology by Ron Strickland (Professor at Illinois State)

Interconnectedness, and the Mentality of the Masses--Katie Moore

I’m beginning to find it hard to deal with any of the concepts we’ve covered thus far in class and readings in and of themselves (i.e. ideology, mentality, authenticity, habitus, practice theory, reflexivity, etc).  It seems like they are all so interrelated that it is hard to conceptualize any one in isolation.  Authenticity is a big part of the American “mentality” as discussed by Fischer (2010:203); Victorian Americans consciously crafted their “selves” by developing their personal character while striving to remaining sincere in their relationships with others and suspicious of the sincerity of others.  Later they turned inward to seek a “true” rather than a “new” self unadulterated by the reserve and restraint demanded by popular society.  The mentality of re-crafting oneself is inherently self-reflexive and at the same time is largely influenced by overarching ideologies (which we found out can mean many things, according to the variety of definitions and applications explored by Eagleton).  All of this is connected to Bordieu’s concept of habitus and practice theory and as the place between the self and the social, where everyday practice is at once shaped by social constructs and dominant forces while simultaneously an opportunity to ignite change and challenge the way things are.

On another note, I found the Fischer article very interesting for its methodology of trying to actually track the changes in the mentality of Americans from some of the earliest colonists through today, rather than the psychological “standards” throughout time.  It is hard to get at the minds of ordinary people in the past, because the masses often lacked the resources, skills, or forums to be heard.  This leads to a study of mentality filtered through the lens of the upper class and of academics or experts who deem themselves authorities on the subject.  This problem is also relevant in history and historical archaeology where we really have to “dig” to get beyond the extant information that the upper class and powerful deemed important enough to write down.

It is interesting to think about how this problem has largely changed, especially in the last 20 years (at least in the US).  Almost everyone, regardless of economic class has access to the internet, television, cell phones, and at least an elementary level education (granted the variability to access is a big asterisk in this discussion).  Public libraries and public schools make computers and internet access available to virtually anyone, and anyone with internet access has the ability to be heard through social networking sites, commenting or “twittering” about news stories (which are often incorporated into new broadcasts in order to get the opinions of the masses), or creating a blog.  It seems that tracking the “mentality” of modern Americans can draw on a much wider resource base than in the past, although whether the average person feels “heard” in that wormhole of endlessly expanding information we call the internet is up for debate.

I really enjoyed the Fischer article, but I also felt like there was a big gap in the data set which often jumped from the Victorian era to the 1950s and beyond with little regard for what was going on in between.  The discussions of “control” and “choice” in particular would have benefitted from the inclusion of the WWI and WWII eras, á la women’s rights, Rosie the Riveter, rations, economic security, etc.