Why mustn’t I self-efface? Such an act in self-abnegation presents the narcissistic notion that I am objective, absolute, in my renderings of things. Instead of in a pristine mirror, my reflection seems more complete in the water’s surface where ripples refract me and constantly proffer me new perspectives: nature’s subjective rendition of my physique for me to observe subjectively. A subjectivity reflected in all writing. Even the most subjective pieces carry within them an objective truth, for the act of writing itself attempts to apprehend and abstract the subject by devoiding subjective voids, by coming forth from absence’s infinite nihility and allowing the subject to simultaneously present itself in absence and negate and abstract itself in the immediate present, thereby making itself infinitely present in both absence and presence. Writing reveals many contradictions and oppositions and is itself a power struggle. Pouvoir exists within it as a coercive force, declaring “absolution” and “perfection,” all the while neglecting humanity’s state of complete desolation and inherent ability to adapt and evolve. In affirming its supremacy, pouvoir guarantees the presence of its antithesis. The superior dons the signifier “inferior” upon all of those whom he does not defer. The antipode emerges, even though it was already present, and thenceforth inhabits a space confined by the bar between superior/inferior, a trace of an epistemological coupure that the superior constructs to emancipate itself from and subordinate its inferior. Sometimes, inferiors attempt to counteract their superiors, and this struggle gives presence to puissance, a pervasive might that traces a conditional, subjunctive instinct for general and particular preservation. Although this might is conditioned upon power, it follows a path toward truth and uses pouvoir more as a referrence than a mirror; it does, however, attempt to place a mirror before the morally lazy gaze of the coercive. Individuals on both sides of the bar recognize the struggles for pouvoir on both sides of the bar. Puissance’s birth and development necessitates pouvoir, but puissance only achieves apotheosis and immanence once “pouvoir“‘s entire essence is placed under erasure, for puissance is a power to apperceive abuses of language and soul, the sources of such fracas, and the means of subduing all ideology, to postulate dialogistic conceptions of “freedom” and “virtue” and to comprehend that that which is not real, but imagined, can and does present itself in reality. Puissance is a counter-coercion that effracts the coupure, repudiating pouvoir’s refracted reality and expressing, tacitly and/or explicitly, that all language carries within it an inclination to evil when positing itself as equitable and absolute. Puissance is a unitary reaction to monologistic cogitations, an amalgam of singular shards constructed of the once singular, universal mirror that the global has since shattered. Its reconstructed surface is stronger than ever and reflects the invisible chaos of each moment, helping me to visualize the ulterior disjunctures of empirical reality.

While drunkenly leaving a party late one Saturday evening, I overheard a guy helping a friend to “hook-up”: “Women are there to be taken. Go and take her, man.” He then jogged off, leaving his friends and advisor in stitches, tickled by his enthusiasm. A perennial bro-ment. Some may call these men sexist. Others could claim that they’re merely exhibiting evolutionary exigences. Regardless of the interpretation, such thinking delineates a pervasive, contemporary perception of woman as an agentless object that exists despite sexual developments made in the 1960s and is affected by the media. Subjectification, the understanding and personal development of the individual’s identity is happening among women at an aggregate level, but so, too, is sustained shame at the mercy of others’ gazes. This collective cognitive dissonance manifests itself most prominently in the development of the hook-up culture and can help the reader to uproot several issues afflicting gender relations.

The hookup culture is the culmination of generational evolutions with regard to the power alloted to women within relationships. At first, the family used marriage as a financial exchange, the daughter, a mere device, completely lacking agency, her entire life founded upon her husband and his evolutionary desires. Later, women were proffered the chance to choose their husbands, but the exchange was very much facilitated by the family, and children always resulted. Then, the 1960s happened. Women procured more power over themselves but not complete, for, once starting families, these same women relinquished much of their liberty, willingly or unwillingly. However, women are beginning to marry later than previous generations, and this generation seems much more career-oriented than previous ones, two direct results of the lib movements. Moreover, media de-stigmatizes the “sexualized woman,” and women are beginning to understand themselves, collectively, on a sexual level, and these trends attest to significant alterations in gender roles. One such trend that has developed of late is the rising number of women who are choosing neither to marry nor to reproduce at all. The 60s clearly inculcated the prospect of collective subjectification, but critical issues regarding women’s rights still impede this nascent development’s possibility.

Despite burgeoning self-understanding, other social forces, working in tandem, maintain conservative approaches regarding female sexualization and encourage self-abnegation. Institutions such as schools, families, and religious bodies typically attempt to stifle sexual development in all people, but women are much more affected than men, for they are shamed for engaging in any sexual activity, whereas men are expected to be sexual; these institutions establish women as objects to be protected from and by men. Those women who seek to look beyond the aforementioned social influences find themselves victimized by other social forces such as cosmetic and magazine companies that profit from “sexy” advertizing and inculcate insecurity within women by making them think that they need certain products to be “beautiful.” What’s more, media and models influence how men conceive “beautiful,” and men, thusly, transpose this perception onto the women they meet. Additionally, men still have the power to determine the beginning of a relationship, and they make these decisions based more on appearances than anything. After experiencing all of these social factors, many women begin to feel that they are the problem. Wait, so women are gaining more freedom in relation to men but still believe that they are themselves a problem? Clearly, a schism exists: institutions that establish women as objects, vilifying sexual behavior and preventing subjectification, exist alongside institutions that encourage subjective sexualization but ultimately treat women as consuming objects, and therefore metamorphose them into revenue.

Where such a strong division exists, so, too, exist crises which can be found in the fact that most women think there is something inherently wrong with them, be it physically, intellectually, or emotionally. This is because these institutions evince the notion of woman as an object that needs protection, that cannot think independently, that consumes in order to overcome insecurities impressed upon her by other institutions, and that must reproduce. Unless woman fits a certain mould, she is deficient. The greatest contemporary example of insecurity and objectification for me is the skin-tight leggings that many women wear. Many complain about men ogling them. It interests me because they surely must know that they solicit ogles. Their complaining is a form of sublimating their way out of cognitive dissonance, for they want to acknowledge the attention they receive, but the only socially acceptable means of doing so is by stigmatizing man’s objectifying gaze. However, this gaze is her validating factor, and it provides instant gratification insofar as she allows herself to remain an object. In an age of mass-information where little is left to the imagination, these women can only derive this satisfaction, and even survive, by submitting themselves to more and more objectification. For example, in Italy, many women feel they have better chances of getting a job by strutting around in a bikini on reality TV as opposed to earning a college degree. This most likely results from the fact that the contemporary society is not adapting itself to social changes, and, therefore, causes human inertia, as we force ourselves to adapt more and more to technology, not vice versa. Perhaps demographic shifts will act upon society, helping it to alter perceptions of “womanhood” and “sexuality” and to establish new societal priorities, but we’ve gotten pretty lazy since the rhetorical victories of the 1960s.

Women possess the most static position in human history, but generational trends attest to great changes in the coming decades. Women have achieved a lot of ground in the past 50 years, but many institutions continue to act upon women and exacerbate gendered issues. Women do have more agency, but contemporary priorities remain obstinate and continue to affect negatively chances for women to overcome their objectified position. Despite social proclivities to keep women either sequestered as man’s object or marginalized as a consumer, these new trends are only beginning and will not reverse themselves; therefore policy must address this predilection, not stifle it. Moreover, many men can help the situation by recognizing their power in relation to women who are rendered weak in contemporary conditions. One is not incorrect to say that “women are there to be taken,” but the true power lies in helping women to understand themselves, not confirming their subaltern status. Gender roles in America and the West are beginning an irreversible change, and it’s about time that individuals and institutions assume a more active role in accommodating this evolution.

Having a maximum wage would negate the illusion that hegemonic classes want to impress upon the proletariat, meaning anyone who is not of insane wealth. A minimum wage signifies the the possibility of the American dream, for if you work, you will always have something to build upon, whereas the lack of a maximum wage informs us that America is still the land of limitless opportunity, even if it isn’t.

And in this day and age what is it that constitutes the principle underlying the power of the State? Why, it is science. Yes, science - Science of government, science of administration and financial science; the science of fleecing the flocks of the people without their bleating too loudly and, when they start to bleat, the science of urging silence, patience and obedience upon them by means of a scientifically organised force: the science of deceiving and dividing the masses of the people and keeping them allays in a salutary ignorance lest they ever become able, by helping one another and pooling their efforts, to conjure up a power capable of overturning States; and, above all, military science with all its tried and tested weaponry, these formidable instruments of destruction which ‘work wonders’ (2): and lastly, the science of genius which has conjured up steamships, railways and telegraphy which, by turning every government into a hundred armed, a thousand armed Briareos (3), giving it the power to be, act and arrest everywhere at once - has brought about the most formidable political centralisation the world has ever witnessed.

“I” am we

The simultaneous publication of articles concerning an FGCU anthropology student earning a Fulbright award and Rick Scott’s desire to cut funding for liberal arts education betrays a severe American societal issue and can provide Floridians with an answer to a millenia old philosophical debate.

One thing I observed that really interested me over the summer was that the French youth generally asked me how to say curse words in English, but the Tsigans and Malians, especially Touareg, all wanted to know words of benediction. “Freedom,” “thank you,” “beautiful,” etc. Upon thinking about when I started learning French and my desire and the desire of my peers to know curse words, I concluded that it must be an issue of individualist vs. collectivist cultures.

Why are the margins so wide?

“Our memories reach back no further than yesterday; we are, as it were, strangers to ourselves. We move through time in such a singular manner that, as we advance, the past is lost to us forever. That is but a natural consequence of a culture that consists entirely of imports and imitation. Among us there is no internal development, no natural progress; new ideas sweep out the old, because they are not derived from the old but tumble down upon us from who knows where. We absorb all our ideas ready-made, and therefore the indelible trace left in the mind by a progressive movement of ideas, which gives it strength, does not shape our intellect. We grow, but we do not mature; we move, but along a crooked path, that is, one that does not lead to the desired goal. We are like children who have not been taught to think for themselves: when they become adults, they have nothing of their their own—all their knowledge is on the surface of their being, their soul is not within them. That is precisely our situation.” -Pyotr Chaadaev, 1829

Watcha Clan’s opening piece at St. Paterne 25/6. After chatting with the band, I slept on a field from 3:30am until about 7 and then hitchhiked 13km before a very kind 81 y/o woman picked me up. Got back to Tours at 10.