A Chemist's Exchange-Value: Pearls and Diamonds

Karl Marx is one of the most (in)famous philosophers of the 19^th century. While I would love to look at that thesis from the perspectives of Barthes and Foucault, I would instead like to look into the ideas Marx presents in relation to ideology. On page 177, Marx states (in jest), “So far no chemist has ever discovered exchange-value either in a pearl or diamond.”

Our labor relations are purely commodity driven, while our products are purely social. Who or what decided that gold is what we shall use to measure how valuable our goods are? It is interesting to talk about ideology in terms of money, for nowadays, we are critical of our consumer society, that we are too focused on money and wealth. However, it is so interesting that we have even created this system in the first place. Marx states that this economy is purely a social creation.

This reminds me of cultural mores. These traditions and protocol that is followed are completely social creations, yet we do not challenge them nor question their origin. A small one can be seen in the staircases in the Quad. The left staircase is labeled with a down arrow, the right staircase labeled with an up arrow. Yet the majority of traffic heading to class travels up the left staircase, and back down it again when they finish class. How did this start and why is it we do it? Bottom line, we do not challenge it nor seek its origin, it is a part of campus culture and that is enough.

Why did we start evaluating things in terms of nature? We measure our labor and products in terms of what they are worth in metal. This relationship is so arbitrary but is so ingrained in our daily lives that we cannot even comprehend a system otherwise.

In the book “Guns, Germs, and Steel” the author discusses the progress of human societies and “civilizations”. I personally believe that all progress stems back for our need for security and the essence of technology (constantly seeking to push forward, to challenge forth what is), but the author wonders what the world would be like if the original inhabitants of what is currently the United States had built ships and dominated Japan, or if the original inhabitants of South America had conquered Europeans. What if the Saxons had won? The questions go on and on, but truly, it is so interesting to think how different our world could be, yet what we choose to follow and idealize. 

Readers and Subjects

As we read about the author and reader, I feel it is imperative to discuss two things: the self, and philosophy. In chapter four of The Theory Toolbox, we have read a story about some ideas proposed, such as: “I am completely unique and unaffected by culture” (pg. 44).  Immediately, I think of the idea of a “nonconformist”, a self proclaimed individual who is separate from any and all cultural influences or pressures. Here’s the catch: By recognizing what is “opposite” of the culture and adapting to it, they are powerfully enforcing the norms by which they are choosing to be different from in their recognition.

I also feel strongly about the idea of the I and the self. Here is the philosophy piece of it. I feel these ideas are separate from one another and must be discussed differently. The I is always a part of our self, however, the I, though existent in every moment of every day of our life, is constantly growing and changing. The “I” I used when I was seven was the same self I am now, but my “I” has changed and grown drastically.

One of my favorite examples of this has been in my experience of reading The Catcher in the Rye. I have read this novel three times. Each experience has been profoundly different from the others, though the book (literally the same copy) has remained unchanged. The first time I read this novel was my freshman year of high school. I was eager to add classic fiction to my repertoire and was excited to read a book I had heard so much about. Below, I have included each experience and what stood out to me the most/what I gained from reading it:

Spring Freshman Year of high school. (Age 15)

1.     Ambiguity and Limbo of Holden’s experience

2.     Desire for adulthood

3.     Struggle between forced out childhood into adulthood

Spring Senior Year of high school (Age 18)

4.     Holden is relatable as a memory

5.     Focus on relationships

a.     Death of Allie

b.     Hiring the Prostitute

Fall First Year of College (Age 19)

6.     Relate to the setting

a.     Changing environment and its affect on mentality

7.     Contrasting social climates confirms the universality of the work.

8.     Holden’s struggle with conformity and hypocrisy.

Each reading left me feeling as though I had just read an entirely different novel. The second time I read the book, I did not even remember the death of Allie from my first reading. This showed me a tremendous amount about how much I had learned about how to read and also how much more aware I was of (for lack of better explanation) things that impact people.

I was the same person that read the novel each time, but my context for absorbing it was different in each setting. If my context did not impact the way I read literature, I feel confident that each reading would have remained static and unchanging. Context and personal experience is crucial to reading a work, and I would argue it is crucial in authoring a work too.

            I really love how much I feel literary theory relates to philosophical theories and ideas.

In Logic, we are currently discussing recognizing arguments. Our professor has been taking portions of famous arguments from authors like Ayn Rand, Aristotle, etc. and putting portions of them before us. As novice philosophers, most of the students are not unfamiliar with the distinct and specific philosophies of the specific author, nor are we well versed in the argument as a whole. So we are stuck in limbo. Can we deduce the presence of an argument from the brief paragraphs we are given? Can we know or find the conclusion of the supposed argument having not read the entire chapter/argument nor fully understanding the mission and beliefs of the philosophers themselves? Again, context is crucial. For the sake of the purpose of learning to recognize arguments, we tried to treat each paragraph as its own idea, “free-standing” as Fish would say, from any context or author. We tried, but found that it was nearly impossible to make a decision without any context.

I felt a close connection with the story Fish shares about the poetry experiment he performs. I think it is an amazing and interesting look into the lenses in which we view our world.

What is an Author?

When discussing the idea of what an author is, I immediately think of a joke my sister tried to play one time. She was in college at the time and was frustrated with some of her peers trying to come across as music buffs. She noticed that anything played on the Minnesota radio station “The Current” was instantaneously deemed as cool, regardless of the actual content. She started making up names of songs and artists and would turn to random radio stations while driving in the car. Upon initially hearing a song, the person would question who it was, not yet admitting whether or not they liked it. She would tell them she either heard the song she was talking about on The Current or that random station they were listening to was The Current. She was never challenged or questioned.

            I feel we get the same way with authors. Are the names attached to classic works some of the reason behind their fame? Are we impressed by the content or do we feel we are supposed to be impressed because of who wrote it? I feel that in most cases, we are overwhelming truly impacted by the content of the work at hand rather than the name associated with it.

I am not certain why this came to mind, but I thought of this video clip from The Daily Show with Jon Stewart:

 http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-10-2008/marines-in-berkeley 

(specifically 3:10-3:30)

This woman is in full agreement with Rob Riggle. She is unknowingly supporting the movement of the institution she is trying to protest, but because there is not a label associated with the idea Riggle suggests, she evaluates the content rather than the “author” (in this case, she evaluates the meaning and intention of an idea that is traditionally associated with one who is conservative, but because she does not know that, she is not biased). I think this example is very telling in how labels or authors can skew our perspective of a work.

            However, this argument seems very cynical! In chapter two of The Theory Toolbox, I loved the discussion of the importance of Native American folktales to the identity of “American Literature” (page 12). These folktales have no author, but does that make them any less credible or intriguing? I would say no. On page 13, The Theory Toolbox questions when someone transcends from a writer to an author? What makes an author an author? I love to imagine the works of literature that have been written throughout history that have never been published or even shared. Timeless characters that have been lost or destroyed.

            What is it exactly that makes The Current so appealing and so unacceptable to challenge? How did it gain its authority?