Blog response for week 2 (Feb. 11) — general introductions to waste

Prompt 1: In her article, “The Death of Nature and the Apotheosis of Trash….,” Patricia Yaeger writes:

[A]n old opposition between nature and culture has been displaced in postmodern art by a preoccupation with trash: the result of weird and commodity-based intermingling. If nature once represented the before (creating culture as child, product, or second nature) and if detritus represented the after (that which was marginalized, repressed, or tossed away), these representations have lost their appeal. We are born into a detritus strewn world, and the nature that buffets us is never culture’s opposite. (Yaeger 323)

How do you make sense of what Yaeger means by this? In your analysis, pull in an example from elsewhere in her essay, or from the Calvino or Scanlan readings.

Alternative Prompt: Write a self-portrait as a waster or garbage producer. Some thing you might include (though you can approach this however you like and you do not need to answer all – or any – of these questions): What do you collect and why? What do you throw out that other people might keep? What do you keep or buy or find that other people might throw out? What makes you decide to value something? Have you ever changed your approach to waste? You may think of the Calvino article as a kind of inspiration.

Blog response for week 3 (Feb. 18) — Douglas, Kristeva, Freud

The anthropologist Joshua Reno summarizes Douglas thus:

[J]ust because something provokes my disgust does not mean that I can blame inherent qualities that the thing possesses. This was the ultimate lesson of Mary Douglas’ seminal 1966 book Purity and Danger, which became a touchstone for the social constructivist alternative to common sense: though appearance may suggest otherwise, things are judged ‘polluting’ because of how they fit within encompassing systems of social classification.… For something to be ‘waste’ it would have to be defined as such in the active imaginations of human beings, who in doing so perform their social distinction from one another, just as they distinguish wasted from more valued items (see Frow 2003). If one begins with the constructivist paradigm, it makes little sense to speak of ‘waste’ apart from uniquely human powers of symbolic valuation at all. (3)

Prompt: Do you agree with Reno’s summary of Douglas?  Do the readings from Kristeva and Freud differ from Douglas on these terms? What different perspectives do they articulate, and how different are they from Douglas’s view of waste? Respond in the comments section below.

Work Cited: Reno, Johshua, 2014. “Toward a New Theory of Waste: from ‘Matter Out of Place’ to Signs of Life.” Theory, Culture & Society 31(6): 3-27.