Chapter Abstract Introduction The Dice Man Method Theory Results
Page 3 3 5 6 11 16 16 21 23 28 29
Analysis Conclusion Bibliography
Abstract In this dissertation I try to analyse discourses in the Dice Man with the aid of Hoey's discourse analysis, then applying the theories of post-modernism influenced by Baudrillard, Featherstone and Lyotard and the feminist theories of Chodorow, Butler and Irigaray to try to find the power discourses expressed by the seemingly dissolved individual of the post-modern text.
Introduction After writing my B-level dissertation on the subject of postmodern theory and where and how it can be combined with qualitative methods (Råde, 2004), I wanted to test the conclusions and see if it indeed was possible to do qualitative research based on post-modern theory. As I started to make a research plan however, I soon realised that what I was aiming at was not so much to make a postmodern work, but rather to pitch a post-modern text against the rivalling analyses of post-modernism and ”classical” sociological theory. This was then crystallised into my decision to use a linguistical method to create a data set of discourse examples, that I then would analyse with both feminist and post-modern theories so as to pitch them against each other. Below I will explain my line of thought for this projects evolution, giving the reader a chance to understand the process of this work and give a cleare picture of what I am trying to do.
To explain my interest in the particular text I have used (”the Dice Man” by Luke Rhinehart), I have included my final comment from my B-level dissertation. Ever since I wrote it I have been interested in just what lies behind the discourses of the postmodern Dice-Man; This selfbiographic portrait (”the Dice Man”-my comment) shows the strongest sides of postmodernity when it comes to explain the desintigration of the subject and the power of discourses. However, it also shows its problem, that in a completely schizofrenic subject the discourses are still in power, the only difference is that there is no master discourse. This shows postmodernity’s perhaps biggest and most classic
problem; it can deconstruct and falsify our perceptions of reality in a brilliant way, but it cannot point us towards any alternatives. (Råde, 2004, p. 20, my transl.)
The text I have worked with; ”The Dice Man”, is Luke Rhineharts self-biographical inversion of psychoanalysis where he claims mans inhibitions are let free when life is governed by chance and desire rather than the assimilation of bourgeois values and the theories of Freud. What interest can a sociologist find in the work of a ”fallen” psychotherapist, trying to invert the teachings of Freud by, literally, the fall of the die? What questions about society can be answered by looking at the discourses of a text, albeit a nominal one, that is written under the laws of chance and tries to invert Freudian psychotherapy on its own terms?
The answer lies in the discourses of post-modernism and the questions of social identity and change put forth by theorists such as Lyotard, Baudrillard and Featherstone. Especially Baudrillard focuses the sociological lens towards the creation of simulacra and simulations, the iron-rule of hyperreality in a world were the real has been done away with. This discourse fits surprisingly well with the view that is put forth by Rhinehart, and it is by putting the Dice Man under the lens of postmodernism and discourse analysis that I will try to find the meaning of the die.
In my work with the book I have been interested in two main questions; firstly, how can post-modern theory, especially Baudrillards, explain the impact of the dice man? Secondly, in what respect can we see the discourses of gender and power at play in the supposedly free discourses of post-modern life in the Dice Man? When I started out I worked with a broad categorisation of ”classical” sociological theory classified into three subcategories - gender, class and ethnicity. Quickly, however, I realised that gender alone was enough to give a satisfying number of examples and working with a single theory would make it easier both in my comparison with post-modernity and in chosing the theoretical framwork I would work with. These are the questions that I will pitch against each other in the analysis of my data.
I hoped to be able to trace the discourse of the Dice Man to its source. the roll of the die has literally been responsible for the themes and content of the book. thus closing the circle and opening up the discourse of the die.
The Dice Man Written by American psychotherapist Luke Rhinehart in 1971.
So instead of doing a discourse analysis with the help of Derrida I instead worked with discourse segments. This made the work both easier to present with clear lines drawn between both theory and method as well as between data and analysis. as well as incorporating all the discourses of its author and narrator. which the could be used in analyses based on feminist and post-modern theories. What I needed was a reliable method for analysing discourse segments.
. What matters is that it is a text bound by the discourse of chance and the die. and this makes it perfect for examining the work of discourses in what I would call a post-modern setting. applying Hoey’s Problem-Solution pattern. The book itself is written in a style fitting to the author and subject. with the help of the theories of Derrida. Then I would be able to compare it and measure it against an analysis based on Chodorows and Irigaray’s theories. and then applied my theories to the raw data I had thus created. As I started my work I soon realised that Derrida’s theories was not only hard to use but not what I really needed. the logocentrism of logic and the holes in the blinds of langue. the Dice Man portrays the authors discovery of dice-living from his first awareness of chance impact on life to his imprisonment by American authorities. and especially his Problem-Solution pattern. I was aiming at deconstructing the text.As I began. and finding the traces. This led me to the theories of Hoey. Just as with all other statements on dice living it really does not matter whether this statement is true or false in any way. compare it to and evaluate it using Baudrillards theories of post-modernism.
I will presume that readers of this dissertation are familiar with the book. Perhaps all discourses and narratives of power that are said to have been deconstructed and played with by the eroding power of postmodernism are not so easy to eradicate and perhaps they still have an influence that seems to point to them containing something of reality still?
Method I have chosen to use discourse analysis to study ”the Dice Man”. What saves them from it is their knowledge that legitimation can only spring from their own linguistic practice and communicational interaction. Rhinehart finally comes to live a life where every choice and whim is made by the roll of the dice. especially Baudrillards world of simulacra and Lyotard’s language games. (Lyotard. With the help of discourse analysis we can study the smallest common denominator of
. we can study these language games by studying discourses. p. By letting the dice make more and more of his decisions. Since human interaction creates discourses. and will not delve into it further here. What we must turn to when applying postmodernism to the study of a text is the language games that the text builds up. except to establish my take on it in this dissertation and why it makes for an excellent object of study. It in no way follows that they are reduced to barbarity.
In trying to escape the boredom of upper middle-class. 323)
This is important for my object here. white. as well as giving ample examples for the feminist theories of Chodorow and Irigaray. Why? This extract from Lyotard will help me:
Most people have lost the nostalgia for the lost narrative. to study the discourses of power and gender within ”the Dice Man”. What I will try to examine through my analysis is what the narrative of the post-modern man hides behind the simulacra of the die. Luke Rhinehart captures the essence of being in post-modern theories. in Elliott. middle-aged and heterosexual life. 1998.
Read without the context of the first statement. and therefore what can be known. This is why I have chosen to use discourse analysis as my method in this dissertation. “I met him” and “so I said hi”. “I met him so I said hi” is a discourse consisting of two parts.
However. This can also be summed up in the phrase “sensemaking-practice” which sometimes is used instead of discourse (Allen. rather these sentences form discourses that make the text as a whole understandable (Hoey 1983). When put together this two short statements create a linguistical discourse that makes the statements more understandable than when they are read apart.language games . discourses. I use two distinct formulations of discourses in this work. Here discourse decides what can be said. This does not mean that a discourse have to be built up by individual sentences. while the theories I will work with and my analysis is concerned with the sociological one. There are of course number of ways to discuss discourse and its workings from a sociological viewpoint.
The sociological definitions (since there is not a single definition) of discourses do not concern the linguistical workings of language as much as the social system of language games. 1992)
As an example. a discourse can consist of only a single sentence. how sequences of words are given a meaning above and beyond the meaning of its parts. and sentences in turn are used to give meaningfull accounts. we do not know why I said hi.
. Texts cannot be analysed as individual sentences that are analyzable on their own. one is linguistical and taken from Hoey (1983) and the other is sociological.the building stones of discourse patterns. within a social context. and the main reason for doing so here is that my method is concerned with the linguistic definition of discourse. as long as it gives us a meaningfull account. This is what lingustically is defined as discourse. which is something that I will go more into in the theory section about postmodern theories. Here I just want to make clear that the sociological definition of discourse is something entirely different from the linguistical one. The linguistic definition from Hoey concerns how words are used to build sentences.
What I wanted however was a method for studying the discourses of a popular text (as in a written text. "race/ethnicity". or what discourses people reading it drew on in their interpretation of it. Hoey (1983) and Salkie(1985). 1995). consciously or unconsciously. As I was trying to find discourses of power I would need some easy codes for finding classical expressions of power as well as a few examples to that exemplified the postmodern characteristics of the text. The textual analysis method invented by linguists such as Hoey gave me a method to map the discourse production within the authors textual production through analysis of how discourses are constructed from sentences put together to create meaning (Salkie. ie they were focused on linguistic studies of how language builds meaning. If I had been looking at popular medias like television there is a huge amount of other.
. popular here meaning it is a novel and not an academic text) where speculation about how different readers use the text become extremely hard. and not a TV-show or movie. since I was working with a book as my textual-data.
My first task when sitting down with the text was to determine how I was going to work my way through it and create data from the raw material of the text. The classical ones to work with would be "gender".My specific method of discourse analysis here will be based on the method of textual discourse-analysis which has been described by Georgakopoulou (1997). mainly ethnographic. or sense-making practices as it is sometimes called (Allen. was not how the Dice Man was used by its audience. This would allow me a basis for coding the text and finding important excerpts to analyse using discourse analysis. This was good for me however. The first issue I came across was the mostly linguistic focus of these books.
What I was trying to uncover. "class" and “postmodern discussion”. not sociological applications where the social nature of language games is studied. 1992). literature which focus on how recipients of the media use it and make their own interpretation of it by applying different discourses. Rather I was trying to see what discourses the author created in his writing. not to say impossible.
. It also made it possible to find out which categories was drawn on the most in the text – which is how I after a first coding of the whole text came to work with gender and postmodernity. I have also had help from Georgakopoulou to sharpen my view of the discourse organisations multiple possibilities. be in the data set. by pointing out which discourses were re-accuring and which were not. and also gave a basis for mapping the context into which the discourse analysis must be put. and would thus make a good choice for putting into contrast against the multiplicity of power in the postmodern notes. but what does it actually entail and why is it a good method for what I have tried to do here? Here I will lay out the basics of discourse analysis as explained by Hoey (1983) and also give an example of the version of discourse analysis that I used in my work. one of which is the Problem-Solution pattern were she actually draws on Hoey (1983). “gender”. as well as a number of excerpts that brought to light postmodern discussions such as the multiplicity of meaning in any given statement.Using these four broad categories as a guide for working through the text I managed to find one category that I found interesting. who's book is concerned solely with this subject.
When it comes down to the nuts and bolts of discourse analysis both Hoey (1983) and Georgakopoulou (1987) have been the basis for my work. Gender was the pre-dominant topic in discussions of power in the book. i. This made it easier to find the parts that should be put under the scrutinizing eye of discourse analysis. Though I will mostly concern myself with the method championed by Hoey (1983).
The basis for my coding was to make the text more accessible to my attempts to analyse the discourses in it. There is a number of basic literary discourses that Georgakopoulou (1997) points out. 1971).e.
So what are these nuts and bolts exactly? Saying that I used Hoey's Problem-Solution pattern is all nice and fine. having found it an often occurring discourse organisation in the text (Rhinehart.
.First of all let me reconnect to my definition of linguistic discourses above. The full pattern for Problem-Solution would be situationproblem-response-result-evaluation.
According to Hoey discourse organisation can be perceived by readers. for example a negative response causes the discourse to spiral on. my data. 1983. most scientific texts are built up in a similar way.
Discourses are often multi-layered and it may often contain overlapping patterns of problem-solution where. Working with these smaller segments of text allowed me to work with a very specific method for creating examples . So what might first appear to be a very easy way of looking at discourse formation can actually contain very advanced discourse formations. and especially the shorter discourses I have used here. so this pattern of discourse building is very fitting for creating data out of my text material. that also was small enough to be easily analysed (Georgakopoulou.e. and then to apply my theories outlined above to interpret my findings.
This is in fact a very common way of building up discourses. 1997). and the discourse itself contains elements that helps the reader perceive its organisation. create examples. which can be paraphrased or highlighted by projection into question-answer dialogues. to which there are multiple variations possible (Hoey. especially in everyday conversations and writing. working on a larger and larger scale within a text. When I am talking about my data set I refer to discourses as the building stones of language that takes words and forms them into comprehensible sentences. This function is sequence. It is of course applicable to other situations as well.3). What I aim to do with this method is to unravel the discourse-building that always goes into writing. A discourse can also be formed from sentences and even other discourses. ch.i. I am going to work with a text that mainly handles everyday discussions and situations narrated and analysed by its author.
since I am not trying to make a full linguistical analysis.
Here we can see clearly that even a simple statement such as the one above can include almost the full number of building stones that make up Hoey’s pattern.Now. soon familiar with each grain of sand we see (result).
I have also used a system of denoting the clauses that I will use in the rest of my work. I will try to work with smaller fragments like this one however. When doing this I wasn’t really looking for specific discourses. and with shorter fragments the possibility of multiple discourses in one block of text is more controllable. Even though there are higher levels of discourses built up from smaller blocks like this one. for a simple example of the discourse analysis method of Hoey (1983) I have chosen a short statement from “the Dice Man” that I will put the method to use on to give the reader a clear example of just how I am going to work with the text itself. This system I have used for all the examples in this dissertation. only the evaluation part is missing here.
. I just went through the book several times highlighting passages that fitted into one of my categories . This is the level of discourse analysis I will work with the most in this dissertation. and there is also a multitude of discourses possible from one block of text if longer fragments are chosen.
With this in mind I set about to collect a sample of short discourses from the text as the basis of my discourse analysis. My method for doing this was first to code the whole of the book after my two codes. At best we wander from one much-worn sandbar to the next(response). which often is the case in shorter discourses.
Life is an island of ecstacy in an ocean of ennui (situation). and after the age of thirty land is seldom seen (problem). The words in paragraph are placed after the passage they refer to.described the build-up to a rape scene for example.
24.e. and those that did would be harder to analyse. Let us do a little exercise to see the possibility of shorter discourses by taking out a part of Example 9 (p.We are looking at only the result sentence of the original example using the Problem-Solution pattern.
I also had to make a choice as to how large text segments I would use in my data. if I used too small it would be harder to get good data since many of the discourses would not contain all the parts of the Problem-Solution pattern. if I used too big segments it would reduce the numbers of example possible to analyse.
However. The number of segments long enough to work with and handling the specific areas of interest was hard enough to come by that selectivity never became an issue.the foremost reasons being that the segments were either long discussions (in general shorter discussions often fit into the pattern. Most of the examples were of such a nature that they did not readily fit into Hoeys method for discourse analysis . or the discourse segment that interested me (i. breaking my established patterns (situation) was threatening to my deeply ingrained selves (problem) and pricked me (response)to a level of consciousness which is unusual(result).When choosing samples to work with I severely reduced the number of segments in the text by testing them against Hoey’s Problem-Solution pattern. but many long (34 pages) conversations do not so easily. I found it especially hard to find discussions of sufficient length that handled my chosen subjects – gender and postmodernity).
This means that even though this work is qualitative in nature and I have not used specific statistical methods to measure quantities in my work.
. below) and analysing it on its own. unusual since the whole instinct of human behavior is to find enviroments congenial to the relaxation of consciousness (evaluation). there is still a good deal of security in having a lone researcher picking out the segments to work with. but still contained enough mass of text as to contain all the parts the Problem-Solution pattern. I chose to work with segments about 40 to 120 words in length since they gave good data with my method. handled one of my two chosen subjects) was to short to build a decent Problem-Solution pattern.
This shows the reader that the discourse examples I give is not the only ones that can be found in the text. tugged along by an ever-changing stream of discourses vying for our attention. etc. (Butler. Here I will introduce both of them. 2002)
Post-modernism. which will be covered by feminist theories. It is entirely possible. other ways of perceiving for example the change from modernism to post-modernism and what this change entails.
Post-modernity basically sees the grand narratives of modernity (progressiveness. We are as fractured as the social world around us. for example.
Post-modernity is not an easy term to adequately describe or capture. My reasons for not putting the analysis at this level is above. is not advisable to present as an authoritative meta-narrative. This view was brought on by the deconstruction of texts to show their logico-centrism. to instead analyse only two-sentence discourses and still find the ProblemSolution pattern.Here we can see that within what seems to be a simple discourse there can be multiple discourses underlying the discourse that we are analysing.) are dead. starting with post-modern theory. I will mainly use the writings of Baudrillard to capture the essence of what he perceives as the postmodern society and individual.
Theory The two theories in this dissertation are post-modernism and gender theories. In my analysis I will also try to critique the discourses of post-modernism in the dice-man.. and that the new post-modern age has brought a fracturing of the narrative of social life. all texts and their arguments rely on self-proving central logics (such as progressiveness) that can no longer uphold their own legitimation. There are certainly other perceptions than Baudrillards on post-modernism. even focusing on only one main theory. Baudrillards. Their is also a wide consensus on the decentering of the subject. moving it from the grand narrative of rational evolution to the field of discourses vying for power.
Perhaps the best way to show the usefulness of Baudrillard to my analysis is in his own words:
Everything is metamorphosed into its inverse in order to be perpetuated in its purged form. middle-class.
For Baudrillard (1999). This is a theme that fits well with the concept of the Dice-Man and my attempt at deconstructing it. 1999). Instead the presentations create their own reality. every situation speaks of itself by denial . and perceives post-modern society as having moved from more basic simulations of reality to the level of simulacra. Power can stage its own murder to rediscover a glimmer of existence and legitimacy. schizophrenic. or has the white. a new goal?
. in order to attempt to escape. is the dice-man just a reformulation of the old power in a new. Presentations of the world are no longer representations of an underlying real. A world were. by simulation of death. what matters) than the America you will meet in its parking lot (Baudrillard. in the post-modern world the old truths and reality itself have given way to the hyperreal and simulacra.I have decided to include Baudrillards theory mainly because it deals heavily with the concept of simulations and simulacra. Disneyland just serves to hide the fact that the childishness it portrays is more real (for Baudrillard this would simply mean to have more power of the social creation of what is important. which instead hides the fact that there is nothing underneath the illusion provided by the simulation." (Baudrillard. thus the precession of simulacra (simulations without origin in reality) is the new order of the social world. its real agony. academic just inadvertently staged his own death to be able to rebirth himself with a new glimmer of hope.1999. guise? Have Luke Rhinehart escaped from all his inhibitions by giving up everything to chance. according to Baudrillard. 333)
Indeed. the hyperreal. Every form of power.p.
the king is dead.is helpful for defining the initial doubts and qualms plaguing Rhinehart. it is rather the postmodern dissolving of psychoanalysis claims to priority of the language games of human need.and therefore psychoanalysis. Just as Lyotard refers to Nietzsche’s statement that ”European nihilism” resulted from the truth requirement of science being turned back against itself. as well as the reason for his rebellion against societal norms and psychoanalysis. he instead perceives post-modernism as the recognition that discourses are always at war with each other. so does Rhinehart turn the focus on the human ego in Freudian psychoanalysis back on itself . (Lyotard. and can not claim supervision of the language games of human need and impulse.resulting in the nihilistic disintegration of the ego exemplified by the Dice Man.
Featherstone has worked on many different aspects of post-modernism. This becomes important when we try to put ”the Dice Man” into context with the analytical positions between feminism and postmodernity. is just a language game among others. Thus Rhineharts attempts at dissolving his own ego is not a revolt against psychoanalysis.). trying to claim the right to define the
. What makes Featherstone interesting is that instead of seeing post-modernism as something akin to a grand narrative like the grand narratives of the past that it supposedly killed off (funny that. but the ones that I will make use of in this work is his theories on cultural exploitation/globalisation and discourses.The other perspectives on post-modernism that I will make use of in my formulation of a post-modern method for interpreting the text is Lyotard and Featherstone. Lyotards definition of the post-modern condition – ie the loss of the grand narratives hold over culture and truth . 321). all hail the king….
Lyotard puts the decline of the narrative as an effect of the evolution of technologies and the liberal individualisation after decline of Keynesianism and the finishing of reconstruction in Europe after WW II. Lyotard points out that science . 1998 p.
The erosion of ego through dice living originates within the steady erosion of knowledge within psychoanalysis itself if we are to follow this thread.
her sexuality and her whole being. to find a theoretical base for the gender-based discourse analysis. I will specify more clearly the reasoning behind chosing each single theory as I discuss it below. male researcher. as a young. Her analysis is straightforward and easily adaptable to the method of discourse analysis. is recognizing that these conflicting discourses exist. It gives me. by formulating a feminine auto-eroticism that always touches itself and always is avoided/un-understable/missing from the phallocentric view. etc. is written by a man 15
. and draws on.
For feminist theories I have used articles by Butler (1999). Chodorow (1999) and Irigaray (1999).
My reason for choosing Chodorow as a basis for part of my analysis is in her focusing on Mothering and its social reproduction. This is highly useful in this work becauses it allows us to look at the discourses on sex. Post-modernism for Featherstone. ethnicity.) but rather by conflicting discourses on how society is formed and should be perceived. but of course the same goes for discussing problems within a dialectical or functionalist discourse of sociology. class and power in general without subverting them to the iron-rule of another discourse. Freudian psycho-analysis in their formulations of feminist theory. the origin of women´s roles in family and society and the way gender relations reproduce themselves.
Both Chodorow and Irigaray formulates critiques against. What I wanted for my gender theories was to capture a number of broad discussions about key points in feminism. The big difference is that Chodorow in her article analyses the reproduction of Mothering from a Freudian perspective on the importance of the oedipal stage. the path of western civilisation. race. gender. then. while Irigaray formulates a critique of the Freudian and Classical take on "Woman".social world. In this case the post-modern discourse. lets not forget. and that social reality is not made up of ordered existence and the continous evolution of grand narratives (dialectics. a way to analyse the texts1discourse on the mothering role of women and
the family. a child. akin to Marx class conditions. etc. heterosexual relations. The mothering of women furthers the sexual and family divisions of the genders. the reproduction of mothering is important to upholding male domination. The oedipal stage means that men is treated as an opposite by their mother and their further attachment to her is repressed.the formation of all societal formations connected with this. in being different from the always central Man. Woman is always described in
. and according to Chodorow their inner object world is more complex than men’s as a result. Women’s heterosexual relations also require a third part as a part of this mothering process. it fits the bill of feminist critique of the male-centered onthology very well. Since the text I am analysing (Rhinehart. while men’s attachment to their mother means that their needs are fullfilled through the heterosexual relationship alone. the primary caretaker. parent-child relations. Women on the other hand retains more concern with this stage all their life.
Irigaray's article might not fit the bill as easily as the others. but in her article it is Woman who is Other. While men learns to relate to their Mother. The article is a critique (albeit a very negative one with no clear solution) on the Freudian and Classical definition of Woman. as Other.
Irigaray also works with the theme of Other.
In short. which gives her argument a very strong basis both for further analysis and for arguments. One interesting aspect of Chodorow’s article is that she sees gendered divisions as reproductive. women instead relate to her as Same. 1971) is written by a well-educated psychoanalyst.
Chodorow also analyses the impacts of these conclusions in a male-dominated society. Chodorow’s analysis of the formation of heterosexual gender roles in the oedipal stages is based on the different object-relational experiences of this stage. and thus kept alive by their own process. but it actually contributes quite a lot to the analysis of the texts discourse on women. As a social process that produces gendered divisions.
fits into the general theme of post-modernist in that it draws on Foucault's work with social genealogy (Foucault. but rather as a copy of a copy. a set of repeated acts within a highly rigid regulatory frame that congeal over time to produce the appearance of substance. not as reproductions of an original. She also ties in very well to Baudrillards (1998) theory on simulacra. at first glance free. but within the feminist framework that Butler puts it in. in that she sees the reproduction of heterosexual roles in gay and lesbian relation ('butch' and 'femme'roles for example). so she herself is not one. even for her herself. Within this masculine world-view woman can never truly be herself. what Baudrillard (ibid. 275)
This example binds together a postmodern view of the importance of style in the creation of postmodern persons. (Butler. Within the masculine world-view dominating our civilisation her true self is always escaping scrutiny. of a natural sort of being. creating the ”mystery of women”. This discussion could be held on any number of subjects.
According to Irigaray. 1977).
Gender is the repeated stylization of the body. she is always several. always seen to be trying to appropriate a penis through marriage and children. and a feminist view of the ”highly rigid regulatory frame” that binds these.terms of what she is lacking compared to Man. stylizations into patterns.
. In fact she can never be one. just as a woman’s sexual organ is not one. always existing through Otherness she is completely alien. 1998 p.) would call the precession of simulacra. it shows us that the stylization that creates gendered bodies is still regulated by a masculine framework superimposing itself on the supposedly freefloating discourses of postmodern life.
Butler's (1998) article.. finally.
54 (Rhinehart. Arlene Ecstein.In this part I will only present my examples and how I have coded them using Hoey’s method. Luke Rhinehart. is always the writer. men’s shirts. losse bluses and over-sized smocks she always wore (problem) resulted in no one’s noticing her breasts (response) until they’d known her for several months (result) . 1983) such as this:
. Luke Rhinhart.in that it might be argued that the problem is in fact that her breasts are not noticed. the wife of Luke Rhineharts colleauge Jake Ecstein. when referred to.by which time they’d forgotten all about her (evaluation).
Although there were unconfirmed rumours that on her otherwise slender body she owned two marvelously full breasts (situation). for a full description of the text’s narrative see the chapter “the Dice Man” above. Since ”the Dice Man” is written in a very chaotic fashion and often jumps from one subject to another between chapters I will only try to explain the larger narrative of the specific chapter from which each example is taken rather than putting it into a context incorporating the whole of the text.
Gender Example 1. the baggy sweaters. 1971) In this example the narrator introduces one of the supporting characters of the novel. and on the basis of the ability of my interpretation to be paraphrased into a dialogue (Hoey. Before each example I will put the segment into the context it is lifted from by describing the larger segment of text which it fits into. I argue for this interpretation because of the placement of the word ”resulted” which of course refers to the following being the result of what came before. Even though an argument might be raised about the positioning of the problem part . After each example I will try to discuss the difficult points that occurred to me and explain my interpretation of Hoey’s method and how I have implemented it. p. It is lifted from a larger context where the whole of both Arlene’s and Jake’s lifes are introduced and analysed from the viewpoint of the narrator.
In this first example we can see all of the five points clearly used in what can be described as a straightforward argument. The narrator.
feeling myself a puppet to a force outside me. The probability of that die being a one was only one in six. Arlene Ecstein. due to the nature of the segment being self-referential (as to the author) rather than describing a person outside the author.
Rape had been possible for years. My rape was obviously dictated by fate.the removal of certain words that binds the segment to a context.Q: What was the result? A: No one noticed her breasts. The chance of the die’s being there under the card.
In this segment the internal dialogue is even clearer. not me. p.
Example 2. especially if you include Luke Rhinharts descent into more and more desperate boredom as an introduction. decades even (situation). 74 (ibid.rather than a responsible agent (response). This decision is also the first time the narrator lets the dice decide a course of action. Here one simple technique can be used to see the work of discourse formation . In this case this is the word ”but”. it is easier to see the discourse formation when you are not distracted by context that is not
. if a dice hidden under a playing card left at the poker table apartment is a one. This is a strong statement for it being its own part of the local discourse. The larger discourse incorporates the narrators need to break out of his boredom and his sudden decision to go downstairs and rape his friend and colleague’s wife. Not guilty (evaluation). but without premeditation did it. When every part of the discourse is looked at in its own right.the die . The cause was chance or fate. maybe one in a million (result). or prudent.
Here there is a clear dialogue within the text. a creature of the gods . but was realized only when I stopped looking at whether it were possible. or even desirable (problem). where it refers to itself both backwards in time and at this very segment.) This discourse segment is lifted from the infamous rape scene at the beginning of the text. and is quite extensive.
by using the Hoey’s problem-solution pattern. Lillian must become an object (result): an object of as little intrinsic effect upon the or interest for me as.
Example 3. It must be destroyed (response).
Love I saw as an irrational. This might seem like jumping to conclusions and drawing on knowledge about the authors intentions which no-one reading the book can be presumed to possess. It was an important part of the historical self (problem). these assumptions are sprung from a methodological standpoint with a sound theoretical basis. and not my own imagination.
Here we see that the result of a discourse can be affected by the context. not the mind of the author. p 81 (ibid.it here refers to a choice of the author unconnected to the text.) This example. is from a chapter at the beginning of the book where two supporting characters are introduced and analysed. except that the narrator explains that she
. 118 (ibid. arbitrary binding relationship to another object (situation). just as example 3 above.) Here the narrator has started to try to dissolve his own integrity by letting the dice make his decisions. p. Here the narrator analyses Arlene Ecstein’s education. so as to more easily follow the dictates of the die... which means it can safely be ignored when looking at the discourse.Nora Hammerhill (name picked at random from Manhattan phone book) (evaluation). and she dropped out of school to work and so support him financially while he finished his medical studies. However. The background is that she and Jake Ecstein married while in college. As a part of this dissolution he also starts to see people close to him as objects. What I am analysing is the discourse and its elements. No deeper explanation of what kind of studies Arlene dropped out of is given. It was compulsive.referring to the text itself . the referral to one of the characters becoming an object here is what the author in person sees as the result of this particular train of thought.
resolve or complicate them and present results and evaluations. and since it is used only to make a statement (in this case a presentation of a character). and since her life had been spent clerking at Gimbel’s. p.was happy to miss her finals . it does not pose direct problems. This particular discourse example is from the end of the chapter where the narrator explains the needs underlying his response and need of this experience.whether man or Die(situation). and also gives insights into the Luke Rhinehart’s view of sexual domination.as a discourse it is just a discourse within a bigger one. girl-Fridaying at Bache and Company. her education was a limited one (problem).which presumably were to take place the same year she dropped out. By paraphrase we can reformulate the response sentence into.
This was perhaps the most straightforward of my examples to analyse. 474-5 (ibid. The reason for this is simple .
This example only makes use of the first two parts of Hoey’s method.) This segment is taken from a chapter where the narrator follows a dice decision to perform a sexual act with another man.
There is something basic in wanting to be dominated by a superior creature .
Arlene’s education had thus come from life (situation). but the times the Die has ordered me to play a woman (response) have uncovered the latent slave in me (result). The only problem was the distinction between the response and the result. typing at Woolsworth’s and controlling a switchboard at the Fashion Institute of Technology. The reason I have used it is that it is still a good example of the discourses of class that appear in the book. since it was no clear demarcation between them by punctuation of any kind.
Example 5. Responding to men respectfully and passively has never been my majority nature (problem). and I have still found it usable in my analysis. (Some) times the Die has ordered me to play a
in short going from conquering the world to conquering women and finally back to conquering the world again. he is morally appalled (problem). eliminating suffering. written in Xeroxed tablets of stone by our hero.) This example is from a chapter where the narrator explains the ”Luke Rhinehart Power Pattern for Men”. as we can yet again fall back on Hoey’s
.woman. redistributing women. laws are revised. This particular segment is the stage which comes after the stage in his 20s when a man thinks he has the world at his feet and dreams about big Wallstreet incomes. corrupt churches collapse. with stages of saving the world in between. The first sentence is altered so it is clearly a paraphrase and even though the second sentence is strictly not a paraphrase since I only add one word that is not in the actual text but which makes the discourse pattern clearer. which tries to explain the nature of mens daydreaming through different stages of life. The result can also be paraphrased into. it still goes under this heading since the sentence have been changed to show how the discourse is built up. This is not as big a problem as it might seem at first glance. righting all wrongs.
Example 6. Everyone is happy (evaluation)
Here the big problem in the discourse analysis is to fit the place of the ending of one part of the discourse and the beginning of another. James Bonds and millionaires and he is not. p. In his dreams he recreates the world. (This) have uncovered the latent slave in me. Here the descent into adolescent dreams about saving the world once again is the topic. Evil governments topple. 244 (ibid. ending all wars. redistributing wealth. He becomes a reincarnation of Gautam Buddha. Jesus Christ and Hugh Hefner (response).
But in the next few years he is earning a modest salary as second clerk at Pierce. Perkins and Poof and is upset at the injustice and hypocrisy that exist in the world (situation): a world in which some men are athletic stars. There is certainly grey areas betweeen where the situation ends and the problem begins for one. is presented to the world (result). and Truth.
I felt obligated to let the Die choose the victim (problem). which in the case of a problem segment almost always is the situation. So even though the last part of the situation which reads. This means that it is in fact a prerequisite part of the problem. here the state of mind of the first-person-author. were Luke Rhinehart is given one of his more extreme dice-dictates. to kill another human. p. the killing will feel good (situation).e. and not a problem-formulation in itself.
Postmodernism Example 7. it is here referred to in the problem statement. however.as long as you can make a reason for it. James Bonds and millionaires and he is not. This particular discourse is from the beginning of the chapter where he explains his reason for including this choice among his long-term plans.
This refers back to an earlier statement made in another segment of discourse. As the Dice Man. and is upset at the injustice and hypocrisy that exist in the world. he is morally appalled. looks much like the problem statement. When rolling his die to determine his long-term goals he has constantly given it a slim (one in thirtysix) chance of rolling the ”kill another human” decision. reformulating sentences to see if a statement can be made that fits into the description of the part of discourse we are looking at or answers a question from an earlier segment.
Example: The problem part here can be paraphrased into: he is upset at world in which some men are athletic stars.) This example is from the last part of the book.(1983) tests of discourse patterns. Vietnamese or your mother . 454 (ibid. and also why it is not very disturbing to him at first glance. i. Here I used the method of paraphrasing.
The great advantage of being brought up in a culture of violence is that it doesn’t really matter who you kill: Negroes. I flipped a die saying ‘odd’ I
65 (ibid. since his response in the discourse is actually throwing the die. there are still many instances were it is modified.’
First of all the finishing of Dr Mann’s discourse by Dr Rhinehart shows that the Problem-Solution pattern can be used to analyse conversations as well as straightforward presentations.’ ‘Then perhaps. and which he thinks is still the reason for Rhinehart’s strange behavior. there are multiple ways of building discourses. and you take away him (response). which comes later. p. a human personality is the total pattern of the accumulated limitations and potentials of an individual (situation). and even if the Problem-Solution pattern covers the most.someone I knew (result). but the die showed a ‘one’. is of course the result. while the closing comment is Rhinehart’s. odd .) This example is from an after-poker-conversation between Luke Rhinehart and his senior colleague Dr Mann. I assumed for some reason that the Die would prefer a stranger (evaluation). The first speaker in the example below is Dr Mann. makes a statement before the die-roll about what he thought it would be. perhaps. who is also the character of the episode.
Here the evaluation actually comes before the result. something which is not implied in Hoeys Problem-Solution pattern. just after Luke has started to experiment with letting the dice make his decisions. but as Hoey (1983) himself argues. it is rather a pre-emptive evaluation of what the die will be.would murder someone I knew. A human being. Here the author. You expect too much. It is of course quite natural for people to finish each
. You take away all his habits. we ought to do away with ”him” (evaluation).
Example 8. something which Dr Mann blames on his earlier attempts at eastern mysticism. retold at the beginning of the text. The actual roll of die however.
‘You’re dreaming. ‘even’ it would be a stranger (response). The conversation is about Luke’s errattic behavior. compulsions and channeled drives (problem).
This is one of the more straightforward examples in my data samples. p. as in my example in Method above (p. By creating problems for myself I created thought (evaluation). success and problems of Luke Rhineharts first months of dice-living. In this segment the narrator describes the experience of being forced into new roles and situations by dice decisions and analyses the experience. unusual since the whole instinct of human behavior is to find enviroments congenial to the relaxation of consciousness (result). Only if the other person breaks a conventional pattern is awareness stimulated (response). 113 (ibid. 11). i.) This example is from a chapter which describes the general nature. integrated with his enviroment. Of course this does not mean that it cannot be broken up into smaller discourses and so create further discourses within it. breaking my established patterns was threatening to my deeply ingrained selves and pricked me to a level of consciousness which is unusual.
. letting the dice control more and more aspects of his life by making decisions via dice rolls. Discourses are by nature not easily defined and always have the possibility to contain multiple discourses. However. and the best place to intersect something in anothers discourse is as an evaluation.
Example 9. just as my other examples of postmodernity was chosen because it deals with the theme of post-modern destructions of paradigms regarding closed discourses about society and human rationality. flowing with his inner nature. and discourses.others sentences. which is the case in the example above. This. When a human is being himself.e.
New places and new roles forced me into acute awareness of how others were responding to me (situation). wearing his natural appropriate masks. he is normally unaware of subtleties in another’s behavior (problem).
The fact that it is another person that he must rape. with the exception of example 5.
When looking at resolutions and applying Irigaray’s theory we can see in example two the overriding structure of a gendered society superimposed on the whimfull experience-seeking of Rhinehart.Here I will use my theories to analyse the data I have created above. a woman. The situation is always described from the position of a man. He is simply satisfied after having put the blame outside of himself. does not factor into his evaluation of the deed. All of the examples refers to women as objects or tries to objectify women. concern for the Other is not part of his
. Women are trade-objects that can be redistributed to create a better world (example 6). All of these views originate from a male centered view of the world where woman is obviously Other and an item to trade and use. which is solved by legitmization of an outside force Example 3: The historical self of the narrator must be destroyed by treating the woman as an object Example 4: Wanting to be dominated by a superior creature .a man. be it the narrator in the first example or men in general in the second: Example 1: The problem of Arlene’s clothing results in no-one noticing her breasts Example 2: Rape is not prudent.
In the gender examples there is a clear pattern of reference to women in the “problem” part of the discourses. who needs to appropriate a male sexual organ through being dominated by a man (example 4). We can clearly see the patterns laid out by Irigaray (1981) defining Woman as Other. here as a tool to satisfy Man (example 1 and 2). I will first present a specific analysis of the Prolem-Solution pattern and then go on to a more general analysis of the whole data set after this. a situation that is inherent to being a woman Example 6: Women should be redistributed between men to set wrongs right
When we look at just these paraphrased problem formulations we can clearly see the patterns drawn out by the feminist theorists. is natural.
Example 1: People do not notice Arlene’s breast until after several months. Without Otherness and prostitution of the body. In example 3 the problem is that the narrator
. nowhere is the normativity of masculinity seen more clearly than in the figureheads of authority. and then they have forgotten all about her. but also playing one. Example 6: Dreaming of becoming a new Buddha or Hugh Hefner. This resolution of example 4’s discourse also shows the Otherness of woman and her need to appropriate a male organ.. is captured in the body of a man. one can not play or be a woman.
Chodorow’s theory on the reproduction of gender roles leads us to seek the basis for gendered action within the examples. Example 4: When ordered to play a woman. the author has found a latent slave inside of him.evaluation. women are goods to be redistributed more fairly between men.
Butler’s theory can help us to uncover the reproduction of gender roles and how stylization of bodies has an important part to play in creating sexualised bodies. Reproduction of gendered bodies through the stylization of gender roles. Here the object of a woman’s body (object because that is what it is created as through this discourse. The style of the saving hero. The very hero concept is part of the masculine superstructure of worldly importance. the enlightened tutor etc. the strong leader. that the saviour could be a woman is unthinkable. The stylization of woman creates an objectified body that exists to please men. The stylization of the man into a masculine hero-figure is how utopia is percieved to come true in the man’s dreams. Women is other and all that is required to satisfy the legalising of Man’s actions is the satisfaction of Man’s need. he sets the world right and makes everyone happy. and what it is treated as in the same) is created as something which has its inherent value only in its breasts. While men are constructed as hero figures righting the wrongs done to other men. something which in the author’s discourse is inherent in not only being a woman. Here I will first focus my analysis on how the problems in the discourses are solved.
She is an obstacle to be crossed. but nonetheless there is a definitive structure to the positioning of women within the text. he must reduce her to an object in his eyes. (Chodorow. The discourse in my examples are not explicitly built to come to a point in a discussion about gender. and Butler points out the superstructures that gendered society imposes on women. a fact that must be overcome if she is to be raped). They are in short reduced to less than men. they are not a part of the historical self that must be destroyed.
When we start painting the analysis with bigger brushstrokes we can begin to see larger patterns emerging. Chodorow points to the reproduction of gender roles that limits women (and men). 1998). she is an obstacle to overcome in example 2 (the very fact of her being a person. Woman is the problem. to forget about her. to the level of objects. and sometimes below that.
. She is not seen because she does not show her breasts in example 1. the narrator of the Dice Man himself defines women as a problem for the male-dominated world. but rather that she always has a negative role to play in the story.
Just as Irigaray describes Woman as Other. The masculine ownership of women in a male-dominated society becomes clear. first it provides support for Chodorow’s theory that the male heterosexual bonding requires no more than a woman. an object to be rationally dominated and a lesser being who’s very nature is to be enslaved. she must be reduced to an object in example 3. not always the problem-part of the discourse. Rather he must treat her as an object with no personal attachments. her education comes from life. This tells us two things. the very nature of being a woman is to be a slave in example 4. When Rhinehart must get rid of his bond to his wife it is not an option to leave her. and thus she is limited in example 5 and finally in example 6 she is goods to be traded and redistributed for the betterment of mankind. The children of the family are not included in this argument for this reason.must destroy his bond to his wife by treating her as an object. Secondly it tells us the masculine formulation of what a woman is to a man. In all the examples of gender discourses I have chosen.
Baudrillards (1999) theory of simulacra and simulations is the closest to Luke Rhineharts own worldview.What analysis can Baudrillard’s.
I will look closer at example 7 using Featherstone’s (1995) theory of postmodern culture. Lyotard’s and Featherstone’s bring to bear on the data? To begin with I will work on the same micro-level as with the feminist theories above. You expect too much (problem). Just as Baudrillard sees the postmodern society as a precession of simulacra.Rhinehart. and then go on to draw a larger picture. According to Featherstone.
Let us take a closer look at example 8. Here the discussion pinpoints the fact that by removing the drives. You take away all his habits.
Although this follows closely to the discourse of the narrator which is the one I followed in my example. the world is an inescapable reproduction of simulations encroaching on reality. This can be interpreted as two oppossing discourses: Dr Mann’s interpretation (the first speaker. a human personality is the total pattern of the accumulated limitations and potentials of an individual (response). A human being. seeing the conflicting discourses that vye for dominance within all aspects of human society is what postmodernity is about. compulsions and channeled drives (result) and you take away him (evaluation). The narrators discourse (which is the other person in the dialogue as well) instead follows the discourse in my example and therefore includes the last comment to involve the evaluation form the second speaker . goals and compulsions of a person when you remove ”him”. Rhinehart sees humans as simulations of themselves. unable to express themselves when confined to a strict societal rule called personality. and this example shows us how different meanings can be applied to a single discourse-
. Illusionary personalities created by the governing rules of society. The difference is that Dr Mann’s discourse here follows the line that Rhinehart is dreaming when he thinks a man can be changed by dissolving his personality. thus the comment at the end is removed): Your’re dreaming (situation).
In the discourse itself we can see this in the formulation of the problem nd how this is responded to.segment. and what is seen as important. so Rhinehart maps out the entropical nature of human personality. gender .turning the language game on its head.
I will analyse example 9 with the help of Lyotard (1999). By turning this language game on its head and using the normality of the problem against it . The basis for Rhineharts choice to break down the very fabric of psychoanalysis is a factor of psychoanalysis itself just as european nihilism sprung from enlightment. So the response is a rebellion at the conditions of the problem but which still has its basis in the problem and its inability to remain in control of the language game. the entropical pattern of self replication and failed truth claims is broken. It both incorporates discourses of race . a problem and a response to the problem.killing your own mother.
On a larger scale the theories of postmodernity gives us a more fragmented view of the text. as can also be seen in the examples above. The discourse is focused on the entropical nature of integrated behavior here. The problem is here responded to by breaking the very patterns that are defined as convention in the problem formulation. It is not possible to put the finger on a master discourse in a certain example from the text. can at the same time carry a number of conflicting discourses struggling for supremacy over what we read into a text.
The only way to get outside of the pattern of human behavior is to break the patterns of expected patterns. This means that what is in one way a straight discourse with a situation. politics the mentioning of Vietnames and Negroes carries definitive overtones of the historical slavery in america and the Vietnam War. This follows the same lines as for the creation of European Nihilism and Postmodernity in Lyotards article (1981). Just as Lyotard describes the entropical nature of scientific knowledge.it is negroes and Vietnamese that are mentioned as examples for people to kill. Who’s discourse has precedence in the discussion between Dr Mann and Rhinehart? If we are to follow
Featherstone there is always a fight for precedence. The theory of Chodorow builds on the grand narrative of psychoanalysis. is that the postmodern analysis does not only leave room for one interpretation of what is being said in any given discourse.
When it comes to the motivations of the narrator and the discourses implications on other persons than the narrattor. but takes into its analysis the whole of society and the function of mothering on a social plane instead of fully anchoring it in the framework of psychoanalytic truthclaims. However.
Conclusions In this last part of the dissertation I will test the two theoretical standpoints against each other to try to see if the main standpoint of either side . The one thing which can be said however. having initiated the discourse segment. Dr Mann also has a trumph on his hand.
The feminist analysis brings out three sides of the masculine domination of the discourses among the data. Being occuppied with the nature of clashing discourses and the simulations that make up social reality makes it much harder to evaluate the implications of the discourse examples beyond their narrator. can stand up to the critique of the other side. with the difference that they are leaning less on any grand narrative to build their argument. The critique of the postmodern theories would be that the grand narrative of masculine domination is instead just one of many discourses that can be found in the text. in which Rhinhart as the narrator of the text has the upper hand. The same goes for Irigaray’s and Butler’s theories. this analysis makes it harder to pin down what is at work. So even if the post-modernist critique of grand narratives can show that none of the examples exemplify a grand narrative it cannot falsify that there is in fact several different discourses of male domination embedded in the text.masculine domination on the one hand and the lack of grand narratives on the other.
. As we can see in the feminist analysis of the examples however the three theories do not build on a grand narrative that dominates the discourse.
When you turn the argument around it is instead post-modernism that must defend the point that there is no grand narrative against the facts brought on by the feminist analysis.
Final Comments As for myself I must say that the side climbing out of the ring of analysis as the winner is certainly feminism. and showing that there are other facets to the dominator does not make the oppression go away. The only claim that really can be made by postmodernism against the proof of male-domination brought forth by feminism is to partly shoot down its claim to dominance as just what the text is really about. it cannot make any grand truth claims. Any critique brought against the position that there is no grand narrative is certain to be labelled as a grand narrative in its attempt to impose a specific discourse on a text. This shows even clearer the strengths of postmodern theory. while feminism on the other hand readily can admit that there are other discourses of domination at work.
. Postmodernism cannot completely deny the claims of feminism. but it can always escape the truth claims of others by labelling them as grand narratives. Even without grand narratives. oppression is certainly real. which surely does not make the male-domination it shows with its analysis any less real.
. Channels of discourse reassembled. 1997. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Hoey. 'The postmodern condition' in A. L. ‘Subjects of Sex/Gender/Desire’ in A. New French Feminisms. pp. 2002. 1981. Sociologiska inst. 1999. 'The maybe precession of simulacra’ in A. Undoing Culture. Claudia Reeder. 1981. Textual analysis a beginners guide. 1998. J. D. Sage: London Baudrillard. Oxford: Blackwell Lyon. 1999. Marks and I. Postmodernity. Discourse analysis an introduction. L. London: George Allen & Unwin Irigaray. A. Buckingham: Open University Press Mckee. Postmodernism a very short introduction.) Contemporary Social Theory. Consumer Society. Elliott (ed. London: Sage Rhinehart. Elliott (ed.) Contemporary Social Theory. 1995.Bibliography Allen. Oxford: Blackwell Featherstone. Elliott (ed. London: Panther Råde. On the surface of discourse. London: Routledge Baudrillard. 1992. 'This sex which is not one" trans. in E. A. 1992. and Goutsos. 99-106 Lyotard.: Umeå Universitet. L (2004) Postmodernism och kvalitativ metod. 2003. D. J. de Courtivron. R. (1971) The Dice Man.) Contemporary Social Theory. 1999. M. C. 1983. Oxford University Press: Oxford Butler. London: Sage Georgakopoulou. Oxford: Blackwell Butler.