Project Proposal
For my final project I would like to
further revise my second revision, the one which views Portal through the lens
of Marcuse’s ideas. While I believe that
my revision of this essay improved it as a whole, there are still a great many
ways which it could be fine-tuned. The
inclusion of more research will focus my argument and provide more, or better,
connections between the game and the text.
I feel like I’ve adequately discussed Portal; a few more screen caps or
quotes may be necessary, but primarily I need to focus more on Marcuse because
that is where the heart of my argument lies.
I also need to further specify my argument, and deviate from it less. Mostly I plan on adding new content, though I’m
sure some parts will lose cohesion and need to be scrapped or thoroughly
changed. The purpose of this essay is to
reflect upon the nature of the Great Refusal, highlighting its inherent
difficulty, questioning its necessity, and at some points questioning its
benefit. In the form of an argument I
suppose that would look something like: “The Great Refusal is an idea which we
inherently cannot wrap our minds around due to the nature of our upbringing
within our society (uniformity of inputs?) and the difficulty of defining new
paradigms (producing new outputs with uniform inputs?). Furthermore, carrying out the Great Refusal
will fundamentally change our direction as a species, taking us down a
different path which may or may not be superior to the path we are currently
walking. Portal seems to be preaching
caution, asking us to deeply consider our actions before enacting a decision
with the immense ramifications of the Great Refusal.” Is our current path (culture) not
sufficient? Is the Great Refusal something
which we should really pursue? That last one is
the question I am trying to reach; it is also the question I believe Portal is
asking. My argument is that we should be
cautious in such a radical undertaking; it may do more harm than good.
Sources:
This article is a gold mine; it’s so
long I still haven’t read it all from start to finish. It seems to view the Great Refusal as the
rise of Marxism, i.e. the abolition of class structures, primarily for the
benefit of the working class. Or at the
very least it uses Marcuse’s criticisms of a capitalist society as evidence for
the benefits of revolution. While 1D Man
certainly makes sense in this context, I believe Marcuse would not consider socialism
different enough from our current paradigm to constitute the Great
Refusal. Part of my plan here is to draw
upon the inherent similarities between socialism and capitalism to further
express the difficulty, and perhaps the dangers, of successfully completing the
Great Refusal. I may end up mentioning
Portal 2 a little here; viewing Wheatley as a symbol for the Soviet Union, i.e.
a failed attempt at establishing a new paradigm, is simply too good to pass up.
Another critic who believes Marcuse is
promoting Marxism, although this one seems to be doing so for the sake of
discrediting Marcuse. Ultimately, I don’t
think this author has the right idea either, but there are some interesting points
he brings up which I can use. For my own
future reference: “If by
“communism” is meant the political regime in the Soviet orbit—and what else can
it mean?—then its antithesis is not “capitalism” (as it seems to be for
Marcuse) but either “democracy” or “fascism,” or some other political concept.” That’s
like saying negative infinity is the opposite of infinity. None of these can be the antithesis of
communism, all are political concepts within our culture, derived from our
culture, with more similarities than differences. These two articles are nice
because they are both interpreting Marcuse the same way for opposite reasons.
This one for mostly the same reasons
I used it previously, I don’t know if I should include it in this summary as I
doubt I’ll expand its usage. Perhaps I
can draw on its thoughts about algorithms as a limiting factor in our society. Or to further highlight the similarities
between GLaDOS and our culture. Hmmmm,
maybe. It refers to GLaDOS as a “collection
of complex algorithms.” This is
literally exactly what Western Culture is: a collection of people whose ideas
have fundamentally synchronized. As all
of the pieces of GLaDOS’s mind have centered around the need to experiment, all
of the people in our society have centered around the need to consume (material
items or otherwise). A lack of inputs
which would produce a different output can result from a uniformity of previous
outputs; an infinite loop so to speak, which highlights the difficulty of
carrying out the Great Refusal, i.e. breaking out of this infinite loop.
1 comment:
Through the course of this proposal, you show that you have some sophisticated and interesting ideas. I want to encourage you in those ideas, while also emphasizing that you cannot and should not try to create a thorough response to Marcuse all in one essay. You need to find a way of emphasizing/uniting the idea that Portal itself raises interesting problems about the Great Refusal - maybe its desirability, maybe its coherence as a concept. I think you have a rather good handle on Marcuse (although the devil is always in the details), but responding in a compact & coherent way will still be a challenge.
Don't forget that Marcuse has a great deal to say (mostly very early on) about the probability that the one dimensional society is beyond anyone's ability to change it at this point. I also wonder whether this essay is more about your suspicion of the totalizing nature of Marcuse's critique, or whether in some ways it might be about responding to Marcuse's critique of the entertainment portion of the mass media.
All of which is a long way of saying that I'm interested, but that I hope that you'll find ways to focus this more strictly as you continue.
Post a Comment