Connecting It All

Thinking back on what we've discussed and the Chandler pieces, in class as well as reading the Eagleton and Fish texts, I'm reminded of my Anthropology class last semester and the way we first took apart our own cultural norms, etc. before delving into other cultures. It seems that it is not only the case with genre that there is a certain level of subjective categorizing that takes place, but with many different aspects of, as the texts seem to point, everything. Fish discusses how he somewhat fooled his 2nd class of students into believing that the previous class's assignment was actually a religious poem and I was amazed at how thoroughly the class took the "poem" apart. It was similar to an excercise a poetry professor presented to me on my first day of that class in which she gaves us ten excerpts of text and we had to, without looking it up, guess what was poetry and what wasn't, and why. I was very shocked to find the results.
What fish sets up for his class could lead someone to determine that it was because he told them it was a poem that they framed their thinking accordingly. Fish writes, "My student...knew in advance that they were dealing with a poem- and the distinguishing features then followed." (Fish later proves that it didn't matter whether or not he told them it was a poem by demonstrating that he did so in other cases, and similar results followed). This could lead to a cop-out attitude where one can say, "Hey, everything's subjective, what's the point?" I'd have to personally disagree since there has to be some kind of basis for everything (perhaps because I'd like to hold on to sanity and order).
Like Fish, Eagleton also uses poetry as an example, but also includes examples such as what it is to be democracy or what is literature. "Nobody will penalize me heavily if I dislike a particular Donne poem," he writes, "but if I argue that Donne is not literature at all then...I might risk losing my job." This brings me back to the personal thought, as well as a thought tossed around during class, that there must be some kind of basis for everything. The texts determine that the basis for these things that we determine to have to exist lies within the group which is analyzing whatever it is they might be analyzing. In the case of the assignment-poem, students who have studied poetry and religion thoroughly. In the case of Eagleton, assuming his peers are scholars, would certainly be disturbed by his claim that Donne is not literature, and he'd risk losing his job in that it goes against the norms (another aspect covered by the texts) of that culture, sub-culture, or micro-culture.
In terms of an example I could draw from my own life, I attend a cafe called Pisces regularly and when I first started to be a customer there, I found myself very awkward. The reason being was that the seemingly invisible walls that separate tables at most public places would keep the patrons from carrying over conversations to other tables. In Pisces, the conversation could encompass the whole cafe. It was also strange for me to not wait to be seated but to rather just pick my own place to sit. In short, there are many little rituals that can be observed at Pisces and anyone who isn't used to that sort of atmosphere would find themselves feeling insecure since it is against what they are used to in most public places where one goes to eat, etc.