Project # 1

PROJECT # 1

An Account of Oneself

By: Judith Butler

MICHAEL HOMSANY

Professor: Benjamin Doyle

College Writing 1111

Group C Members:

Ivonne Abbo

Sean Keogh

Melanie Hashiguchi

SECTION # 1

INTRODUCTION

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Ethos: the characteristic spirit of a culture, era, or community as manifested in its attitudes and aspirations. Or even it could mean CREDIBILITY.

2.     Nihilism: the rejection of all religious and moral principles, often in the belief that life is meaningless.

a.     Philosophy: the belief that nothing in the world has a real existence.

3.     Anachronism: a thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.

4.     Hegelian: Have, pertaining to, or characteristic of Hegel or his philosophical system.

Summary (By Ivonne Abbo):

In section one, Butler explains what is giving an account of one. When the “I” is giving an account of it, is not only talking about itself but about the “others”. This is what Butler agrees about philosopher Adorno’s opinion. Others and their characteristics affect people since “I” before being an Individual by itself, it emerges from a social framework that later on, helps shaping up its formation. Another important aspect discuss in section one, is the idea of how when a social group, rejects an individual opinion, ethics ends up confronting itself from what Adorno called “VIOLENCE”.

SECTION # 2

SCENES OF ADDRESS

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Interpellate: interrupt the order of the day by demanding an explanation from (the minister concerned).

a.     Philosophy: (of an ideology or discourse) bring into being or give identity to (an individual or category).

2.     Paradoxical: seemingly absurd or self-contradictory.

3.     Infallible: incapable of making mistakes or being wrong.

Summary (By Michael Homsany):

In the reading “An Account of Oneself”, Judith Butler introduces different philosophers and their ideas about “Ethics and Morality”, and when is it that the “I” become reflective about itself.  In Scenes of Address Butler brings up to Nietzsche and his idea about how we become reflective about our actions and how we became passionate to give an account of what we have done.  Butler uses N´ to describe how we make an accountability of ourselves (became reflective) by a system of fear and terror, or better known as a system of Justice.  Butler mentions that according to N´ this system of Justice emerge from an idea of REVENGE. Butler agrees with the fact that through punishment, the “I”, will “create a memory” of that action he had made, to later on be reflective about it.

SECTION # 3

FOUCAULTIAN SUBJECTS

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Dyadic: Have or pertaining to a dyad or group of two.

2.     Regime:  A method or system of rule, governance, or control; a system of organization; a way of doing things, esp. one having widespread influence or prevalence.

3.     Critique: More generally, to judge critically, to make a critical assessment of or comment on (an action, person, etc.), not necessarily in writing.

4.     Recognition:  Knowledge or consciousness; (also) understanding.

Summary (By Sean Keogh):

The section begins by talking about Foucault and how he talks about the regime of truth. The regime of truth is the system that society follows to be morally correct, what as humans we try to be. He states that this, regime of truth, can constrain the “I”, into what it can become. This “I” can never be beyond this regime because it is unfamiliar and has never been experienced. Foucault then begins to say that the regime, actually offers a beginning framework for the scene of recognition by the “I”. This regime of truth does not define, exactly, who the “I” is but the “I” is always in relation to it, or uses it as a point of reference.

Butler then proceeds to talk about if, you question this regime, and then you are thus questioning the truth you can give about your self. Since we are so closely related to this regime, if we critique it, then we are critiquing ourselves. “Self-questioning becomes an ethical consequence for Foucault…” (p. 23) It then talks about how this self-questioning puts oneself at risk. The questioning that happens can cause unrecognizability; the “I” does not recognize this regime of truth as who he/she wants to be.

Lastly, Butler brings up Foucault’s views on the question “How ought I to treat another?”(p.25) Foucault talks about how when the “I” recognizes the other, he must understand that the since he is recognizing the other, the recognition is coming from him. But then he also realizes that this recognition of the other is not just his. The “I” is thus once again, submitting to a norm, the norm or recognition. Which is not from his own “private resources”.

It seems throughout this section Foucault is talking about how the regime of truth, and the social norms, is what defines people. No person is unique in any way. They are defined by something put in place before them.

SECTION # 4

FOUCAULTIAN SUBJECTS

Vocabulary Words:

1.     Altruism: Disinterested or selfless concern for the well being of others, esp. as a principle of action.

2.     In media res: into the midst of affairs, into the middle of a narrative.

3.     Exposure: The action of uncovering or leaving without shelter or defense; unsheltered or undefended condition. Also, the action of subjecting, the state or fact of being subjected, to any external influence.

4.     Dispossession: The action of dispossessing or fact of being dispossessed; deprivation of or ejection from a possession.

5.     Subjectivity: The quality or condition of being based on subjective consciousness, experience, etc.; the fact of existing in the mind only.

Summary (By Melanie Hashiguchi):

“You don’t know me, anonymity insists. Now what?” 
 

 -Leigh Gilmore, The Limits of Autobiography

Despite our refusal to acknowledge the correlation between norm and general understanding, we find ourselves meeting at crosswords with our norms when we give an account of ourselves (in other words, when we begin to understand ourselves better). We are introduced to philosopher Adriana Cavarero who argues that the “what” we are isn’t what’s important, but more so the process of questioning ourselves in the first place. One situation in which the “Who are you?” is used is that when approaching an other that is unfamiliar to us. This situation itself represents the limits of what we, as individuals know.

Cavarero herself brings about Arendt, a philosopher whose point is that discourses surrounding the “whom” or the unknown other stirs “relational politics”. In this way, questioning the other allows for self to be exposed to and thereby affected (“the making of ethical claims”). 

Nietzsche’s claims of a life made up of destruction of suffering differs from that of Cavarero who stakes claim to the self that is affected by the other, the “I” that is affected by the “you”. Really, Cavarero’s two main points are that one, there is this dependency on the other, the “you”, one without which the self, or the “I” would not exist and two, despite our wanting to understand the other, we simply can’t because our selves are different as well as our understandings. No matter the number of similarities one may find in another person, there exists no understanding of yourself in another person or another person in you, thereby erasing the existence of the collective we. 

An Account of Oneself

Personal Opinion Response Essay

The first chapter of An Account of Oneself by Judith Butler was the most challenging reading that I have ever read. Every word of every sentence of every paragraph of every section has a meaning that is important and that requires a lot of focus. Butler with her own ideas and the ideas of other philosophers such as Adorno, Nietzsche and Foucault to explain us the action of giving account of oneself but taking into consideration our social frame. More on, she tries to introduce the question of individuality, and the importance of it.

            Through analyzing the ideas of Adorno, we first saw the introduction of the collective ethos, that according to him, this ethos historically belongs to the past.  Butler starts to express her idea about morality and ethics and how the society and its environment have a critical effect on the individual ethics and morality. Adorno then introduces the word Violence (that he relates it with the idea of universality) to describe the collective ethos. He explains “it is violence that brings these customs into conflict with morality”. This idea here I think that is one of the biggest and more important points of the chapter, and it means that the problem with morality originate itself mostly when there is a conflict on the interest that is universal with the interest of a particular individual. He claims that there is violence when the universality itself ignores the rights of the individual; and more on when it refuse to consider the individual values over the collective as a whole. Then is when this ethos becomes violent.

            Butler expresses her own idea too about Adorno´s hypothesis, and she agrees with Adorno and thinks that its not that the universality it’s violent, but that there are conditions on which it can provoke violence.  While reading all this for the first time it confused a lot, I felt almost trapped and entangled but when I read it again and again I understand the real meaning of it. I think that that is something that describes Butler way of writing, it confused you, but once you re-read it, you will kind of get the point.

Couple of pages later, the reading will get to a very impressive part, that is by fact the part that I most adopt from it to my life. Butler introduces the famous “I”, that for my understanding this “I” means each one of us. Its and “I”, that according to Adorno, to be reflective itself needs to stay apart from the violent and adapt morality to their lives. But the main point comes when the “I” wants to give an account to itself; but itself it’s already implicated in the social framework that it emerge from. To help explain this I take the example we´ve seen in class where there was this guy who wants to give an account to itself, but everything he says, does not describe only him, but also “others” that belongs to that same social frame he comes from. This makes me think that the “I” has not story of its own; but then I realize the point of Butler reading of trying to explain me “WHOM I AM?”

            The Butler brings up Nietzsche, whom has a totally different opinion that Adorno´s one, but still she kind of agrees with him. For Nietzsche we reflect after something wrong that we have made, and he believes on punishment and that punishment later creates that “making of a memory”, so you don't repeat you´re wrong action. I really felt more connected with Nietzsche thought when Butler talks about N´ideas as a system of Justice that actually emerge from an idea of revenge. But for understand more clear this idea I thought on a cause of effect system, whereas Nietzsche thinks that we should take responsibility on each of our actions because later on there will be an effect later on.

            The section number 2 is called the “Scene of Address” so then I understood this title when Butler explain that according to Nietzsche, we start to give an account when someone ask us to; “I reflect when someone ask me to?”. But there is more than that; also, he states that we became reflective according to fear and terror. Then if we go further will see that we became morally because of a consequence of fear and terror. I do think this idea is very interesting and deep, although that confused me a lot and let me to a lot of questions, that I know Butler ask herself to.

            The last but not least idea that stays in my mind is when Butler introduces Foucault; an idea that seems to “crash” with Nietzsche idea. He points out the importance of ethics and norms in the social frame. While I was reading, Butler explain that F´ ideas means that the social frame and your surrounding contributes a lot to shape/form who I am, and at the same time determine who I am (which are kind of similar but are not the same things). He addressed how the internal and external factor influence in big on the “I” self- accountability. When I read Foucault theory I start thinking on how truth this passage was, since in my opinion the social group that I emerge from are in big part of who I am today. For example the Jewish community in Panama helped a lot to the formation of my self and influence in big to the self-accountability of my self. As we discuss in class many times, the “I” almost never stands by itself, instead it is always surrounded by a social group that like as F´says, ends up shaping the “I” by itself.

            Finally Adriana Cavarero finishes the chapter with some impacting ideas. She claims the important of the “YOU”, and how without it “my own story becomes impossible”. She addressed how the YOU is more important, or better said, comes before the “We” and before the “Others”; and how without the “you”, there is no “WE”. She tries to question the singularity of the person as an “I”, which confuse me a lot because of the way she explains it. Cavarero talks about something very interesting when it comes to singularity; she claims how when we want to make ourselves recognizable we should give a narrative account of our life. But this narrative is not mine alone. So in order to have the singularity of my own story; the “I” must give way to the perspective and temporality of a set of norms.

            Judith Butler writing is definitely not something easy to follow, but once you catch what she means you’ll get the flow of it. I feel like if you could never be sure if you are in the correct path of the reading but at least the annotations helps you understand more clearly. What I enjoy of it is how you get a sense of her concern for the individual in the universality as a whole. For must of the people of my age this is interesting to read in the way that, sometimes we think we can answer the question of “Who I am”, until the moment that we really confront the question, and we get to understand that all of our answers and not only ours. Or maybe sometimes we get so frustrated trying to know whom we are, comparing to what our social frame and/or society think we are or expect from each of us. So lets start making An Account of Oneself and really answer us ourselves, WHOM I AM?

            

Project # 2 (Blog Post)

    This "Blog Post" are different reflections about Rodriguez essay "The Achievement of Desire" that I wrote them before making my final essay of Project # 2! 

    After writing them they help me a lot to construct and focus my ideas on what later on was My final Draft of this project. I post them so the reader to understand how I developed my ideas slowly but deeply. By first reading this post and then reading the essay, you will also notice my writing improvements as well as new skills!

 “The Scholarship Boy”

            Richard Rodriguez in his essay defines himself as a Scholarship boy. But what does that means for him? It is written most times as the lower class student who is being helped by his schooling; but in Rodriguez descriptions he goes way beyond that.  He describes himself as being a good student but also a bad student, he was always successful but very unconfident. Rodriguez was anxious and ambitious to learn. This “Scholarship Boy” felt in love with books, since he saw them as crucial for his academic success, but he accepts that he wasn't a really good reader, but he moves on and on wit his special patience and superstition of a scholarship boy. He wanted to find a totally concentration moment at the time to study, that at the beginning it was hard to reach at home. He also defines a scholarship boy as a person who tends to stress a lot when it comes to scholar matters, with lack of self-confidence, someone who sees life as a ladder, also as the very last person who feels obliged to have an opinion of his own.

            But Richard Rodriguez he found himself with Richard Hoggarts description of the Scholarship boy, where he notice that there where other students like him put there. Hoggart´s describe the scholarship boy as that one who must move between environments, his home and classroom, which where at cultural extreme, opposed. Whereas at home the boy feels intense pleasure of intimacy; while in the other hand they found at school some type of mental calm.

            Hoggart and Rodriguez agree in many things when it comes to some things that characterized the “scholarship boy”.  Hoggart mention how this boy spends most of his time alone, and in classroom, and how from anxiety brings success for them. In them balance is lost. They still want to be part of their family circle but they cant since the separate their lives in different worlds putting intense concentration in is studies. The scholarship boy needs to spend a lot of time studying at nights where they find silent and concentration.  Brooding and sensitive are other words they use to refer to it. Hoggart mention “Good Student, troubled son”, while also Rodriguez mention that the Scholarship boy is “ a very bad student, a mimic, and lack of opinion and thought”.  So In some way I think that Rodriguez do not agree with Hoggart at the moment where he quoted the scholarship boy as a Good Student. 

The Two Worlds in Rodriguez Life!

            Richard Rodriguez, “The Scholarship Boy”, decided to conducted his life by separating his two worlds; his studies and his family. To characterize these two worlds its important to notice that Rodriguez decided to enjoyed or dedicate most of his time to his studies, and concentration on his success, and leave his home life and family behind. He felt that education was changing him, and that he didn't want to miss the opportunity of being successful. He was ashamed and embarrassed by his parent’s lack of education and he took for granted their enormous native intelligence. What matter to him was that they where not like his teachers and because of this he decided to take away his parents from his scholar life. As time was passing by he spoke to classmates and teachers more often that to family members. As a scholarship boy characteristic R. Rodriguez cannot afford to admire his parents and starts to creating a father figure of his teacher.

            He understood and reminds always himself to all of the knowledge that their teachers could provide to his education. He was growing up and he get use to it, he separate the to different worlds of his day, putting his scholar life at the front and his home life at the back of his head. This was his life for many years, until at the end to the Account of himself he changes his perspective of seeing life, and decided to leave his educational life back, and emphasis on his personal and home life.

Project # 2

Michael Homsany

Professor: Benjamin Doyle    

English 1111

Monday November 5, 2012

" Richard Rodriguez and his Account of Oneself "

“The Achievement of Desire” by Richard Rodriguez is the perfect example of what we have been talking in the last weeks about Butler and others philosophers like Foucault and Adorno. Just like they try to question and understand the “I”, and how to define “Who I am”; Rodriguez through his reading try to understand who is he, and who can he become, taking into account his education, his family and economic status. Rodriguez try’s to make “An account of him self”, although that is has being difficult for him to achieve recognition in his early life.  Rodriguez to a series of events try’s not only to define who is he, but also “Who can I be, given the regime of truth determines ontology for me?”.  Rodriguez account or better say critique tries to help the reader understand how the “regime of truth”(Butler 22) limits the ontology on being, saying what is normal or truth and what is not. But then the problem emerge when he found himself in a situation where what he is and the way he keeps his life, is not given by those norms, depriving him of getting recognition and find who he is as an individual.

Rodriguez was born in a Mexican family. Rodriguez parents because of their economic status where educated in a different way that Rodriguez or we might not be familiar with, but at the same time they desire for their sons a professional American education that they could never get. As a little kid his parents encourage him to get an American education even though that R´ native language was Spanish, so language was a very hard thing for him.  Being English the new language spoken at school, challenge Rodriguez a lot at the beginning, keeping him unable to achieve self –social recognition. “I intended to hurt my mother and father. I was still angry at them for having encouraged me towards classroom English” (Rodriguez 519).  This passage shows how his parents do encourage him at the beginning on getting an education and how as I mention before he was struggling with language.  It was hard not only for him but also for his parents whom could not even help their son with his homework.

As he begins to grow up he begin to felt embarrassed and ashamed by his parent’s situation, they’re “lacked” of education and their Mexican background. It was at this point that he decided to take his studies and his education at a maximum level of importance in order for him to be a “successful” person. The “Scholarship boy” (516) life as a little kid start to became complicated, as he didn't felt comfortable at his own house, when his family started to treat him like a joke because of his passion for reading and books. The reason that this start to happen it was because for his family, he was different, his parents encourage him to get an education, but the extreme way he did it was beyond R’ parents understandability. Rodriguez didn’t even felt define as what he really was at school, a” Scholarship boy”, he felt that the term does not really defines his particularity. It is written most times as the lower class student who is being helped by his schooling; but in Rodriguez descriptions he goes way beyond that.

After all his struggles with education and home he decides to make a major decision in his life about separating his two worlds: his family and his schooling. Rodriguez decided to enjoyed or dedicate most of his time to his studies, and concentration on his success, and leave his home life and family behind. He felt that education was changing him, and that he didn't want to miss the opportunity of being successful. But at the same moment on his heart and soul a desire for “Self- Recognition” was born, a desire that he wasn't able to achieve for a long time because the way he challenge some norms of being in the “Regime of truth”. Here it when we take into accounts Foucault explanation about the desire for self-recognition.

In “Foucaultian Subjects”(Butler 18) Butlers explains how for Foucault the “Regime of Truth”, makes possible a “Self- recognition”. Or better, we can say that this “regimes of truth” that he talks about, structure these events of recognitions that in some sense determines who will and will not be approved as a subject. As Foucault examines “who I am”, given that regime of truth? In the other hand Rodriguez ask him self a similar question, “who I am”, or “who can I be”? Rodriguez wonders himself how can he get recognition in his familiar and schooled realms.

            The conflict with this desire of recognition comes when Rodriguez feels that the terms of identity available to him does not define his particularity. For example the characteristics that defines him as scholarship boy, coming from a Mexican American working class family and being at the same time a good and a bad student does not really defines him as a particularity. Going deeper into this point of getting recognition in his account of the self, we can see as an example how Rodriguez feels that the scholarship boy as a subjectivity does not match with whom he was as a little boy and as an adult too. Hoggart and Rodriguez agree in many things when it comes to characterize the “scholarship boy”.  Hoggart mention how this boy spends most of his time alone, and in classroom, and how from anxiety brings success for them. In them balance is lost. They still want to be part of their family circle but they cant since the separate their lives in different worlds putting intense concentration in is studies. The scholarship boy needs to spend a lot of time studying at nights where they find silent and concentration.  Brooding and sensitive are other words they use to refer to it. Hoggart mention “Good Student, troubled son”, while also Rodriguez mention that the Scholarship boy is “ a very bad student, a mimic, and lack of opinion and thought”.  R’ didn’t feel this way, he felt that this boy that we are describing wasn’t him. Wanted to gained some recognition at this point was really hard, since Rodriguez challenge the norms of being, like for example in his American school the native language was English while Rodriguez one was spanish, while he challenges this “Regime of Truth” at school Rodriguez start to run the danger of being “excluded” in some sense according to Foucault.

            If we start reflecting for a moment here about what I’ve just mention, makes us think about factors that affect the scenes of self-recognition. Going more specific I am referring to “language” and “literacy” which are the key to R’ achieving Self-social recognition. It is very impressive to think how National languages seem to dominate others, depriving you to get recognition from teachers and classmates.

Rodriguez at his house was passing through some difficult moments. He get so engaged with his readings and his books, that he started to hid in some places of his house to dedicated to what was his priority. To his family this was not normal, or better says, they where not used to this so in some way R´ become the family joke. Rodriguez desire for “Self- Recognition” was big; he wanted to get some acceptance of his parents. As Hoggart explains the idea of the working class family  “living room” as a social space; was the place where the family get reunited, they started talking with each other, telling jokes, and to laugh until they cant stop; in comparison with Rodriguez house, at this moments R’ wasn't engaging with them, since he prefer to be reading his books. These are the kinds of moments where Rodriguez start to challenge again the “collective ethos”(Butlers 1); I mean the social frame where he belongs which in this case will be his family. In some way he critiques the norms of being, while running the risk of being excluded of it. I will like to go back for a moment to “Foucaultian Subject” when Butler argues Foucault idea of  “Self-reflexion” that he calls REFLEXIVITY. If we compare this to the example that I just mention, it means that giving that social space that is the living room there are some kinds of norms that tell you what you can and you cannot do giving that social space. After having his “reflexivity” moment Rodriguez ask him self then, who can I be in this social space, in this “Regime of Truth”?

Rodriguez challenge the norms that defines the student as a subject at school, and the norms of being at his home, and this explain us why he might feel excluded in his social space. He start to become resisting on being excluded, and here is where for me “Violence” as Adorno addressed it takes place. This particular points reminds us that this is also about what political struggles are all about. At this point is where Butler and Adorno question, that after being excluded, how can I enter again? Connecting this Idea back to Rodriguez the question we ask is, what can he do to “belong” and be recognize in the living room (the social space at home) in his own way of being?       Or at school, how can he overcome the issue of being “excluded”, even though English (which is the language spoken in that collective ethos) is not his native language.

There is always a moment in life where we wanted to be recognize by others, its normal by nature that humans what to gain recognition and in order to achieve it they do different things. Rodriguez also wants to be recognizing in a good way, in a way he feel comfortable; not as a “scholarship boy” which is something that he don’t even feel that defines him. But he didn’t get it at home neither at school, feeling rejected. While trying to find “Self-Recognition”, we passed though some “Self-defining moments”, which are moments in our lives that have a huge impact on us, shaping us and defining part of ourselves.

            In achievement of desire, we can find many moments that are “Self-defining moments” in Rodriguez life. But one of the most powerful was is when at a young age Rodriguez took a major step in his life by separating his family and his school; not only that, but also putting his teachers and everything that has to do with his education first in his life.

“When I reached the third grade, I outgrew such behavior. I became more tactful, careful to keep separate the two very different worlds of my day. But then, with ever-increasing intensity, I devoted myself to my studies. I be­came bookish, puzzling to all my family. Ambition set me apart. When my brother saw me struggling home with stacks of library books, he would laugh, shouting: "Hey, Four Eyes!" My father opened a closet one-day and was star­tled to find me inside, reading a novel. My mother would find me reading when I was supposed to be asleep or helping around the house or playing out­side. In a voice angry or worried or just curious, she'd ask: 'what do you see in your books?" It became the family's joke. When I was called and wouldn't reply, someone would say I must have been hiding under my bed with a book.” (“Achievement of Desire”, Page 516).    

           This passage is the one that makes me travel into Rodriguez mind. The way in he writes it, saying so many things at once, shows all the confusion he was feeling and passing through. The separation of the two words, his parents worried and angry with him, becoming the family joke, etc. Lets just imagine for one minute being that little boy taking major decisions, being afraid of failing, and being different from your family. All because of to achieve success. This passage is for Rodriguez a self-defining moment where he choose to set apart his family, and having to be a family joke, running the risk of someday being excluded from your family because of being different of them.

I’ve tried to look back into my past and reflect about a self-defining moment in my life that I can compare it with Rodriguez moment and I remembered a very sad moment that really impact and defines me.

It was on March of 2003, I was 9 years old (almost 10). My parents called my 3 brothers and me and sat us in the sofa of the living room. I remember my mom face with tears in her eyes, and my dad’s mouth almost trembling; worlds where barely coming out of him. They reunited us to tell us about they sad decision about getting a divorce, since things were not going well between them. I think that was one of the most shocking news that I have ever received. In my young mind I just couldn’t imagine a family without a father and a mother toghether. The 4 of us react in a different way. But things didn’t end there, few minutes after my mom told us that each of us has to make the decision of with whom we wanted to live, she or my dad. That specific moment when my mom finished to said those words is what I’ve called “My self-defining moment”. 

            I remember that I could barely think, and I felt really confessed. For me it was so unfear that I have to choose, I didn’t want to choose one of them, I remember that in my head I was thinking “Both of them or non of them”. I wanted to get some recognition from part of them, and not to make me choose between the most important people in my life. Because of all this happening so fast around me there was only one thing left for me to calm down and think carefully: a “self reflexive-moment”(Foucault in Butler). I sat alone and start thinking on my decision about which of them I would like to live with, given this situation. I couldn’t imagine my life without my mother by my side, advising me, taking me to school and taking me to the supermarket with her. My mom and I are very good friends, and I just thought that she never gives up on anything, then How can I give up on her.  But also for a man, a father figure by its side it is very important. So in that moment I make my big decision: Since my father works in the hours of the day, I choose to live with my mom. I remember telling my dad that I promises that this decision was only because I was a little boy who need its mother, but that at the moment that I covert myself in a big man, I was moving with him. I start crying while I express my decision, and then to cry harder when my 2 oldest brothers decide to go with my father, it means a separation also from my oldest brothers. 

            The norms of my family where being challenge, and my parents where asking recognition in return. Both of them want me to recognize them as the most important figures for my life in other to choose him or her. While in the other hand I was only asking recognition of a 9 years old son. I have to admit that was a divorce to admire since my parents become friends with the pass of the years. While I was living with mom, I sleep at my father house on weekends and during weekdays I ate dinner Mondays and Thursdays by his house. All this arrangement end up helping me and my sibling’s achieving our recognition as sons and getting them in return recognitions as important figures in our lives, making them feel that we desire both of them.

 Putting this example in what we have being talking about, I can said that I couldn’t get recognition of my own self, while Rodriguez couldn’t be recognized by others as he want to.  I create this question in my mind that was affecting me: how can I choose between them if I desire both of them? That question reminds us when Rodriguez also had two important things in front of him (his education and his family) and make a decision over one of them. As we know the self Identity of a person comes from his family, in some sense I identify my self with my parents; so when something like this divorce happens that challenge this relationship or this identification, it challenge my self. All this that was happening just makes me think: Who I am now? Or even further, what do I desire now? Do I want to stay with mom, or I prefer to go with dad? I think that this is a good example that can be compare with Rodriguez account of him self and all the moments that he felt confused, unrecognized, etc. In both of us story examples, our collective ethos was challenge, and both of us were in a small age.

To finish I want to give answers to the questions that I ask before, about who can we be, regarding the “regime of truth”. As I mention earlier in this essay this regime of truth tells us what is normal or truth and what is not. The real question I want to pose here is, why do Rodriguez and I, or better say, why do WE take these norms as given? The fear and terror come when we feel that we are challenge by these norms, but the truth is that there is nothing wrong on being different. Rodriguez struggles while having the risk of being excluded of his collective ethos, and try’s to find who can he be. The answer is already on his hands; he should be who he actually is. We need to find the way of achieving recognition by people who accepts us just how we are, and not changing in order to get. At the begging R’ feels that he was a kind of unique scholarship boy, and then I realize that everyone is unique in its own way, and that is that Uniqueness that makes the Account of Oneself possible; and to has its own particularity.  Everyone question who they are, but sometimes the answer don’t come so fast, and we can take as example Rodriguez, who at the end of his story, understood what was important for him and for his success.

Works Cited

Rodriguez, Richard. "Achievement of Desire." Ways of Reading: An Anthology for Writers. 9th ed. 516-24. Print.

Butler, Judith. "An Account of Oneself." Giving an Account of Oneself. New York: Fordham UP, 2005. 4-42. Print.