The aim of this exercise is to better understand “Monster Culture (Seven Theses)” by identifying key terms, topic sentences and main ideas in sections of the essay.
Estimated time: 1.5 – 2 hours
Due by 9:30 a.m. Tuesday, February 5th
Part 1: Reading
Carefully read “Thesis III: The Monster is the Harbinger of Category Crisis” and “Thesis IV: The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference” in “Monster Culture (Seven Theses).” In your class journal (hardcopy or online), take note of no more than four key terms you encounter in each section. Research and write down their definitions. Also try to write down ideas and questions that you have in response to specific parts of this section. Bring your annotated copy of this essay to class on Thursday, February 1st.
Part 2: Writing
In your own hard copy of “Monster Culture (Seven Theses),” underline the topic sentence of each paragraph in each thesis. In each section, select the topic sentence that you think expresses the main point. Write out each topic sentence and then explain what each means in your own words. Try to be as specific as possible. Post your response below as a COMMENT to this post.
The topic sentence that held the main point for Thesis 3 was “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space” (Cohen 7). This sentence means that no matter where the monster comes from or was originated in, the theories as to where it first begin or how it became what it is now, are infinite. The background of the monster and what makes the monster the way it is, will always be up in the air to adapt to new cultures and new forms. It will never be just one basic explanation, it will have an infinite amount of forms, ideas and methods.
The topic sentence that was the main point for Thesis 4 is “One kind of difference becomes another as the normative categories of gender, sexuality, national identity, and ethnicity slide together like the imbricated circles of a Venn Diagram, abjecting from the center that which becomes the monster”(Cohen 11).
This sentence means that in each form and shape the monster reappears, it becomes combined with a new form later on created by the monster as it reappears again. It is never just one sex, one ethnicity, or one nationality, it is all a combination of different ideas and forms that make the monster a new life. The monster is always changing and it never has just one set of characteristics but instead different ways of changing each time it reappears.
The sentence in the last paragraph “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space” summary the main point of Thesis III. My understanding of this sentence is that monsters don’t fall into easy categories that are known to us. It defies logic and our current knowledge and out of nature.People always think that there is a crisis in the things that are unknown. Monsters are dangerous because “disturbing hybrid, they are deformed, and not in an order system.
In Thesis IV the sentence of the main ideal was “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across (constructed through) the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural political, racial, economic, sexual.” It means monster can become any type or shape. The monster can be created by different culture. In this paragraph, history itself becomes monster. Monsters are no longer limited，How the monster become is what we think about them look like, not what they are naturally are.
I think in thesis iii the topic sentence should be : Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space.In this thesis, the author mentioned that monster always because it refuses easy categorization. The monsters could be half human and half animal, but it can not be categorized as one of these two. It could be the third term in our organizing knowledge.
in thesis iv “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across (constructed through) the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural political, racial, economic, sexual.” should be the topic sentence. As we know from thesis i monsters bodies are culture bodies, so what scared us is not monster itself ——is the culture.Monster is “outside”, it means not the same (depends on different culture/society/era (race, religion, ethnicity, sexuality, etc).
The topic sentence in thesis III is “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space”. That means monsters are different from other species. We can’t simply define their distribution. Their distribution is related to human activities.
The topic sentence in thesis IV is “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across(constructed through)the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural, political, racial, economic, sexual”. That means there are great differences between monsters and other species. It is mainly embodied in cultural, political, racial, economic, sexual.
The topic sentence in the thesis III is “Because of its ontological liminality, the monster notoriously appears at times of crisis as a kind of third term that problematizes the clash of extremes–as ‘that which question binary thinking and introduces a crisis.'” In this sentence, the author points out his key term and key idea–the monster is a kind of role who represents the coming of crisis. In the thesis III, the author implies that the “monster” actually is the crises that people had met, so that is the reason why the monsters always come with crises, and that is also the reason why the topic is called “The monster is the harbinger (a person or thing that announces or signals the approach of another) of category crisis”. The “monster” cannot be classified into any existing classification because all the crises are uncontrollable for people. People even don’t know when they will come out and how will they look like. It makes me remember a sentence what I have read in another book “there is nothing fear except fear”. Therefore, even though there were some scientists who tried to prove and tried to predict those crises, those crises eventually show to people they are “stronger” and “more powerful” than people thought.
In the thesis VI, the topic sentence what I think is “In its function as dialectical Other or third-term supplement, the monster is an incorporation of the Outside, the Beyond–of all those loci that are rhetorically placed as distant and distinct but originate Within”. In this sentence, it turns the topic into another version of the expression, and it is an essential reason to explain what he writes in next contents. In this thesis, the author concludes and explains the reasons for causing “monster” existing by four major differences–cultures, politics, races, and sexuality. In his statements, no matter which place which country, people always monsterize the things which are different from them, from cultures, races, politics, and sexuality. People created the monsters, and the monster would destroy the people who created them. I remember my high school teacher taught me the gravest guilties people have are their PRIDE AND PREJUDICE. In these cases, people tried to smearing and uglifying the differences they did not agree with. Hence, in a lot of books and datum, people can see many contents about the monster. That is not monster, it is human themselves, their vices.
Thesis III: “The Monster is a Harbinger of Category Crisis” discusses the problems and difficulties associated with categorizing monsters. I feel the sentence, “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space”, best represents the topic sentence of the thesis. This sentence refers to the fact that the physical form of the monster is always changing as it is broken down and built up again in new and different ways. However, the physical configuration of the monster does not follow regular laws of nature or match common knowledge. The ambiguous nature of the monster’s body leaves room for different interpretations from varying cultural perspectives so a monster never has one true interpretation. Therefore is always an argument about the true interpretation of a monster.
In Thesis IV: “The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference”, Cohen describes and provides examples and evidence of how factors such as race, ethnicity, religion, sexuality and more, have been portrayed as “monstrous” using different techniques in various cultures over time, often purposefully done to influence human behavior for some gain on the other end. The sentence that most resonates with the main idea would be, “History itself becomes a monster: defeaturing, self-deconstructive, always in danger of exposing that suture that bind its disparate elements into a single, unnatural body”. This sentence refers to how history can be analyzed closely. Doing so, it can give answers to how factors like misrepresentation and, destruction and build-up of purposefully ambiguous ideas acted together under a human influence to create unnatural and problematic circumstances and, human reactions through time for the favor of a particular movement.
I think the topic sentence of Thesis 3 is “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperilling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space.” This sentence means the monsters are warning about what the ancestors experienced in the past. The monsters can not easily categorize because they are made out of many knowledges and human experiences.
the topic sentence of Thesis 4 is “One kind of difference becomes another as the normative categories of gender, sexuality, national identity, and ethnicity slide together like the imbricated circles of a Venn diagram, abjection from the center that which becomes the monster.” This sentence state the monsters are often created from the difference between people and the conflict created by the difference.
The main sentence of the Thesis 3 is “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space.” In my opinion, there are no monsters in the world, but they are not all fantasy, they are from the cultural environment at that time, because some phenomena surpass people’s cognition. For example, when we are unable to recognize the existence of a thing or a phenomenon, the monster will appear, of course, the emergence of a monster can also disrupt the logic of people. All in all, people regard the monster as a kind of soul, so it makes sense to use the monster to explain some supernatural phenomena.
Is the main point of the Thesis 4 is “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across（constructed through）the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural, political, racial, economic, sexual.” As far as I am concerned, the monster is a tangible thing, and the monster is among us in the different shape. Take the problem of race as an example, it is regarded as the creation of monsters, because the skin colors between the African and the American are different. So the monster is not limited. Of course, the monsters exist among people of different social classes and different gender. Even the history is a kind of monster. That is, our position is different, and the view of the monster is also different.
n Thesis III ” The Monster is the harbinger of category Crisis” my own interpretation of this paragraph is that the author is trying to express the hardship of categorizing different monsters. The one reason that author gave out to explain his point is that in the appearance of every monster, there are no pre-notice of when is this new nightmarish creature is going to show up and how are they going to look. The topic sentence for this thesis will be that “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space.” The categorization of the monster is something that our human can’t take control of; their semblance and story behind will always be unknown. Their formation is mostly depended on the society and culture during the time period that our human lives in. Therefore if a monster is defined as an unpredictable crisis and lives in a part of the disordered system, then they are not something to be categorized.
In Thesis IV “ The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference.” the author stated that monster didn’t shape them-selves our human did, this is proven by the main point of the paragraph “History itself becomes a monster: defeaturing, self-deconstructive, always in danger of exposing that suture that binds its disparate elements into a single, unnatural body”. The monster who existed in book literature, movies, legends, or tales all share one common factor, their portrayal and background are mostly related to the time period of history that our human lives in. Something like Cultural, Political, Race, religion, sexuality are the key factor that shaped the monster, in another word, Monster that we have known is a creation of our human’s imagination and there is no limitation toward that.
The topic sentence of Thesis 3: “The Monster is a Harbinger of Category Crisis” is “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space”. I think the meaning of it is that every forms of monster in our world that build on was based on different culture.
In Thesis 4: “The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference”, I think the topic sentence is “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across (constructed through) the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural , political, racial, economic, sexual.” It means the thing that create a monster in mostly based on the cultural political, racial, economic, sexual.
“Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space.” represents the topic sentence of Thesis III: The monster is the Harbinger of category Crisis. I think the author wants to tell us how hard it is to categorize monsters. Which we actually haven’t even seen. The topic states that wherever we may live , we create specific type of monster with respect to our culture knowledge and tradition.
In Thesis IV :The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference is the topic sentence “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across (constructed through) the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural , political, racial, economic, sexual.” is the topic sentence because no one know how the monsters look, we all have our imaginations but no one has actually seen it. It may tremendously differ from us in terms of cultural, political, racial economical and sexual aspect .
In Thesis III, what I believe to be the topic sentence is, “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space”. I believe this to be the main topic because what the sentence is explaining is that, no matter where the monster may have come from or its origin, as to where it first began or how it became what it is now, is everlasting. The background behind the monster and the way the monster acts, will always adapt to the evolution of various cultures and different movements. There can never be just one basic explanation on the monster’s existence, or the reason it was created, or why it acts in the manner it does , it will have an infinite and everlasting amount of forms and methods as to why the monster is the way it is.
In Thesis IV, what I believe to be the topic sentence is, “One kind of difference becomes another as the normative categories of gender, sexuality, national identity, and ethnicity slide together like the imbricated circles of a Venn diagram, abjection from the center that which becomes the monster”. I believe this to be the main topic because, this sentence states that monsters are often created from the differences between people, different cultures, and different views on topics of different peoples. The monster is an ever changing entity and it never has just one set of characteristics and ideals, but instead various ways of changing each time it reappears due to the different cultures and different ideals of peoples throughout history and time.
THESIS 3
“because of its ontological liminality the monster notoriously appears at times of crisis as a kind of third term that problematizes the clash of extremes -as ”that which questions binary thinking and introduces a crisis.”
This is the sentence that best describes the main idea of thesis three . it is stating that due to the nature of a monsters being it often times appears at a time of crisis. with its presence it also forth foreshadows bad things to come . like a bad omen.
THESIS 4
” by revealing that difference is arbitary and potentially free floating mutable rather than essential the monsters threatens to destroy not just members of individual members of society but the very cultural apparatus through which individuality is constituted and allowed”
this is the main idea of thesis 4 because it explains that due to differences in culture it affects and justifies exterminating people based on any excuse.
I think the sentences that represent the main idea of Thesis III is: The monster resists any classification built on hierarchy or a merely binary opposition, demanding instead a “system” allowing polyphony, mixed response (difference in sameness, repulsion in attraction), and resistance to integration. Because monsters don’t fall into any classification that we have, they force us to see things in different ways to try to understand them and this bring us a crisis, trying to find out what the monster really is.
I think the sentences on thesis IV that represent the main idea is: Monsters are never created ex nihilo, but through a process of fragmentation and recombination in which elements are extracted “from various forms” (including indeed, especially marginalized social groups) and then assembled as the monster, “which can then claim an independent identity”. The monsters are never created out of nothing, they include different ingredients that represent elements that we can find in our society, familiar and unfamiliar.
The topic sentence of Thesis III is “The horizon where the monster dwell might well be imagined as the visible edge of the hermeneutic circle itself: the monstrous offers are escape from its hermetic path, an invitation to explore new spirals, new and interconnected methods of perceiving the world” (Cohen 7). Cohen is saying that monsters are seen as something new and different, something not in any certain category. This allows new exploration into the what ifs, and how we see the world.
The topic sentence of Thesis IV is “any king of alterity can be inscribed across the monstrous body but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural, political, racial, economic, sexual” (Cohen 7). This sentence clearly defines what the rest of Thesis IV will draw its point upon, saying that monsters come from the differences in culture, people, race, economics, and sex. As he goes on in this thesis, he is able to give examples of each point as the main idea of types of differences.
The topic sentence in thesis III is “Full of rebuke to traditional methods of organizing knowledge and human experience, the geography of the monster is an imperiling expanse, and therefore always a contested cultural space”. In my opinion, this means that monsters are categorized as being different from other species. Monsters cannot be defined by the way they are used, however they are categorized by human activities and behaviors.
In Thesis IV “The Monster Dwells at the Gates of Difference”, I think the topic sentence is “Any kind of alterity can be inscribed across (constructed through) the monstrous body, but for the most part monstrous difference tends to be cultural , political, racial, economic, sexual.” It means the thing that create a monster in mostly based on the cultural political, racial, economic, sexual.