Steve Mentz – changing what we know and how we think

In the preface to Steve Mentz’s work “Deterritorializing,” he offers several different ways to view the world (especially the Ocean) and our way of thinking. The first change he offers is current (formerly field); here Mentz talks about how we should shape our viewing on how we think in fields and areas of expertise. Instead of thinking of it as something that is stable and set in stone, we should think of it as something that is in current and always flowing. Our knowledge shouldn’t be thought of as restricted to a certain subject or area of expertise, instead we should allow our knowledge to flow like water. Mentz writes “Fields produce harvests but can lie allow. Currents flow. We need flow to know Ocean.” In his second change, Mentz writes about water (formerly ground). Here he talks about how we should be reminded that a majority of Earth’s surface is covered in water, not land. Mentz writes “Our metaphors must float on water rather than resting on ground. In an aqueous environment, nothing stays on the surface forever.” What I got from this was that nothing stays the same, much like the flow of water, things rise and sink, and so much our own knowledge of the world. Mentz’s third word is flow (formerly progress). Here we replace the idea of linear progress with the idea that things are constantly changing in flow. This of course changes and challenges our perception of all that we know, which Mentz claims is a good thing. The fourth word Mentz brings up is ship (formerly state). Here he writes, “The dissolving force of oceanic history works against nationalism, though at times it may also tend in the directions of global or even imperial totality.” Mentz is saying that unlike a majority of nations, ships are one place were unity and equality is truly real. Our politics should should no longer be focused on the ideas of state, but rather ship – “trading, fighting, hailing, sighting” as Mentz writes. In his fifth word, Mentz proposes the idea of seascape (formerly landscape). He questions whether our language is too visual, and says that underwater creatures don’t necessarily need to rely on sight as much as we do. The sixth change Mentz offers is distortion (formerly clarity). Distortion is important, it changes how we view things and how we think of things. It can allow for us to rely on ourselves and our own knowledge rather than what we see in front of us. His seventh and final word is horizon (formerly horizon). Here Mentz talks about how the horizon is a place where new things become visible. The horizon is important in life, it’ll always be there, offer new ideas and changes. Mentz’s changes on these seven words offer us a new perspective on life, our lives are parallel to water and we must be reminded of that.

4 thoughts on “Steve Mentz – changing what we know and how we think

  1. This post shows your acute ability to get close to the text, to pull out quotes that matter and use them to create your explanation. You start to push towards an interpretation of WHY this reading matters, here: ‘Mentz’s changes on these seven words offer us a new perspective on life, our lives are parallel to water and we must be reminded of that.” This is good writing and thinking, and I am now very eager to read your blog posts about the novel! Nice work!

  2. Hey Jimmy! I love what you highlighted from Menzt’s work with us not confining our ideas to being set in stone, but rather a flowing current. This idea is extremely important to help us all think outside of the box and make sure we are letting our creative minds drive us. You made a great point when stating, “nothing stays the same, much like the flow of water, things rise and sink, and so much our own knowledge of the world”. If we stay in the same routine forever then nothing is growing including our knowledge on the world. This was great!

  3. Hi Jimmy. This was a great analysis of Steve Mentz’s preface, and honestly very helpful in expanding the meaning and possibilities of changing our terra centered language, to one that embraces the flow of water. I especially enjoyed your explanation of Ship(formerly state), which I struggled to accept as a new term, becuse I could not remove the connotations of imperialism and colonization from my understanding. However I think these two interpretations can co-exist. As you mentioned, the ship is the one place where survival is entirely dependent on trust, unity, and equity, and I think it’s important to form a worldview of the state (or ship), as a system that relies on co-operation and fairness.

  4. Hi Jimmy! Your point on our connectiveness to water through how we flow through life really resonated with my own understanding of the text. Specifically, your takeaway of: “nothing stays the same, much like the flow of water, things rise and sink, and so much our own knowledge of the world.” Literally everything around us is constantly undergoing this ebb and flow of change, evolution, and transformation. It’s in this way that we can take the lessons from blue humanities and apply it to our daily perspectives. I think your analysis on this is exactly what Mentz was looking for in his writing – a shift in living with the blue humanities in mind first means a shift in thinking and similarity.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *