Chicken or Egg?

This week Group #3 gave thier presentation about the well known tv show Seinfeld. After selected fragments of the show I could not help but agree with the group member who introduced it as "The show about nothing"...One of the questions that they posed was interesting and thought provoking. Much like the chicken or egg conundrum they asked: "Does television mimic real life or does real life mimic television?"...



totallytremendousteachers.wikispaces.com/file

Amused into indifference

The group in charge of giving their presentation about Myspace.com did an excellent job of bringing to light the underlying issues associated with the social networks rampant in our “Western World”. The group did not limit themselves solely to Myspace.com however, they also explored Facebook.com and Twitter. One of the prominent questions when discussing social networks is the question of why we are so driven to publicize every single aspect of our supposed private lives for all to see. Updating statuses and checking our pages has almost become a compulsive disorder that is slowly turning into an addiction. This leads one to wonder; how is this digitalization affecting how we interact with our fellow humanoids? The group showed an amusing clip posted on youtube.com that satirized this dilemma. The clip showed an individual interacting with another much as one would do online. His ridiculous behavior and blatant lack of any tact whatsoever served to demonstrate how technology can either transform us into tactless extortionist or offer us the necessary veiling express ourselves this way. The fact that someone can type in your name into a search engine and immediately have access to a great deal of information about you is eerie to say the least. Worst yet is the reality that even with your telephone number someone can find out information about you that you would never give out. Where you live, your age, your family members names and ages etc. Now with updates in social networks and “innovations” such as Twitter.com it is ever easier for others to know your exact location at any point in time. Why anyone would willingly put this kind of information online for all to see is beyond comprehension. As a peer mentioned in class, private detectives were once the “good old fashioned” way to find someone of interest. Nowadays however, I wouldn’t be investing in any private eye companies any time soon. I am sure this business has lost a great deal of customers because with our current technological explosion anyone with Internet access and enough determination can find your whereabouts relatively easily. The very thought is disturbing and unsettling to say the least. If Aldous Huxley and George Orwell could only know the extent of our technological dependence they would be beside themselves with angst and disbelief at our obvious ignorance of the totalitarian potential that lies within technology.

www.heavingdeadcats.com/.../Huxley-Orwell-11.jpg

Neil Postman summarizes it best when he explores the writings of Huxley and Orwell and states:

             “Huxley grasped as Orwell did not, that it is not necessary to conceal anything from a public insensitive to contradiction and narcoticized by technological diversions. Where people once sought information to manage the real contexts of their lives, now they had to invent contexts in which otherwise useless information might be put to some apparent use.” (Postman, 1986).

Whoa! If this is not a accurate depiction of our current status I do not know what is. As Postman

sagely observed, we are obsessed with creating contexts such as youtube, Twitter, Facebook

and Myspace on which we can post copious amounts of nonsensical and insignificant

“information” to share with the world at large. If you don’t believe me just look up how many

views the toilet-flushing cat has on youtube….



Postman, Neil. Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1986. Print

The ideology of Technology

Technology…at times it seems that we can’t live with it and yet cannot live without it (much like clichés =). In our western society technology and the media are as ubiquitous as McDonalds. While reading Barkers anthology on popular culture I found his discussion about technology and identity particularly interesting. Barker mentions theorists such as Turkle (1995) who see technological innovations such as gaming as a means for individuals to explore gender and identity. In her argument Turkle discusses MUD’s or Multi User Dimensions, which in her opinion enable “people…to play with identities and to try out new ones; in MUDs she suggests one can be many. This displaces the notion of an authentic identity and decentres the self without limit.” (Turkle, 362). Essentially Turkle takes the position that technology offers individuals the opportunity to “recreate” themselves in a way that would not necessarily be possible in ‘real life’ (362). Barker phrased it best when he makes the observation that “cyberspace is a dominion of playful identity construction were anything is possible” (Barker, 349). Though it appears that cyberspace offers us the freedom to recreate ourselves and sever ourselves from the constrictions of our society the reality is that this ideological fancy is misleading. The truth of the matter is that even if we sincerely believe that cyberspace offers us the opportunity to recreate ourselves in a way in which we will not be judged based upon gender, race, sex, ethnicity etc. we still carry with us those social ideologies from the ‘real world’ into the virtual world. One of the examples given in class by our fellow peer serves to illustrate the point. He mentioned the fact that a large portion of females who play Xbox Live feel the compulsion to take on male avatars while playing in order to avoid harassment. The fact that these individuals feel compelled to take on male avatars in order to be on ‘level playing ground’ with the ‘guys’ serves to illustrate how even in the virtual world certain ideologies about gender and identity carry over. As Simon de Beauvoir would point out, even in the virtual world women are still viewed as the ‘other’. Though many individuals believe that the internet and technological advances such as online gaming will help us break the ideologies that constrict our society the truth of the matter is that these ideologies are as ubiquitous in the virtual world as they are in the real world. Unfortunately for those ‘mavericks’ who believe that cyberspace is the fulcrum upon which the inequalities of our society will be abolished, Papacharissi cynically sets the record straight when she says “The Internet can then give rise to the illusion of dissent in the face of actual powerlessness.” (Barker, 355). Ouch! I couldn't have said it better myself.

todaysfacilitymanager.com/.../video-games

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies, Theory& Practice. California: SAGE Publications Inc. 2008. Print

The Ideology of Television

In class today the subject was one that often times we acknowledge to a degree but never really analyze further. How does television serve to perpetuate the ideologies of the dominant culture? Does television shape our reality or does reality shape television? As a wise lollipop wielding owl once replied, "The world may never know"....



blaugh.com/cartoons/070122_mr_owl

The psychosis of American Psycho

In class today we watched on of the most gruesome and disturbingly freaky films I think I've ever seen. The name says it all "American Psycho". I'm not one that enjoys or finds any sense of gratification in violent or so-called "thriller" films. Watching the film I could not help but be extremely repulsed by the main character Patrick Bateman. I know it is "just a movie" but I cannot even begin to describe how disgusted I was as I watched this psychotic individual carry out his maniacal abominations.  Granted this is probably the reaction the director wished to incite in the audience, but this film has definitely made it onto the list of films I can live without. Yes, I can analyze the film through the lens of popular culture and see how it deals with the themes of identity and capitalism. Bateman is so consumed with “fitting in” and being seen as a “normal” person that he puts on a façade to disguise his gruesome bestiality. To think that there are actually individuals like his character that can carry out this charade of normalcy while simultaneously living a life of utter depravity and insanity is chilling to say the least. From the few scenes we watched it was apparent that the characters infatuation with material goods and labels was exaggerated the point is made that in America too often we get caught up in our materialistic mindset that like those around Bateman we don’t recognize the monsters that our capitalist society has created. I cannot help but wonder though if Bateman truly is a construct and by product of a capitalist society or if he really is just psychotic. Yes I know we have discussed Foucault And how he writes that our disciplines, discipline us and how we create disciplines such as psychology, biology etc. in order to maintain order and create norms about what is and is not socially accepted. However true that may be I can honestly say that if Patrick Bateman lived next door I wouldn’t care about Foucault theories at all. My only concern would be getting him behind bars in a maximum penitentiary. Foucault could argue that I have simply fallen for the brainwashing lies of society but frankly I choose brainwashing over brainsmashing. However I have digressed from the subject at hand…Throughout the film Bateman is compulsively obsessed with having and being the best in his field. He is defined by his suits, his business cards, his fiancés social status, his high-rise apartment etc. etc. He is simply a pastiche of commercialized products and even though he is a cold blooded murderer the only things that trigger panic and anger are the realizations that someone is higher up on the social ladder than he is. He himself says “ I have all the characteristics of a human being but not a single identifiable emotion…except greed and disgust”. Now is this simply because Bateman is a byproduct of the brutal dog eat dog business world or because frankly he’s just psychotic? I say toss the popular culture and theories aside and call it like it is, the man is a few cards short of a full deck. The scene in which he butchers Paul Allen is gruesome and inexplicably noxious. Throughout his tirade Bateman continues to spew an endless rant about a popular band, their lyrics etc. like some mad advertiser pushing his products. I couldn’t help thinking that it slightly resembled that scene in the film The Truman Show with Jim Carrey. In the scene where he is freaking out because he’s beginning to question the reality of the world in which he lives. As he attempts to talk to his wife about his concerns she continues in her role as the wife and keeps looking at the cameras adverting various products. Here her “husband” is opening up to her about his concerns and all she can think about is Quakers Oatmeal. There is no denying that our capitalist system has played a role in conditioning us to being frivolous and materialistic but hopefully we are not in the depraved mentality consuming Bateman. Suffices to say that though this film did illustrate some of these concepts dealing with identity in a capitalist world, in all honesty watching that film was 40 minutes of my life I wish I could get back…

Malcolm X and Bordo

In chapter 10 of Susan Bordo’s book “Material Girl” she discusses how our culture has so inculcated within us a discontent with our bodies that we have come to see plastic surgery as a fashion accessory. In constant search for that unobtainable “perfect body” we straighten, curl, tone, nip, and tuck our bodies yet our minds continue to be fertile breeding grounds for discontent. One of the examples she brought up that caught my attention was an argument between a talk show hosts audience about colored contacts. Well the implications of this advertisement stem deeper than it may seem. Essentially the argument being made by host Donahue is that the ad glorifies blue eyes over brown eyes and makes it appear that having blue eyes is the ideal that all should strive for. The majority of the women on the show saw absolutely nothing wrong with the advertisement and thought it ridiculous that such a trivial ad was being blown so greatly out of proportion. Bordo describes how one lone woman took a stand and decried the beauty industry that festers and feeds off of women’s insecurities (which they initiate in the first place). This lone women declared that “we are brainwashed to think blond hair and blue eyes is the most beautiful of all” the women in the crowd responded to her comment with “hostile silence”. The question arises as to what the motivation is that impels us to morph our bodies. Is it truly just a simple choice we make, devoid of meaning and further implications? Or are we being conditioned to chase after an ideal emblazoned upon our brains through the media surrounding us? Bordo goes on further to make the argument that this “disciplining” or women is not equal around the board. There are racial inequalities within the beauty industry and certain groups are targeted. Bordo makes the argument that “Looking at the pursuit of beauty as normalizing discipline, it is clear that not all body-transformations are “the same”…even as we are all normalized to the requirements of appropriate feminine insecurity and preoccupation with appearance, more specific requirements emerge in different cultural and historical contexts, and for different groups.” (1103). Bordo goes on to give the example of Oprah Winfrey who admitted that as a young girl “she desperately longed to have “hair that swings from side to side” Bordo decries how this confession demonstrates “the power of racial as well as gender normalization, normalization not only to “femininity” but to the Caucasian standards of beauty that still dominate on television, in movies, in popular magazines…” (1103). However this is not the case for women alone. While reading the Autobiography of Malcolm X, one of his experience epitomized this racial and gendered bias. Malcolm X details his experience of getting his first conk, this hairstyle was popular during the ‘60’s. Basically African American men would use some sort of chemical relaxer to straighten their hair and then be able to style it. The process was excruciatingly painful and Malcolm X describes how even though he endured intense pain when it was done he stood grinning and admiring his new look. Later Malcolm X would describe this as his “first step toward self-degradation” when I endured all of that pain, literally burning my flesh to have it look like a white man’s hair. I had joined the multitude of Negro men and women in America who are brainwashed into believing that the black people are “inferior”-and white people “superior”—that they will mutilate their God-created bodies to try to look “pretty” by white standards.” (57).  I believe that if Malcolm X were brought into the discussion held during the Donahue show he would have given that audience a run for their money.



http://img2.allvoices.com/thumbs/event/609/480/52533249-body-dysmorphic.jpg

Bordo, Susan. “Material Girl: The Effacement of Postmodern Culture”.

X, Malcolm, and Alex Haley. The Autobiography of Malcolm X. New York: Ballantine, 1992. Print

He-Man Wuman Haters Club

While reading Barkers anthology I found Massey's argument about "gendered space" particulary interesting. The jist of Massey's argument is that "spaces are symbolically gendered and some spaces are marked by the physicla exclusion of particular sexes." (Barker, 377). Upon reading this a comical example from a well known series came to my mind. Hal Roach's series known as "The little Rascals" is a good example of this gendered space and the exclusion of particular sexes. In the 1994 film the opening scene pans in on the He-Man Wuman Haters Club as they take thier comical oath in which they "solemnly swear to be a he-man and hate women and not play with them or talk to them unless I have to. And especially: never fall in love, and if I do may I die slowly and painfully and suffer for hours - or until I scream bloody murder." Albiet extremely adorable this He-man club and oath are an excellent representation of Masseys idea of gendered space.The name of thier club says it all. The young boys that enter into the club house assert that this is their "man cave" and that "wuman"/ girls are not allowed to enter it. This is their own place and they assert that it is thier domain, any prescence of the opposite sex would be considered an infringement upon thier male domain. The club to them is as Massey says the "domain of men, connoting the primary values of toughness (either physically or mentally), hardness, comradeship and reality" (Barker, 377).



We are He-Man Wuman Haters, we feed girls to alligators, our clubhouse burned down mightly low, but we have a plan to make some dough!
-The He-Man Wuman Haters

As i read this section it also brought to mind Tamar Jefers McDonalds discussion about Romcoms and the emphasis on the bachleors lair. The bachelors apartment is depicted as one saturated in all things masculine and epitomizes "manliness". In discussing this idea of an extremely gendered space McDonald uses the film How to lose a guy in 10 Days. She relates how the film "gives a small homage to the importance of the bachlor apartment by highlighting the lair-like qualities of his place and then detailing how Andie maliciously transforms its seductive masculinity by importing frilly fabrics, cuddly toys and cupboards full of femine toiletries and cosmetics." (McDonald, 58). Although quite short this scene demonstrates the reality of gendered space and how it is depicted in the media. The bachelor pad is the man's domain, it is his "He-man woman haters" lair and women are only allowed to enter it when granted permission. Once Andie enters Ben's lair and proceeds to "feminize" his space the audience clearly gets the message that Andie has crossed the line and infringed upon Ben's male domain.

The Ugly side of Beauty

Todays class discussion was very interesting and we discussed an industry that is rather lucrative in the United States. As most of our manufacturing jobs have been outsourced it has become necessary for us to breed some sort of economy within our borders. We have become a nation of consumers and the things we offer the world are our service economy, knowledge economy and beauty industry. Susan Bordo explores a subject that makes for interesting discussion. Essentially she analyzes how in our western society "the pursuit of beauty" has become a "normalizing discipline". The concept of beauty is an elusive one, like big foot many people pursue it thinking they have an idea of what it looks like but in reality not knowing exactly what it is. Bordo explores how in the west the "beauty industry" is anything but beautiful.



www.ehow.com/how_4530933_identify-body-dysmor...

It appears that the main objective of this industry is to breed discontent and insecurity amongst women. I mean how else are you going to create a market for the infinite amounts of products in existence today? Our society has become enamored with the idea that we can recreate ourselves into a sleeker better version. We are bombarded with simulacra that screams at us "You should not be content with how you look, what's wrong with you? This right here is what you should be striving for!" We are pushed on the quest to obtain the "perfect body" at whatever costs and yet it is done so effectively that we do not even know we are being pigeon holed into this vicious cycle. In all reality we believe that we are freely making the choices before us. If someone wants to go under the knife to rearrange thier face it's thier perogative to do so and if you have a problem with that then well, it's none of your business anyway. Bordo points out the irony of a culture that is fed this overwhelming desire to "fix" themselves and achieve perfection and yet we do it so blindly and willingly. We think we have more freedom then ever and can assert that freedom over our own bodies by nipping and tucking and pursuing our perfect body. When in reality that pursuit and that perfect body are being dictated to us constantly. As Bordo phrases it "We are surrounded by homogenizing and normalizing images- images whose content is far from arbitrary, but instead suffused with the dominace of gendered, racial, class, and other cultural iconography". Bordo drives home the point that we have become so inured to the messages that we are constatnly bombarded witht that we actually believe with great conviction that the choices we make to look a certain way and follow a certain trend are not pushed upon us but self inflicted. Those in the beauty industry do not have to convince us that we are not good enough the way we were born the have already succeded in internalizing that within us. All they have to do is show us the solution, that one product that will take us to the cusp of perfection (or close enough anyway) and we're sold. The ugly truth is that the beauty industry is one that perpetuates and inculcates a dissatisfaction with ones bodily image and as a consumerist nation we buy into it hook, line and sinker. The fact that there is a "booming" industry that encourages and profits off of people's insecurities is utterly repulsive and infuriating!

Body Dismorhpia is an illness perpetuated by our "plastic" society

 www.ehow.com/how_4531197_treat-body-dysmorphi...



 

What is Body Dysmorphic Disorder? "BDD is “vastly underrecognized and vastly underdiagnosed,” stresses Dr. Phillips. The DSM-IV defines BDD as a preoccupation (not better accounted for by another mental disorder) with an imagined or slight defect in appearance causing clinically significant distress or impairment in functioning (often social and occupational)." quoted from

www.psychweekly.com/



Bordo, Susan. Material Girl: The Effacements of Postmodern Culture.

"Our Disciplines Discipline us"

The title of this weeks blog is a phrase spoken by our Professor some time ago while discussing Michel Foucoults' "System of Objects". We discussed how as humans we create various disciplines such as psychology, biology, and an infinite list of -ology's in order to maintain order in society. We use these disciplines to categorize one another as normative and non-normative. It ties into Sir Francis Bacons' theory that "Knowledge is Power" except in a more sinister way. Those who realize that knowledge is power have created and perpetuated these disciplines to have that power over everyone else by establishing the norms that society must adhere to. These discourses are employed to maintian order and with them we monitor each other through power relations because we have been taught to internalize what is right and wrong (Professor Wexler). I noted this theme as we watched the documentary about the eccentric Slavoj Zizek. One of the quotes that stuck out the most was when he said "We feel free because we lack the very language to articulate our own unfreedom". I think this quote encapsulates Foulcouts argument that our ideologies and disciplines trap us in a mindset in  which we genuinely believe that we are free when in reality we are simply playing the game invented by those in power.

http://www.google.com/



Sula Group Project

Today in class our group did a presentation on the novel Sula by Toni Morrison. It was an interesting novel that lent itself to the analysis of binaries. After our initial group meeting we decided to meet again and the best means to do that turned out to be through a chat. We decided to focus on the binaries present in the novel and chose to analyze the relationships between:

1)     The Valley and the Bottom

2)     Nel and Sula

3)     The Traditional and Non-traditional gender roles in Medallion

4)     Medallion before and after Sula

Because there were eight of us in the group it worked out well and we paired off according to binaries. Ashly and I worked on the binary represented in Nel and Sula’s relationship. I came up with a few questions to pose to the class about their friendship. I was especially interested in the reason why Sula and Nel’s relationship fractured. From the very beginning Sula and Nel shared a relationship that was eerily close. They seemed to be one person but as they got older their relationship was no longer the same. One could say that Sula and Nel shared a solidarity as women, but when Nel “separated” herself from Sula by marrying Jude that solidarity was broken. I looked at this question through Simon de Beauvoir’s point of view and saw how the institution of marriage and the ideologies of monogamy were what led to the fracture of Nel and Sula’s relationship. As Simon de Beauvoir stated the reason that Nel and Sula no longer share that unity as women is because ““The bond that unites (women) to her oppressors is not comparable to any other. Male and female stand opposed within a primordial Mitsein and woman has not broken it. The couple is a fundamental unity with its two halves riveted together, and the cleavage of society along the line of sex is impossible.” (The Second Sex). The reason that Nel and Sula can no longer enjoy their solidarity as women is because Nel is biologically linked to Jude through their children. After Jude leaves her she mourns the loss because to her Jude was the one who knew her. I did write a few more questions in case my initial question didn’t work out among them were:

Question: According Beauvoir men define women in relation to themselves and in their eyes women are just sexual beings. If this is the case then why is there such a difference between the way the community sees Nel and Sula?

Question: Nel’s identity is wrapped up in being a wife she and Jude are “one” using this quote how does Sula define herself? How does this make her radical?  Is she anti essentialist? (Barker 217)

Overall I think our group worked very well together and everyone put in an effort to make it work ou,t and in the end it did =)

Broad-ly Speaking

The 1979 film “10” is a romcom that epitomizes unbridled hedonism. In the film it appears that the sole purpose of the characters lives is the “pursuit of happiness”. It seems that in their eyes happiness is synonymous with personal gratification. Though I found the film extremely raunchy a specific scene between George and his significant other Samantha (Sam) caught my attention. As Sam and George are settling down for the night they get into an argument about George’s use of the term “broad”. Sam immediately becomes defensive and assails George claiming that he is using an extremely derogatory term for women and is implying that all women are nothing more than chattel. George becomes defensive exclaiming that in his opinion ‘broad’ is simply another way of saying ‘woman’, he claims that he is not using the word in a derogatory way and that Sam is simply attaching a derogatory connotation to the word. The altercation continues until George looks up the term in a dictionary and discovers that it is in fact a slang word used to convey a derogatory attitude towards women. Sam is smug that she has proven her point and tells George that in addition to being a “male chauvinist pig” he is gutless because he “refuses to take it and lose like a man”. Though spoken in a bantering sort of way George replies that he wouldn’t mind losing like a man if Sam did not insist on winning like a man. This brings up how value ladened our language is, even though we don’t always realize it. Language is like a loaded gun that we tote around unaware of its potential to inflict harm. What exactly does George mean when he tells Sam that her domineering attitude is unfeminine? Is he implying that women are supposed to be passive and that in carrying on in her altercation she is being unwomanly? What exactly does in mean then to be a “man” or a “woman”? This is a question covered extensively in Barkers anthology of cultural study. The question of identity and it’s implications is an extensive field of study. In this field language is a significant player. Language is the means through which we attempt to create our identity and at the most basic level attempt to let others know who we are as well. Therefore when George tells Sam that she is insisting on being a man he is attacking her verbally by questioning her gender. To theorist Stuart Hall this scene would be a clear example of how “we are formed as sexed subjects in the context of gendered families. Thus what it is to be a person cannot be universal or unified since, at the very least, identity is marked by sexual difference.” (224). Essentially Hall is postulating that the reason we use such gendered language when communicating is because this sexed code has been inculcated in us from childhood. Rather than being human we are categorized as “man” or “woman” “boy” or “girl”. Barker explores poststructualism and feminism and states that these movements argue “that sex and gender are social cultural constructions that are not reducible to biology…where femininity and masculinity are not essential universal and eternal categories; rather they are understood to be discursive constructions”. (224). Hall would concur that sex and gender are socially constructed institutions that creep up in our daily lives and most definitely manifest themselves in the way we speak.

funnypictures.net.au

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies, Theory& Practice. California: SAGE Publications Inc. 2008. Print

Images of Women in the Media

In class we have been watching scenes from The Graduate. One of the scenes that stuck out to me was when Mrs. Robinson confronts Ben in his car when he comes to pick up Elaine for a date. Soaking wet she gets into the car and commands him to keep driving. For once Ben stands up for himself and tells her that he and Elaine are going out and there’s nothing Mrs. Robinson can do. With a loathing look that could melt the flesh off of someone’s face Mrs. Robinson orders Ben to “Do exactly as I say!!”. Ben acquiesces and continues driving, Mrs. Robinson makes it clear that she doesn’t want Ben to come near Elaine ever again. It seems that Mrs. Robinson won’t be content until everyone is as miserable as she is. By allowing herself to become attached to Ben she became vulnerable. After Ben jilted her because of his “love” for Elaine she realized that  once again she was left alone, and if she could not have what she wanted then no one else could either. She threatens Ben that if he doesn’t obey she will tell Elaine everything. Ben disbelieves that she would do such a thing and Mrs. Robinson dares him to defy her. Ben dashes out of the car (all the training on the track field really starts to pay off) and Mrs. Robinson unused to opening her own door stays fumbling with the locked door. Ben beats Mrs. Robinson home and dashes up the stairs into and blurts out the truth to the unsuspecting Elaine. A hysterical Elaine forces Ben out of her room and shuts the door. What I found interesting about the way the scene was shot was the fact that Elaine’s room is decorated in white and the walls in the hallway are a glaring white as well. As Mrs. Robinson slumps against the wall dejectedly watching the scene, her black robe is starkly contrasted with the purity of the white hallway. This scene is highly symbolic and uses white (Elaine) to represent the “good and pure” and the black (Mrs. Robinson) to portray the “perverse and tainted”. Analyzing this scene from our classes viewpoint I drew a connection between this scene and Diana Meehan’s theory about the images of women. In his book on cultural studies Barker introduces theorist Diana Meehan introduces the way that women are portrayed on US television. Meehan postulates that women are portrayed in several different images and suggests that “representations on television cast ‘good’ women as submissive, sensitive and domesticated while ‘bad' women are rebellious, independent and selfish.” (307). In this scene it is very clear how Elaine stands to represent all that which is pure and desirable in a women. Mrs. Robinson on the other hand is obviously the bad women who is to be avoided at all costs. Though I too was repulsed by Mrs. Robinson’s character I found it interesting that my reaction was exactly what the makers of the film expected of me. Unbeknownst to me this scene served to reinforce a certain ideology of what makes one woman “good” and another  “bad”.

Barker, Chris. Cultural Studies, Theory& Practice. California: SAGE Publications Inc. 2008. Print

The Graduate in Cougartown

Today we watched scenes from the 1967 film "The Graduate". As we watched the film I could not help but feel repulsed by Mrs. Robinson’s character yet felt sorry for the bumbling Benjamin. At the party that his parents throw him following his graduation he is constantly smothered by people barraging him with questions about his future. It seems that no one sees who he really is and the only way that they relate to him is through his accomplishments. He is addressed as “the athlete”, “the graduate” and his mother rattles of his many accomplishments from his yearbook. Try as he might he cannot have an actual conversation with his father or anyone else for that matter. Everyone seems more interested in telling him what he should do with his life and what he should be. Through Barkers perspective Benjamin is the prime example of the Sociological subject. Benjamin is being molded left and right by the people around him and he’s being shaped into the person that everyone thinks he should be. As one of the older men at his party told him, he had just one word for Ben, “PLASTIC”. Like pliable plastic Ben is being handled and shaped into something he isn’t even sure he wants.

Then along comes Mrs. Robinson with her domineering and seductive ways. Like an innocent puppy Ben falls into her trap and is so easily manipulated it’s pitiful. Mrs. Robinson joins the crowd in telling Ben what it is he wants and despite repeating several times “I’d rather not, I’d rather not” he does what he’s commanded anyhow. During the scene when Ben and Mrs. Robinson are having drinks in Mrs. Robinson home and Ben apologizes for accusing Mrs. Robinson of seducing him, we get an interesting look at who Mrs. Robinson is. Despite being an extremely manipulative person she seems hungry for attention and control. It almost seems that she is trying to relive her youth and envies her daughter Elaine who has what she can never regain.  After Ben’s apology she changes the subject by asking if he would like to see Elaine’s portrait he replies “Very much so”.  Granted it may just have been part of Mrs. Robinson’s ploy to get Ben upstairs but by using Elaine’s room to do her dirty work it appears that she is trying to channel Elaine’s youth. Knowing the movies background one could argue the Mrs. Robinson is this way not by choice but because she has been forced into this position by society. She has been denied the opportunity to pursue the things she felt fulfilled her. She felt forced to take a path she regretted and therefore chose to assert herself and follow her every whim.

The scene that I found most interesting was on Ben’s 21^st birthday when his parents parade him around in the new scuba gear that they bought him. Reluctantly Ben goes outside to the pool and despite trying to get his father to talk to him. His father is more interested in letting everyone see the expensive scuba suit that he purchased rather than listening to his son’s concerns. His Father rants on and on about how Ben is leaving boyhood behind and is taking his first step into manhood. As Ben steps out, he sees everyone through a mask. This scene is very symbolic in the sense that his first step into manhood is done while wearing a mask. It seems that the lesson his father is teaching him is that to be a man you must wear a mask and be the person that everyone else expects you to be. Ben puts on the mask to please everyone else and as he dives in the water his father keeps pushing him down while smiling. As Ben is submerged in the pool it symbolizes how he feels overwhelmed and smothered under the overbearing expectations of society. Like Brick in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof Ben is learning that the only way to be a man in his society is to learn the art of mendacity.



Movie Videos & Movie Scenes at MOVIECLIPS.com



Mendacity



Romance at Starbucks

Jenny Leyva
English 313
Professor Wexler
20 September 2010

Romance at Starbucks

When the word “romance” is uttered it conjures up a different mental picture for each individual. Some see candle lit dinners and long walks on the beach others see heart break and deception. Some may claim that they “see” nothing because romance is non-existent. The majority of us though, walk around with preconceived notions about romance, and the meanings we attribute to it are often quite clichéd. But, what exactly is romance? Is there any way for us to put “romance” in a petri dish for analysis? This weekend I sat at a local Starbucks attempting to do just that. Like a Sasquatch enthusiast I was on the hunt for this elusive idea of “romance”. I focused on identifying romance/love and its manifestations in the relationships of those who walked through the door.

Like a professional amateur I studied people as they interacted with one another and among the numerous individuals there one particular case caught my attention. I focused on a woman in her late forties and her friend of about the same age sitting at the table next to me. They appeared to be close friends and the first (who we will call Mrs. X) was relating the conflicts of her married life to her friend. As the Mrs. X began talking, her relationship with her husband Sam seemed normative enough. Mrs. X discussed how Sam was supportive and did his part around the house. She discussed how he avoided conflicts as much as possible and described him by saying “My husband deals with the unpleasantness of life with brainless activity, he plays video games or buys new properties to restore them and stay busy”. Sam seems like the passive husband and as she described him I couldn’t help but think about Bricks character in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. The way that Brick deals with the unpleasantness in his life is by dousing it in alcohol in an attempt to numb it. As I would learn later, rather than turning to alcohol Sam turned to nicotine as his method of dealing with the preoccupations that filled his mind.

As Mrs. X continued to talk about her husband the one thing that struck me as non-normative in their relationship was the reversal of the gender roles still widely held by society. Sam is a stay at home Dad and she is the one who goes to work. She went into detail telling her friend how every day she comes home and dinner is on the table, the dishes are all done and how she can’t even remember the last time she went grocery shopping. A bit exasperated she tells her friend how “This was the kind of help I needed when the kids were young, you know…He smokes a lot now”. Throughout this discourse I sensed a disconnect between Sam and his wife and learned that the disconnect had to do with their prodigal drug addicted son Danny. She described this rift as the biggest problem in their household, yet it was something that Sam refused to acknowledge and address. She was frustrated by Sam’s inaction but resorted to telling her friend about this rather than him.

As I listened I began to wonder, if her relationship with her husband is so unsatisfactory why does she remain bound to him? What is holding her in that relationship, could it be love? Simone de Beauvoir would argue that the reason these two remain bound has more to do with biology rather than a four-letter word. In her book The Second Sex Beauvoir explores how women are bound to men in a master/slave relationship. Though women remain oppressed under this relationship they fail to break the yoke because they have not realized that they are just as important as men. Just as the master is nothing without the slave the man is nothing without the woman. The reason that women cannot completely sever themselves from men is because without both parts of the equation there cannot be procreation. Beauvoir describes this dilemma by stating

“..the woman cannot even dream of exterminating the males. The bond that unites her to her oppressors is not comparable to any other. The division of the sexes is a biological facet, not an event in history. Male and female stand opposed within a primordial Mitsein, and woman has not broken it. The couple is a fundamental unity with its two halves riveted together, and the cleavage of society along the line of sex is impossible. Here is to be found the basic trait of woman: she is the Other in a totality of which the two components are necessary to one another.” (Beauvoir, 1949).

Therefore the reason that Sam and his Wife are still together is not because they are in love with one another and any notions of romance go out the window. The reason that Sam and Mrs. X are still together is because of their children. The product of their biological connection is what unifies them and perpetuates this master/slave relationship. Looking at this vicious cycle one has to wonder who is being served by this relationship and how it is that it continues? As we discussed the article “The politics of culture” we came to the conclusion that culture easily becomes a means of domination. Looking at the story of Mrs. X and Sam I saw the same culture of the “happy housewife” that Anne Archer represented in the film Fatal Attraction. Though I heard no complaints of infidelity Mrs. X remains bound in a marriage in which she feels unfulfilled yet does nothing about it for fear of what others will think. Bent on keeping up appearances she chooses keep up the charade that serves the powers that be.

Works Cited

Williams, Tennessee. Cat on a Hot tin Roof. New York: James Laughlin, 1995. Print

Rivkin, Julie and Ryan Michael. Literary Theory: An Anthology. Malden: Blackwell, 1998.

de Beauvoir, Simone. The Second Sex. France: 1949.



thesunblog.com

Observations
Starbucks: Van Nuys 12:11pm

Two women talking @ table next to me about letter from long lost relative:

“Answer to every troubled man is his woman”
“My husband deals with the unpleasantness of life with brainless activity, he plays video games or buys new properties to restore them and stay busy
she comes home and dinner is on the table, the dishes are all done and how she can’t even remember the last time she went grocery shopping
“This was the kind of help I needed when the kids were young, you know…He smokes a lot now”.
My frustration has little to do with his inaction my frustration and the biggest problem in our household is Danny
Danny has “amputated” himself from family, swore they would never see him again and kept his word
Mrs. X claim that only regret in life is how she and Sam put son out
Couple walks in interracial

Couple walks in smiling wearing working out clothes

no wedding rings., woman significantly younger man graying hair
Woman’s daughter about 7 or 8 yrs old
Completely absorbed with each other, man stroking her hair as daughter vies for mothers attention, mother indifferent to daughter
Married couple
walk in with young daughter abt 2 or 3 sit at separate couches in own world, Father absorbed taking care of daughter

Another couple
young woman and older looking man:
Woman attempting to keep his attention, leaning forward showing him pictures
He appears distant, uninterested ready to go
No wedding rings

Group of three:
Two are a couple and third is friend
The couple sit @ table together he has laptop out and she’s absorbed in cell phone

WANTED: Non-Traditional romcom

This week in class we began Tamar Jeffers McDonald’s exploration of the Romantic comedy. In her book “Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Gril Meets Genre” McDonald analyzes the components of the traditional Romcom. McDonald begins her book by discussing how the Romcom is seen as a generic formula that is so predictable many critics regard this genre as insignificant and trite. McDonald however hopes that by exploring the genre and raising questions she will manage to “problematise the romcom, so that such films become new and strange again, and can therefore open up to analysis.” (5). McDonald makes the point that even though the traditional romcom has a plot so trite that anyone can rattle off the pattern, there’s just something about them that keeps us coming back. As cheesy as many of these films can be they still continue to draw large audiences. McDonald offers her speculations on what it is about these films that keep drawing us in no matter how predictable they may be. McDonald defines the romcom as “a film which has as its central narrative motor a quest for love, which portrays this quest in a light-hearted way and almost always to a successful conclusion” (9). With that definition in mind we were asked to come up with the name of a film we thought fit the description of a traditional romcom and a non-traditional romcom. The list of traditional romcoms was long and included many well known films: Pretty Woman, You’ve Got mail, Notting Hill etc. Personally the thing that stumped me was trying to think of a non-traditonal romcom. After wracking my brain I finally came up with 500 Days of Summer. This film follows the 500 days of Tom Hansen (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and Summer Finn’s (Zooey Deschanel) relationship. On first thought I considered this film non-tradtional because Summer is the one with commitment issues. In the film Summer is the non-sentimental one who tells Tom that she does not believe in true love and is not interested in a long term relationship. Tom on the other hand is the one who belives that true love exists and he believes that he has found it with Summer. Ultimately Summer ends the relationship and Tom finds himself utterly devestated though Summer had told him from the start that it would probably end that way. The films ending is not the typical happy ending where the boy and girl end up together. I thought that this element made this a candidate for the nontraditional category. But, looking at McDonalds defintion of the traditional romcom I changed my mind. Though the ending is not typical I would still consider it a rom com because it fits the defintion put forth by McDonald. She points out that the films almost always have a successful conclusion, but just because the film ends “unsuccessfully” does not disqualify it from the romcom genre. Though Tom and Summer do not end up together the “central narrative motor” is very much so the “quest for love”.  Even though Summer and Tom go their separate ways they both continue on their quests for love even though it takes them on separate paths. Essentially I am still left wondering if there is truly a romcom film out there that would be considered non traditional….

McDonald Jeffers, Tamar. Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre. London: Wallflower Press, 2007. Print 

Simone de Beauvoir in Jerry Maguire

In class this week one of the pieces that we discussed was Simone de Beauvoir's "The Second Sex". In her introduction Beauvoir explores the question "what is a woman?". In our discussion we looked at Saussiere as well and his theory of binaries and the fact that they are hierarchal. Beauvoir builds on this theory and expands on it saying that one of the binaries is always on top. She gives the example that in the binary man/ woman the man is on top of the hierarchy and compares the man/woman relationship to that of master/slave. Beauvoir asserts that the only way that this relationship will ever change and the only way for women to free themselves of this yoke is to come to the consciousness that they are just as significant as men. In the master/slave relationship the way for the slave to become free is to realize that without him the master cannot enjoy his position of prestige and therefore without them there is no master. When a woman realizes that man is nothing without her then she can rise up. Beauvoir argues that the fact for which women have not come to this realization is partly because they lack solidarity and do not organize as a unit to break the chains of oppression. Another factor is the fact that women are biologically joined to men and cannot completely sever themselves from these ties because without both parts of the equation there cannot be procreation. This “dilemma” makes it difficult for women to revolt. Beauvoir makes this point when she states “ woman may fail to lay claim to the status of subject because she lacks definite resources, because she feels the necessary bond that ties her to man regardless of reciprocity, and because she is often very well pleased with her role as the other.” It is as if women are passively giving up their rights to be recognized and rather than embracing autonym they are content to remain as the other. In Beauvoir’s words they lack the aspiration “to full membership in the human race”. This scenario is seen in Jerry Maguire a few moments before the famous “you complete me” scene. As the divorcee club is meeting in Rene Zellewegers home she stands to take dishes to the table and says “I’ve sat here and listened to you tell your sob stories about how horrible men are, but even though men are the enemy I still love the enemy.” (loosely paraphrased). Rene Zelleweger is the epitome of the women Beauvoir discusses, one who is content to remain in her role as the Other despite how unfair it may be. Beauvoir explores how women are also tied to men for monetary reasons she writes “Man-the sovereign will provide woman the liege with material protection and will undertake the moral justification of her existence: thus she can evade at once both economic risk and the metaphysical risk of a liberty in which ends and aims must be contrived without assistance. Indeed along with the ethical urge of each individual to affirm his subjective existence, there is also the temptation to forgo liberty and become a thing. When man makes of woman the Other, he may then expect…complicity”. This economic dependence that a woman has to a man and refuses to sever is of consternation to Beauvoir. She details how women prefer to accept this role of the other and remain subject to the man simply because this is the easier road. Looking at things through this lens leads one to wonder whether in a capitalist society intimacy is intricately bound with money. This question arises in the famous “you complete me scene”:

Throughout the monologue he continues bringing business into their relationship and discussing that though he had a tremendous victory in his business he did not feel complete because Rene was not there. He says I couldn’t enjoy it because “I miss you, I miss my wife”. In the middle of professing his love for her Tom keeps talking business, there is no clear distinction of where business ends and their personal relationship begins. After talking business Tom drops the line “I love you, you complete me”. As I watched this I couldn’t help thinking “Are you serious?? Is he making a business proposal here or professing his love for her?? Is she really going to buy that?”. Of course Rene’s response answered my question “You shut up! Just shut up… you had me at Hello…” To me this scene answers the question of whether intimacy is tied in with money in our capitalist society with a resounding “Yes”.

Anti-essentialism and the American Psycho

The word "identity" has been a subject of discourse among thinkers in the popular culture field. Chris Barker the author of Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice explores the idea of identiy and what it entails. Essentially Barker defines identity as a question of how we see ourselves and how others see us. In this debate there are those in the essentialist camp who argue that we all have an essence and that inner essence is our identity. Proponents of essentialism believe that all humans have "an underlying identity" and that identity is in actuality something real. In the other camp there are the anti-essentialists who argue that there is no such thing as identity. Anti-essentialists argue that we are not born with this essence or identity that defines us but rather that identity is something socially constructed. Your "identity" depends on numerous variables that shape you and is constantly shifting and changing over time. During our class discussion the question arose as to how we can know who we are. The answer we arrived at was that the only way to know and express who we are is through language. It is through language that we communicate to others who we think we are. An anti-essentialist would argue however that language is simply the way through which we create an identity rather than express an identity. As Barker puts it language is not a means for us to find our identity but rather our way of making an identity (Barker, 217). This way of seeing things is clearly seen in the film American Psycho.  From the short clip we watched in class I was able to see Patrick Bateman as the embodiment of the anti-essentialist argument. As Bateman is going through his extensive morning routine he goes into excruciating detail about every aspect of his routine. When he gets to his facial routine he applies a facial mask and as he is letting it harden he makes the statement "There is no real me, just an illusion...I simply am not there..." Bateman is supporting the anti-essentialist notion that we have no identies and that which we call our identity is simply a construction that we create and attempt to maintain. Bateman is asserting that he has no identity. He is a socially constructed being and all that others see is the hollow frame that he inhabits.

"The Politics of Culture" Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan

The word culture has been defined in numerous ways and seems to be a somewhat elusive concept to grasp. The authors of this piece go into detail following and exploring the various definitions applied to the word culture throughout the history of "Cultural Studies". Prior the '60's and 70's the word culture had a narrow definition attributed to it. It's probably the definition that comes to many peoples mind when they hear that "someone has culture". The image of someone in an art museum leisurely reading Shakespeare while Beethoven's sonata plays daintily in the background, or something along those lines. During this time period culture was something highly exclusive and reserved for a specific class. During the '60's and 70's the word "culture" took on a different meaning completely and was seen as being closely tied to class. Culture became a means through which one class could dominate another. As the authors put it "the culture of television, radio, film and cheap paperbacks " (Rivkin, Ryan 1998) was a means for an elite minority to dominate and control the way that people perceived reality. By inculcating the working masses with thier perceptions of reality those in the minority assured themselves that they would remain at the top and all others happily working for them below. However during the 1960's theorists like Richard Hoggart, Raymond Williams and E.P Thompson revamped this definition that culture was a means of domination. In their mind culture was a means of resistance and rebellion against the perceptions imposed upon the working class by the elite of the capitalist hierarchy. These theorists saw culture as a mean for the working class to revolt against the domination imposed upon them. They believed that the only way to accomplish this was by being intellectually stimulated and refusing to sit by and be entertained into submission. In this definition culture was seen as something that enlightened and empowered the common people. Culture was the means for the masses or the "culture from below" to voice their perceptions of reality while rejecting those imposed upon them by the "culture from above" or the elite minority. Essentially this article poses the idea that "culture" can be seen in two ways. In one way culture can be seen as a means for the elite minority from above to dominate the culture from below. On the other hand culture can be seen as a means for the culture from below to reject the social order imposed by capitalism.