Monday, April 30, 2012
True Friends -- Relationships Week 12
Friends. Friends are represented in popular culture in a variety of different ways, but there are definitely some dominant representations of friends that we see more than others. This video clip is filled with such dominant discourses about what makes someone a "true friend."
What are these discourses? What do they tell us about how friends "should" behave?
If the target audience for this video is people under the age of 15, how does that social location impact the meaning of these discourses?
The In-laws -- Relationships Week 12
http://video.msn.com/?mkt=en-us&brand=msn%20video&playlist=videoByUuids:uuids:de6a5020-ed90-4120-9eb0-9d5605b20ab6&showPlaylist=true&from=iv2_en-us_lifestyle_relationships&fg=MSNlifestyles_relationships
What do we expect from our relationships with our “in-laws”?
Many of us are told that the parent’s of our life-partners are supposed to become part of our family, but what is that process supposed to look like? Well, when you watch the way that popular culture reflects the process, it sure seems like it ain’t gonna be something pretty.
“The in-laws” is, in and of itself, a dominant discourse, filled with jokes about uncomfortable moments, awkward relationships, and conflict. This dominant discourses actually suggests that our relationships with our in-laws are bound to be so unpleasant, that they are acceptable to mock. And while many of us experience positive relationships with our in-laws, it would seem from representations in popular culture that these successful relationships are few and far between.
Consider the two clips above. The first, is the trailer for the film, “Meet the Parents,” which epitomizes the dominant discourse about in-laws (in particular the one about the female partner’s father being especially critical and unpleasant). The second, is from the “Today Show,” where we hear a “reporter” in a mall try to make people’s relationships with their in-laws sound worse than they actually are, and a psychologist in studio who prescribes various “solutions” because she believes that there are bound to be various communication problems for people and their in-laws over the holidays.
Watching these clips, what do you learn about the expectations we develop for our in-laws? What potential impact can you see this dominant discourse having on real-life relationships?
My Mom's on Facebook -- Relationships Week 12
In this rather entertaining comedic song, we come across a relatively new development in familial relationships: parents and facebook (or any other social networking site).
Now, I’m not sure how many of you interact with your parents on facebook, or how much you share with them about the things you do when you’re not studying hard at school, but I do know that over the years I’ve discovered there are a lot of things that MY parents are better off NOT knowing. Don’t get me wrong, my parents are VERY cool, and VERY understanding, but there are some behaviors, like drinking and sex, that early in college I discovered were things that my parents didn’t need to know about.
The video above reinforces this discourse—that parents and children are better off not sharing too much of their lives. In fact, this video reproduces some very important discourses about how parents and their children should interact. This video reminds us that there should be limitations surrounding what parents and children know about one another and how “involved” they are in each others’ lives. “Children,” this discourse says, need boundaries with their parents; otherwise, they can’t really be themselves, which of course suggests that children are their “true” selves when they aren’t with their parents. Any chance this discourse facilitates boundaries in the relationships between parents and children?
As we see in the video, this discourse seems to be particularly prominent for mothers and their children. For while it is safe to assume that many fathers wouldn’t react well to seeing their sons (and CERTAINLY their daughters) “debauchery” on facebook, this video promotes the dominant discourse that it is moms as parents who are more likely to be nosy, more likely to try and “connect” with their children, and more likely to be upset by their behavior.
What I find particularly interesting about this video, though, is the way it presents discourses about how relationships between children and parents are changing as a result of social networking sites like facebook. This discourse, like so many others about the internet, reminds us that parents should be fearful/suspicious/on top of their children’s social networking, and reminds us that when “children” are being asked by mom or dad to be a “friend” on facebook—and likewise when they have to deal with the process of deciding whether to “confirm” or “ignore” them—they are going to feel uncomfortable and awkward. This video employs discourses which teach us that “confirming” mom might lead to “destroying all my [our] privacy,” and that social networking sites are going to be a place of tension between parents and their children. Parents need to "watch out" for what their kids are doing on the internet, and "kids" need to watch out for their parents getting too close and too involved with their lives.
Defining Family -- Relationships Week 12
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhbNJ4zJA1A
The clips above are both from reality TV shows in which families are the focal point. We see from these clips some VERY different styles of families. These clips show us a wide variety of discourses about the ways that motherhood, fatherhood, work, marriage and parenting function in a family.
It would seem, then, from watching these clips that discourses about families in popular culture provide a certain amount of flexibility—a way of seeing that all families are different.
However, while there is no question that these families look and behave differently from one another, there is also no question that there are dominant discourses present in these shows that create consistency in how we define families. For example, all of these families have two parents, which reflects a dominant discourse about the ways families should be structured.
In fact, these dominant discourses reinforce the basic parameters for how we perceive and understand families in the first place. In other words, these dominant discourses are what inform us that these groups of people are not just groups, but ARE families.
What are some of these dominant discourses? What do they tell us about how families should function? In particular, what do these clips show us about which types of relationships & roles families “need”?
In the end, while popular culture does reflect different “types” of families, what we can see from these clips, is that it also reinforces certain hegemonic ideas of what families should be.
Cancer -- The Body Week 11
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
http://dsc.discovery.com/videos/koppel-living-with-cancer-you-dont-stop-living.html
Cancer afflicts about 1.5 million Americans every year with over 500,000 dying from the disease. Cancer (and its prevention) has become a common discourse that informs us about our bodies and how they can “betray” us. Discourses about cancer in popular culture have made ALL of us familiar with the disease being both common and deadly.
Yet what do these discourses tell us about cancer and how we are to understand it? What are the representations of cancer we see most often? What do these discourses tell us about our own bodies, and the realities of living with illness? Does popular culture teach us to “fear” cancer and illness?
The videos above highlight a variety of discourses about cancer, our fears of illness, how our culture should "respond" to illness, and even illuminates the links between discourses of happiness and discourses of illness. Don’t let cancer get the best of you, we are reminded. Prevent it before it happens, we are told. But can you “live life to its fullest” even when you have cancer?
In her book, “Ordinary Life: A Memior of Illness,” Kathyln Conway writes the following, "I resent reading glib, cute stories about cancer not being so bad, and I hate hearing that cancer made someone a better person. It's only making me a worse person”…People want to hear stories "of lessons learned, of cancer as a transformative experience."
Do dominant discourses about illness and how they “other” our bodies make more it likely that we will hear more positive stories about people “overcoming” the challenges of cancer instead of more negative stories about people suffering through it? Why/why not?
I'm on a Diet -- The Body Week 11
The industries surrounding health/fitness, weight-loss and diet make over 35 billion dollars a year in sales. The success of these industries depends heavily on the production & reproduction of dominant discourses that criticize and “other” bodies that are not thin. The impact of these discourses is obvious, AND profound.
With clever names like, Nutrisystem and Medifast, we are informed that we can actually transform who we are, not just the way we look. In other words, these discourses create “othering” by reminding us that being overweight is not only bad dangerous, and undesirable, but apparently, it fundamentally changes who you are (and clearly, not in a good way).
Furthermore, the fact that these discourses are encoded in so many different ways plays a large role in the impact they have. The basic dominant discourse that fat bodies are wrong, bad, ugly, unhealthy etc., is reproduced through websites, ludicrous surveys, and medical professionals who talk about the dangers of belly-fat.
Take a look at the videos and websites below and consider how they “other” fat bodies. What do you observe? What impact does this type of “othering” have on our indentities?
http://chli.com/packages/individual_package/promotional?gclid=CNiu9MDHp54CFShSagod4wrklw
http://www.medifast1.com/?campaign=3257&gclid=CI7VlszHp54CFRhfagodEQhWlQ
Gender Wars -- Gender and Sex Week 10
The title “Why Men Are Becoming More Like Women” caught my eye on Huffington Post this week (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/marcus-buckingham/why-men-are-becoming-more_b_360349.html).
It’s an article written by Marcus Buckingham in response to Time magazine’s article “The State of American Women”
(http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-2,00.html).
Time declared the gender wars “over” and the result a “tie”: “It's no longer a man's world…nor is it a woman's nation. It's a cooperative, with bylaws under constant negotiation, and expectations that profits be equally shared." However, Buckingham has a different interpretation of the research and trends Time used to justify their declaration. His interpretation centers on the issue of choice, which makes it particularly relevant to this class, since we’ve been talking about the positive value of being able to position oneself in relation to gender discourses rather than simply being positioned by them.
Interestingly, Buckingham links this idea of choice with “being women” – which explains his title (which I assume was meant to be provocative – “oh no, men are becoming like women, scary!). So his interpretation of the outcome of the gender “wars” is that gender norms are less rigid, that everyone has more choices about how to “perform gender”, and because of that “women have won.” According to the author, “The choice-filled world that women have bestowed on men is a tough world. Tough on women; even tougher on men.”
What might be the effects of assuming and declaring that less rigid gender norms and more choice means that women – their “attitudes, behaviors and preoccupations” - have won? How does this idea relate to the gender discourses we see in popular culture (and that we’ve been exploring in class)?
These articles highlight the social constructionist view of multiple realities and how these are constructed based on social location, the different experiences these locations give rise to, and the stories we tell ourselves and others – what we choose to focus on and what we choose to ignore (including research and “trends”).
Have we as a society been engaged in a “gender war?” Is this war ongoing, or is it indeed over? Are we at a stand-off? A truce? Did one side win? Are we better or worse off now than before? The answers to these questions undoubtedly depend on who is answering them and what they choose to use to justify their answers.
How do the ideas of multiple realities & social location from social constructionism help you make sense of (deconstruct) these two articles? Why might deconstructing these “stories” be helpful and important in our society?
And what about the “negatives” that Buckingham says are the result of “women winning” – that more choice means more confusion and more guilt? How might a social constructionist respond to that?
It’s an article written by Marcus Buckingham in response to Time magazine’s article “The State of American Women”
(http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1930277_1930145_1930309-2,00.html).
Time declared the gender wars “over” and the result a “tie”: “It's no longer a man's world…nor is it a woman's nation. It's a cooperative, with bylaws under constant negotiation, and expectations that profits be equally shared." However, Buckingham has a different interpretation of the research and trends Time used to justify their declaration. His interpretation centers on the issue of choice, which makes it particularly relevant to this class, since we’ve been talking about the positive value of being able to position oneself in relation to gender discourses rather than simply being positioned by them.
Interestingly, Buckingham links this idea of choice with “being women” – which explains his title (which I assume was meant to be provocative – “oh no, men are becoming like women, scary!). So his interpretation of the outcome of the gender “wars” is that gender norms are less rigid, that everyone has more choices about how to “perform gender”, and because of that “women have won.” According to the author, “The choice-filled world that women have bestowed on men is a tough world. Tough on women; even tougher on men.”
What might be the effects of assuming and declaring that less rigid gender norms and more choice means that women – their “attitudes, behaviors and preoccupations” - have won? How does this idea relate to the gender discourses we see in popular culture (and that we’ve been exploring in class)?
These articles highlight the social constructionist view of multiple realities and how these are constructed based on social location, the different experiences these locations give rise to, and the stories we tell ourselves and others – what we choose to focus on and what we choose to ignore (including research and “trends”).
Have we as a society been engaged in a “gender war?” Is this war ongoing, or is it indeed over? Are we at a stand-off? A truce? Did one side win? Are we better or worse off now than before? The answers to these questions undoubtedly depend on who is answering them and what they choose to use to justify their answers.
How do the ideas of multiple realities & social location from social constructionism help you make sense of (deconstruct) these two articles? Why might deconstructing these “stories” be helpful and important in our society?
And what about the “negatives” that Buckingham says are the result of “women winning” – that more choice means more confusion and more guilt? How might a social constructionist respond to that?
Criticizing Masculinity -- Gender and Sex Week 10
These two advertisements for Polysporin & Verizon Wireless are part of a unique genre of representations of masculinity. In these advertisements, men are portrayed as being unable to meet the hegemonic standards of masculinity in that they are not “tough” enough, or are not self-reliant enough to be “real” men. These men are portrayed as being idiots with little or no common sense. They are also portrayed as being disposable. They can be physically hurt or emotionally belittled because they are represented as not meeting hegemonic norms for masculinity. In the Verizon ad, for example, we see a dad being shown as moron who needs his daughter to explain the “magic” of the internet to him, and who can’t even be trusted to complete the simplest of tasks (washing the dog). Furthermore, his daughter and wife seem to treat him as nothing more than a nuisance, and when they do so, his response to them shows him not only lacking any toughness or aggression, but lacking any basic self-esteem or assertiveness.
It is interesting to consider the impact that hegemonic masculinity and social location have on the way our culture views advertisements like these as being “acceptable” or “appropriate.” If the gender of the characters in these commercials were switched, would we respond differently? If a man and his son treated a mother the way the Verizon daughter and mother speak to the Verizon father, would this blatant disrespect be culturally acceptable? In effect, these advertisements, and hundreds of others like them (and TV shows, movies, etc.) inform us that men who do not follow the rules of hegemonic masculinity cease to deserve basic respect and are acceptable to victimize. However, because men as a social group retain a great deal of social and political power, discourses that devalue them as people become more culturally tolerable (this advertisement WAS eventually removed after repeated criticisms of it being anti-male & anti-father).
While these advertisements may seem like they contain alternative discourses about masculinity, they do not. Rather, these advertisements show us the consequence of what happens to men if they do NOT “live up” to being a real man. They serve to reinforce the hegemonic by reminding us that men should be “real” men, otherwise, they are acceptable objects for us to mock and laugh at.
No Homo -- Gender and Sex Week 10
Based on our discussions in class, it should be clear that there is tremendous pressure on men to prove that they are not gay or in any way feminine.
As we learn from this clip, such discourses of masculinity have taken a new turn with the phrase, “no homo.” Simply stated, this phrase provides men a way to express emotion, discuss beautiful weather, and even talk about homosexual sex, while at the same time clearly communicating that such “feminine” traits do not make them gay. This phrase is a powerful commentary on the links between hegemonic discourses that tell men not to be feminine, and hegemonic discourses that suggest any expression of femininity must be followed by homophobia.
How does this clip challenge the phrase “no homo” and the hegemonic discourses it promotes? What does the phrase “no homo” tell us about the expectations being placed on male behavior? What potential impacts does the phrase “no homo” have on different groups of men?
In addition, as this phrase was generated from Hip-Hop music, what, if anything, does it tell us about discourses of race and how they inform/relate to discourses of masculinity?
Sunday, April 15, 2012
A Woman's Nation -- Femininity Week 9
Recently, Maria Shriver, reporter and first lady of California, launched a new website and media series called “A Woman’s Nation.”
Visit these websites, look around, and watch some clips.
http://www.awomansnation.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33247001/
These websites reveal many dominant discourses about women, and also inform us about which discourses of femininity are “relevant” in news media today. They inform us about motherhood, working women, representations of women on TV, and more. However, at the same time, they clearly do NOT inform us about ALL women, or even a broad array of the possible discourses that exist about women. Why?
There are also some significant differences between the sites even though they are based on the same study. The MSNBC website, for example, reflects the news media’s interpretations of the study, and thus explores these topics in a way that emphasizes and models more dominant discourses about femininity. Why?
Which discourses of femininity do these websites choose to emphasize? Which do they ignore? Which women are charged with reporting this information to us, and how do they differ from the women they are supposed to be reporting about? How do the discourses of femininity portrayed on these websites position the women and men who view these programs?
Visit these websites, look around, and watch some clips.
http://www.awomansnation.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33247001/
These websites reveal many dominant discourses about women, and also inform us about which discourses of femininity are “relevant” in news media today. They inform us about motherhood, working women, representations of women on TV, and more. However, at the same time, they clearly do NOT inform us about ALL women, or even a broad array of the possible discourses that exist about women. Why?
There are also some significant differences between the sites even though they are based on the same study. The MSNBC website, for example, reflects the news media’s interpretations of the study, and thus explores these topics in a way that emphasizes and models more dominant discourses about femininity. Why?
Which discourses of femininity do these websites choose to emphasize? Which do they ignore? Which women are charged with reporting this information to us, and how do they differ from the women they are supposed to be reporting about? How do the discourses of femininity portrayed on these websites position the women and men who view these programs?
Femininity & Alternative Discourse -- Femininity Week 9
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v8e6-IeQ0aw
Alternative discourses can provide us with a valuable tool for identifying and understanding dominant discourses and their impact on us. This is understandable, as dominant discourses are frequently experienced as “taken for granted truths,” so it’s easy for us to be unaware of how we’re being positioned by them, until we are presented with some “alternatives” or “challenges” to them.
This SNL clip starring Natalie Portman asserts several alternative discourses about femininity. In the clip, this young, petite, White woman is performing a form of gangster rap. She is, therefore, portrayed as vulgar, aggressive, angry and even violent (which coincides with our dominant discourses about Black men and gangster rap). The producers of this clip clearly thought that their audience would be amused by this representation. Why? What assumptions were they making about us and how we view femininity?
When we laugh at this clip (and/or find it amusing), we are recognizing that the behavior being displayed is NOT what we typically associate with femininity. This, in turn, highlights what the dominant discourses about femininity actually are—that women should be docile, calm, passive, & polite.
Certainly part of what makes this clip funny (and/or amusing) is that Natalie Portman, a film star, is not someone who we associate with this type of behavior (the clip clearly shows this in the segments where she is being interviewed). The “joke” is that Natalie isn’t the “nice girl” people expect her to be. Of course, if we change Natalie’s social location, our expectations of “nice girl” change along with them. If, for example, Natalie were a Black woman film star doing gangster rap, would our interpretation of her actions be different? Would we still be as amused or think it was as funny? In other words, Natalie’s social location as a young, petite, White female film star fits with the dominant discourses about femininity, so when she performs this alternative discourse about femininity we are able to find it funny/amusing.
So when you watch this clip, which alternative discourses about femininity do you notice? What do they tell you about dominant discourses of femininity?
Questioning Gender -- Gender & Sexuality Week 8
Gender construction begins at a very young age. Watch this clip and identify the discourses about gender that are already so dominant for these young children.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWc1e3Nbc2g
There is no doubt our socialization into gender begins at a young age. What is important to note from a social constructionist perspective, though, is that our gender subject positions are constantly being reinforced by dominant discourses, which is part of why it is so difficult for people to have those subject positions challenged directly. Even as adults, many of us are obsessed with trying to apply our discourses about gender (in particular the binaries about gender, behavior, and sexuality) onto the world around us. We are often “confused” when people do not fit into our discourses about gender. The image above of “Pat” from SNL, epitomizes this in that the entire skit is based on the idea that people can’t “figure out” what Pat “is”. Take the following link as an example.
http://community.thenest.com/cs/ks/forums/thread/23658986.aspx?MsdVisit=1
This is from a popular blog called, “The Knot.” Notice here, someone has posted a question about how to identify the gender of a person with whom they work. It certainly seems from their post (and the comments below) that there is no hostility or anger directed toward the “genderless” person, but there is no doubt that it is more than mere curiosity motivating their inquiry. There are serious concerns about how to interact WITH, and how to refer TO this person. The responses to the post are VERY informative as well, in that not a single person suggests (not surprisingly because our discourses about gender are hegemonic) the possibility that this person may not fit into the category of “man” or “woman.” Instead, we see one dominant discourse about gender after the other. What would this post (and comments) mean to someone who is transgender or intersex? How might the dominant discourses acted out on this blog reinforce social power? Might the transgender or intersex person reading this feel shamed, different, or ostracized because they are hearing over and over again that people think if you don’t fit into these dominant categories then you are not normal—you are some sort of “freak?”
Unfortunately, the process of questioning gender is not always as “tame” as it is on the Knot. As a result of our gendered subject positions being so dominant a part of our identities, so important a part of our performing masculinity or femininity from the youngest of ages, serious challenges to those positions are often met with open hostility. This hostility can be heard in the screams of “fag” & “dyke” on our schoolyard playgrounds, in our hip-hop records, or on any number of Reality TV shows. But this hostility all too often manifests itself in violence. Below is an article about a transgender woman who was brutally murdered when the man she was dating discovered she was not biologically female. In the article, the defense attorney is quoted saying, “That while Andrade did kill Zapata, it was not premeditated. Instead, Andrade acted in a moment of rage upon discovering that Zapata was transgender.” What about Zapata being transgender was so terrible that it motivated such rage and murder? Could it be that our dominant discourses about gender, those that we internalize and use to create our subject positions, facilitate a culture in which violence like this is possible?
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/04/16/transgender.slaying.trial/index.html
Virginity -- Gender & Sexuality Week 8
Ah, virginity. A discourse about sexuality that literally is as old as recorded history. Virginity as a discourse has come a long way since the Virgin Mary, but it still dominates much of our thinking about sex. Virginity is a concern for many young women and men, and the social implications of “being a virgin” versus NOT “being a virgin” are rather severe.
For example, I was once giving a violence prevention workshop to a group of junior high students. After my presentation, a young woman came up to me and told me a story about how she’d had oral and anal sex. She wanted me to confirm for her that she could still consider herself a virgin. She was TERRIFIED by the idea that she was not a virgin, and was even more terrified of what it would mean to other people if she wasn’t a virgin.
In fact, Oprah dedicated an entire episode of her show to discuss tweens who were engaging in various sex acts (oral, anal, other) in order to “keep” their virginities in tact. From a social constructionist perspective, it is fascinating that both the tweens on Oprah and the junior high school student with whom I spoke believed that a certain type of sex, i.e. penile-vaginal intercourse, was the only way to “lose” one’s virginity. This dominant discourse about virginity implies that penile-vaginal sex is THE most important type of sex. This should come as no surprise. After all, how many of us have been exposed to the “baseball diamond” analogy about sex, in which oral sex (& sometimes anal sex) is considered “third base,” while penile-vaginal sex is considered a “home run.” Such discourses about virginity/sex are rather limiting, since sex can be experienced in so many ways, and they are certainly heterosexist in that they clearly suggest that if one does not have penile-vaginal intercourse then one has not “really” experienced sex—or for that matter, has not “lost” their virginity.
In our culture, there are countless discourses that promote the importance of virginity. Many religious discourses promote the notion that virginity until marriage, in particular for a woman, is a measure of purity, a measure of a person’s “quality”. But religion is by far the only location where this dominant discourse is promoted. Our culture is FULL of references to the fact that we (especially women) are supposed to “save” our virginity for someone special—or that at the very least, we are supposed to think about our “first time” having sex as something important. This is not to suggest that our first sexual experience shouldn’t be meaningful, but from a social constructionist perspective, we should question why so many discourses instruct us about the meaning of “losing” our virginity. Part of such questioning might involve asking how someone actually “loses” their virginity in the first place. Loses it? Like losing your car keys? This language (and discourse) implies that virginity is not an idea, but rather that it actually “exists,” that it is “real.” Virginity, apparently, is so real that it is like a material possession, one that can be “lost,” or “stolen.”
Back in September of 2008, a woman who called herself Natalie Dylan, put her virginity up for auction to the highest bidder. When she (and the brothel in Nevada helping her—The Bunny Ranch) began to promote her auction, the media response was remarkable. She was on every news channel for days, and her action prompted countless discussions about women’s empowerment, prostitution, morality, etc.
Below are three links that provide us with powerful examples about the dominant discourses that surround virginity. The first two links are news coverage about Natalie’s auction from CNN and a local Sacramento news channel, in which we are exposed to questions about the “value” of virginity, and many examples of people internalizing discourses about virginity. Then there is the last link, which is an op-ed written by Natalie Dylan herself. In it, she explains her rationale for auctioning her virginity by using several alternative discourses to challenge the criticism she was receiving.
Needless to say, there are COUNTLESS interpretations we can create from all of the discourses about virginity, but regardless of the meanings you see, there can be little doubt that virginity as a discourse has a dramatic impact on our conceptualizations about sex, and our own identities.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1547743588883333195#docid=6056890354786360040
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/22/virginity.value/index.html
http://www.alternet.org/sex/123185/why_i%27m_selling_my_virginity/
For example, I was once giving a violence prevention workshop to a group of junior high students. After my presentation, a young woman came up to me and told me a story about how she’d had oral and anal sex. She wanted me to confirm for her that she could still consider herself a virgin. She was TERRIFIED by the idea that she was not a virgin, and was even more terrified of what it would mean to other people if she wasn’t a virgin.
In fact, Oprah dedicated an entire episode of her show to discuss tweens who were engaging in various sex acts (oral, anal, other) in order to “keep” their virginities in tact. From a social constructionist perspective, it is fascinating that both the tweens on Oprah and the junior high school student with whom I spoke believed that a certain type of sex, i.e. penile-vaginal intercourse, was the only way to “lose” one’s virginity. This dominant discourse about virginity implies that penile-vaginal sex is THE most important type of sex. This should come as no surprise. After all, how many of us have been exposed to the “baseball diamond” analogy about sex, in which oral sex (& sometimes anal sex) is considered “third base,” while penile-vaginal sex is considered a “home run.” Such discourses about virginity/sex are rather limiting, since sex can be experienced in so many ways, and they are certainly heterosexist in that they clearly suggest that if one does not have penile-vaginal intercourse then one has not “really” experienced sex—or for that matter, has not “lost” their virginity.
In our culture, there are countless discourses that promote the importance of virginity. Many religious discourses promote the notion that virginity until marriage, in particular for a woman, is a measure of purity, a measure of a person’s “quality”. But religion is by far the only location where this dominant discourse is promoted. Our culture is FULL of references to the fact that we (especially women) are supposed to “save” our virginity for someone special—or that at the very least, we are supposed to think about our “first time” having sex as something important. This is not to suggest that our first sexual experience shouldn’t be meaningful, but from a social constructionist perspective, we should question why so many discourses instruct us about the meaning of “losing” our virginity. Part of such questioning might involve asking how someone actually “loses” their virginity in the first place. Loses it? Like losing your car keys? This language (and discourse) implies that virginity is not an idea, but rather that it actually “exists,” that it is “real.” Virginity, apparently, is so real that it is like a material possession, one that can be “lost,” or “stolen.”
Back in September of 2008, a woman who called herself Natalie Dylan, put her virginity up for auction to the highest bidder. When she (and the brothel in Nevada helping her—The Bunny Ranch) began to promote her auction, the media response was remarkable. She was on every news channel for days, and her action prompted countless discussions about women’s empowerment, prostitution, morality, etc.
Below are three links that provide us with powerful examples about the dominant discourses that surround virginity. The first two links are news coverage about Natalie’s auction from CNN and a local Sacramento news channel, in which we are exposed to questions about the “value” of virginity, and many examples of people internalizing discourses about virginity. Then there is the last link, which is an op-ed written by Natalie Dylan herself. In it, she explains her rationale for auctioning her virginity by using several alternative discourses to challenge the criticism she was receiving.
Needless to say, there are COUNTLESS interpretations we can create from all of the discourses about virginity, but regardless of the meanings you see, there can be little doubt that virginity as a discourse has a dramatic impact on our conceptualizations about sex, and our own identities.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1547743588883333195#docid=6056890354786360040
http://www.cnn.com/2009/LIVING/01/22/virginity.value/index.html
http://www.alternet.org/sex/123185/why_i%27m_selling_my_virginity/
Linking Gender & Sexuality -- Gender & Sexuality Week 8
In class we discussed the ways in which gender and sexuality are linked through discourse. Below are two clips that help emphasize this point. These SNL skits are highly dependent on the social locations (in particular the gender and sexual orientation) of the performers in order to create humor. In other words, the way the characters act (sexually) makes sense to us because of their social locations as straight men. Thus, the fact they are obsessed with sex and their penises “makes sense” to us. In fact, both skits utilize the “male sex drive” discourse to construct meaning, and thus demonstrate how gender and sexual behavior are connected in our minds.
It is also interesting to note that in both skits, in particular, “motherlover,” there is a good amount homoeroticism (i.e. sexual tension) between the two male performers. While the skit is definitely reinforcing the “straightness” of these two characters, it is also creating humor from the fact that these two men are so obsessed with one another that it “almost” seems like they’re sexually into one another (note the moment when one of them puts the picture of the other up before sex). Again, we see that the humor created by this “attraction” depends on the audience being able to identify that these individuals share the same social location (as men), and that based on discourses about that social location, certain sexual acts (i.e. being attracted to one another) are considered awkward, or taboo—hence, the audience laughter.
In as much, how do the social locations of the performers create the humor in the skits? In other words, if you were to change the gender of the performers, what would happen to the humor? How would the jokes change? How would the insinuations about sexuality change? Would a song entitled, “pussy in a box” or “fatherlover” be interpreted the same way? Why/why not? What does this tell us about the ways we link discourses of gender and sexuality?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1596/saturday-night-live-dick-in-a-box-uncensored
http://www.hulu.com/watch/73123/saturday-night-live-digital-short-motherlover-uncensored
It is also interesting to note that in both skits, in particular, “motherlover,” there is a good amount homoeroticism (i.e. sexual tension) between the two male performers. While the skit is definitely reinforcing the “straightness” of these two characters, it is also creating humor from the fact that these two men are so obsessed with one another that it “almost” seems like they’re sexually into one another (note the moment when one of them puts the picture of the other up before sex). Again, we see that the humor created by this “attraction” depends on the audience being able to identify that these individuals share the same social location (as men), and that based on discourses about that social location, certain sexual acts (i.e. being attracted to one another) are considered awkward, or taboo—hence, the audience laughter.
In as much, how do the social locations of the performers create the humor in the skits? In other words, if you were to change the gender of the performers, what would happen to the humor? How would the jokes change? How would the insinuations about sexuality change? Would a song entitled, “pussy in a box” or “fatherlover” be interpreted the same way? Why/why not? What does this tell us about the ways we link discourses of gender and sexuality?
http://www.hulu.com/watch/1596/saturday-night-live-dick-in-a-box-uncensored
http://www.hulu.com/watch/73123/saturday-night-live-digital-short-motherlover-uncensored
What to Buy? -- Consumerism Week 7
What are we supposed to spend our money on? What’s worth it and what’s not?
Advertising is full of discourses that claim to inform us about how we should be making such choices. In class, we mentioned discourses like The Material Good Life and The Body Perfect, both of which inform us about what is “worth” spending money on. Yet understanding the way consumerism produces so much discontent, requires understanding the ways that we value and criticize our choices about what we spend our money on. Consider the following…
Save money? Live Better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbucVty-_xs
In this advertisement Wal-Mart informs us that we can “save money and live better.” However, is what they’re saying, “save your money and don’t spend to live better,” or "spend your money at Wal-Mart so you can live better?” Which discourses about consumerism are being used in this advertisement, and for what purpose? Wal-Mart clearly wants us to spend our money at Wal-Mart, that’s why they spent the time and money creating this advertisement. So what is the idea they are trying to sell us? Do people who care about “what’s really important” not spend money on unimportant things? Does this advertisement suggests what should be identified as a “thing” that is important versus a “thing” that isn’t?
It seems this advertisement is implying that by shopping at Wal-Mart, by spending less for what we “need,” we will then have money left over to spend on those things that “really matter,” like our families (and summer vacations). In other words, there's a "right" way to spend your money, and that means spending less, so that we can then spend more. Does feeling good about spending your money require that you spend less money on unimportant things or more money on important things? If you spend on the wrong thing, do you not have the "correct" priorities?
Be Smart?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XewCSdHnvTs
You’re only as smart as what you buy. That’s the motto in this advertisement.
In other words, dumb people don’t spend their money in the “right” way. Not only does this advertisement clearly define “smart” for us, but it helps us understand the “right” way to spend our money, the right way to be happy.
What does this advertisement suggest smart is? Which dominant discourses are used to teach us what smart is? Does a smart person buy the “right” product? Do they spend their money on things that are “worth-while?”
This advertisement reinforces the discourse that buyers remorse, something we ALL experience at some point, is most likely related to our intelligence, to our making the “correct” choices. If we save our money buying a Hyundai instead of another car, we are making smart choices that we will not regret.
Of course, most of us WILL make choices we regret, so how do the discourses used in this commercial likely leave us feeling about ourselves?
Advertising is full of discourses that claim to inform us about how we should be making such choices. In class, we mentioned discourses like The Material Good Life and The Body Perfect, both of which inform us about what is “worth” spending money on. Yet understanding the way consumerism produces so much discontent, requires understanding the ways that we value and criticize our choices about what we spend our money on. Consider the following…
Save money? Live Better?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbucVty-_xs
In this advertisement Wal-Mart informs us that we can “save money and live better.” However, is what they’re saying, “save your money and don’t spend to live better,” or "spend your money at Wal-Mart so you can live better?” Which discourses about consumerism are being used in this advertisement, and for what purpose? Wal-Mart clearly wants us to spend our money at Wal-Mart, that’s why they spent the time and money creating this advertisement. So what is the idea they are trying to sell us? Do people who care about “what’s really important” not spend money on unimportant things? Does this advertisement suggests what should be identified as a “thing” that is important versus a “thing” that isn’t?
It seems this advertisement is implying that by shopping at Wal-Mart, by spending less for what we “need,” we will then have money left over to spend on those things that “really matter,” like our families (and summer vacations). In other words, there's a "right" way to spend your money, and that means spending less, so that we can then spend more. Does feeling good about spending your money require that you spend less money on unimportant things or more money on important things? If you spend on the wrong thing, do you not have the "correct" priorities?
Be Smart?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XewCSdHnvTs
You’re only as smart as what you buy. That’s the motto in this advertisement.
In other words, dumb people don’t spend their money in the “right” way. Not only does this advertisement clearly define “smart” for us, but it helps us understand the “right” way to spend our money, the right way to be happy.
What does this advertisement suggest smart is? Which dominant discourses are used to teach us what smart is? Does a smart person buy the “right” product? Do they spend their money on things that are “worth-while?”
This advertisement reinforces the discourse that buyers remorse, something we ALL experience at some point, is most likely related to our intelligence, to our making the “correct” choices. If we save our money buying a Hyundai instead of another car, we are making smart choices that we will not regret.
Of course, most of us WILL make choices we regret, so how do the discourses used in this commercial likely leave us feeling about ourselves?
The Cage Within -- Consumerism Week 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDBMHz1Dthw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-yQLZbatc
In these commercials for Electrolux appliances, we are exposed to a VAST array of discourses. For example, both ads use the Material Good Life discourse. They both clearly suggest that having these material items makes your life better. The ads tell us “Dreams come true when you have an Electrolux,” and “Electrolux, be even more amazing.” Such statements reinforce the discourse that such material items will result in real improvements, in real happiness, for us. In fact, these discourses epitomize how we learn to connect our happiness to the consumption of material goods, and how that process constructs “The Cage Within.”
However, to understand just how powerful “The Cage Within” is, and why these dominant discourses about consumerism are so effective, we have to further deconstruct HOW advertisers represent this happiness that we are meant to desire. The first deconstructing question to ask, then, is what other dominant discourses we are exposed to in these advertisements that reinforce the “good life” portion of the Material Good Life? What do these dominant discourses tell us about what “happiness” should be, or what “amazing” looks like? In identifying and understanding the impact of these discourses we gain insight about how The Material Good Life remains such a dominant discourse, and how it produces "The Cage Within."
The second deconstructing question to ask comes from our understanding that advertisers produce commercials with specific audiences in mind. Thus, we can further deconstruct the creation of “The Cage Within” by asking questions about the social location of the audiences targeted by these commercials. What is the social location of these commercials’ audience? Based on that social location, what can we determine about WHY these dominant discourses are being used, and what they mean for the audience’s subject positions? In other words, if these ads are targeted at affluent women (mostly mothers) between the ages of 25-50, what can we ascertain about how they will be impacted by the discourses of happiness represented? How is this audience "supposed" to feel about The Material Good Life? How do the discourses in this commercial reinforce “The Cage Within" for this particular audience?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BM-yQLZbatc
In these commercials for Electrolux appliances, we are exposed to a VAST array of discourses. For example, both ads use the Material Good Life discourse. They both clearly suggest that having these material items makes your life better. The ads tell us “Dreams come true when you have an Electrolux,” and “Electrolux, be even more amazing.” Such statements reinforce the discourse that such material items will result in real improvements, in real happiness, for us. In fact, these discourses epitomize how we learn to connect our happiness to the consumption of material goods, and how that process constructs “The Cage Within.”
However, to understand just how powerful “The Cage Within” is, and why these dominant discourses about consumerism are so effective, we have to further deconstruct HOW advertisers represent this happiness that we are meant to desire. The first deconstructing question to ask, then, is what other dominant discourses we are exposed to in these advertisements that reinforce the “good life” portion of the Material Good Life? What do these dominant discourses tell us about what “happiness” should be, or what “amazing” looks like? In identifying and understanding the impact of these discourses we gain insight about how The Material Good Life remains such a dominant discourse, and how it produces "The Cage Within."
The second deconstructing question to ask comes from our understanding that advertisers produce commercials with specific audiences in mind. Thus, we can further deconstruct the creation of “The Cage Within” by asking questions about the social location of the audiences targeted by these commercials. What is the social location of these commercials’ audience? Based on that social location, what can we determine about WHY these dominant discourses are being used, and what they mean for the audience’s subject positions? In other words, if these ads are targeted at affluent women (mostly mothers) between the ages of 25-50, what can we ascertain about how they will be impacted by the discourses of happiness represented? How is this audience "supposed" to feel about The Material Good Life? How do the discourses in this commercial reinforce “The Cage Within" for this particular audience?
Consumerism & Hegemony -- Consumerism Week 7
However, upon closer examination, is this clip reinforcing dominant discourses as well? It seems to suggest that people who do not have enough money, or people who have come into financial trouble, are “at fault” for their fortunes, and that these individuals are, for lack of a better term, stupid, which is WHY they’re having problems with money in the first place.
While this skit is certainly challenging dominant discourses like “shop till you drop,” the material good life,” and “the freedom to choose” with an alternative discourse of, “if you don’t have money, don’t buy anything,” it is also promoting another dominant discourse. This other discourse reinforces the notion that “smart” people don’t make bad choices. It suggests that those who are having financial problems should feel like it is ALL their fault. They SHOULD “know better.” Notice the skit makes no attempt to provide a cultural or historical context for why so many American’s want to spend money in the first place. Is this because if the skit did provide this context, it wouldn’t still be funny to us? Is the humor in the skit actually based on reinforcing (instead of challenging) the hegemony (cultural dominance) of discourses that blame problems in the American economy solely on those who spend too much, not on the culture that encourages their spending? Are we laughing because we recognize how ridiculous it is that we’ve been told to spend money in order to feel good AND then told to criticize ourselves when we spend? Or are we laughing because we believe these dominant discourses are “true”?
Sunday, March 4, 2012
Brooke & Tom -- Week 6 Social Constructionist Therapy
A few years ago, Brooke Shields wrote a book about her experience with postpartum depression (PPD) entitled “Down Came the Rain.” In that book, she wrote about how she struggled with feelings of disconnection and even thoughts of violence towards her newborn baby. Because there are dominant cultural discourses that mothers shouldn’t have these kinds of thoughts/feelings, she was ashamed (negative identity) and scared to tell anyone (guards). She eventually sought treatment, which included medication, and found it to be very helpful. Part of that treatment also included being exposed to a helpful alternative discourse about her experience - that she had PPD, and this was a biological reaction to her body’s chemicals, not an indication of her “goodness” or fitness as a mother. She learned of other women diagnosed with PPD who were “normal” before giving birth, were looking forward to having their baby, and once treated, were able to be the mothers they wanted to be – and this further reinforced that alternative discourse. So she wrote the book to “take the mute button off” (her words) or challenge the dominant discourse that resulted in women being silent about their experiences because of shame - and to make a potentially more helpful alternative discourse more visible and available to others.
Or at least that’s one way to look at it (one story that can be told).
Enter Tom Cruise. Tom had a very different take on Brooke’s book. He publicly criticized her book for promoting what he sees as problematic dominant discourses – those of psychiatric diagnoses and the need for medication to treat them. He in turn was criticized for criticizing her and this led to pretty contentious interview with Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. As you watch the clip of this interview below, think about how the class concepts of discourses (both dominant and alternative), deconstruction, social & historical context, social location, power, positioning, identity, and effects apply to what’s happening in the conversation between Matt and Tom and help us make sense out of the meanings that are being constructed.
So Tom is doing a very interesting thing – he’s deconstructing. He’s talking about the historical context of psychiatry, he’s talking about the social context of uses and abuses of medication. And in doing so, he is challenging the discourses that legitimize the medical establishment’s enormous power to define reality through diagnoses. He’s also challenging the “Big Pharma” and the promotion of powerful drugs as “the answer” to people’s problems, despite the fact that they often have serious side effects. He seems genuinely concerned about the potential for a “brave new world” where everyone is taking mind-altering drugs for whatever they have been labeled with, and the negative effects that could have on people.
So that’s a potentially positive thing, right? Then why does he come across as so obnoxious? Why are people criticizing him?
It’s how he challenges these discourses, and how he engages with Matt Lauer – he is declaring what is True and Real for everyone. And by positioning himself in this way – as the expert or the “one who knows the Truth” – he becomes a guard, regardless of whether or not he’s promoting a dominant or an alternative discourse.
He declares the Truths that “Psychiatry is a pseudoscience” and “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.” “Drugs are never the answer” and “You don’t understand the history of psychiatry, and I do.” He’s “read the research.” From a social constructionist perspective, these are discourses that he’s internalized (it’s not about whether he’s right or wrong). But since he sees them as “the Truth,” that means any other perspective is necessarily “wrong.” This is why he is so adamant that people’s experiences to the contrary – i.e. Brooke or Matt’s friends being helped by medication – don’t really matter. They can’t be true because they don’t fit with what he “knows” to be really True.
So the effect of him promoting the discourses he’s internalized as Truth (even though they could be considered alternative) is to devalue other people’s experiences that don’t fit with that Truth. Matt tries to point this out when he says – “Isn’t there the possibility that this works for some people?” and “You are telling me that your experiences with people I know – which are 0 – are more important than my experiences” in which he’s seen them benefit from medication.
Brooke Shields publicly responded to this interview by saying, “While Mr. Cruise says that Mr. Lauer and I do not ‘understand the history of psychiatry,’ I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Mr. Cruise has never suffered from postpartum depression.” She’s pointing out the effect that their differing social locations has on how they are positioned and positioning themselves in relationship to this issue. From a social constructionist perspective, this doesn’t mean she’s more “right” than he is. Rather, their different social locations lead to differences in their access to discourses, on how they are positioned, and the effects of those positions – and this impacts their experiences and the meanings constructed around them.
Or at least that’s one way to look at it (one story that can be told).
Enter Tom Cruise. Tom had a very different take on Brooke’s book. He publicly criticized her book for promoting what he sees as problematic dominant discourses – those of psychiatric diagnoses and the need for medication to treat them. He in turn was criticized for criticizing her and this led to pretty contentious interview with Matt Lauer on the “Today” show. As you watch the clip of this interview below, think about how the class concepts of discourses (both dominant and alternative), deconstruction, social & historical context, social location, power, positioning, identity, and effects apply to what’s happening in the conversation between Matt and Tom and help us make sense out of the meanings that are being constructed.
So Tom is doing a very interesting thing – he’s deconstructing. He’s talking about the historical context of psychiatry, he’s talking about the social context of uses and abuses of medication. And in doing so, he is challenging the discourses that legitimize the medical establishment’s enormous power to define reality through diagnoses. He’s also challenging the “Big Pharma” and the promotion of powerful drugs as “the answer” to people’s problems, despite the fact that they often have serious side effects. He seems genuinely concerned about the potential for a “brave new world” where everyone is taking mind-altering drugs for whatever they have been labeled with, and the negative effects that could have on people.
So that’s a potentially positive thing, right? Then why does he come across as so obnoxious? Why are people criticizing him?
It’s how he challenges these discourses, and how he engages with Matt Lauer – he is declaring what is True and Real for everyone. And by positioning himself in this way – as the expert or the “one who knows the Truth” – he becomes a guard, regardless of whether or not he’s promoting a dominant or an alternative discourse.
He declares the Truths that “Psychiatry is a pseudoscience” and “There is no such thing as a chemical imbalance.” “Drugs are never the answer” and “You don’t understand the history of psychiatry, and I do.” He’s “read the research.” From a social constructionist perspective, these are discourses that he’s internalized (it’s not about whether he’s right or wrong). But since he sees them as “the Truth,” that means any other perspective is necessarily “wrong.” This is why he is so adamant that people’s experiences to the contrary – i.e. Brooke or Matt’s friends being helped by medication – don’t really matter. They can’t be true because they don’t fit with what he “knows” to be really True.
So the effect of him promoting the discourses he’s internalized as Truth (even though they could be considered alternative) is to devalue other people’s experiences that don’t fit with that Truth. Matt tries to point this out when he says – “Isn’t there the possibility that this works for some people?” and “You are telling me that your experiences with people I know – which are 0 – are more important than my experiences” in which he’s seen them benefit from medication.
Brooke Shields publicly responded to this interview by saying, “While Mr. Cruise says that Mr. Lauer and I do not ‘understand the history of psychiatry,’ I'm going to take a wild guess and say that Mr. Cruise has never suffered from postpartum depression.” She’s pointing out the effect that their differing social locations has on how they are positioned and positioning themselves in relationship to this issue. From a social constructionist perspective, this doesn’t mean she’s more “right” than he is. Rather, their different social locations lead to differences in their access to discourses, on how they are positioned, and the effects of those positions – and this impacts their experiences and the meanings constructed around them.
On a Break -- Week 6 Social Constructionist Therapy
As we’ve discussed in class, social constructionism shows us how we can use language to define and redefine our experiences – that is we can use different discourses to make meaning of our experiences – and how this process of redefining can create flexibility and positive effects for people in general, AND clients in therapy.
A few lectures back, we discussed an example in lecture of how someone could define an “affair” in different ways, and how this definition might actually change their reality about it.
We want to revisit that idea here because the very notion of someone “redefining an affair” can be disconcerting to some people. For many, especially people in committed relationships who expect their partners not to have sex with other people, it doesn’t sit well that someone can just redefine what an affair is – that they might redefine it as something that isn’t bad or wrong, which would let them “off the hook” so they could be justified in not feeling guilty about it.
This example really highlights the social part of social constructionism. No one exists by themselves – we are always in relationships, and so we are surrounded by people who are making meaning just as we are. Sometimes the way people make sense of our experiences/behavior doesn’t have much of an effect on us or them – maybe you don’t really care what your dad thinks about the way you dress, so you feel pretty comfortable making sense of the way you dress the way you want. Other times, particularly when your experience/behavior really impacts a relationship you are in, the way other people make sense of it (the discourses they use) has MAJOR effects. It will impact whether they decide to continue the relationship, it will impact how they talk about what you did to other people – like friends, kids, etc. – and that will impact how those people see you, and therefore your relationships with them. So while you always have the option to define something in a particular way – to use certain discourses and not others – you aren’t the ONLY person who is making meaning of that situation, you aren’t the ONLY person constructing reality – it’s a social process with real life implications.
Although this clip is quite old (from 1997) – for anyone who has watched “Friends” reruns, it is pretty classic and really illustrates this exact issue.
The context is this: Ross and Rachel have a major argument, at the end of which Rachel suggests that they “take a break” in terms of their relationship. Ross is very upset, and ends up having sex with another woman. Ross and Rachel reconcile the next day, but then Rachel finds out that Ross had sex with this other woman. Rachel is hurt and angry and says that Ross “cheated” on her. Ross claims that he didn’t because they were “on a break.” Each of them define being “on a break” in a different way, and so what Ross did means something very different to each of them. And Rachel’s refusal to accept Ross’s definition/meaning of what happened has major effects for both of them.
You only have to watch the first minute of this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn9YvJ3Gfg&NR=1
So what would a social constructionist therapist do if this couple came to counseling?
Well, first, they would NOT see it as their job “to decide what is true” or who is right and who is wrong. Many couples come into therapy thinking that what they need is a referee, a neutral party, to decide who is right and wrong (each partner, of course, thinking the therapist should side with them). For a social constructionist, what is important is WHY it is important for Ross to define what he did in his way (to reaffirm his identity as a nice guy, for it to make sense given his love for Rachel, etc.) and why it is important for Rachel to define what he did in her way (to make sense of her hurt feelings, to make sure it never happens again, etc.). Who knows how the conversation in therapy will turn out??? And that’s exactly the point – the meaning is being socially constructed in the moment of doing therapy. No one person – not Ross, not Rachel, not the therapist (if they were in therapy) has control over the “final” meaning(s), only the meaning they choose to adopt for themselves. And no one person has control over the effects of those meanings. That’s the challenge of living in a socially constructed world – we have agency (the ability to make choices), BUT we don’t control all the meanings and effects of the choices we make. THIS is the value of social constructionist therapy, as it can acknowledge this complexity in order to help people come away with meanings/discourses that are more helpful/less harmful to them (and their relationships).
A few lectures back, we discussed an example in lecture of how someone could define an “affair” in different ways, and how this definition might actually change their reality about it.
We want to revisit that idea here because the very notion of someone “redefining an affair” can be disconcerting to some people. For many, especially people in committed relationships who expect their partners not to have sex with other people, it doesn’t sit well that someone can just redefine what an affair is – that they might redefine it as something that isn’t bad or wrong, which would let them “off the hook” so they could be justified in not feeling guilty about it.
This example really highlights the social part of social constructionism. No one exists by themselves – we are always in relationships, and so we are surrounded by people who are making meaning just as we are. Sometimes the way people make sense of our experiences/behavior doesn’t have much of an effect on us or them – maybe you don’t really care what your dad thinks about the way you dress, so you feel pretty comfortable making sense of the way you dress the way you want. Other times, particularly when your experience/behavior really impacts a relationship you are in, the way other people make sense of it (the discourses they use) has MAJOR effects. It will impact whether they decide to continue the relationship, it will impact how they talk about what you did to other people – like friends, kids, etc. – and that will impact how those people see you, and therefore your relationships with them. So while you always have the option to define something in a particular way – to use certain discourses and not others – you aren’t the ONLY person who is making meaning of that situation, you aren’t the ONLY person constructing reality – it’s a social process with real life implications.
Although this clip is quite old (from 1997) – for anyone who has watched “Friends” reruns, it is pretty classic and really illustrates this exact issue.
The context is this: Ross and Rachel have a major argument, at the end of which Rachel suggests that they “take a break” in terms of their relationship. Ross is very upset, and ends up having sex with another woman. Ross and Rachel reconcile the next day, but then Rachel finds out that Ross had sex with this other woman. Rachel is hurt and angry and says that Ross “cheated” on her. Ross claims that he didn’t because they were “on a break.” Each of them define being “on a break” in a different way, and so what Ross did means something very different to each of them. And Rachel’s refusal to accept Ross’s definition/meaning of what happened has major effects for both of them.
You only have to watch the first minute of this clip...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEn9YvJ3Gfg&NR=1
So what would a social constructionist therapist do if this couple came to counseling?
Well, first, they would NOT see it as their job “to decide what is true” or who is right and who is wrong. Many couples come into therapy thinking that what they need is a referee, a neutral party, to decide who is right and wrong (each partner, of course, thinking the therapist should side with them). For a social constructionist, what is important is WHY it is important for Ross to define what he did in his way (to reaffirm his identity as a nice guy, for it to make sense given his love for Rachel, etc.) and why it is important for Rachel to define what he did in her way (to make sense of her hurt feelings, to make sure it never happens again, etc.). Who knows how the conversation in therapy will turn out??? And that’s exactly the point – the meaning is being socially constructed in the moment of doing therapy. No one person – not Ross, not Rachel, not the therapist (if they were in therapy) has control over the “final” meaning(s), only the meaning they choose to adopt for themselves. And no one person has control over the effects of those meanings. That’s the challenge of living in a socially constructed world – we have agency (the ability to make choices), BUT we don’t control all the meanings and effects of the choices we make. THIS is the value of social constructionist therapy, as it can acknowledge this complexity in order to help people come away with meanings/discourses that are more helpful/less harmful to them (and their relationships).
Thursday, February 23, 2012
Social Location and Positioning -- Week 5 Self, Identity and Othering
There are lots of discourses out there in popular culture, but depending on your social location, there are certain discourses for which YOU are the subject. If you identify as a man, then all the discourses out there about men are about YOU. This means those discourses go from being a discourse that says “Men should be tough” to a discourse that says “YOU should be tough.” If you are a college student and there’s a discourse out there that says “College students should know what they are going to do with their lives” then that discourse becomes “YOU should know what you are going to do with your life.”
The discourses that we are faced with, however, come at us from so many different directions, in so many different ways, that we’re often not aware how we’re adjusting our subject positions in relation to them. Instead, most of us just react to and change our behaviors in relation to these discourses, without recognizing what it is that we’re doing.
The advertisement above for Tropicana Orange Juice, shares an interesting dominant/privileged discourse about women. The discourse suggests, that if women want to be perceived as “feminine” and “attractive,” they need to be “easy” (or conversely, that if women want to be considered “easy” they need to be “feminine” and “attractive”). In other words, the discourse about girls/women in this ad suggests that ideally, women are accommodating and passive, that these are positive traits for women to have, and that these traits are an important part of what makes women feminine and attractive.
Look at the ad and ask consider these questions...
How might discourses like this affect a woman's identity (negatively/positively)? In which social contexts are these discourses most likely to impact women, and why? What does this ad ask women to understand about themselves and other women in their lives? How might a woman/girl use the discourses in this ad to her advantage, or to her disadvantage?
Social Location, Identity, and Difference -- Week 5 Self, Identity and Othering
First Woman Ascends to Top Drill Sergeant Spot
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/us/22sergeant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
In this NY Times article, we learn about Sergeant Major Teresa King and her new position as the top Drill Sergeant in the U.S. Army.
Popular culture, especially “news media,” is filled with stories like this. Informative and significant, but spun to demonstrate that what is really significant, is the importance of social location.
In this article, we see the importance of social location in constructing meaning and in determining our subject positions, while we concurrently see how social location is used as a mechanism to make news stories more interesting/significant. The latter is particularly important to understand, as our culture has privileged discourses that emphasize the DIFFERENCES between aspects of our social locations (gender, race, career, income), rather than the similarities.
In the article, we can see simple examples of how the story’s significance hinges on discourses that emphasize differences in gender. For example, consider the following two quotes from the article:
“She is confident, no nonsense, but compassionate about what’s right for the soldier”
“Yet for all her gruffness, she can show surprising tenderness toward her charges.”
Notice how the quotes emphasize “traits” typically considered feminine (compassion, tenderness, empathy) as they are performed by a woman whose career (Army Drill Sergeant) is not typically associated with femininity. AND, while the quotes don’t specifically mention differences between men and women, the suggestion is that these aspects of the Sergeant’s behavior are different BECAUSE she is a woman, and NOT a man.
How, then, do these discourses inform us about the significance and impact of “differences” between people (i.e. differences in their social locations)? What do the discourses used in this article tell us about the way “news media” encodes messages about social location and identity? How does that encoding impact the way we understand “difference?” Does the use of social location in the article seem to coincide more with the idea of personality or identity?
Interestingly, the Sergeant Major herself provides a useful insight into the ways that discourses are internalized into subject positions, and thus shape identities. She is quoted saying, “When I look in the mirror, I don’t see a female. I see a soldier.” In this statement, she has positioned herself within discourses of difference (and gender) in such a way that describes gender as not important, as a trait that doesn’t matter (this is in contrast to the discourses of difference in the rest of the article that suggest that gender DOES matter). From this quote we learn that the Sergeant Major’s identity does not prioritize the concept of differences between genders. Why? One explanation is that discourses within the military, heavily prioritize seeing oneself as part of a bigger group, a bigger more important community than that of gender--the U.S. Army. Thus, the Sergeant Major’s subject position as a soldier supersedes her subject position as a female, and she performs/behaves accordingly. However, even though we don’t “know” the Sergeant Major, is it possible there are some circumstances in which she might adopt the subject position of female, and thus position herself in such a way that gender becomes a more important part of her identity? What does the Sergeant’s comment tell us about the impact that discourses have on our identities? What does it show us about how we use discourses to construct our identities?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/22/us/22sergeant.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&th&emc=th
In this NY Times article, we learn about Sergeant Major Teresa King and her new position as the top Drill Sergeant in the U.S. Army.
Popular culture, especially “news media,” is filled with stories like this. Informative and significant, but spun to demonstrate that what is really significant, is the importance of social location.
In this article, we see the importance of social location in constructing meaning and in determining our subject positions, while we concurrently see how social location is used as a mechanism to make news stories more interesting/significant. The latter is particularly important to understand, as our culture has privileged discourses that emphasize the DIFFERENCES between aspects of our social locations (gender, race, career, income), rather than the similarities.
In the article, we can see simple examples of how the story’s significance hinges on discourses that emphasize differences in gender. For example, consider the following two quotes from the article:
“She is confident, no nonsense, but compassionate about what’s right for the soldier”
“Yet for all her gruffness, she can show surprising tenderness toward her charges.”
Notice how the quotes emphasize “traits” typically considered feminine (compassion, tenderness, empathy) as they are performed by a woman whose career (Army Drill Sergeant) is not typically associated with femininity. AND, while the quotes don’t specifically mention differences between men and women, the suggestion is that these aspects of the Sergeant’s behavior are different BECAUSE she is a woman, and NOT a man.
How, then, do these discourses inform us about the significance and impact of “differences” between people (i.e. differences in their social locations)? What do the discourses used in this article tell us about the way “news media” encodes messages about social location and identity? How does that encoding impact the way we understand “difference?” Does the use of social location in the article seem to coincide more with the idea of personality or identity?
Interestingly, the Sergeant Major herself provides a useful insight into the ways that discourses are internalized into subject positions, and thus shape identities. She is quoted saying, “When I look in the mirror, I don’t see a female. I see a soldier.” In this statement, she has positioned herself within discourses of difference (and gender) in such a way that describes gender as not important, as a trait that doesn’t matter (this is in contrast to the discourses of difference in the rest of the article that suggest that gender DOES matter). From this quote we learn that the Sergeant Major’s identity does not prioritize the concept of differences between genders. Why? One explanation is that discourses within the military, heavily prioritize seeing oneself as part of a bigger group, a bigger more important community than that of gender--the U.S. Army. Thus, the Sergeant Major’s subject position as a soldier supersedes her subject position as a female, and she performs/behaves accordingly. However, even though we don’t “know” the Sergeant Major, is it possible there are some circumstances in which she might adopt the subject position of female, and thus position herself in such a way that gender becomes a more important part of her identity? What does the Sergeant’s comment tell us about the impact that discourses have on our identities? What does it show us about how we use discourses to construct our identities?
Friday, February 17, 2012
The "R-word" -- Week 4 Discourse & Lanugage
Last year, the Wall Street Journal reported that during a closed-door strategy session with Democrats, Obama’s Chief of Staff scolded participants, calling them, "F---ing retarded.”
Shortly after, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page: “I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel…his recent tirade…was such a strong slap in many American faces…Just as we'd be appalled if any public figure of Rahm's stature ever used the "N-word" or other such inappropriate language, Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities - and the people who love them - is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking.”
In response to the controversy over Rahm’s use of the word “retarded,” Rush Limbaugh said the following on his radio program: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are loony tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news…I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House."
On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked for Palin’s response to Limbaugh’s use of “retard” and she responded with: "They [liberals activists] are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh…Rush Limbaugh was using satire... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there."
Colbert then used satire on his show to question Palin’s claim that Rush was using satire: (discussion of this controversy starts at 3:10):
Each of the above instances is an example of someone creating meaning, and these illustrate how the same language can mean different things depending on the context: who is using the word, what their intentions and/or perceived intentions are, who the audience is, and more. There’s also the issue of who gets to say when the word is offensive and when it isn’t (since Sarah Palin has a child with Down Syndrome, she and others assume she “knows” something about the use of the word “retard” – like when it’s “really” offensive). Palin uses a common technique for encoding meaning by linking the use of the word “retard” (which is not uncommon to hear in casual conversation and many people do not interpret as being offensive) with the use of the “n-word” which has a well-known history and is generally accepted as being offensive. If you say “using the r-word has the same impact for people with developmental disabilities as using the n-word has for African-Americans,” you create a framework (use a discourse) for making sense of the use of the word “retard.” Of course, the meaning of the “n-word” is not as obvious, though, because it is often interpreted and experienced differently when the speaker is African-American, in which case it can be “empowering” or humorous or something else entirely. Which shows that meaning is not IN the language itself, but in the multiple meanings/discourses invoked by that language in particular contexts by particular people.
So…does that mean that you can’t ever say that certain language is offensive, or that if you do, it’s just your opinion and therefore doesn’t really “matter” because someone else can say it isn’t offensive and that “cancels you out?” Or that since there’s no Truth, no one can make claims about the offensiveness of language (or anything else)? Well, that’s not the social constructionist perspective - because remember that from this perspective language and the discourses it invokes actually constructs reality – talk about serious effects! The language we use creates the world we live in, AND language is never neutral or “innocent” or without effects. So while multiple meanings (discourses) exist, it is important - from a social constructionist perspective – to really look at the impact of that language and take responsibility for those effects because we all create and are created by the society in which we live. And that’s what claiming that certain language is offensive is really about, right? How that language impacts people – certainly the people who are being referenced (people with developmental disabilities, African-Americans…) but also the people who use the language and everyone who hears it. The “r-word” and “n-word,” depending on the context, can invoke discourses/meanings that devalue particular people, and when this happens repeatedly it constructs a society that devalues particular people – and that devaluing certainly has effects. And we as individuals and we as a society decide if we are okay with those effects or not – and that creates the discourse that certain words are offensive (or not – i.e. we’re just being forced to be “politically correct”).
Shortly after, Sarah Palin wrote on her Facebook page: “I would ask the president to show decency in this process by eliminating one member of that inner circle, Mr. Rahm Emanuel…his recent tirade…was such a strong slap in many American faces…Just as we'd be appalled if any public figure of Rahm's stature ever used the "N-word" or other such inappropriate language, Rahm's slur on all God's children with cognitive and developmental disabilities - and the people who love them - is unacceptable, and it's heartbreaking.”
In response to the controversy over Rahm’s use of the word “retarded,” Rush Limbaugh said the following on his radio program: "Our politically correct society is acting like some giant insult’s taken place by calling a bunch of people who are retards, retards. I mean these people, these liberal activists are kooks. They are loony tunes. And I’m not going to apologize for it, I’m just quoting Emanuel. It’s in the news…I think their big news is he’s out there calling Obama’s number one supporters f’ing retards. So now there’s going to be a meeting. There’s going to be a retard summit at the White House."
On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace asked for Palin’s response to Limbaugh’s use of “retard” and she responded with: "They [liberals activists] are kooks, so I agree with Rush Limbaugh…Rush Limbaugh was using satire... I didn't hear Rush Limbaugh calling a group of people whom he did not agree with 'f-ing retards,' and we did know that Rahm Emanuel, as has been reported, did say that. There is a big difference there."
Colbert then used satire on his show to question Palin’s claim that Rush was using satire: (discussion of this controversy starts at 3:10):
| The Colbert Report | Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c | |||
| ||||
Each of the above instances is an example of someone creating meaning, and these illustrate how the same language can mean different things depending on the context: who is using the word, what their intentions and/or perceived intentions are, who the audience is, and more. There’s also the issue of who gets to say when the word is offensive and when it isn’t (since Sarah Palin has a child with Down Syndrome, she and others assume she “knows” something about the use of the word “retard” – like when it’s “really” offensive). Palin uses a common technique for encoding meaning by linking the use of the word “retard” (which is not uncommon to hear in casual conversation and many people do not interpret as being offensive) with the use of the “n-word” which has a well-known history and is generally accepted as being offensive. If you say “using the r-word has the same impact for people with developmental disabilities as using the n-word has for African-Americans,” you create a framework (use a discourse) for making sense of the use of the word “retard.” Of course, the meaning of the “n-word” is not as obvious, though, because it is often interpreted and experienced differently when the speaker is African-American, in which case it can be “empowering” or humorous or something else entirely. Which shows that meaning is not IN the language itself, but in the multiple meanings/discourses invoked by that language in particular contexts by particular people.
So…does that mean that you can’t ever say that certain language is offensive, or that if you do, it’s just your opinion and therefore doesn’t really “matter” because someone else can say it isn’t offensive and that “cancels you out?” Or that since there’s no Truth, no one can make claims about the offensiveness of language (or anything else)? Well, that’s not the social constructionist perspective - because remember that from this perspective language and the discourses it invokes actually constructs reality – talk about serious effects! The language we use creates the world we live in, AND language is never neutral or “innocent” or without effects. So while multiple meanings (discourses) exist, it is important - from a social constructionist perspective – to really look at the impact of that language and take responsibility for those effects because we all create and are created by the society in which we live. And that’s what claiming that certain language is offensive is really about, right? How that language impacts people – certainly the people who are being referenced (people with developmental disabilities, African-Americans…) but also the people who use the language and everyone who hears it. The “r-word” and “n-word,” depending on the context, can invoke discourses/meanings that devalue particular people, and when this happens repeatedly it constructs a society that devalues particular people – and that devaluing certainly has effects. And we as individuals and we as a society decide if we are okay with those effects or not – and that creates the discourse that certain words are offensive (or not – i.e. we’re just being forced to be “politically correct”).
Masturbation as Comedy -- Week 4 Discourse & Language
http://www.hulu.com/watch/57938/saturday-night-live-wii-guys
After watching this clip I thought to myself, wow, the topic of men and masturbation really seems pervasive in popular culture comedy.
It’s been used in jokes for AGES, and it really continues to “get laughs,” as you can hear from the studio audience in this clip.
I find it fascinating how the presence of masturbation discourses have changed culturally over the last 30 years. Men and masturbation isn’t exactly a new topic, but the manner in which it’s represented provides us with an interesting reflection on the links between social/historical context and discourse. After all, this clip would not have been found funny many years ago, and frankly, there are many people who are bothered by it now.
There are many discourses that create the humor in this clip. Several address sexuality and the embodiment of sexual acts, others address families/relationships and age. There are also discourses about gender, video games—and those who play them, American homes, and physical comedy (humor).
So...here are some questions to consider...
Which discourses about sexuality are emphasized? Would you describe those emphasized discourses as dominant/privileged? Why/why not? How do discourses about family/relationships/age interact with those discourses about sexuality, and how/why does that lead the stuido audience members to laugh?
After watching this clip I thought to myself, wow, the topic of men and masturbation really seems pervasive in popular culture comedy.
It’s been used in jokes for AGES, and it really continues to “get laughs,” as you can hear from the studio audience in this clip.
I find it fascinating how the presence of masturbation discourses have changed culturally over the last 30 years. Men and masturbation isn’t exactly a new topic, but the manner in which it’s represented provides us with an interesting reflection on the links between social/historical context and discourse. After all, this clip would not have been found funny many years ago, and frankly, there are many people who are bothered by it now.
There are many discourses that create the humor in this clip. Several address sexuality and the embodiment of sexual acts, others address families/relationships and age. There are also discourses about gender, video games—and those who play them, American homes, and physical comedy (humor).
So...here are some questions to consider...
Which discourses about sexuality are emphasized? Would you describe those emphasized discourses as dominant/privileged? Why/why not? How do discourses about family/relationships/age interact with those discourses about sexuality, and how/why does that lead the stuido audience members to laugh?
What is Socialism? -- Week 4 Discourse & Language
In 2009 the word “socialism” had been very visible in protests against President Obama’s plans for health care reform. This claim that President Obama is (and/or his policies are) “socialist” seems to have a powerful effect – why? The New York Times did an opinion piece in which several commentators with different backgrounds & expertise shared their thoughts on this use of “socialism”: http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/14/what-is-socialism-in-2009/?hp. Read a couple of the commentators. What do you think? Regardless of your political views or opinion of President Obama, how can a social constructionist view of language help us think about the meaning and effects of what is happening when people invoke the term socialism? For instance, does everyone mean the same thing when they use the word socialism? How do we know? How does historical context impact the meaning of socialism beyond just its dictionary definition? What is the effect of juxtaposing (and therefore creating a binary) “freedom” and “socialism”? Is it important to be able to say, “This is socialism” or “This is not socialism”? Why? Who gets to say and why them?
Thursday, February 9, 2012
That's No June Cleaver -- Week 3 Deconstruction
Sometimes, the More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same
So one question that often comes up when we start looking for all of these cultural truth claims and examining their effects is – “Who started these ideas and why?” If we think in terms of the Panopticon metaphor, we might wonder, “Who came up with the training program for the guards?” (We’ll talk more about the question of “and why?” in the next lecture).
Most of our most well-worn cultural truths have seemingly been around forever in one form or another and are difficult to trace back to their origins – like gender roles, ideas about human nature, etc. But what we can often do is trace how these norms change and evolve in varying historical and social contexts. At any given time, certain versions of these ideas are promoted by certain groups of people who are in a position – in terms of authority/power and access – to do so. This is often in response to changing historical circumstances that we as a society are trying to make sense of and adjust to – like war and post-war circumstances, economic depressions, race relations, and so on.
For instance, during World War II, psychologists focused much of their attention on the psyche of the soldier. However, when the war ended, the military no longer needed their services and men were less interested in therapy. Psychologists then turned their attention to the homes to which the soldiers returned – and more specifically, the American housewife and her role in recreating social stability through adherence to the traditional norms. During this time, women’s magazines were important conduits of these emerging “therapeutic” principles through their advice on how to be the best wife and mother. And we saw the epitome of this 1950’s woman represented by “Leave it to Beaver’s” June Cleaver.
But what starts out as an attempt to deal with particular historical circumstances can, with repeated exposure over time, take on the appearance of “truth” and “reality,” the result of which is that we are no longer aware of why we believe certain things or if those views even make sense in our current reality. Even more disorienting, is that the representation of those truths evolve over time making it even harder to recognize the common assumptions underlying them.
After all, this is no June Cleaver:
Enter deconstruction:
Think about what ideas about men and women are common to both the “traditional” 1950’s gender roles and this ad. What truths are the advertisers who produced this ad counting on you knowing in order to not only make sense of it, but “buy” into it?
Look at the man, how he’s dressed, how he’s positioned. Look at the woman, how she’s dressed, how she’s positioned. Look at the text at the bottom: What is “wrong” and why is it “right?” What might be the effects of this?
So one question that often comes up when we start looking for all of these cultural truth claims and examining their effects is – “Who started these ideas and why?” If we think in terms of the Panopticon metaphor, we might wonder, “Who came up with the training program for the guards?” (We’ll talk more about the question of “and why?” in the next lecture).
Most of our most well-worn cultural truths have seemingly been around forever in one form or another and are difficult to trace back to their origins – like gender roles, ideas about human nature, etc. But what we can often do is trace how these norms change and evolve in varying historical and social contexts. At any given time, certain versions of these ideas are promoted by certain groups of people who are in a position – in terms of authority/power and access – to do so. This is often in response to changing historical circumstances that we as a society are trying to make sense of and adjust to – like war and post-war circumstances, economic depressions, race relations, and so on.
For instance, during World War II, psychologists focused much of their attention on the psyche of the soldier. However, when the war ended, the military no longer needed their services and men were less interested in therapy. Psychologists then turned their attention to the homes to which the soldiers returned – and more specifically, the American housewife and her role in recreating social stability through adherence to the traditional norms. During this time, women’s magazines were important conduits of these emerging “therapeutic” principles through their advice on how to be the best wife and mother. And we saw the epitome of this 1950’s woman represented by “Leave it to Beaver’s” June Cleaver.
But what starts out as an attempt to deal with particular historical circumstances can, with repeated exposure over time, take on the appearance of “truth” and “reality,” the result of which is that we are no longer aware of why we believe certain things or if those views even make sense in our current reality. Even more disorienting, is that the representation of those truths evolve over time making it even harder to recognize the common assumptions underlying them.
After all, this is no June Cleaver:
Enter deconstruction:
Think about what ideas about men and women are common to both the “traditional” 1950’s gender roles and this ad. What truths are the advertisers who produced this ad counting on you knowing in order to not only make sense of it, but “buy” into it?
Look at the man, how he’s dressed, how he’s positioned. Look at the woman, how she’s dressed, how she’s positioned. Look at the text at the bottom: What is “wrong” and why is it “right?” What might be the effects of this?
Who Wears the Pants? -- Week 3 Deconstruction
Deconstruction Does Double Duty
So, as we discussed in class this week, deconstruction is all about identifying, understanding and evaluating cultural truth claims and their effects – how they create that cycle of (un)happiness.
Deconstructing is a skill that takes practice so that’s what we’ll be doing - one of our goals in this class is for you to become “cultural truth claim detectors.” You’ll start to be amazed because they are literally everywhere, in our surroundings and inside of us – but it’s like a big secret. We are in the habit of either not seeing these cultural truths at all (they operate as hidden assumptions) or seeing them as “just the way things are.” So the more you practice deconstruction the more you get into a very different habit of recognizing and questioning those truth claims in your everyday life.
This class connects popular culture and counseling because we have noticed that while truth claims are everywhere and they aren’t always a problem, there are SOME truth claims that we see over and over again BOTH in popular culture and in the therapy room, as clients describe their problems. We think there’s a connection.
For instance – remember the role-play we did in class, about the father who is trying to figure out how NOT to be like his own father, who didn’t have close relationships with his kids, but still “be a man” and not “lose his balls.” Where does he get this idea that you have to be a certain way to be a “real man?”
Look at the messages here: Real men don’t just wear pants, they wear “the pants.” As with all advertisements, they are talking about Dockers, but they are also talking about something else – something they know you’ll understand because of the cultural truth claims we have all internalized. So real men wear the pants - they “take charge.” Real men, apparently, don’t have misbehaving children or eat salad. Each of the statements in this ad is dependent on you having certain ideas about what these words and phrases mean, images in your head of what is supposed to be. What do you think it means to wear “the pants.” What does that actually look like, what behaviors would you expect? What does it look like to take charge? To be a hero? What comes to mind when you think disco, lattes, and salad bars? Who comes to mind? And what happens when they are then connected to “sitting idly by” and complacency as the world falls apart?
We ask the same deconstructing questions, whether we are looking at an example of popular culture or we are listening to a friend or a client (or our own mind) talk about their problems. Because they are connected – the way we make sense of popular culture and people’s problems is by understanding the common truth claims underlying both. That’s why the ability to deconstruct is such a valuable skill…not just in being culturally literate, but in creating your own happiness and helping others create theirs.
So, as we discussed in class this week, deconstruction is all about identifying, understanding and evaluating cultural truth claims and their effects – how they create that cycle of (un)happiness.
Deconstructing is a skill that takes practice so that’s what we’ll be doing - one of our goals in this class is for you to become “cultural truth claim detectors.” You’ll start to be amazed because they are literally everywhere, in our surroundings and inside of us – but it’s like a big secret. We are in the habit of either not seeing these cultural truths at all (they operate as hidden assumptions) or seeing them as “just the way things are.” So the more you practice deconstruction the more you get into a very different habit of recognizing and questioning those truth claims in your everyday life.
This class connects popular culture and counseling because we have noticed that while truth claims are everywhere and they aren’t always a problem, there are SOME truth claims that we see over and over again BOTH in popular culture and in the therapy room, as clients describe their problems. We think there’s a connection.
For instance – remember the role-play we did in class, about the father who is trying to figure out how NOT to be like his own father, who didn’t have close relationships with his kids, but still “be a man” and not “lose his balls.” Where does he get this idea that you have to be a certain way to be a “real man?”
Look at the messages here: Real men don’t just wear pants, they wear “the pants.” As with all advertisements, they are talking about Dockers, but they are also talking about something else – something they know you’ll understand because of the cultural truth claims we have all internalized. So real men wear the pants - they “take charge.” Real men, apparently, don’t have misbehaving children or eat salad. Each of the statements in this ad is dependent on you having certain ideas about what these words and phrases mean, images in your head of what is supposed to be. What do you think it means to wear “the pants.” What does that actually look like, what behaviors would you expect? What does it look like to take charge? To be a hero? What comes to mind when you think disco, lattes, and salad bars? Who comes to mind? And what happens when they are then connected to “sitting idly by” and complacency as the world falls apart?
We ask the same deconstructing questions, whether we are looking at an example of popular culture or we are listening to a friend or a client (or our own mind) talk about their problems. Because they are connected – the way we make sense of popular culture and people’s problems is by understanding the common truth claims underlying both. That’s why the ability to deconstruct is such a valuable skill…not just in being culturally literate, but in creating your own happiness and helping others create theirs.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Jon & Kate--Week 2 Social Constructionist Theory
In 2009, we were constantly barraged with "news" about the demise of the relationship between Jon and Kate Gosselin - stars of the reality show Jon & Kate Plus 8 on TLC, which documented their lives raising eight children. Their marriage is now dissolved, their show has been cancelled - so what did all that coverage and our reaction to it mean? What can it tell us about our culture, our ideas and ideals about relationships, marriage and parenting?Here are a few quotes from Jon Gosselin back in September, 2009:
"I despise [her] because she's not speaking from the heart," Gosselin told "Good Morning America" correspondent Chris Cuomo. "Please -- the stuff you tell me in private should be the stuff you tell me on TV."
When asked if he still loved his estranged wife of 10 years, the "Jon & Kate Plus 8" dad responded, "I will always love Kate as the mother of my kids. But to tell you right now, at this point of what's going on, I do not love Kate."
Shortly after announcing his separation from Kate on their reality show, he was photographed with 22-year-old Hailey Glassman, the daughter of the doctor who gave Kate her tummy tuck. He calls Hailey the "polar opposite of Kate."
"I get encouragement from [Hailey], I get respect from her. Two things that a man needs," he said of his new relationship. "This is someone, I mean, like a soul mate -- like people joke about that. But I'm not joking about that."
Jon continues, "You can't control who you love. I strongly believe that. You cannot control that. It's two people joined together."
So...
Is what fascinates people about this couple's break-up related to the fact they were once viewed as an "ideal" couple, in that they were able to maintain a marriage with so much stress from their eight kids?
The coverage of Jon's comments above, and the comments themselves are rather revealing, in that they tell us a good deal about our cultural perceptions of gender and relationships, love, soul mates, and family.
The public's fascination with their relationship and divorce also tells us a great deal. Divorce is common, so why, outside of the fact that this couple's life was on television, were so many people watching the show or following coverage about the show/divorce? After all, the first Jon & Kate Plus 8 that aired after announcement of their divorce was the highest viewed episode in the show's history. Details of their divorce were appearing on morning "news" shows. Our culture was CLEARLY interested in the drama of this family's problems and resulting divorce.
Social constructionism gives us many tools to examine what this coverage is suggesting to us about these culturally significant topics (gender and relationships, love, soul mates, divorce and family), AND why so many people are so invested in the happenings of Jon and Kate.
Is Jon a "typical" man in that he's "left" his wife for a 22-year-old?
Is Kate a "typical" woman in that she's being "manipulative," "vindictive," and "dishonest"?
Where do our ideas about "typical" men and women come from? How do those ideas inform our thoughts about relationships?
Is there such a thing as "true love," or "soul mates"?
Does watching other families "break up" through divorce make us happier about our own relationships? Does it change our expectations in our relationships?
Even the image above, tells us a great deal about our cultural constructions about the meaning of family and marriage, and makes the media coverage of Jon and Kate's divorce a relevant place to discuss what those cultural prescriptions & proscriptions entail.
The One--Week 2 Social Constructionist Theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuNIsY6JdUw
"You Belong With Me" by Taylor Swift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_RqWocthcc
"Knock You Down" by Keri Hilson.
These two popular songs (music video links above) reproduce a VERY dominant idea (discourse) in our culture: "The One" (i.e. the right ONE person for true love).
Frankly, this idea can be incredibly frustrating and quite devastating to our actual relationships. Seriously, how many times are we going to have to hear ideas about recognizing your true love--finding that "perfect" partner? How many times are we going to have to listen to the notion that recognizing the perfect person simply requires time, patience, or some investment on your part? Doesn't this make it sound like those people who don't find "The One" aren't really trying, or they're doing something wrong?
While “true love” is the primary goal in each story, these videos are encoded with very different messages about the process of finding true love, and this impacts the meaning and our emotional responses to it. The female character in one video is just waiting around, while the female character in the other video is more actively involved in the search for “The One.” The imagery used to represent their searches suggests that these female characters have different levels of control over their romantic worlds. In a culture that emphasizes the idea that women’s happiness depends on finding their “true love,” what might be the social consequences of these different representations? Is one of these women more “empowered” than the other - why or why not?
"You Belong With Me" by Taylor Swift.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p_RqWocthcc
"Knock You Down" by Keri Hilson.
These two popular songs (music video links above) reproduce a VERY dominant idea (discourse) in our culture: "The One" (i.e. the right ONE person for true love).
Frankly, this idea can be incredibly frustrating and quite devastating to our actual relationships. Seriously, how many times are we going to have to hear ideas about recognizing your true love--finding that "perfect" partner? How many times are we going to have to listen to the notion that recognizing the perfect person simply requires time, patience, or some investment on your part? Doesn't this make it sound like those people who don't find "The One" aren't really trying, or they're doing something wrong?
While “true love” is the primary goal in each story, these videos are encoded with very different messages about the process of finding true love, and this impacts the meaning and our emotional responses to it. The female character in one video is just waiting around, while the female character in the other video is more actively involved in the search for “The One.” The imagery used to represent their searches suggests that these female characters have different levels of control over their romantic worlds. In a culture that emphasizes the idea that women’s happiness depends on finding their “true love,” what might be the social consequences of these different representations? Is one of these women more “empowered” than the other - why or why not?
Gender is Funny--Week 2 Social Constructionist Theory
Welcome to the CSP 420 Popular Culture and Counseling Class Blog.
Here's a sample of what you can expect...
Gender is a funny thing. We associate so many of our behaviors with gender, and we see a constant emphasis of differences between genders in media. Here's an interesting clip from The Rachel Maddow Show that highlights gender differences, while at the same time, finding some commonality between genders (in that "geekdom" isn't a gendered concept). Of course, the entire segment makes no sense if we don't think about gender in it's basic binary: men/women.
What do you think?
Is this segment giving us ways to see gender differently?
Is it all about reinforcing prevailing ideas of gender?
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32277401
Here's a sample of what you can expect...
Gender is a funny thing. We associate so many of our behaviors with gender, and we see a constant emphasis of differences between genders in media. Here's an interesting clip from The Rachel Maddow Show that highlights gender differences, while at the same time, finding some commonality between genders (in that "geekdom" isn't a gendered concept). Of course, the entire segment makes no sense if we don't think about gender in it's basic binary: men/women.What do you think?
Is this segment giving us ways to see gender differently?
Is it all about reinforcing prevailing ideas of gender?
www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/#32277401
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)