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?

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):

Sarah Palin Uses a Hand-O-Prompter

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Economy

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?

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?

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?

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.