Pop Culture at San Diego State University

That's No June Cleaver -- Week 3 Deconstruction

2012-02-09T12:20:00.000-08:00

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

2012-02-09T12:16:00.000-08:00

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.

Jon & Kate--Week 2 Social Constructionist Theory

2012-01-24T09:15:00.001-08:00

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

2012-01-24T08:15:00.001-08:00

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?

Gender is Funny--Week 2 Social Constructionist Theory

2012-01-24T08:14:00.001-08:00

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