Sunday, April 15, 2012
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”?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)