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/

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

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?

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?

Consumerism & Hegemony -- Consumerism Week 7

In a culture saturated with discourses that encourage us to spend money in order to find happiness, it should come as no shock that many of us spend more money than we actually have. The current recession/depression has highlighted some alternative discourses about consumerism—many of which address the “spending problem” that we have as a culture. This Saturday Night Live skit uses some of those alternative discourses in its satire of our desire to spend more money than we have.

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”?

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.

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).