The Birth of Myspace and the Death of Identity: Digital Imperialism in the 21st Century

Originally conceived as a project branching out from Friendster, Myspace quickly became the number one social networking site in 2006 after its launch three years prior.  Americans were entranced with the newfound ability to make new friends across the country, reconnect with long-lost acquaintances, and showcase personal happenings in real-time.  The ease of accessibility and its seemingly simple service unleashed a cultural revolution, not only across the country but around the world.  Nowadays, thousands of individuals log on to social networks to tell others about their lives and chat with friends on a daily basis, generally convinced that social networking has made keeping in touch a difficulty of the past.  But what has social networking really embedded within the ideologies of America and of the world?   By looking more closely at the twenty-first century social networking and technological trends, it becomes clear that the Internet does not plainly improve life like the majority of users would believe.  The birth of Myspace, along with succeeding social networking websites, has brought about the perpetuation of the postmodern subject by skewing the line between reality and an ideal, parallel universe via the World Wide Web, altogether causing the destruction of unique, individual identities among its users, locally and globally.

The "World Map of Social Networks," which illustrates the international impact of social networking.

User stats of Friendster (left) and Facebook (right) researched in late 2009.

Along with the development of New Media, Myspace is responsible for the explosive trend in social networking, instigating a virtual reality that people immerse themselves within.  The Internet allows for a certain amount of anonymity, and the ability to respond to messages at one’s own discretion captures many people, even making it possible for individuals to delete and/or edit messages before sending.  With many users claiming that they can be “themselves” online, the actual question then becomes: who is the real me?  How do I define my “real” self?  Is it the person I am when I’m at home with the family or is it the person I am when I’m with friends?  Is it the person that interacts with a group of school friends or the person that hangs out with a group of church friends?  Am I the musician or the athlete, the student or the gamer?  Suddenly, the belief that humans possess only one true self is challenged, and we as humans come to discover that we have many identities, depending on the context that we are in and the people that we are associating with at any given time.

The postmodern notion concerning identity becomes important in the understanding of the twenty-first century idea of self.  In Chris Barker’s Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice, Stuart Hall explains the concept of the fractured identity, stating that “the subject assumes different identities at different times, identities which are not unified around a coherent ‘self’.  Within us are contradictory identities, pulling in different directions, so that our identifications are continually being shifted about” (220).  Barker summarizes the postmodern self as “[involving] the subject in shifting, fragmented and multiple identities.  Persons are composed not of one but of several, sometimes contradictory, identities” (220).  Myspace, then, allows us to create and perform just one of the many identities we possess or will sooner or later possess.  We will even revise that identity over a period of time, based on the other identities that we have which may subvert, question, and contradict the identity carried out on the Myspace platform.  Undoubtedly, the many selves that we undertake make it difficult for us to figure out which one is real, if any at all are.  Furthermore, social networks make it nearly impossible for us to make out our physical reality from our online reality.

One example of the distortion between the physical and online realities is the online game, Second Life.  People play MMORPGs (Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game) like Second Life and World of Warcraft because the games create an alternate reality online and allow users to interact with others by means of avatars.  However, the environment created in Second Life actually just repeats what is in the physical reality.  Gender, first and foremost, is a key element of online reality that is derived from “real life.”  The actions carried out by the avatars, and the aesthetic façade of avatars themselves, imitate real life behavior, relationships, and fashion.  Judith Butler, in her piece, “Imitation and Gender Insubordination,” asserts that "gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original; in fact, it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself" (722).  Second Life users are simply transferring gender constructs from the physical realm to the virtual realm, with users creating avatars that are very masculine or feminine, encompassing very attractive characteristics throughout.

A "married" couple in Second Life who first met online and later got married in real life.

Expounding the idea of a reproduction of gender from real life to virtual life, Barker references scholar Anne Balsamo, whose work primarily concentrates on the causation between technology and culture.   Barker states that “[virtual space allows us to] transcend our class, gender or race.  Since no one can see you in cyberspace, no one can judge you based on your cultural characteristics.  The problem, of course, is that actors in cyberspace remain tied to the everyday material world whose impact on the virtual universe persists” (360).   He then goes on to restate Balsamo’s suggestion that “virtual reality is reproducing the power relations of broader cultural forces.  The idea of the ‘body’ in cyberculture is still marked by gender and race…because of the tendency to reproduce familiar comfortable ideas” (360-1).  On the surface, technology seems to give us, as users, a freedom of self, permitting us to construct any identity we desire.  However, a closer examination of gaming leads us to observe how virtual life is maintaining dominant notions of gender and power.  Moreover, virtual life spreads Western ideologies of identity globally, creating a type of “digital imperialism” (370).  If online platforms are merely reproducing the physical realm and all of its power relations, class struggles, and gender roles, it is hardly possible to discern the borders between physical and online realities.

An advertisement for Playboy's soon-to-be immersion into Second Life.

Another complexity concerning realities is the growing dependence on technology and electronics that Americans have.  More recent social networking websites like Facebook and Twitter are becoming a part of everyday life.  In addition, “smartphones” allow Americans to stay connected to the Internet wherever they are, 24/7, and more wireless phone networks continue to add better Internet browsers and applications to their devices.  If members of social networks are also consumers of smartphones, iPod Touches, and Wi-Fi enabled netbooks, where does the line get drawn between physical reality and online reality for these individuals?  Messages from social networks can be sent to email inboxes, which are also instantaneously sent to cell phones, infiltrating family dinners and romantic dates which society once thought of as sacred, intimate moments during the week.  The penetration of the Internet on everyday lives is, thus, becoming increasingly normal for American families, and AT&T plays on this idea in their new "Really?" Windows Phone 7 commercials, illustrating how Americans, regardless of occupation, location, or situation, have become absolutely addicted to wireless devices.

Two of the new Windows 7 Phone commercials.

Further, the skewed line between real life and virtual life becomes challenging as a result of growing technological capabilities that allow for constant Internet connection.  If a person’s identity on Facebook is different from his or her identity with the family, it can become problematic to sort out both realms at the same time when having to respond to a Facebook message at home.  This type of situation makes it obvious how social networks carry on a postmodern notion of identity, since most people are not the same person online that they are in real life, nor do they converse the same way even when talking and interacting with different people.  The person must choose to perform one identity or the other or, eventually, learn to combine both identities into one new self.

The initial process through which a person creates an online identity is most prominently carried out when a person signs up for a social network, best characterized by the idiom, “dress to impress”.  Myspace and Facebook force each user to create a starting identity and each person must choose a main profile picture with which to represent themselves.  Subsequently, they must construct a biography, and declare their relationship status, activities, likes and interests, and education and work.  Indeed, profile pictures are chosen very particularly in order to make us look the best to other people.  Myspace made the infamous “mirror picture” popular, and it became the norm to take a picture of yourself in a mirror.  Because of the need for a personal picture, social networks are now overflowing with mirror pictures.  Moreover, biographies are written to make us sound the best, and we carefully generate several egotistical, gratifying, and witty statements to explain who we are or who we want to be.  Our social networking profile, therefore, must be crafted to represent who we are, or at least who we want to seem like.

One of the original "mirror pictures," by Myspace founder, Tom Anderson.

However, this initial identity changes over time, and one important element of social networking that allows for the revision of identity is the “status update.”  Myspace originally made it possible for a picture and your name to define you, but Facebook now makes it possible for your picture and your status to define you.  In 160 characters or less, users must now meticulously choose the right words to represent their emotions, desires, and thoughts at any given point in time.  In spite of this, seconds later, users can revise their previously acknowledged updates, creating new updates and/or deleting the old ones if they so choose.  The creators of Twitter even jumped on the bandwagon, building a social network that revolves only around posting status updates, known to Twitter users as “tweets.”   At a total of almost 100 million tweets per day, Twitter has no other capabilities other than tweeting, making it clear that thousands of people find complete gratification in just updating others on their lives on a continual, and sometimes hourly, basis.  The ability given to a person to update their online identity at the click of a button indicates a cultural movement from one, static, objective identity of a person to multiple, always-shifting identities.

In consequence, the craze of social networking seems to have caught Americans between conformity and individual identity, in addition to consciousness of self and downright narcissism.  Both conformity and individual identity, although inherently distinctive, are advertised to users on social networks.  Myspace promotes a notion of individualism, encouraging each user to make unique pages filled with music, graphics, pictures, et cetera.  Still today, there is a core layout with the ability to revise certain elements of the profile page.  However, the layout of all Facebook profiles is identical, and the only components that allow a person to stand out are the status updates, personal information, and pictures.  If social networking is supposed to encourage individualism, Facebook contradicts itself by discouraging true uniqueness and limiting users’ choices.  When the Facebook layout changes, as it does from time to time much to the dismay of its users, every user is forced to accept and adapt to the change.  The perplexing paradox of a conforming yet individual profile illustrates the freedom, or lack of freedom, that users actually have online.

Additionally, social networking promotes both self-consciousness and pure narcissism.  Social networks allow users, especially those in their young teen years, to figure out who they are; to find themselves.  When a person initially sets up their profile, an identity is created, whether new or pre-existing for the person, and that identity can be modified at any time.  Users can even choose various musicians, movies, television shows, activities, and interests that are representative of who they are.  More importantly, individuals are able to engage in dialogue with friends that they may normally only see at school or on the weekends, even making new friends along the way.  After a while, however, many individuals gradually become narcissistic, constantly posting new status updates and pictures to show their friends how much fun they are having, how many other friends they have, what recent accomplishments they have had, et cetera.  The online phenomenon of social networking becomes less about maintaining relationships with others and shifts to a focus on maintaining a good image of oneself.

In the end, social networking in and of itself has become a cultural symbol that Americans and international users have accepted as fascinating and brilliant.  In one of their introductions for Literary Theory: An Anthology, “The Politics of Culture,” Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan assert that “culture is both a means of domination, of assuring the rule of one class or group over another, and a means of resistance to such domination, a way of articulating oppositional points of view to those in dominance” (1025).  Despite the complexities of the culture of social networking, it is clear, while browsing friends’ pages and profiles, that people have lost the ability to be unique.  Instead, individuals adapt to an online revolution that compels users to pick and choose among friends, activities, privacy settings, pictures, and so on.  In doing so, the desire to create autonomous profiles via the World Wide Web is simply an unreachable ideal.  The domination of social networking, then, is indeed assuring the rule of cultural norms – gender, race, imperialistic, and otherwise – and those who are in the ruling class or group in real life will remain the rulers in virtual life.  Citing Balsamo, Barker also claims that “innovative technologies are not necessarily used to forge new ideas but are more likely to reinforce the traditional hegemonic narratives about the gendered, race-marked body” (361).  A number of users may choose to subvert the social networking system, but it seems almost ridiculous to suggest that users could one day overturn the ideologies so strongly preserved by virtual reality.  The Internet, for now, seems to merely be reflecting and mirroring real life; a sort of virtual mimesis that attempts to imitate real life as closely as possible.

Ideally, the Internet crafts an arena for people to be individuals and express themselves, but social networking merely seems to maintain a postmodern, fragmented idea of self.  People are not actually being “themselves” online, they are simply being or creating just one of their many selves; a self that will either be revised or deleted in the future.  Furthermore, the Internet essentially discourages people from going too far outside the norms, preserving powerful gender and class relations on the virtual stage.  The “digital imperialism” of the West extends its reign internationally, spreading the postmodern ideologies of conforming, individual identities to the individuals around the globe who choose to sign up for social networks.

In all, social networking has perpetuated a heavy dependence on technology and electronics in the twenty-first century, with Americans quickly distorting the boundaries between their physical reality and their online reality.  The Internet, with the help of developing technologies, has cunningly infiltrated real life, causing users to not only confuse virtual life with real life but destroy any so-called uniqueness in themselves that Americans find so vital. The birth of Myspace and all of the glorious capabilities it has brought with it – finding old friends, making new friends, on-demand access to information, and staying connected to people on a real-time, global-scale – comes at the cost of the death of our own identit(ies).

Anderson, Tom.  Myspace.  n.p., Aug. 2003.  Web.  13 Dec. 2010.

Butler, Judith. "Imitation and Gender Insubordination." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 722-29. Print.

Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan. “Introduction: ‘The Politics of Culture’.” Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 1025-1027. Print.

Barker, Chris.  Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.  Print.

Dorsey, Jack, et al.  Twitter.  n.p., 15 Jul. 2006.  Web.  13 Dec. 2010.

Zuckerberg, Mark, et al.  Facebook.  n.p., 4 Feb. 2004.  Web.  13 Dec. 2010.

A New Media Debate

Today's class discussion centered around the utopian vs. dystopian outlook of society due to the emergence of the Internet and other such technology.  This topic is one I really love to discuss because I am a part of the new media generation.  Coincidentally, over the weekend I had a debate with Bob (whose real name is of course concealed) about the new, high-tech gadget, the Kindle.

Although the picture above strongly suggests that "books aren't dead," one of Bob's friends asserted that the Kindle is a "crime against books," and he was asking for the opinion of our mutual friend -- the irony of all this is that I virtually intruded on their conversation, but that's beside the point :) -- I chimed with in my two cents: although I can understand the efficiency of the Kindle, I simply appreciate being able to physically hold a printed book.

The utopian vision that comes with the Internet can actually be dystopian in many ways.  The ability to carry a thin screen with 20, 30, even 50 books is convenient, especially when you don't have room for books or you're traveling.  But I don't particularly want to stare at a screen and definitely not for a long period of time.  Growing up during a time where printed books were all that existed (and I'm not even that old), it's a sad thought to realize that printed materials will one day seize to exist.  Condensing books onto a gadget makes me feel twice removed from the actual books, just like watching musical theatre on TV makes me feel removed from the actual live show - it just wouldn't be the same.  Instead of grand libraries and bookshelves, people are soon going to have their collection of books in their backpockets.  Book signings will be a thing of the past; that is, of course, unless you want someone to sign your Kindle.

Imagine a world without books!  This brings me to the idea of Fahrenheit 451, which we also watched in class today.  This overall utopian vs. dystopian topic is really too broad to discuss in just one blog, so I'll end with this thought: it may be that books aren't actually disappearing in the 21st century, and they're certainly not illegal like in Fahrenheit 451 (yet), but I can't imagine not being able to thumb through a book, feel paper, underline and highlight freely, and most importantly, have a collection of books on my bookshelf.

The Codes of Media

In "Television Culture" by John Fiske, four codes of television are examined:
1) social: mostly aesthetic elements - appearance and speech
2) technical: the technological aspects of media that go into the actual creation of TV shows, movies, etc.
3) conventional representational: the traditional elements of a story, like the narrative
4) ideological: elements which encompass a society's ideologies, such as class, politics, etc.

All of these codes work together to shape, say, a television show.  Fiske goes on to say, "the reading position is the social point at which the mix of televisual, social, and ideological codes comes together to make coherent, unified sense: in making sense of the program in this way we are indulging in an ideological practice ourselves, we are maintaining and legitimating the dominant ideology, and our reward for this is the easy pleasure of the recognition of the familiar and of its adequacy" (1094).  The notion of legitimation is a very Marxist-based perspective -- the ideologies of the owner-class (modes/relations of production) construct and govern the art, politics, culture, etc. of the working-class (superstructure).  We are born into these codes, which, in actuality, creates a never-ending cycle.

A prominent discussion we had in class on Thursday had to do with the rising theme of anti-establishment within movies.  Some texts that represent this idea are Robin Hood and The Dark Knight, and more subtly in Borat.  But what we see as anti-establishment actually is anti-current-establishment.  That is to say, in order to be a radical text, the establishment that is being attacked would have to be demolished altogether.

The example I want to use is the 2009 film Law-Abiding Citizen.  Although the movie may seem radical in promoting anti-establishment, the final outcome simply serves to legitimate the beliefs of the ruling class; in this case, law enforcement and, particularly, the legal system.  To summarize the plot requires some length, so bare with me.  And *THIS IS A SPOILER ALERT* for those of you who don't want to find out the ending :)

Clyde Shelton, played by Gerard Butler, witnesses two men rape and murder his wife and daughter.  Prosecuting attorney Nick Rice, played by Jamie Foxx, eventually decides that he would rather fight for his reputation of convicting criminals than help Shelton, letting the main murderer walk away after just a few years in prison.  Shelton, betrayed by the legal system and Rice, devises a brilliant plan, killing both murderers in gruesome, brutal ways.  Immediately arrested and held for the murders, Shelton uses the justice system against itself for the rest of the film.  At the end, his plans are eventually foiled, and he ends up getting outsmarted by Rice.

The entire movie is very deliberate with the anti-establishment theme, as Shelton takes the legal system into his own hands.  He threatens Rice and mysteriously commits crimes while being held in solitary confinement, sometimes even using the laws against Rice.  The ending, however, serves the legal system, basically showing  viewers that criminals (no matter what their motives) never succeed in the end.

All of that said, it is clear that the director wants the audience to sympathize with Shelton's character.  Having to watch his wife and daughter's vicious murders, with the added fact that Gerard Butler is one of Hollywood's sexiest men, makes it obvious that he is the "heroic outlaw".  Jamie Foxx, on the other hand, is portrayed as conniving in his own ways, looking out only for himself.  This valorization of the criminal looks to be a rising theme in movies throughout the years, but most are not really radical when more closely inspected.

Butler, Gerard, and Jamie Foxx, perf.  Law Abiding Citizen. Overture Films, 2009. Film.

Fiske, John. "Television Culture." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 1087-97. Print.
---------------------------
The movie trailer for Law-Abiding Citizen.

Seinfeld & GLEE vs. Society

Does life imitate Seinfeld or does Seinfeld imitate life?

Some argue that Seinfeld may bring about a 20th century, "no holds barred" way of life but many argue that it's vice versa; that the thoughts evoked and often pronounced throughout the show were and are imitations of a subconscious reality that Americans traditionally suppress.  The controversy of the show springs from violating several mainstream conventions in the media, specifically seen as having a postmodern point of view.

Post-Seinfeld ten years later, I want to point us to the television series GLEE, which has truly become an international phenomenon.  The show is famous for its use of music, but also for the underlying, controversial issues it addresses.  This past week's episode, "Never Been Kissed", brought about many societal issues that are currently looming in America yet are untouched in public for the most part.  Because of the recent suicides of several gay teens, the episode spoke volumes about anti-hate.  (Ironically, though, I would have to assume that most of the viewers of GLEE are already anti-hate to begin with.)

During the episode, the issue of identity is pushed to a new degree, and the director seems to handle two specific story lines in very careful ways.  One: Kurt Hummel, played by Chris Colfer, the only openly-gay student at his school, meets another gay teen from an all-boys academy who eventually encourages him to have courage throughout his trials.  I will be giving more emphasis on the second, however: Shannon Bieste, played by Dot-Marie Jones, a football coach who is neither "feminine" nor lesbian.  Bieste's character calls into question the idea of sexual identity [and identity in general].  Before "Never Been Kissed" was aired, several other episodes had already placed the character of Bieste in a comprosing, vunerable position: her sexuality was unknown, she is a female football coach for an all-male team, and, as a result of her position of leadership and authority, she had to act tough and strong, both mentally and physically.

Although the writers choose to allow Seinfeld-like thinking (i.e. the students do make fun of her and do not repress their thoughts), they must also show strong opposition, with Mr. Schuester, played by Matthew Morrison, pointing out their wrong.  Along with asserting that she is not gay, Bieste only appears masculine on the outside, whether it be the demeanor or physical attributes (Jones is a strength-based athlete - weight-training, shot put, arm wrestling, etc. - in real life).  But who first defined masculine in the first place?  Where do the ideas of masculinity and femininity come from?  And why is it that society, in general, automatically looked at Bieste's character as not normal or even wrong?  Even the position of a football coach is reserved for males.

Without delving further into the topic, as I only wanted to brush upon the questions looming around last week's GLEE episode, I conclude by stating that sexuality and gender appear more and more to be social constructs, especially when individuals are harassed and put down for not meeting the status quo.  As an implicit attack on the base-superstructure model of Marxism, GLEE calls us to begin understanding where our ideologies come from - allowing ideologies to be questioned instead of complete acceptance without thought.

Falchuk, B. (Writer), & Buecker, B. (Director).  (2010).  Never Been Kissed [Television series episode].  In R. Murphuy (Producer), Glee.  Los Angeles, CA: 20th Century Fox Television.
---------------------------

The girls of GLEE perform a mash-up of "Livin' On a Prayer" by Bon Jovi and "Start Me Up" by the Rolling Stones in last week's boys as girls against girls as boys episode.

Judith Butler, Alec Baldwin, and the Implications of Sex and Capitalism

In "Imitation and Gender Insubordination", Judith Butler states that "gender is a kind of imitation for which there is no original; in fact, it is a kind of imitation that produces the very notion of the original as an effect and consequence of the imitation itself".  In Glengarry Glen Ross, Alec Baldwin seems to portray a masculinity that, in fact, has no origin.

The famous monologue has Baldwin's character using foul-language and a stern voice, all in an attempt to get the salesmen, played by Ed Harris and Jack Lemmon, to start "acting" like men.  Beyond that, it seems that the salesmen just sit there and take it -- accept it, really.  Is this how men should behave, then?  Or only those in power that need to motivate other people to act upon something?  After all, Baldwin's character is also working for an unseen boss and is expected to perform and get results.

The entire speech, in addition to Baldwin's word-choice, which include many queer-related phrases, seems to emasculate the salesmen.  He feels he must belittle them in order to get them to act, and to a businessman, it could be argued that this is the only way to go if you want to make money.  Thus, the notion of capitalism penetrates the whole scene, from the watch, to the mention of the car, to the obvious fact that their jobs revolve around the free market.  In addition, feelings make humans weak and irrational, so men must keep themselves emotionless -- apparent in the fact that neither of the salesmen really react to Baldwin's yelling, besides their meager attempts to verbally fight back.  Just from watching this one famous scene from Glengarry Glen Ross, it is clear that the idea of masculinity is still that men must be tough, strong, even vulgar if the occasion calls for it.

Butler, Judith. "Imitation and Gender Insubordination." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 722-29. Print.

Being Unique in a Postmodern Culture

In "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture", Bordo states that "the very advertisements whose copy speaks of choice and self-determination visually legistlate the effacement of individual and cultural difference and circumscribe our choices" (1101).

Americans claim that being "unique" is a goal; a privilege that each person should take seriously.  But shirts like the one pictured above seem to question this idea of "uniqueness".  How can I wear a "unique" shirt when a company is producing it in mass quantities?

Even Madonna was originally seen as a figure that overthrew the gender expectations dictated by social norms, but she later made herself look "normal", as Bordo points out.  "She has gone on a strenuous reducing and exercise program, runs several miles a day, lifts weights and now has developed, in obedience to dominant contemporary norms, a tight, slender, muscular body" (1111).  What does this message send to her fans that praised her anti-Barbie look and seemingly unique, expressive nature?  This sudden change in outward appearance suggests that we can only be as unique as society allows us to be, which is not that unique at all.

Bordo, Susan. "'Material Girl': The Effacements of Postmodern Culture." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 1099-115. Print.

Shakespeare, *NSYNC, and The 40 Year Old Virgin

An eloquent poet from the 17th century, a boy band from the 90s, and a Steve Carell film might have little in common aesthetically, but at the root of their products are complex gender issues.

In "Taming of the Shrew", Kate eventually becomes "tamed", verbalizing her transformation in her final speech.   Although there is much debate about if the speech is actually a reveling of her true feelings, there is no doubt that the images her speech she creates are a recognition of the gender expectations at the time - submissive, subservient, and dedicated to their husbands.

Beginning as early as Elvis, The Beatles brought the Sexual Revolution to new heights, as millions of women went crazy at the sound of a note.  More recently, *NSYNC and the Backstreet Boys were two famous boy bands known world-wide who could bring women to tears and screams.  Be it their good looks, suave dance moves, or sensuous voices, not only did they drive parts of the economy, they helped in shaping what we now know as the teeny-bopper or youth culture.

In The 40 Year Old Virgin, the gender roles are reversed and Steve Carell plays a 40 year old male who has never slept with a woman before.  His friends immediately tell him that they have his back, but see his virginity as a "problem" that must be "fixed", based on the apparent societal expectations of the genders and sex.

Although the sexual issues that have been existent for centuries are not visible at first glance, it becomes clear that influential writers, musicians, and films, among other media, have a profound affect on and perpetuate cultural notions of gender roles - no doubt, today's society is no stranger to these continued gender roles, through celebrities like the Jonas Brothers and Justin Bieber.

---------------------------

Brian Stokes Mitchell and Marin Mazzie performing "So In Love" from the musical adaptation of "Taming of the Shrew", "Kiss Me, Kate".

The 40 Year Old Virgin trailer.

Tennessee Williams and the Radical Romance

During class this week, we discussed Foucault's "History of Sexuality" and the "Radical Romantic Comedy" chapter of McDonald's text.  To get a better idea of the concepts and theories put forth by the authors, we watched Shakespeare In Love and Annie Hall.  However, since I just watched a classic Tennessee Williams' play, The Glass Menagerie, at the Mark Taper Forum, I'm going to relate some of the things we talked about in class to the play.

The play's narrator, Tom, played by Patch Darragh, takes us through an alter-ego-representation of his life, with his crippled sister and outrageous mother - an all-around dysfunctional family, abandoned by their father long ago.  Jim O'Connor, played by Ben McKenzie, enters Act Two as a "gentleman-caller", invited by Tom as part of a plan (on his mother's part) to find a suitable husband for his sister, who was actually in love with Jim in high school.  As the night progresses, Jim and Tom's extremely shy sister, Laura, are left alone.  Jim is able to get Laura to break out of her shell, they share a dance in the moonlight, and even a small kiss.  Just when it seems like Laura and, as a result, the Wingfield family as a whole will finally live happily ever after, Jim reveals that he's engaged and leaves shortly after, never to return, as does Tom, who follows in the footsteps of his father.

The play itself is set in the late 1930s - before the social upheavals leading up to the formation of the modern radical romance - but many of the issues it confronts seem to correlate to McDonald's ideas.  Williams, instead of creating a boy meets girl to boy gets girl scenario in Act Two, throws multiple obstacles into the characters' pathways, resulting in the implied resolution of Jim to stay with his fiancé and Laura being left single and unemployed, unable to take care of herself.

Tom's idea of what life should be is kept down by his familial problems, his alcoholic-tendencies, and his obsessions.  His mother is portrayed as an overly-loving, financially-dependent, traditional woman, who puts all of her eggs in one basket when Jim comes into the picture.  Both Tom and his sister struggle with their mother to maintain sanity on their less-than-average incomes and less-than-normal family life, and Tom finally decides to leave them both in the end with nothing but a memory of him.  The show in itself is not quite self-reflexive, although it does become a sort of play-within-a-play.  And it's really not about romance at all, but about the more complex issues of life and its failures, self-worth, and truth.  But it is comedic and has its share of romance, nonetheless.  One of the bigger issues, though, is the idea of breaking away from life and its conventions.  Although it's not a radical romance, there are radical notions that defy conventional plots in general, and it most certainly does not end on a happy note.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Wallflower Press, 2007.  Print.

Dangerous Women and the Men Who Love Them

Martinis – shaken, not stirred – Aston Martins and special gadgets, love interests with names containing double entendres, and a gun barrel sequence: these are just some of the many images and ideas that popular culture associates with James Bond.  But what do these symbols actually represent and perpetuate in mass society?  Aesthetically, the films simply serve to entertain American and British audiences, but literary theorists Rivkin and Ryan would argue that there is something more than meets the eye, asserting that “[o]ne sees the media, television, film, and the like as instruments of economic, ethnic, and gender domination…the media inevitably further attitudes and perceptions that assure its continuation” (1026).  Although the 2006 Bond film, Casino Royale, uses action and romance to drive the plot, the film essentially tears down females and puts men on a pedestal, promoting a powerful, patriarchal concept of Western society, not only for the United Kingdom and America, but to international, Bond-loving audiences as well.

In his controversial portrayal of the legendary spy, Daniel Craig’s Bond strays away from the classical interpretation of the character, producing a mysterious, antihero persona.  However, throughout the film, Bond upholds the White, Western idea of the heterosexual male.  Explaining Marxist beliefs, Chris Barker states that “the ruling ideas are the ideas of the ruling class” (56), suggesting that the majority of American and British Bond audiences in the 21st century still desire and advocate this type of dominating figure.  Thus, in keeping with the film, masculinity requires being physically strong, mentally logical, and somewhat emotionless.

In fact, because of Bond’s debonair personality – “the man that men want to be and women want to be with” – it would seem that men are encouraged to strive for these Bond-like qualities.  During the film, Craig’s Bond experiences a short instance of a lack of reasoning when he initially resigns from MI6 to settle down and live “happily ever after” with love interest Vesper Lynd, played by Eva Green.  By the end of the movie, however, he detaches himself from all emotion – this is in keeping with the film’s function as a precursor to the “Bond we all know and love,” who can go through women like a child goes through toys.  This latter stage of the character allows men to desire sex without having to commit to a long-lasting relationship, where the ultimate goal would be marriage and children.  Bond also has an earlier love interest with the enemy’s wife, Solange, which further perpetuates the promiscuous behavior of males as acceptable; sleeping around, in particular, even at the expense of and with no regard for other men.  The movie may unconventionally reject the institution of marriage, but it calls forth a homogeneous construct of masculinity, which serves both the men already in power and the men who want to be power.  By legitimating male domination within American and British societies, such domination is made to appear natural to audiences.

Moreover, the film upholds the notion of the woman as being “the other”.  In The Second Sex de Beauvoir argues that “[man] thinks of his body as a direct and normal connection with the world, which he believes he apprehends objectively, whereas he regards the body of woman as a hindrance, a prison, weighed down by everything peculiar to it”.  Women are regarded as a stumbling block for men; defective, cunning, and dangerous.  Some may seem classy, sophisticated, and self-reliant, but many have skeletons in their closets.  In one of the most famous and integral scenes from the movie, Bond and Vesper share an intimate moment in the shower after Bond carelessly kills several henchmen, illustrating just how easily a man can be seduced by the seeming-innocence of a woman.

Bond later confesses to Vesper that she has stripped his armor from him: “Whatever is left of me – whatever I am – I’m yours”.  Nonetheless, Vesper is eventually shown to be a double-agent who has been able to play both sides until the very end of the movie.  The appearance of an independent woman usually leads to no good, and Bond’s traumatic experience with Vesper serves as a warning for men to stay away from dominating women, who reel you in and wrap you around their finger before ever showing their true colors.  Further, women are used as objects in the movie, endorsing an unspoken desire to put females below males.  Bond seduces Solange to get to her husband Dimitrios, an early villain in the film, and later, Le Chiffre’s organization kidnaps Vesper and uses her to lure Bond into a trap.  These subtle, distinct uses of women serve to strip females of any identity they may have and advance the idea of woman as “the other”, not belonging to any history nor having any sense of belonging at all, but simply living under the rule of males.  de Beauvoir generalizes this notion by stating that woman is “a free and autonomous being like all human creatures – nevertheless finds herself living in a world where men compel her to assume the status of the Other.”  Woman, then, is defined by her male counterparts: father, son, male co-workers and friends.  Instead of having or forming her own identity, she is handed an identity by male-dominated society.

Radical in nature and treatment, Casino Royale breaks away from the traditional representation of James Bond, while repeatedly illustrating normative strands of love and maintaining powerful social and cultural ideologies of Western masculinity, successfully yet subtly oppressing women.  Although women commend themselves for the amount of liberties they have gained in the West, the actual freedom has only been granted as a gift and prize, as opposed to a universal right and entitlement.  Casino Royale seemingly presents the modern world as if no advances for women have actually been made.  Indeed, the Bond franchise will forever be marketed as a simple spy-movie, but the ideologies that the movies actually endorse go beyond the mere façade of a suave, licensed-to-kill, clever assassin.


Craig, Daniel, and Eva Green, perf. Casino Royale. Dir. Martin Campbell. Columbia Pictures, 2006. Film.


de Beauvoir, Simone. "The Second Sex." marxists.org.  Penguin, 2005. Web. 22 Aug. 2010.


Rivkin, Julie, and Michael Ryan, eds.  Literary Theory: An Anthology.  Malden: Blackwell, 1998.  1025-27.  Print.

The Derridian Binaries of Sula

Toni Morrison's novel, Sula, is filled with binary relationships: The Valley/the Bottom, Nel/Sula, Conventional/Unconventional gender roles, and the Bottom before/after Sula.

The most intriguing to me is the relationship between Nel and Sula.  Earlier in the story, the narrator describes their meeting: "Because each had discovered years before that they were neither white nor male, and that all freedom and triumph was forbidden to them, they had set about creating something else to be...they found in each other's eyes the intimacy they were looking for...they found relief in each other's personality" (52-3).  The narrator describes a completion and close similarity of their identities yet also notes distinctions about their pasts and personalities.  After Jude cheats on Nel with Sula, the friendship falls apart - "[Sula] had clung to Nel as the closest thing to both an other and a self, only to discover that she and Nel were not one and the same thing" (119), which shows the previously mentioned differences in personalities.  Their relationship became dangerous because of their rare closeness that caused them to be dependent on each other, as if they should share everything.  However, their relationship had already started coming undone after Chicken Little's death.  During Nel's visit to Sunnydale, Eva Peace claims that Nel had a part in the murder, asserting, "What's the difference?  You was there.  You watched, didn't you?" (168).  The death itself separated them subconsciously, long before Jude came into the picture - Nel would never take a part in the blame for Chicken Little's death; she merely watched.


Morrison, Toni.  Sula.  New York: Vintage International, 2004.  Print.

George Webber and Jean Baudrillard

As Jean Baudrillard states in "The System of Objects", "...90 percent of the [United States] population experience no other desire than to possess what others possess".  His profound claim not only describes the brand-fueled consumerism of America but is also an ideology found in the 1979 film "10".  George, played by Dudley Moore, is caught in a mid-life crisis.  But after a short-lived affair with Jenny, played by Bo Derek, George finds that the chase was actually better than the catch and that the grass just seemed greener on the other side.Although the movie may seem radical at first, it actually takes on a traditional standpoint, especially regarding the institution of marriage.  Masculinity, femininity, and homosexuality are explored, but George eventually goes back to Sam, and Jenny is in a negative light.

Jenny's character, played by Bo Derek, is first portrayed as an idealized "10", not just because of her looks, but because of her seemingly "perfect" life.  However, when George finally gets her, he realizes how imperfect and idealistic she is - maybe he was more in love with the idea of her than her actual persona.  In this way, Jenny is shown as resisting the idea of love to the mere physical pleasure she gets from a classical piece of music.  On the other hand, Sam, played by Julie Andrews, is depicted as the real "perfect" woman - what men should want.  Thus, she is the protector of romance; the extreme opposite of how Jenny is portrayed.  The angry conversation they have with each other in bed even shows Sam as trying to get George away from degrading comments towards women.  Sam is a feminist - classy, independent, yet sexually-conscious.

Baudrillard, Jean. "The System of Objects." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 408-19. Print.

---------------------------

A montage from the movie "10".

Women and Men: Grey Areas

The Zits comic strip created the following in 2008:

Although the comic strips seems to exaggerate the differences between men and women, it is not so far from the gender ideologies that Americans have created.  No doubt, the words "male" and "female" impose pictures of each sex, however stereotypical, in our minds.  Men have physical strength and think simply, while women lack physical strength and think too much; husbands earn money while wives take care of the kids; men have better spatial recognition than women and are, thus, better drivers, and women have no sense of direction.

Are these just American beliefs and expectations or do all countries have these implicit definitions for genders?  At the core, this is a nature versus nurture argument.  A fairly recent gender theory proposes that gender is not bound by any universal ahistorical subjectives.  Anti-essentialist Foucault suggests that "[g]ender is historically and culturally specific, subject to radical discontinuities over time and across space" (291).  What if our ideas of gender were really just social constructions, subject to change and dependent on mass media and familial life?  It is my belief that the differences between men and women are not as black and white in the world as they seem to us in the West, and I would go so far to suggest that the terms "effeminacy" and "manliness" are simply a product of Western constructions of gender.

Barker, Chris.  Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.  Print.
---------------------------
In a famous 2007 Gap commercial, Patrick Wilson and Claire Danes dance to the Annie Get Your Gun tune "Anything You Can Do":

Sex Comedies & The Graduate

Tamar Jeffers McDonald defines the main goal of the sex comedy as "[pitting] woman against man in an elemental battle of wits, in which the goal of both is sex.  Only the timing and legitimacy of this differs from gender to gender, with woman wanting sex after, and men before or without, marriage" (38).  The latter part of this definition is debunked by the Kinsey Report, which revealed that women also had sexual desires.  The initial publication of the report created much shock to the public, who could not imagine such a revelation of truth.  This was, and still is, a double standard, where it is considered acceptable for men to have multiple lovers, but women, on the other hand, are looked down when they sleep around.

What I found most interesting was the introduction of a "'hierarchy of knowledge' in which he knows more than she and we know more than either" (45).  This type of battle-of-the-sexes game between is quite evident in How to Lose a Guy In 10 Days, where Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey duel it out -- for Hudson, to write a magazine article, and for McConaughey, to win a bet.  Without revealing their true motives for most of the movie, their battle of wits turns into real feelings for each other, and the ending suggests that they are in a committed relationship with one another from then on.  The audience, of course, has full knowledge of what's actually going on, which drives the storyline even more and makes the movie enjoyable.

Indeed, we can fit The Graduate, with Dustin Hoffman, into this type of romcom.  It would appear that Hoffman and Anne Bancroft have their own reasons for wanting to get each other in bed - Hoffman's character is [in all senses of the word] awkward and doesn't really seem to have any motivation to move forward after graduating from college and Bancroft's character, as she later reveals, does not have a great relationship with the rest of the family, obviously jealous of her daughter and sleeping in a different room than her husband - so for the first part of the movie, sex is, subconsciously or otherwise, their main goal.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Wallflower Press, 2007.  Print.
---------------------------
Movie trailers for The Graduate and How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days.

The Graduate trailer

How to Lose a Guy in 10 Days trailer

Ethnography

During a sunny afternoon at CSUN, I parked myself in the middle of the University Student Union outside seating area.  It was 11am in the middle of the school week and, with the sun bearing down on the campus, a number of other students had claimed tables for themselves to study, eat lunch, or simply relax with friends.  I immediately began looking around for couples and found two friends chatting at a table to the right of me, along with another pair of friends standing in the shade by the first floor of the computer lab.  For the duration of both exchanges, which were each about 15-20 minutes from the time I sat down, no other individuals joined their conversations and they were not showing any normal signs of affection, so it was not clear whether either pair was actually together or not.  To my left, I heard a male voice say, “Sure, join me” as another male student put his lunch down onto the table.  The male that was already occupying the table was wearing what appeared to be a wedding ring, though they did not seem to know each other until that very moment, as it was only the lack of shade that motivated the second male student to find another, nearby table to relocate to.  Although I was not close enough to them to make out their complete dialogue, they ate their lunch while keeping up a long conversation.

As I looked more generally at the people around me, I noticed that many of the students sitting by themselves at tables were female; meanwhile, more males were walking with friends to their next destination.  A table was filled with girls wearing clothing of their sorority, while many of the isolated individuals sitting at tables had books cracked open.  Countless students were passing through the area, probably headed home, to class, or to get food.  Many couples strolled by, holding hands and laughing, and there were also numerous male-only and female-only pairs of friends.  A common characteristic between all of these couples and friends was an apparent hurriedness and purposefulness to their walking, in addition to multi-tasking, with cell phones, books, and food in hand.  I also noticed a commonality in the clothing people wore and the accessories students had – Abercrombie-, PacSun- and CSUN-covered individuals with brand-name purses, sunglasses, hats, and backpacks, together with skateboarders and people on scooters riding along.  Despite the time of day and number of people that I witnessed, there were only a few probable couples to be found.

The media is no doubt responsible for how exactly we distinguish relationships in society – we look for normative representations of love according to the way film and television depict relationships.  As Tamar Jeffers McDonald points out in her book, Romantic Comedy: Boys Meets Girl Meets Genre, movies can make love and romance a valuable product just as much as they can make Coca-Cola or Nike products more desirable to people (15).  My ideal notion of couples, as a result of years of television and movies, is that those holding hands must be dating.  When I first sat down, I was immediately looking for couples by means of public displays of affection and pairs of one male and one female.  Pairs passing by me while holding hands were quickly identified as an item.  On the other hand, the two couples I initially found casually talking to each other could not be absolutely classified by me as dating, since I never saw them hold hands or hug, nor did I hear any part of their dialogues.  My assumptions, in both cases, could indeed be wrong.  Indeed, it is difficult to determine actual couples when looking for what the media deems as couple-appropriate behavior.

Other than these possible couples, there were no out-of-the-ordinary actions.  The two males I saw eating lunch together could have been seen as radical, had they shown any signs of affection to each other; although, they were most likely not together because of the presence of a ring.  In the face of such gender issues, it was very acceptable for the second male to ask to join the table.  If a girl had been the one to ask, it might have been seen as flirting or an attempt to get to know the male, even though the intense heat was actually the main cause of table switches.

Overall, I believe that the media is the most prominent influence upon today’s idea of American culture.  Further, each person whom I witnessed portrayed themselves through a specific identity – skater, athlete, fraternity brother, sorority sister, Christian, Muslim, teacher, student – identities most likely marketed in mass media.  In his book, Cultural Studies: Theory & Practice, Chris Barker suggests that “identities are discursive constructions that change their meanings according to time, place and usage” (217), and in the film, “American Psycho”, Patrick Bateman conceals what is an unacceptable identity of a murderer, instead representing himself as a wealthy and educated businessman.  What I witnessed during this somewhat-relaxing hour on the CSUN campus consisted predominately of school-based identities.  I would not expect the same actions and behavior from each person if they were sitting in class, and the way which people act with friends would not always equate to how they act with family.

Through life experiences, and more so through mediums such as religion and television, we learn what acceptable behavior is and how we can and should portray ourselves within society.  We are taught certain ideologies regarding love and self-identity, then go out and expect to see certain behaviors and practices among others, embracing clear actions that meet our criteria – the norm – and quickly dismissing those that do not – the radical.

Bale, Christian, perf. American Psycho. Lions Gate Entertainment, 2000. Film.

Barker, Chris.  Cultural Studies: Theory and Practice.  Los Angeles: Sage, 2008.  Print.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Wallflower Press, 2007.  Print.

RomComs: Structure, Similarities, Satisfaction

In Tamar Jeffers McDonald's book, "Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre", she quotes Berry's and Errigo's clever summation for their love of romantic comedies: "...we might love the great and the good, we can also adore the cute and the ridiculously bad, as long as the leading man is handsome or the story -- no matter how cheesy -- makes us laugh, makes us cry, or makes us hot " (1).

Since I wouldn't mind watching any movie with the likes of Patrick Dempsey, Gerard Butler, Jeffrey Dean Morgan, and Daniel Craig -- no matter what the storyline was -- I would have to agree with their statement.  However, past the core marketing tactics of casting a good-looking, male lead, RomComs usually go beyond the boy meets girl phenomenon as we know it.  McDonald defines the RomCom genre as "a romantic comedy is a film which has as its central narrative motor a quest for love, which portrays this quest in a light-hearted way and almost always to a successful conclusion" (9).

Examples of the traditional romantic comedy include You've Got Mail, Sleepless in Seattle, Dan in Real Life, and Enchanted.  All of these films use the expected, Western, white, heterosexual pattern of love: boy meets girl, boy loses girl, boy regains girl.  Although each movie's main character varies, in terms of sex, all four have a emphasis on portraying the universal imperfect mate and, accordingly, the perfect mate.  In You've Got Mail, both Tom Hanks' and Meg Ryan's characters are paired with the "wrong" people at first, then realize that they want to be with each other.  Same thing in Enchanted.  Not only that, the director makes sure that, by the end of the movie, you are not only rooting for the two "made-for-each-other" characters to be together, you are determined to give the movie rotten tomatoes if it does not meet your expectations.  This storyarch from Point A to Point B is the traditional way of defining and picking out romantic comedies.

On the other hand, I would consider a film like P.S. I Love You to be a non-traditional romantic comedy.  In P.S. I Love You, Hilary Swank and Gerard Butler start out as an already-perfect couple.  Despite their conflicts, they do not fail to show each other true affection and devotion in the first scene.  Swank's life is altogether shaken when Butler's character suddenly dies of a brain tumor, and she is forced to figure out how to move on, if she should move on at all.  I deem this film as a non-traditional romcom because of its movement and ending.  Swank's character is motivated throughout the movie to do various things because of mysteriously placed cassette-tapes and notes from her dead husband -- later, we find out that her mother was in on the plan and he planned everything precisely, showing how well he really knew his wife.  He tells her various tasks to complete, such as buy items, go to certain places, and even goes so far as to pre-plan a trip to Ireland with her best friends.  Along the way, Swank meets Harry Connick, Jr., an employee of his mother's with Aspergers syndrome.  Around the same time, she meets Jeffrey Dean Morgan, an old friend of Butler's, in Ireland -- they end up sleeping together one night before she returns to America.  It appears that Swank is supposed to decide to move on and fall in love with Connick -- at least, despite the beginning of the film, this is what traditional romcom viewers would expect -- the film takes a turn and Swank does not end up with either man.  The end of the movie shows her and her mother visiting Ireland and bumping into Morgan, but does not show them "happily ever after".  Rather, you can safely assume that she is at least open to the idea of falling in love again, but more importantly, is finally moving on from Butler's death.  In reality, P.S. I Love You serves more as an example to how humans each have different ways to mourn a loved one's death and falling in love again.

Besides the moral and ethical teachings that screenwriters want us to come away with these days, capitalism also plays a large part in the production of a romcom.  As McDonald states, "...if we can accept that product placement in a film operates to sell more Coca-Cola and Nike products, why not also view the fantasy of romantic love as a product being no more subtly endorsed?" (15).  Romcoms are not always so cut and dry, and there are countless movies that do not fit the typical description of a romcom as we are used to.

Berry, Jo, and Angie Errigo.  Chick Flicks: Movies Women Love.  London: Orion Books, 2004.  Print.

McDonald, Tamar Jeffers.  Romantic Comedy: Boy Meets Girl Meets Genre.  New York: Wallflower Press, 2007.  Print.
---------------------------
Respectively, the movie trailers for You've Got Mail, Enchanted, Dan in Real Life, and P.S. I Love You.

You've Got Mail trailer

Enchanted trailer

Dan In Real Life trailer

P.S. I Love You trailer

The Pollitt Love Languages

A unique story of love (or lack thereof), family, and mendacity, Williams' "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof" leaves many things left unsaid.  Although the story is full of [mainly] women talking non-stop, is anything real being said?  Both Big Mama and Maggie can both yap their lives away, but their husbands pay them little attention, and it seems as though talking is simply a way for the two women to fill the emptiness that is so apparent in their relationships.  Talking, therefore, could be seen as the only thing left for the Pollitt women to do, as they both seem to have given up everything else to have a family with their significant others.  Maggie, for instance, who has married up in society, struggles throughout the play to keep her marriage alive.

What, then, does marriage signify?  Success?  Power?  Certainly not happiness.  And yet, everyone in the story creates lies and attempts to cover up the unhappiness that they feel.  Brick uses alcohol, Big Daddy uses material goods, and even Gooper can hide behind his financial and familial stability.  Further, the Pollitt men eventually reach a breaking point, telling their wives to shut up and giving them the freedom to find other men.  Despite these obvious, verbal gifts of independence, the women pretend as if they are either joking or are appalled and refuse altogether.

The 1958 film adaptation with Elizabeth Taylor and Paul Newman takes a firm stance on Brick, showing him as heterosexual and simply being deprived of love from his family, specifically his father.  This position is possibly a result having of big stars in a Hollywood movie, thus needing to take the safer route in order to succeed.  Big Daddy is shown to be a materialistic husband and father; his way of showing love to his family.  Brick and Big Daddy have a big blowout in the basement about the definition of love.  Big Daddy believes he is showing love through what he will leave behind -- much of his energy has been spent trying to make sure  that his family can live comfortably, without worrying about money.  Brick, on the other hand, believes that love from his father should be about time, conversing, and getting to know each other.  I think both Big Daddy and Brick are correct in their understandings of love languages (although Big Daddy's materialism is portrayed in an extreme way by Brick), but it does not seem that they ever come to understand each other; that they are stubborn, in a sense, and will not give into the other person's definition of what love is.

Williams, Tennessee. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. New York: Penguin, 1955. Print.

Group #1: COAHTR

I was in the Cat on a Hot Tin Roof group that presented on Tuesday, September 14th.   We had a difficult time meeting as a whole group because of all of our busy schedules, but I was able to be at the first group meeting where we brainstormed the themes we wanted to explore and all the possible ways to present our discoveries.  Knowing that we could be a little adventurous with our presentation, I thought we could stray away from the traditional discussion presentation of simply having each person speak to present specific topics.  After failing to do a Dating Game-esque presentation in a previous class, I saw the ability to integrate six characters into a Jerry Springer-esque presentation, especially with all the dysfunctional aspects of relationships within the play.  From that, and the fact that we had a 4:2 ratio of girls to guys, sprung our episode of  "Kerry Springer", where we would explore how each character feels like a cat on a hot tin roof; caught in a relationship that they can't get out of, and oftentimes, don't even want to get out of.

Each person had a role for Kerry Springer -- I was Big Mama, coming out towards the end to make sure to emphasize the fact that Big Mama believes there are no secrets to be had in the Pollitt family and to continue to be disillusioned to the reality of Big Daddy's distaste of her.  Most importantly, Big Mama is continues to deny any notion of Big Daddy dying, leading to an argument about the will that Gooper (represented in our show by Mae) has sketched out.

If we had had more time to work on the presentation, I feel like we could have really polished it up, and I had hoped to add an audio/visual element to the presentation, with pre-show interviews, pictures, and music, but eventually decided there wasn't enough time to do any of that.  So I settled on making a poster to hang up instead :)

Love and Lies

While reading Tennessee Williams's play, "Cat on a Hot Tin Roof", it is almost too hard to focus at times because you can really sense the noise, disillusionment, and intensity of this family living in the Mississippi Delta in, presumably, the mid-1900s.  Just in the first few minutes of the play, Maggie and Brick reveal a lot about themselves, both through what they say and what they don't say.  Brick is utterly emotionless, and his name even suggests his apathetic attitude towards life and Maggie especially.  Maggie, on the other hand, feels the constant need to fill a void no doubt created by the expectations (and, as a result, the disappointments) she had regarding her future with Brick.  She verbally makes it known that she is lonely and victimized, and seems to be desperately seeking any attention from Brick.  Maggie almost seems like a psycho at times, obsessed with Brick, and it makes you doubt if Maggie is really in love with Brick or if she's only in love with the idea of Brick.   Just like a cat on a hot tin roof, Maggie is uncomfortable where she is, yet looking for security within the Pollitt family.

Mendacity is a key concept that forms most of the play.  Each relationship experiences it: Brick/Maggie and Big Daddy/Big Mama are lying to each other, everyone lies to Big Daddy and Big Mama about Big Daddy's condition, Mae and Gooper's intentions for returning to the plantation are concealed, and Maggie tells everyone that she's pregnant with Brick's baby.  Further, Big Daddy and Brick state how mendacity is simply a part of their lives; something they can't live without.  While Brick is busy attempting to experience the click he seems dangerously trying to attain, Big Daddy exclaims "I've lived with mendacity!--Why can't you live with it?  Hell, you got to live with it, there's nothing else to live with except mendacity, is there?" (81), to which Brick begins talking about how he tries to run away from life by way of alcohol.  Brick later affirms his belief in the power of the bottle, by stating that calmly stating that "[m]endacity is a system that we live in.  Liquor is one way out an' death's the other..." (94).  The plot centers around the lies that they tell one another, whether verbal or indiscreet -- it's no wonder that Brick sees liquor and death as the only ways out.

Williams, Tennessee. Cat on a Hot Tin Roof. New York: Penguin, 1955. Print.

Jerry Maguire and the Women Who Love Him

In 1949, Simone de Beauvoir wrote a captivating piece about the role of women in society.  In her Introduction section, she describes how the efforts of women to gain control over men have always been futile, to say the least.  That is not to say that women have not gained some freedom in certain aspects of life -- the ability to vote, to receive formal education, to join the workforce -- but these abilities are just that: gained.  Women are still disadvantaged in many regards -- they receive less pay and they are generally looked down upon in many occupations and contexts.   de Beauvoir states that "...the women's effort has never been anything more than a symbolic agitation.  They have gained only what men have been willing to grant; they have taken nothing, they have only received".  What a revolutionary idea!  And how true.

The most intriguing part of her work is that the binary relationship of women and men are not like any other binary relationships within history, with blacks and whites being the most prominent example.  Women have never been "apart" from men, in the sense that there is no female-only community in the world; if that were the case, there would be no reproduction of the human species in that community.  de Beauvoir best states that "[women] have no past, no history, no religion of their own; and they have no such solidarity of work and interest as that of the proletariat.  They are not even promiscuously herded together in the way that creates comunity feeling among the American Negroes, the ghetto Jews, the workers of Saint-Denis, or the factory hands of Renault.  They live among dispersed among the males, attached through residence, housework, economic condition, and social standing to certain men...more firmly than they are to other women".  If women share no common background and need men to survive (as loosely as I can use the term, as in, plainly for reproductive purposes) there is no ground on which to create revolution.  With this logical argument, women and men should be considered equals in all senses of the word.

Did Cameron Crowe, writer and director of Jerry Maguire, mean to portray certain gender stereotypes when he constructed the 1996 film?  Regardless of his intention, the extremes of the female role in society is very apparent in the women that appear in the film.  Kelly Preston plays Avery Bishop, Maguire's first love interest and wife.  She is portrayed as a modern, independent woman.  A leader in her own right, independent, and strong, it is difficult to tell who controls the marriage.  She establishes her dominant-personality from the beginning, and even when Maguire calls it quits with her, she doesn't let him break up with her without letting him know who's boss.  On the other end of the female spectrum is Dorothy Boyd, played by Renée Zellweger.  Reserved, a follower, and submissive, Boyd ends up living happily ever after with Maguire.  Some would say that she is the epitome of the desired woman.  After all, in the standard romantic comedy, why would Maguire end up with anyone except the one?  The one that completes him - and yet, I have to step back and ask why.  Is his completion in her found in her dependency and the fact she is not as strong and overbearing as Bishop appeared to be?

French linguist Saussure wrote about the idea of this binary relationship of signs, which can be applied to the sign of woman.  What do we think of when we hear the word woman?  What picture do we paint?  Submissive and dependent housewives and mothers, juggling multiple jobs at once is what comes to my mind.  Furthermore, using Derrida's theories, the word "woman" should only exist in certain contexts, but is there a society in the world that holds the concept of woman differently than others?  Although Saussure, Derrida, and de Beauvoir lived in the late 19th and 20th centuries, their ideas and the general notions of gender have continued to implicitly shape modern-day society's take on who females should be and what females should do.

de Beauvoir, Simone. "The Second Sex." marxists.org.  Penguin, 2005. Web. 22 Aug. 2010.

Derrida, Jacques. "Post-Structuralism, Deconstruction, and Post-Modernism: Diff'erance." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 385-407. Print.

de Saussure, Ferdinand. "Structuralism and Liguistics: Course in General Linguistic." Literary Theory: An Anthology. Ed. Julie Rivkin and Michael Ryan. Malden: Blackwell, 1998. 76-89. Print.