Monday, April 20, 2009
Rubber Soul, bell hooks
"Mass culture is the contemporary location that both publicly declares and perpetuates the idea that there is pleasure to be found in the acknowledgment and enjoyment of racial difference" (366). The author describes the Other as a spice, or a "seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture." I immediately thought of how people around me use Othering. A couple of my friends who are of a different ethnicity, actually use their "Otherness" as a means of entertainment. They tell stereotypical jokes of their ethnicity all the time. It makes sense that they would use racially limiting perceptions as comedic relief, since our white-mainstream culture uses it in the media constantly. People who are not of the mainstream ethnicity use stereotypical jokes about their own ethnicity as a coping mechanism to join the mainstream view. It allows them to lighten the mood and it is an attempt to prove that they acknowledge their difference but they are "white" enough to assimilate to the mainstream ideologies. The author says that Othering is a "contemporary revival of interest in the "primitive," with a distinctly postmodern slant." This quote made me think of a game show called "Most Extreme Elimination Challenge." It was a Japanese television show that was aired on SPIKETV and constituted of contestants doing the most ridiculous obstacle courses that more or less left them in pain at the end. Americans dubbed over what the game show hosts were saying as well as the contestants which usually was along the lines of something very primitive and making them all look stupid and crazy. In summary, American culture has used the Other as a means of belittling and entertainment.
ashlayla, bell hooks (response to Rico72)
Bell Hooks' reading was definitely easier for me to get through and to understand. Like in Rico72's post, I was also able to connect this to the reading on Medal Of Honor. I have never played Medal of Honor or any other similar video game. However, one of my friend's plays Call of Duty and I have noticed how the creators of the game have "othered" the foreign people. Just like in Medal Of Honor, the Japanese and Germans are seen as savages and the player is determined to defeat the savage "other." In these games, Americans are the victims and the Japanese are the murderers and savages.
I agree with Rico72 that games like these could be used to teach history, however I think it could hurt the "other" even more if we use Medal of Honor and Call of Duty as teaching tools. During WWII, after the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese across the United States were put into camps. We were "othering" the Japanese because we associated them with those that attacked our troops at Pearl Harbor. Because people that looked and spoke like Japanese Americans, we automatically assumed that all Japanese were criminals and we felt like we needed to keep them away from our families. To me, if we used video games such as Medal of Honor as a teaching tool, it would make othering worse. I feel like we would start treating today's Japanese Americans like we treated those from the 1940s. We would create more stereotypes for the Japanese and to us, that is what they would be. We create these stereotypes from the games that we play and the movies and television shows that we watch. I think that if we could overcome those stereotypes that we have created, we could stop "othering." Once we stopped "othering" people, we would realize that they are just like us but with a different skin color and a different spoken language.
I agree with Rico72 that games like these could be used to teach history, however I think it could hurt the "other" even more if we use Medal of Honor and Call of Duty as teaching tools. During WWII, after the Pearl Harbor attack, Japanese across the United States were put into camps. We were "othering" the Japanese because we associated them with those that attacked our troops at Pearl Harbor. Because people that looked and spoke like Japanese Americans, we automatically assumed that all Japanese were criminals and we felt like we needed to keep them away from our families. To me, if we used video games such as Medal of Honor as a teaching tool, it would make othering worse. I feel like we would start treating today's Japanese Americans like we treated those from the 1940s. We would create more stereotypes for the Japanese and to us, that is what they would be. We create these stereotypes from the games that we play and the movies and television shows that we watch. I think that if we could overcome those stereotypes that we have created, we could stop "othering." Once we stopped "othering" people, we would realize that they are just like us but with a different skin color and a different spoken language.
Savvy, Hooks 4.20.09
"The commodification of Otherness has been so successful because it is offered as a new delight, more intense, more satisfying than normal ways of doing and feeling. (366)
- I thought that this quote was important because it talks about the importance and power of "othering" It does not look down upon Othering as a negative thing, It is saying that Otherness has been turned into something to be used as a profit. That to Other has been used not to put others down, but for everyone enjoyment and clearer understanding.
"Commodity culture in the United States exploits conventional thinking about race, gender, and sexual desire by "working" both the idea that racial difference marks one as Other and the assumption that sexual agency expressed within the context of racialized sexual encounter is a conversion experience that alters one's place and participation in contemporary cultural politics" (667).
- I felt that this quote related to pieces later in the article where the author discusses the encounter with the white, male jocks, as the author listens to their conversation about different racial women. The author views this process of the sexal encounter as a positive learning experience.
"It is this willingness to transgress racial boundaries within the realm of the sexual that eradicates the fear that one must always conform to the norm to remain "safe".
- this quote is important because I felt the the author was trying to say that even though they may have sexual encounters with "others" the boys will always go back to what is expected to be cultural normal to them.
"The direct objective was not simply to sexually poses the Other; it was to be changed in some way by the encounter" (368).
-"They do not see themselves as perpetuating racism" (369).
The quotes above are the ones that I felt stood out to me the most in the reading. At first, I was unsure of what the authors main point for the article was. To be completely honest, I still am a little unsure of what exactly the authors main argument that they want to portray to the reader is. However, I still felt that these quotes above I could relate to postmodernism. It was interesting when I was reading this article because we had discussed the idea of the "other" in my cmc200 class last semester. The discussion of the "Other" has been a main topic in my Intercultural communication this semester as well. In a way I felt like I was reading and article that could have been presented in any one of these three classes.
- I thought that this quote was important because it talks about the importance and power of "othering" It does not look down upon Othering as a negative thing, It is saying that Otherness has been turned into something to be used as a profit. That to Other has been used not to put others down, but for everyone enjoyment and clearer understanding.
"Commodity culture in the United States exploits conventional thinking about race, gender, and sexual desire by "working" both the idea that racial difference marks one as Other and the assumption that sexual agency expressed within the context of racialized sexual encounter is a conversion experience that alters one's place and participation in contemporary cultural politics" (667).
- I felt that this quote related to pieces later in the article where the author discusses the encounter with the white, male jocks, as the author listens to their conversation about different racial women. The author views this process of the sexal encounter as a positive learning experience.
"It is this willingness to transgress racial boundaries within the realm of the sexual that eradicates the fear that one must always conform to the norm to remain "safe".
- this quote is important because I felt the the author was trying to say that even though they may have sexual encounters with "others" the boys will always go back to what is expected to be cultural normal to them.
"The direct objective was not simply to sexually poses the Other; it was to be changed in some way by the encounter" (368).
-"They do not see themselves as perpetuating racism" (369).
The quotes above are the ones that I felt stood out to me the most in the reading. At first, I was unsure of what the authors main point for the article was. To be completely honest, I still am a little unsure of what exactly the authors main argument that they want to portray to the reader is. However, I still felt that these quotes above I could relate to postmodernism. It was interesting when I was reading this article because we had discussed the idea of the "other" in my cmc200 class last semester. The discussion of the "Other" has been a main topic in my Intercultural communication this semester as well. In a way I felt like I was reading and article that could have been presented in any one of these three classes.
Kuloco, hooks
“Getting a bit of the Other, in this case engaging in sexual encounters with non-white females, was considered a ritual of transcendence, a movement out into a world of difference that would transform, an acceptable rite of passage. The direct objective was not simply to sexually posses the Other; it was to be changed in some way by the encounter.” (368)
While reading the first few pages of this article, I kept waiting for a “but,” or a “however,” or something that would refute hooks’ argument. Despite my hope that it would eventually come, I got to the last page and ended just, if not more, confused than when I started. There should probably be a rule about what you can and cannot read simultaneously, such as bell hooks’ “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance” and Robert Jensen’s “Getting Off.” After finishing the latter for CMC 200, I don’t know how to interpret hooks’ theories. When I looked hooks up on Google, I was shocked to read the description of a female African-American feminist.
In his book, Jensen discusses the exploitation and objectification of women as a result of masculinity and pornography. Somewhat similar, hooks discusses the Other as a sexual object, “existing to serve the ends of white male desires.” However, while Jensen aims to solve the issues of objectification, hooks seems to be more accepting. Hooks tells an anecdote about All-American boys planning to have as many sexual encounters with as many girls from other racial or ethnic groups as possible. Instead of arguing the thought process behind these actions, she provides excuses for the behavior—even though it seems to go against every aspect of feminism.
The way I understand it, these sexual encounters are for the white male’s benefit alone; the female Others are being sexually exploited during the white male’s quest to be changed in some way by their “primitive” nature. It is entirely plausible that I may be interpreting the ideas behind this article completely wrong. However, as an African-American female, I would think that hooks would be highly critical of this behavior. Instead, she discusses the tradition, commodity culture and transgressions as rationalization for the actions of white males.
Again, this entire post could be completely irrelevant due to a lack of comprehension and understanding of the material. If that is the case, I would be significantly less confused. However, I guess I’ll find out in class tomorrow.
While reading the first few pages of this article, I kept waiting for a “but,” or a “however,” or something that would refute hooks’ argument. Despite my hope that it would eventually come, I got to the last page and ended just, if not more, confused than when I started. There should probably be a rule about what you can and cannot read simultaneously, such as bell hooks’ “Eating the Other: Desire and Resistance” and Robert Jensen’s “Getting Off.” After finishing the latter for CMC 200, I don’t know how to interpret hooks’ theories. When I looked hooks up on Google, I was shocked to read the description of a female African-American feminist.
In his book, Jensen discusses the exploitation and objectification of women as a result of masculinity and pornography. Somewhat similar, hooks discusses the Other as a sexual object, “existing to serve the ends of white male desires.” However, while Jensen aims to solve the issues of objectification, hooks seems to be more accepting. Hooks tells an anecdote about All-American boys planning to have as many sexual encounters with as many girls from other racial or ethnic groups as possible. Instead of arguing the thought process behind these actions, she provides excuses for the behavior—even though it seems to go against every aspect of feminism.
The way I understand it, these sexual encounters are for the white male’s benefit alone; the female Others are being sexually exploited during the white male’s quest to be changed in some way by their “primitive” nature. It is entirely plausible that I may be interpreting the ideas behind this article completely wrong. However, as an African-American female, I would think that hooks would be highly critical of this behavior. Instead, she discusses the tradition, commodity culture and transgressions as rationalization for the actions of white males.
Again, this entire post could be completely irrelevant due to a lack of comprehension and understanding of the material. If that is the case, I would be significantly less confused. However, I guess I’ll find out in class tomorrow.
Rico72, Hooks
“Certainly from the standpoint of white supremacist capitalist patriarchy, the hope is that desires for the “primitive” or fantasies about the other can be continually exploited, and that such exploitation will occur in a manner that reinscribes and maintains the status quo.” (367)
Hooks is saying that we constantly re-create the same image of the “others” to keep the status quo. This can be seen in almost every form of media. In CMC 200 we read an article on the Medal of Honor video games. The article discusses how you play an American soldier and it completely “others” the Japanese army showing them as savages who are simply out to kill you. It glorifies the U.S. military in WW2 and makes the Japanese look like the aggressors. The article even discusses how some believe the game can be an instrument to teach history since it is filled with historical film clips of the war.
Although the game discussed in that article came out over five years ago, the same thing continues to happen in games being released today. The most recent being Call of Duty: World at War is guilty of the same thing. It makes you sympathize for the U.S. Marines you play as, meanwhile the Japanese are portrayed as “primitive” soldiers whose sole purpose is to kill.
The media is constantly “others” different cultures from our own. If we continue to do this we will never be able to truly understand these cultures. It is hurting us in the long run and it needs to stop. However, we may have already been pushed to far to believe all of these stereotypes. It has gotten to the point where some people truely believe that is how the world is.
Hooks is saying that we constantly re-create the same image of the “others” to keep the status quo. This can be seen in almost every form of media. In CMC 200 we read an article on the Medal of Honor video games. The article discusses how you play an American soldier and it completely “others” the Japanese army showing them as savages who are simply out to kill you. It glorifies the U.S. military in WW2 and makes the Japanese look like the aggressors. The article even discusses how some believe the game can be an instrument to teach history since it is filled with historical film clips of the war.
Although the game discussed in that article came out over five years ago, the same thing continues to happen in games being released today. The most recent being Call of Duty: World at War is guilty of the same thing. It makes you sympathize for the U.S. Marines you play as, meanwhile the Japanese are portrayed as “primitive” soldiers whose sole purpose is to kill.
The media is constantly “others” different cultures from our own. If we continue to do this we will never be able to truly understand these cultures. It is hurting us in the long run and it needs to stop. However, we may have already been pushed to far to believe all of these stereotypes. It has gotten to the point where some people truely believe that is how the world is.
JLO63O, Butler
“Juridical power inevitably ‘produces’ what it claims merely to represent; hence, politics must be concerned with this dual function of power: the juridical and the productive” (192).
Judith Butler addresses the issues with the political representation of women. She starts first, by readdressing this statement by saying that both representation and politics are the controversial terms to be dealt with. Representation, she says, constitutes an exclusive binary framework where the terms woman, female, etc. are identified only as comparisons to the patriarchal society. Politics, conversely, work in accordance with representation. Together, ‘they produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent.’
“A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation” (Foucault).
We can relate the feminist theories of Butler to Foucault’s concept of power and subjection. Last class, someone used the example of tying baby elephants up to a post. When they are younger, they are not strong enough to break away from that post. When they grow up, however, it is already inculcated that they cannot break away from the post, so they assume the role of staying near – never testing that they have the strength to break away. Similar to the relation of power constructs and political representations, you grow up hearing about repressive state apparatuses and it is instilled in you that someone is always watching and you should never break the law. You are a ‘subject before the law.’ Likewise, young women grow up encultured by ideological representations of the female. “One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one” – Simone de Beauvoir. Butler argues that binary representations are politically universal while culturally acclaimed.
It is the “power relations that both constitute ‘identity’ and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer” (194).
Webster’s dictionary defines identity as “oneself or itself, and not the other.” It is thus paradoxical to state that an identity is a function of something else. Butler says that women, like the term ‘woman,’ are objectified as subjects (defined as “an object, scene, incident, etc., chosen by an artist for representation, or as represented in art). Their assumed identities are constructed out of an already existing other, specifically of the patriarchal male. It would be post feminist, however, to be liberated of “the necessity of having to construct a single or abiding ground which is invariably contested by those identity positions or anti-identity positions that it invariably excludes” (194). We need to remove representational politics because in representational politics, we find people subjecting themselves in relation.
Judith Butler addresses the issues with the political representation of women. She starts first, by readdressing this statement by saying that both representation and politics are the controversial terms to be dealt with. Representation, she says, constitutes an exclusive binary framework where the terms woman, female, etc. are identified only as comparisons to the patriarchal society. Politics, conversely, work in accordance with representation. Together, ‘they produce the subjects they subsequently come to represent.’
“A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation” (Foucault).
We can relate the feminist theories of Butler to Foucault’s concept of power and subjection. Last class, someone used the example of tying baby elephants up to a post. When they are younger, they are not strong enough to break away from that post. When they grow up, however, it is already inculcated that they cannot break away from the post, so they assume the role of staying near – never testing that they have the strength to break away. Similar to the relation of power constructs and political representations, you grow up hearing about repressive state apparatuses and it is instilled in you that someone is always watching and you should never break the law. You are a ‘subject before the law.’ Likewise, young women grow up encultured by ideological representations of the female. “One is not born a woman, but rather becomes one” – Simone de Beauvoir. Butler argues that binary representations are politically universal while culturally acclaimed.
It is the “power relations that both constitute ‘identity’ and make the singular notion of identity a misnomer” (194).
Webster’s dictionary defines identity as “oneself or itself, and not the other.” It is thus paradoxical to state that an identity is a function of something else. Butler says that women, like the term ‘woman,’ are objectified as subjects (defined as “an object, scene, incident, etc., chosen by an artist for representation, or as represented in art). Their assumed identities are constructed out of an already existing other, specifically of the patriarchal male. It would be post feminist, however, to be liberated of “the necessity of having to construct a single or abiding ground which is invariably contested by those identity positions or anti-identity positions that it invariably excludes” (194). We need to remove representational politics because in representational politics, we find people subjecting themselves in relation.
CMCstudent, Bell
I really liked this reading. I felt it was easier to understand compared to most the theorists we have been studying. I also felt while reading the article I was able to apply a lot of things bell was talking about to things around us today.
The pleasure and enjoyment in acknowledging racial differences can be seen in all forms of entertainment. In movies you can’t help but notice the dichotomy of the sexy, hard working, Latino that the young high society white male ends up falling for. She has what he yearns, the spice and adventure that takes him out of his usual element. We are never told but always assume she has more sexual experience than he does and in the bedroom could teach him more than he could learn from the girl at the country club. This is an example of “the ‘real fun’, ‘nasty’ fantasies and longing with the Other embedded in the secret deep structure of white supremacy” (366). Bell believes that having a sexual experience with the Other can be so pleasurable that status quo can be infiltrated through this pleasurably. “Other threatens to take over, consume, transform via the experience of pleasure” (327). This reminds me of the movie Monster –in-Law, starring Jennifer Lopez and Michael Vartan. Vartan, a doctor, falls for Lopez, a temp. Lopez and Vartan fall in love and are to get married. Lopez is that spice in his life. The mother in law (Lane Fonda) who is wealthy and famous hears of the engagement and flips out. She does not think her son should be marrying a Spanish temp. She is afraid she will ruin their lifestyle and will not fit in, and is determined to show her daughter-in-law just that. It is this love and pleasure of a relationship that can change fixed static conditions, identities and ultimately take over how one lives. This is what Fonda feared.
I found this next quote to remind me a lot of a reading we were exposed to CMC 100, Edward Said’s Orientalism and the exoticization of the other. Bell hook says “sexuality is the metaphoric Other” (327) Hooks believes we end up taking the Other and sexualizing it or as Said would say, “exoticize.” We then see it as this foreign thing we want to conquer, voyage, and colonize.
The pleasure and enjoyment in acknowledging racial differences can be seen in all forms of entertainment. In movies you can’t help but notice the dichotomy of the sexy, hard working, Latino that the young high society white male ends up falling for. She has what he yearns, the spice and adventure that takes him out of his usual element. We are never told but always assume she has more sexual experience than he does and in the bedroom could teach him more than he could learn from the girl at the country club. This is an example of “the ‘real fun’, ‘nasty’ fantasies and longing with the Other embedded in the secret deep structure of white supremacy” (366). Bell believes that having a sexual experience with the Other can be so pleasurable that status quo can be infiltrated through this pleasurably. “Other threatens to take over, consume, transform via the experience of pleasure” (327). This reminds me of the movie Monster –in-Law, starring Jennifer Lopez and Michael Vartan. Vartan, a doctor, falls for Lopez, a temp. Lopez and Vartan fall in love and are to get married. Lopez is that spice in his life. The mother in law (Lane Fonda) who is wealthy and famous hears of the engagement and flips out. She does not think her son should be marrying a Spanish temp. She is afraid she will ruin their lifestyle and will not fit in, and is determined to show her daughter-in-law just that. It is this love and pleasure of a relationship that can change fixed static conditions, identities and ultimately take over how one lives. This is what Fonda feared.
I found this next quote to remind me a lot of a reading we were exposed to CMC 100, Edward Said’s Orientalism and the exoticization of the other. Bell hook says “sexuality is the metaphoric Other” (327) Hooks believes we end up taking the Other and sexualizing it or as Said would say, “exoticize.” We then see it as this foreign thing we want to conquer, voyage, and colonize.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)