Cixous discusses the way in which we live in a world full of binary oppositions. Everything we think of is in relation to its opposite, or compared to something else. Much like
our previous theorist Macherey believed, we rely on interconnecting things in order to understand. Everything we know and understand is intertextual. Cixous presents the question of whether or not all of these binary’s relate back to the concept of man and woman, activity and passivity. “Are all concepts, codes and values-to a binary system, related to ‘the’ couple, man/woman?”
Cixous and Butler both discuss their essays in the form of gender and binary oppositions. Cixous explains how these binary oppositions create hierarchies, and Butler continues on by saying that “power produces the subjects they subsequently come to represent”. It is in this way that feminism has been defined, or not defined...”this has seemed obviously important considering the pervasive cultural condition in which women’s lives were either misrepresented or not represented at all.”
Earlier in the semester, we discussed binary opposition when learning about the theorists Roland Barthes and DeSaussure. DeSaussure states that “language is a system of interdependent terms in which the value of each term results solely from the simultaneous presence of the others”, therefore reiterating the fact that the words within a binary opposition define one another by comparing themselves. In addition, Edward Said’s concept of Orientalism comes into play here. We learn most about other cultures by creating them as a binary to ours. They are different and exotic, therefore the opposite of ourselves. Binary oppositions are constantly at work, and I would agree with DeSaussure that they are the foundation of our literary existence and understanding. I think that both Cixous and Butler are trying to get across the point that women are constantly being described as this ‘other’ to men, they are always the opposite of the strong binary. This is how the perception of feminism has been created from the roots of the English language.
Monday, April 27, 2009
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Marie89, Cixous and Butler
“If one ‘is’ a woman, that is surely not all one is; the term fails to be exhaustive, not because gender is not always constitutes coherently or consistently in different historical contexts, and because gender intersects with racial, class, ethnic, sexual, and regional modalities of discursively constituted identities” (193). Both Cixous and Butler speak of the binary in their articles, expanding upon the fact that gender has taken on a subject-like persona. In this sense, the female and the male are separate entities that are specific in their characteristics and do not vary at all. Both authors expand on the fact that gender is not necessarily a subjective description, being either all female or all male, but rather one may obtain characteristic of both the female and the male. The idea that “women” are presume to be the object of feminism feed to the argument that there is, in fact, a binary within our culture. As stated, “Feminist critique ought also to understand how the category of ‘women,’ the subject of feminism, is produced and restrained by the very structures of power through which emancipation is sought” (192). The idea of the binary also goes back to earlier in class when we discussed how the binary opposition is at work within our society. We continuously feel the need to label aspects of our culture as to organize our thoughts and ideas and to feel comfortable with concepts. Another way in which we do this is through othering in that we are not ok with that which is different so we must either categorize it or exoticize it. The binary is an extremely prevalent concept today as it is at work in almost every aspect of our culture. Both Butler and Cixous agree that we will not be able to make any change as far as feminism is concerned until the binaries are broken down. The world is not black and white as it is argued by the authors, and it will take much time for our society to realize the fact that we are ignorant of the gray area as it scares us. In other words, “And the feminist subject turns out to be discursively constituted by the very political system that is supposed to facilitate its emancipation” (192).
Smiley Face - Cixous and Mulvey
These readings reflect on the nature of humans and the presence of society and media in differentiating men and women. Cixous looks at the nature of writing with expressing oneself, while Mulvey focuses on the technological advances on cinema and how it constructs the way the audience's unconscious of seeing women.
First of all, the Cixous reading reminded me very much of the work of Macherey. When Cixous discusses the notion of 'active/passive' it reminded me of when Macherey talks about the way to say something is by not saying other things. Both theorists recognize the constant imbalance found between different aspects of life. Cixous applies the imbalance to sexuality and claims that bisexuality is the ultimate balance between male and female. She goes on the state how it is easier for women to find bisexuality because men are under scrutiny of society to live up to certain expectations and are thus restricted from experiencing wholeness. A consequence to the masculinity ideology is the need for a revenue to further confirm the socially defined term masculinity. Cixous also reflects on how men restrict themselves from giving into their socially condemned natural tendencies as they are considered 'feminine' and therefore not masculine, as clearly stated in the quote "We have turned away from our bodies...taught to be unaware of them" (164-165).
The second theorist, Mulvey, looks at the way technological advances of cinema instigate different ways of looking at a text: scopophilia and fetishistic scopophilia (concepts learned in CMC 100). They both refer to Barthes's idea of playing with the text and the gaping of the garment: jouissance. Mulvey concludes by stating how the viewing of cinema and the actual images of passive women and active men all contribute to the illusionistic narrative film.
Therefore, Cixous and Mulvey present the reader to a more in-depth analysis of women and gender in media, yet these depictions of women is media has been under the scrutiny of the male gaze it will be a long process for change to occur.
First of all, the Cixous reading reminded me very much of the work of Macherey. When Cixous discusses the notion of 'active/passive' it reminded me of when Macherey talks about the way to say something is by not saying other things. Both theorists recognize the constant imbalance found between different aspects of life. Cixous applies the imbalance to sexuality and claims that bisexuality is the ultimate balance between male and female. She goes on the state how it is easier for women to find bisexuality because men are under scrutiny of society to live up to certain expectations and are thus restricted from experiencing wholeness. A consequence to the masculinity ideology is the need for a revenue to further confirm the socially defined term masculinity. Cixous also reflects on how men restrict themselves from giving into their socially condemned natural tendencies as they are considered 'feminine' and therefore not masculine, as clearly stated in the quote "We have turned away from our bodies...taught to be unaware of them" (164-165).
The second theorist, Mulvey, looks at the way technological advances of cinema instigate different ways of looking at a text: scopophilia and fetishistic scopophilia (concepts learned in CMC 100). They both refer to Barthes's idea of playing with the text and the gaping of the garment: jouissance. Mulvey concludes by stating how the viewing of cinema and the actual images of passive women and active men all contribute to the illusionistic narrative film.
Therefore, Cixous and Mulvey present the reader to a more in-depth analysis of women and gender in media, yet these depictions of women is media has been under the scrutiny of the male gaze it will be a long process for change to occur.
Trapnest, 4/26
Given the class is almost over and this is the next to lass post-class blog post, I feel the need to discuss something. Actually, get off my chest may be a better wording than discuss, though it’s always something open for discussion!
My frustration comes from this; all the theorists have told us how to better live our lives. To fight against the hegemony in which we live or better see the world. We’ve had theorists tell us we need to read into every sign and every understanding we have. We need to question the world we live in, and what we perceive is real. We need to understand how media works, the capitalism behind it, and even the culture industry. These theorists have told us we live in a world designed for us by others, dictating our opinions, and so on.
How do they expect us to do all of these things, and still function in a society? If we sit at a four-way stop questioning a stop sign, “Why is it red? Who said it was red? Should I stop or am I feeding into a dominant ideology? Why do I think to stop in the first place?” We could never get anything done! I feel like the ‘ideal’ society would almost be one in which society couldn’t exist. We would have no interactions so no oppressions for dominant ideologies.
I feel it is the things that the theorists ban against that defines what connects us. It is our shared understandings that the theorists ban against because of how they’re formed. And perhaps they could be formed in more proper ways, but my question is this a reasonable expectation?
While I realize this wasn’t exclusively about what we discussed in class, but it’s something that’s been bothering me about all of these theorists. They all seem to have good ideas, but unreasonable expectations for what could really occur in a society. And I realize that perhaps they write on the ideal situation, but if it’s near impossible to enact, what’s the point?
My frustration comes from this; all the theorists have told us how to better live our lives. To fight against the hegemony in which we live or better see the world. We’ve had theorists tell us we need to read into every sign and every understanding we have. We need to question the world we live in, and what we perceive is real. We need to understand how media works, the capitalism behind it, and even the culture industry. These theorists have told us we live in a world designed for us by others, dictating our opinions, and so on.
How do they expect us to do all of these things, and still function in a society? If we sit at a four-way stop questioning a stop sign, “Why is it red? Who said it was red? Should I stop or am I feeding into a dominant ideology? Why do I think to stop in the first place?” We could never get anything done! I feel like the ‘ideal’ society would almost be one in which society couldn’t exist. We would have no interactions so no oppressions for dominant ideologies.
I feel it is the things that the theorists ban against that defines what connects us. It is our shared understandings that the theorists ban against because of how they’re formed. And perhaps they could be formed in more proper ways, but my question is this a reasonable expectation?
While I realize this wasn’t exclusively about what we discussed in class, but it’s something that’s been bothering me about all of these theorists. They all seem to have good ideas, but unreasonable expectations for what could really occur in a society. And I realize that perhaps they write on the ideal situation, but if it’s near impossible to enact, what’s the point?
spaghetti, 4/26
hook's article reminded me of a reading we did in CMC200 about racial stereotypes in the movie Rush Hour 2. The article, by Ji Hoon Park, pointed out the racial stereotypes used within the movie for comedic purposes. the two main characters, a black american investigator and a Chinese detective are not members of the dominant white culture that hooks describes in his article. Even though a main character who exemplifies dominant white culture is not present in the movie, the culture still is. The characters are constantly cracking jokes about one another's race and culture throughout the entire film, most of which would be considered offensive outside of the context of the entertainment industry. In the article by Park, the researcher gathered a group of students of varying ethnicities (which were represented in the film) to watch the movie. Afterwards, he lead a discussion of the student's feelings about the racist stereotypes portrayed in the movie. He found in interviewing them, that even though all of the students were aware of the stereotypes, they did not seem to have a problem with them. They considered them humorous, which reminds me of the idea that "to be entertained is to be in agreement." The students had to set themselves apart from the offensive nature of the stereotypes in order to enjoy the film and all of them did so.
They bought into this idea of the white culture as dominant and their own culture as "other," even though it was offensive. This attitude is precisely what perpetuates the attitudes towards race portrayed in the media today. If no one challenges the offensive stereotypes, then they continue to be made and "enjoyed" by the masses. It's not jut that they aren't being challenged. It's the fact that those who challenge these main stream stereotypes and offensive images portrayed of any culture other than the dominant white culture are not given a voice that even speaks remotely as loudly as that of the major corporations who create these texts with these offensive stereotypes. The fact of the matter is that people do watch these movies, and people do get offended and disagree. And if these people choose to do or say anything in opposition to these major texts of the mass media, their voices are drowned out by those larger ones of the mega corporations who create those texts in the first place.
They bought into this idea of the white culture as dominant and their own culture as "other," even though it was offensive. This attitude is precisely what perpetuates the attitudes towards race portrayed in the media today. If no one challenges the offensive stereotypes, then they continue to be made and "enjoyed" by the masses. It's not jut that they aren't being challenged. It's the fact that those who challenge these main stream stereotypes and offensive images portrayed of any culture other than the dominant white culture are not given a voice that even speaks remotely as loudly as that of the major corporations who create these texts with these offensive stereotypes. The fact of the matter is that people do watch these movies, and people do get offended and disagree. And if these people choose to do or say anything in opposition to these major texts of the mass media, their voices are drowned out by those larger ones of the mega corporations who create those texts in the first place.
ashlayla, 4/23
I enjoyed our discussion in Thursday's class. Although I already had a grasp on the content in Hooks' essay, I was able to understand it even more after class. When we discussed this quote, “Within commodity culture, ethnicity becomes spice, seasoning that can liven up the dull dish that is mainstream white culture” (366), I was able to understand othering more when we talked about movies such as Hairspray. In Hairspray, the main actor was the "other" because she looked different from everyone else. The producers of the show she wanted to be on didn't want her because she was overweight but because the general public liked her, they gave her a chance. I thought of multiculturalism when I read this quote. Multiculturalism is the spice added to media television shows and movies to make them more enjoyable. Multiculturalism adds more than spice to the media, it adds flavor.
When we also talked about this quote, “When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” (367) I was a little disgusted by people who use sites like the Planet Love website. Sites like these are degrading to women and turn them into an object not a human being. Women on these sites are being commodified, they are paid for and then "shipped" to the door step of whoever bought them. It makes me wonder what kind of people would participate with sites like these because I have never known someone to purchase the wife. Sites like Planet Love are disgusting and I just can't believe that someone would want to buy love instead of falling in love the more traditional way.
When we also talked about this quote, “When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other” (367) I was a little disgusted by people who use sites like the Planet Love website. Sites like these are degrading to women and turn them into an object not a human being. Women on these sites are being commodified, they are paid for and then "shipped" to the door step of whoever bought them. It makes me wonder what kind of people would participate with sites like these because I have never known someone to purchase the wife. Sites like Planet Love are disgusting and I just can't believe that someone would want to buy love instead of falling in love the more traditional way.
Rico72, 4/26
"When race and ethnicity become commodified as resources for pleasure, the culture of specific groups, as well as the bodies of individuals, can be seen as constituting an alternative playground where members of dominating races, genders, sexual practices affirm their power-over in intimate relationships with the Other" (Hooks, 367).
The idea of "othering" has been around for hundreds of years. What I find interesting is how the use of it has changed. We "othered" black people by forcing them to be slaves and doing anything possible to make them feel lower than white people. However now we thrust racial stereotypes into mass media to make money and profit out of it. Somehow, in doing this we have made it ok to make these racist remarks. Sometimes it will even go completely unnoticed until one returns to the text and realizes it. The example of Rush Hour 2 is perfect because it is a movie built on racist stereotypes, but was well received by most audiences. We live in a world that is becoming fueled by stereotypes and "othering" for a profit.
In CMC 200 we discussed the difference between two texts, Rush Hour 2 and the Chapelle Show. We asked, are these jokes exposing stereotypes or simply making them stronger? We concluded that The Chappelle Show exposed how ridiculous all of these stereotypes were and therefore was a better form of media compared to Rush Hour 2 which is just strengthening this stereotypes in peoples mind. However, both were very popular so one must ask, is this what we want in our comedy/media?
It is still and will continue to be a huge issue. I stumbled across an article this weekend on the website www.cracked.com which reports "amusing" news stories or facts that you won't really see anywhere else. In a March article, they discussed transcripts between George Lucas and Steven Spielberg while "spit-balling" ideas on the new Indiana Jones movie. I was simply shocked at some of the comments both men made and could not believe it was true. I'm not going to post any of it here since it can be very offensive but if your interested here is the link.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/indiana-jones/
It is the presentation of different cultures much like this that are hurting the media today. It is even worse when coming from two of the most successful film-makers of all time. Hopefully, in the next generation people will stop "othering" although I don't see it happening...do you?
The idea of "othering" has been around for hundreds of years. What I find interesting is how the use of it has changed. We "othered" black people by forcing them to be slaves and doing anything possible to make them feel lower than white people. However now we thrust racial stereotypes into mass media to make money and profit out of it. Somehow, in doing this we have made it ok to make these racist remarks. Sometimes it will even go completely unnoticed until one returns to the text and realizes it. The example of Rush Hour 2 is perfect because it is a movie built on racist stereotypes, but was well received by most audiences. We live in a world that is becoming fueled by stereotypes and "othering" for a profit.
In CMC 200 we discussed the difference between two texts, Rush Hour 2 and the Chapelle Show. We asked, are these jokes exposing stereotypes or simply making them stronger? We concluded that The Chappelle Show exposed how ridiculous all of these stereotypes were and therefore was a better form of media compared to Rush Hour 2 which is just strengthening this stereotypes in peoples mind. However, both were very popular so one must ask, is this what we want in our comedy/media?
It is still and will continue to be a huge issue. I stumbled across an article this weekend on the website www.cracked.com which reports "amusing" news stories or facts that you won't really see anywhere else. In a March article, they discussed transcripts between George Lucas and Steven Spielberg while "spit-balling" ideas on the new Indiana Jones movie. I was simply shocked at some of the comments both men made and could not believe it was true. I'm not going to post any of it here since it can be very offensive but if your interested here is the link.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/indiana-jones/
It is the presentation of different cultures much like this that are hurting the media today. It is even worse when coming from two of the most successful film-makers of all time. Hopefully, in the next generation people will stop "othering" although I don't see it happening...do you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)